How did George Kell get into the HOF?

[WiredTiger]

Growing up as a Tiger fan I always assumed he was a great player equal to Kaline. But how in the world did he get in with 87 home runs and no other positives other than a .306 Batting average?

How can the HOF voters say that Kell was better than Ron Santo?

[nyy26wc]

Kell's supposedly a nice guy, nice guys have lots of friends, older nice guys have lots of friends who've gotten themselves into positions of power in their business, and it's no surprise when friends reward friends.

[KCBOOMER]

Can you say "Veterans Committee"????

I think he was also a radio broadcaster for the Tigers for years.

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I think he was also a radio broadcaster for the Tigers for years.

I think he still is.

[sweaver]

Kell was a fine hitter, drew walks and ran well, and the Hall is historically kind to high-average hitters.

[LeGrandOrange]

Don't forget the glovework, he was excellent at that for his time.
I think the reason he's in the hall is because he was considered the best 3B of his time, and his numbers were similar to hall of famer Home Run Baker's.
Problem is right now, his numbers are more reminiscent of Richie Hebner. He still shouldn't be in the hall in the era contexts, but that's the best reason I can think of. I still think he was pretty good at 3B when you consider that 3B is a lousy position historically. But "pretty good", as is well established, does not equal Hall of Fame.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Kell got in on his glove and his .306 average. Infielders with lifetime BAs over .300 do well in HOF voting. A 3B with a .300 BA and limited power than one with 400 HRs and a .260 average.

[Craig S.]

I hear everyone saying how he got in, but can anyone actually justify his inclusion? That's not a challenge to everyone, but I'm just wondering if anyone here thinks he really deserves to be there.

As for the annoucing, I thought he'd retired? He used to work on WDIV with Al Kaline, but I don't think he works with FoxSports Detroit or UPN 50 there now. If anyone knows otherwise, let me know.

[sweaver]

Did he deserve it? Probably not. But he was a high-quality player, and at the time he retired one of the top-5 all-time third basemen.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Craig S.
I hear everyone saying how he got in, but can anyone actually justify his inclusion? That's not a challenge to everyone, but I'm just wondering if anyone here thinks he really deserves to be there.

Kell is not better than Ron Santo, who is not in the HOF. He is not better, in my opinion, than Stan Hack (who hit .348 in 4 World Series and had a lifetime .394 OBP while batting .301). I would also rate Kell behind Ken Boyer, for the same reasons as I would rate him behind Santo (although I think Santo is the best player of the four I'm discussing here).

I do think, however, that a lot of the criticism of Kell's enshrinement in Cooperstown is a form of guilt by association. Kell got in by the Vets Committee after being turned down by the writers 15 times, so it must be a lousy selection, or so the logic goes. This is unfair to Kell, who is, by no means, a disgraceful selection. Kell has a HOF case that is meritorious, and shouldn't be blown off just because he isn't the Nolan Ryan of third baseman. (I just had to get in my jab at Nolan, the Overrated!)

Kell's qualifications for the Hall are as follows (in my opinion):

1. He was, by reputation, the outstanding defensive third baseman of the period 1944-53. (There were no Gold Gloves during Kell's career)

2. He hit .306 with an OBP of .367 (slugging .414) His BA was not an empty .300.

3. His BA was in the AL top five 7 times. He also finished 7th in BA in 1953, putting him 8 times in the top seven.

4. He played in ten (10) All-Star games.

5. His career length was not particularly short (14 seasons) for players of that era. He hit .297 in his last season, suggesting he could have continued to play. (He was with the Orioles at the time, who had a young Brooks Robinson, and there was no free agency, plus salaries were not what they are now, so Kell had more incentive to retire than a player of his caliber would in this day and age in similar circumstances at age 35.)

6. At the time Kell became eligible for HOF induction (1962), there were only three (3) third basemen enshrined (Pie Trainor, Jimmy Collins, and Home Run Baker). While Kell was not the equal of Baker, he was, arguably, equal or superior to both Collins and Traynor, the latter of whom being one of the most overrated HOFers in history.

To compare Kell to Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, and even Boggs, is unfair. Those players came after Kell, and played a different game. Are we going to compare Pee Wee Reese to A-Rod to see if his plaque can stay in Cooperstown?

Kell was the best player in the AL, and perhaps all of baseball, at his position, for an extended period of time. He had multiple All-Star seasons. His career was not abnormally short. It's a shame that Santo, Boyer, and Hack have been dumped on in the HOF selection process, but that shouldn't obscure the fact that George Kell meets the standards that the Hall of Fame voters have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS adhered to when selecting inductees. He's not out of place in Cooperstown; not by the standards they've been using since 1940.

[Skip]

Well put Fuzzy. To the point. Convincing. I wouldnt know George Kell from Helen Keller, but your arguments make sense. Now I'll wait for the other side to weigh in.

[KCBOOMER]

When you look at the HoF by position 3B sticks out like a sore thumb, or at least it did until Mathews/Schmidt/Brett/Boggs showed up. Thank god they did.

I am willing to cut some slack to shortstops and catchers but I can't buy into it for 3B's. I think we have to accept that 3B is position that until 1950 just didn't produce HoFers. Kell may have played for 14 years but was clearly bouncing around the last five years.

Kell was never a dominant player and his career numbers are not compelling. Only 78HR's, 2054 hits, and 870 rbi's. His career OPS is .781 is not exceptional even though the league OPS when he played was .739. Basically he was a pretty good hitter for average but not much else.

On the HoF "monitors" he has a Black Ink of 16 versus an average HoFer's 27, a Grey Ink of 93 versus 144, a HoF Stds of 28.7 versus 50, and an HoF monitor of 90 versus 100.

Only two of his ten best comps are HoFers. One is the much maligned Jimmy Collins and the other is Frank Baker.

My opinion is that Kell should not be in the HoF but it is not the end of the world that he is there.

Anybody's career who began after 1930 who got selected by the VC should be viewed with suspicion.

[Craig S.]

Boomer, I think you're exactly right about the weakness at third before 1950, and I think that shows one of the Hall's fallacies - admitting a player simply because he was the best at his position during a certain period of time. By doing this, they totally ignore the possibility that a position may simply not have had anybody who was Hall-worthy during that period.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
6. At the time Kell became eligible for HOF induction (1962), there were only three (3) third basemen enshrined (Pie Trainor, Jimmy Collins, and Home Run Baker). While Kell was not the equal of Baker, he was, arguably, equal or superior to both Collins and Traynor, the latter of whom being one of the most overrated HOFers in history.

The strange thing was, as you said earlier in the part of the quote I cut out, Kell was not elected by the writers but by the VC, inducted in 1983. At about that time, there was a cry going up about a lack of 3B in the Hall, and that may have helped him get in. Walter Alston was also selected by the VC that year, along with Brooks Robinson and Juan Marichal by the writers. So, the population of 3B in the Hall took a big jump that summer!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I am willing to cut some slack to shortstops and catchers but I can't buy into it for 3B's. I think we have to accept that 3B is position that until 1950 just didn't produce HoFers.

Third base was not always considered an offensive power position. The first power-hitting 3B of note was the St. Louis Browns' Harlond Clift. Ken Keltner had some power, but his claim to fame is defense. Bob Elliott won an NL MVP with the Braves in 1947, and had a surprising career; a near-HOF career. Stan Hack should be in the Hall, period!

Before 1935 there were guys like Larry Gardner and Heine Groh. Groh had a .373 OBP, Gardner a .355 OBP. They were glove men who contributed as leadoff hitter types. There careers were mostly in the deadball era. I would argue that Groh was the best 3B in the NL during his career.

If we were to evaluate 3B as we would a middle infield position (which is how the game was played in the early part of the century) the case for Groh is strong, and Gardner is a marginal selection. Had these guys played in 1970, I suspect that their numbers, or their defensive position, would be different.