Richard Jordan:

Hello!

I recently discovered the Baseball Evolution webpage.  I found it
through a link from the Gene Tenace stats page on baseball-reference.com. 
Probably because I played catcher in H.S. and for one year in college, I often
think about what it takes for a catcher to be enshrined in Cooperstown. 

I find it interesting that you have elected Gene Tenace for the
Baseball Evolution HOF, but I must ask why he's apparently more deserving than
some other catchers who did not make it.  Let me comment on a few catchers.

Bill Freehan:  I didn't even see him on your ballot. 

I've always thought that Freehan got the shaft by Cooperstown voters. 
Perhaps this is because he was overshadowed late in his career by Bench and
Fisk; I can imagine voters looking at the offensive accomplishments of these
catchers, and even those of Carter, and forgetting that Freehan was, in his time,
a fine offensive catcher (though not like Bench, Fisk, Carter, granted). 
Freehan also won 5 consecutive gold gloves (1965-1969) and played on a World
Series champion--Detroit, 1968.  Of course, Freehan only hit .083 in the
Series that year, but he caught all 7 games and one of his pitchers was the MVP of
the series (Mickey Lolich).  Freehan was the everyday catcher calling the
games for McLain in '68 when he won 31.  Surely, Freehan also had something
to do with the success of other standout Tigers pitches in the 60s and early
70s(Lolich, Joe Coleman...).  He was an 11-time all-star, finished 2nd in
MVP voting in '68, 3rd in '67 and 7th in '64.  So I wonder why he was
pretty much completely ignored by HOF voters.   He had 200 home runs, a decent
career OBP of .340, etc.  I'd have to say that he is more qualified than Tenace
for HOF consideration--though your argument that Tenace was on 4 WS
championship teams and had a career OBP of .388 is compelling.  Anyway, I do hope you will consider Freehan on future ballots.

Wally Schang:  Bravo for electing him to the Baseball Evolution HOF! 
How could Schalk be in Cooperstown while Schang is not?

Deacon McGuire:  another catcher who seems not to have made it onto
your ballots.  Go to baseball reference and check out what this guy
accomplished.  He caught 1611 games--mostly in the 1890s, though he played for (parts
of) 26 seasons.  He had some great offensive years in the 1890s, etc.  If
there's a strike against him, it's that his fielding percentage at catcher was a
few points below league average during his career.  In any case, maybe he
could be included on your ballots in the future.

Keep up the good work on your website!

Keith:

Richard Jordan:

Thanks for the response, Keith. 

I didn't mean to badmouth Schalk.  I guess I'm guilty sometimes of
focusing too much on his offensive output (or lack thereof).  I understand that
he was the best defensive catcher of his era, and also a team leader; some say
he was a clutch hitter, too. A strong case can be made of his hall
credentials, for sure. 

Having a soft spot for catchers, I'd say Cooper and Freehan both
deserve consideration.  Cooper didn't play all that many games, and a couple of
his strong years came during WWII.  However, his greatest year--one of the
greatest ever by a catcher, at least offensively--was in 1947, after the lean
war years; he was for real!  I have no problem with him.

One more plug for Freehan:  His .993 career fielding percentage at
catcher is the highest in American League history! (and better than Bench, I-Rod,
the all-time gold glove leaders). He was amazing defensively.  He had some
trouble with passed balls early in his career (perhaps partly a function of his
pitchers?), but in '66 he had only 3 passed balls in 132 games caught,
and from '68 on he never had more than 9 passed balls in a season.

As for the A's of the 70s, they were amazing.  I was born in '65, and
as a kid in the early 70s, I was a huge baseball fan and card collector.  I
remember idolizing Rudi, Bando, Campy, Epstein, Odom, Holtzman, Hunter... (though I was never a big fan of Reggie Jackson).  They had a bunch of very good
players, with, perhaps, not one standing out as the team superstar (except for
Vida Blue's huge 1971 season).  Bando was very good.  If you make a case for
him for the hall, then what about Gaetti?  Santo (or is he in your hall
already.  I'd have to check)? Bell?  Of course, none of these guys played for a
dynasty, as did Bando. Still, I don't think 3rd baseman get a fair shake when it
comes to Hall (i.e. Cooperstown) consideration.  That's also the case for
catchers.

Keith:

I often emphasize hitting over defense too, simply because it's so much easier to quantify.  But catcher is the most important defensive position on the field, and when you see a player who ranks near the top of just about every defensive metric, I feel it's pretty safe to say that he was a top notch defender.

You're right about Cooperstown's bias.  Here's our positional breakdown.  We should probably elect another couple of hot sackers before we put in more catchers (and Scott has seen the error of his ways regarding Darrell Evans, so he's in next year).

It's funny that you mention Gaetti, because he might just be my all time favorite player.  But I'm objective enough to realize that he had just as many seasons that were detrimental to his team as All Star caliber years.