Does Wally Berger belong in the Hall of Fame?

[BMW]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

Good point, TribeFan: Koufax was a name I was going to bring up in defense of Berger. It doesn't sound like Berger was quite as dominant as Sandy, but Koufax is a no-brainer for the Hall, and so sets a good precedent as regards playing time.

I'm not sure about guys like Joss, though. The Veteran's Committee is like the Universal Boxing Federation of baseball-honour giving (or something -- I hate analogies).

At least in an OOTP context, MVP awards mean something. They usually do get given to the best offensive player every year. If you asked OOTP about the AL MVP last year, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have cared about Joe Mauer being on the non-playoff-getting-to (and small market) Twins. In the real world, MVP awards are a bit more dubious due to the nature of the dummies who award them.

The Veterans Committee has some truly dubious selections. Joss probably isn't one of them though.

Joss had an ERA+ in the top ten in every big league season he pitched:
1902 AL--124--7th
1903 AL--130--6th
1904 AL--160--2nd
1905 AL--130--7th
1906 AL--151--3rd
1907 AL--137--3rd
1908 AL--205--1st
1909 AL--149--3rd

Except for 1910, when he didn't qualify. 1910 wasn't a bad season; he pitched his second no-hitter on April 20.

He contracted tubercular meningitis prior to the season and died before the one-year anniversary of that 1910 no hitter.

Joss and Puckett are players who were probably afforded some leniency because the nature of their injuries were not baseball-related.

J.R. Richard didn't get that treatment after suffering a stroke that ended his career, possibly (rightly or wrongly) because he was suffering the strokes and the effect of the strokes while he was on-field. In the end, he only had five outstanding seasons and fans do recognize the loss that Richard was to baseball.

Munson didn't seem to get much thought for the HOF though when he died in a plane crash in 1979. I looked a little futher and, despite the fact that he was a very good catcher, I may have found a reason why. When Munson died, he was 32 years old.

It's possible that at the time that most voters didn't believe that Munson had put up numbers worthy of a HOF career to that point. And in the 60s and 70's, catchers productivity declined to the point that it was exceedingly rare to have a catcher performing past 32 years old. From 1961-1980, there were only 4 players who were primarily catchers that had more than 1,000 plate appearances - Smoky Burgess, Elston Howard, Johnny Roseboro and Johnny Edwards. In comparison, from 1981-2000 there were 19 such players.

In fact, there are 47 catchers that had more than 1000 PA after 32 from 1876 to 1980, and 41 from 1981 to 2009. So in the next season or three we'll have seen more old catchers in the past 30+ years than were seen in the first century of baseball.

I'm tempted to say no for Berger, especially since he had an on-field injury to end his career. But at the same time, any player winning 4 MVPs is almost unprecedented.

[Siv]

Originally Posted by damonrusst

So I've nearly finished my season and am waiting to start a new one with OOTPX so I'm looking for stuff to pass the time until it's out. So pretend you're all sportswriters voting for the hall of fame. Need your help on Wally Berger who I lost mid season to a CEI. Asked this question in the OOTP9 forums but thought I'd ask again here while everyone is checking madly for the new game. The old discussion is here.
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-fame-not.html

Here's the situation: Over 8.5 seasons, he hit .317 with 1481 Hits, 274HRs and 982RBIs.

He also won 4MVPs, 4 Gold Gloves, played in 4 World Series with 3 different teams, winning 2 with 2 different teams, one in the American League, one in the National.

When he went down on July 30,1938, he was having one of his best seasons ever, hitting .349 with 25HR and 88RBI. Cut down in his prime.

At the time of the injury, he was 6th on the all time HR list, led the league in HR 4 times and had the sixth highest single season HR total with 52 behind only Joe DiMaggio with 62 and 4 Babe Ruth seasons.

552.4 career VORP over 8 1/2 seasons.

So cast your vote now, is he hall of fame worthy? I will induct solely based on your votes.

I don't show him winning 4 MVP's? I show him being voted as high as 3rd in 1933 and being an All Star 4 times. Also the Gold Glove didn't start until 1957, so he didn't win any of those. I also only see him in two world series, losing both. This is info I pulled from Baseball-Reference.com. Also in 18 AB's in the WS he never got a hit.

G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG
1350 5663 5163 809 1550 299 59 242 898 36 435 694 .300 .359 .522

So with these numbers I don't belive he is a hall of famer. Please change my vote as I went off of your numbers when I voted. Do I have the right Wally Berger as it is the only one I found on the site.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by Siv

I don't show him winning 4 MVP's? I show him being voted as high as 3rd in 1933 and being an All Star 4 times. I also only see him in two world series, losing both. This is info I pulled from Baseball-Reference.com. Also in 18 AB's in the WS he never got a hit.

Pssst... we're talking about a baseball simulator that some of us like to play. You seem like you have an interest in the game of baseball. Maybe you would like to play it as well?

Originally Posted by BMW

The Veterans Committee has some truly dubious selections. Joss probably isn't one of them though.

Good points: you're probably right. To be honest, I didn't actually do any stat-checking before I named Joss which was very sloppy on my part. I thought I remembered hearing a good argument against his inclusion once, but I'm probably thinking of some other guy.

[Siv]

Oh I see this was a simulation!!! Thanks for the insight struggles. As far as the simulation send me some information on it and I will check it out.

[BMW]

Here's the probably the five best comparisons, based on his HRs and length of career:

Ralph Kiner - 10 seasons, but hit 369 HR. He was elected to the HOF by the Vets.

Roy Campanella - 10 seasons, 242 HR. Elected to the HOF, and was injured to end his career. But the injury was not baseball related.

Dick Stuart - 10 seasons, 228 HR. Fans at Fenway gave him an ovation when he cleanly fielded a hot dog wrapper that blew onto the field on a windy day. Played in Japan for two seasons, being one of the first players to attempt to return to the MLB after doing so. Not in the HOF.

Bob Horner - 10 seasons, 218 HR. Played in Japan for one season. Never played in the minor leagues. Not in the HOF.

Wally Berger - 11 seasons, 242 HR. The real Wally hit .300-242-898 over his career. Not in the HOF.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by Siv

Oh I see this was a simulation!!! Thanks for the insight struggles. As far as the simulation send me some information on it and I will check it out.

Nah, don't worry about it -- the game's rubbish.

[damonrusst]

Originally Posted by BMW

Here's the probably the five best comparisons, based on his HRs and length of career:

Ralph Kiner - 10 seasons, but hit 369 HR. He was elected to the HOF by the Vets.

Roy Campanella - 10 seasons, 242 HR. Elected to the HOF, and was injured to end his career. But the injury was not baseball related.

Dick Stuart - 10 seasons, 228 HR. Fans at Fenway gave him an ovation when he cleanly fielded a hot dog wrapper that blew onto the field on a windy day. Played in Japan for two seasons, being one of the first players to attempt to return to the MLB after doing so. Not in the HOF.

Bob Horner - 10 seasons, 218 HR. Played in Japan for one season. Never played in the minor leagues. Not in the HOF.

Wally Berger - 11 seasons, 242 HR. The real Wally hit .300-242-898 over his career. Not in the HOF.

INteresting comparisons. I wonder where the real Berger fit on the all time and season leaderboards when he retired, or more to the point, when they were voting for him.

[Assos]

The thing I think about is was the player dominate in his time. I think of Kinar and his monster shots or Koufax and his nice numbers. Both did not play long but you can say they were at the top or if not, the best players in the league for thier given times over a period of say 5 to 7 years. It is purely a judgement call. Ozzie Smith and Nolan Ryan, both good baseball players, but Nolan never won a Cy Young and Ozzie was a good glove. These are two things that may or may not factor in. Dave Kingman hit a lot of home runs, also cooled a lot of box seats with his bat. Was he great? Sure, the best of the 1970s... not really.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by Assos

Ozzie was a good glove.

Understatement of the year.

In the last half century, Ozzie Smith and Mark Belanger are pretty much in a class by themselves defensively, both from the anecdotal and statistical sides. (BB-Ref has new fielding based metrics, that are nice.)

And Ozzie between Ozzie and Mark, Ozzie wasn't an automatic out, walked twice as much, was probably a better bunter and stole about three times as many bases. Plus, he's probably one of the best ambassadors of baseball over that time.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by damonrusst

INteresting comparisons. I wonder where the real Berger fit on the all time and season leaderboards when he retired, or more to the point, when they were voting for him.

Hall of Fame Voting
Year 	Type 
1956 	BBWAA 	1 (0.5%)
1958 	BBWAA 	2 (0.8%)

1940 HR

  Cnt Player             HR From  To
+----+-----------------+---+----+----+
    1 Babe Ruth         714 1914 1935 
    2 Jimmie Foxx       500 1925 1940 
    3 Lou Gehrig        493 1923 1939 
    4 Mel Ott           388 1926 1940 
    5 Al Simmons        306 1924 1940 
    6 Rogers Hornsby    301 1915 1937 
    7 Chuck Klein       299 1928 1940 
    8 Cy Williams       251 1912 1930 
    9 Goose Goslin      248 1921 1938 
   10 Hank Greenberg    247 1930 1940 
   11 Hack Wilson       244 1923 1934 
   12 Wally Berger      242 1930 1940

1956 HR

  Cnt Player             HR From  To
+----+-----------------+---+----+----+
    1 Babe Ruth         714 1914 1935 
    2 Jimmie Foxx       534 1925 1945 
    3 Mel Ott           511 1926 1947 
    4 Lou Gehrig        493 1923 1939 
    5 Ted Williams      418 1939 1956 
    6 Ralph Kiner       369 1946 1955 
    7 Joe DiMaggio      361 1936 1951 
    8 Johnny Mize       359 1936 1953 
    9 Stan Musial       352 1941 1956 
   10 Hank Greenberg    331 1930 1947 
   11 Al Simmons        307 1924 1944 
   12 Rogers Hornsby    301 1915 1937 
   13 Chuck Klein       300 1928 1944 
   14 Bob Johnson       288 1933 1945 
   15 Rudy York         277 1934 1948 
   16 Duke Snider       276 1947 1956 
   17 Gil Hodges        271 1943 1956 
   18 Del Ennis         259 1946 1956 
   19 Joe Gordon        253 1938 1950 
   20 Cy Williams       251 1912 1930 
   21 Hank Sauer        249 1941 1956 
   22 Goose Goslin      248 1921 1938 
   23 Vern Stephens     247 1941 1955 
   24 Ted Kluszewski    245 1947 1956 
   25 Hack Wilson       244 1923 1934 
   26 Wally Berger      242 1930 1940

1940 Avg
Berger (.300) was #160 overall.

1946 Avg
Berger was #148 overall.

1940 RBI
Berger (898) was #93 overall.

1946 RBI
Berger was #123 overall.

1940 OPS+ (Not that voters then had any concept of this)
Berger (137) was #48 overall.

1946 OPS+
Berger was #57 overall.

[Xpert7777]

I vote Yes. In my opinion I would rather see a guy in the HOF who was great in his career, even if it was short than a guy who was average but had a long career and acheived milestones.

[szathkey]

This is not 'Nam Smokey, there are rules...

No

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Kelric

The real Hall of Fame has a rule that a player must play ten or more seasons to be eligible. His numbers over that time show that he would most likely have been a Hall of Famer. The question is whether or not you want to have a minimum number of seasons. I like the ten year rule, so I would vote no. Without the ten year rule, yes.

Originally Posted by senorcoo

I agree with the sentiment that he WOULD have been a Hall of Fame lock. Unfortunately, taking into account the 10-year rule IRL, I would have to vote no. Remember, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, etc. SHOULD be in the Hall as well, but aren't. Different reasons, I know, but the Hall has rules.

I agree with these sentiments.

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

The ten year rule is arbitrary. If human societies used an octal numbering system, the limit would be eight years and Berger would be in. Dumb.

Surely the idea is to measure every guy's longevity against his ability and make case-by-case decisions that way?

Well, that statement was dumb. Ten years was most likely chosen for the same reason that ten years was chosen for the 'five-and-ten rule', which is that very few players survive for ten seasons, so few players will get the benefit from it. In other words, longevity IS a criterion.

As to your question, the answer is 'no'.

[struggles_mightily]

Ten years was most likely chosen for the same reason that ten years was chosen for the 'five-and-ten rule', which is that very few players survive for ten seasons, so few players will get the benefit from it.

Come on, it's clearly an arbitrary division. Why not nine? Or eleven? Do you really think it has nothing to do with the fact that the Hindu-Arabic numbering system is in base ten? There's absolutely nothing "dumb" about suggesting that.

As to your question, the answer is 'no'.

Awesome argument.

Trite reductio:

If a guy played for nine years and hit ten million home runs in that time, you'd leave him out of the Hall?

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

If a guy played for nine years and hit ten million home runs in that time, you'd leave him out of the Hall?

Yes.

And I'd ask which planet he was playing on.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Yes.

And I'd ask which planet he was playing on.

Well, I didn't label it a "trite reductio" for nothing.

Why ten years and not nine or eleven, then? There aren't serious issues with using an eight or nine (or even seven or six) year sample, are there? And if there are, then why would they be solved by using an extra one-four years?

For me, these have to be looked at on a sliding scale. A good, all-star calibre player who sticks around for six years and then falls off a cliff (literally or metaphorically) probably doesn't belong in. Marty Marion went to eight all-star games, and I don't think anyone is arguing for his inclusion in the Hall. The cumulative value just isn't there for this hypothetical player.

But if someone plays for six years and is easily the best offensive player in the league for that period -- has Ruthian 200 OPS+ (and higher) seasons -- then surely he has to go in. You aren't putting that player in for "what he might have achieved" or whatever. You're putting him in because, for a significant stretch, he was the best in his league. He dominated for a decent length of time -- how many guys do that?

I can't see any logical argument for leaving such a player out of the Hall. Obviously there will be more difficult calls -- what about a guy who dominates for three or four years ; or is slightly worse than the above hypothetical for seven? But I can't see why on Earth using an arbitrary and restrictive rule is more useful than just judging each player simultaneously upon longevity and talent.

[CatKnight]

We have to show longevity, because to be in the Hall we have to show Berger was dominant at his position for a decent length of time.

4 MVPs is good. 4 Gold Gloves are also good. The World Series don't interest me in the slightest, as that only proves he was on good teams.

He's borderline, but I'm leaning no due to the lack of longevity. I could be talked into it, but he doesn't strike me as having been dominant long enough to qualify. Leading the league in homers 4 times, having the sixth highest single season total and the sixth all time alone doesn't qualify him.

[Curtis]

I don't think it's about sample size. As I said before, I think longevity was one of the original criteria. A ten year minimum was long enough to ensure that not many would qualify.

As has been brought up above, the Old Timers' Committee has the right to vote in anyone, regardless of time served. In their case the hope was that by the time a player came under their purview (30 or 35 years after retirement) there would be enough distance to compare them more objectively versus their era, since most of the voters wouldn't've seen them play (not allowing for how life span has extended over the past 70+ years).

Why is there a five year wait before a player can be voted on? Why is there a 15 year initial eligibility window? By your reasoning both of those should also be ten years.

Baseball is a game of threes — three strikes, three outs, three times three players, three times three innings, 90 feet between bases (rather than 100). None of those are based on the decimal system*; why do you think the ten year minimum is? Why would that be the lone exception?

*=yes, 90 is somewhat decimal; I suppose it's a compromise netween 81 and 100.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by Curtis

I don't think it's about sample size. As I said before, I think longevity was one of the original criteria. A ten year minimum was long enough to ensure that not many would qualify.

Would an unsightly number of people have qualified using a nine year limit? Would too few have qualified if using an eleven year benchmark? You're both ignoring the most obvious factor (base 10) and my larger point (arbitrary limits are bad).

Why is there a five year wait before a player can be voted on? Why is there a 15 year initial eligibility window? By your reasoning both of those should also be ten years.

I wasn't aware that my reasoning was "every significant number in baseball lore is a multiple of ten." My reasoning is a) 10 years is only used for this particular measure because of base 10 and b) any arbitrary limit is inherently unsound.

Also, in dismissing part a) of this reasoning, it's probably not a great idea to bring up two numbers that are 10x.5 and 10x1.5.

Why would that be the lone exception?

Yep, the lone example of multiples of ten being cared about in baseball lore. Absolutely no-one considers significant the numbers 100 for team wins or losses in a season or RBIs for a player season; 200 and 300 for wins in a pitcher's career; 300, 400 and 500 homers for a player's career; or 2,000 and 3,000 hits for a player's career. No-one talks about 20-20-20 guys or values 20 wins for a pitcher's season.

Anyway, the main issue here is not the size of the limit. It's that arbitrary restrictions are bad. Eight years, nine years, ten years, eleven years, whatever. There is no reason to set these reductive cut-off points. The more weird laws one creates in order to determine HoF entry, the more frequently it's possible to just say "well, them's the rules!" without thinking about stuff.

Edit: Not that it really matters, but the number of strikes in an at-bat and outs in an inning are really base-4 systems, since there are four possible values in the radix (0, 1, 2, 3).

[POKeefe]

I would say he should be in just because of how dominant he was and the fact that his injury was a CEI to the extent where he couldn't even play another game. It's not like this was a 3 yr fluke either, he was top notch for 8-9 full seasons.