Maury Wills for the Hall of Fame?

[Fuzzy Bear]

VNV Nation stated his belief that Dave Bancroft was a HOFer, comparing him to Luis Aparicio. I would not agree with that, as Bancroft played in a mega-hitters era, so his .279 BA is not as impressive as it appears, and, IMO, there are a significant # of shortstops better than Bancroft who are not, and never will be, in the HOF.

Which leads me to Maury Wills.

Maury Wills hit .281 for his career; a career that was largely spent (a) past prime (he was black, and stuck in the minors behind Pee Wee Reese until he was almost 27), (b) in a pitcher's park (Dodger Stadium, then Forbes Field, (c) in a pitcher's era
(1963-68). He was not a particularly patient hitter, but he did steal bases, and was voted NL MVP in 1962. Wills also won 2 Gold Gloves (1961 and 1962).

Wills was also a winning ballplayer, despite evidence that he was not particularly well-liked by his teammates. Wills was the Captain of the 1960s Dodger teams. He played on three World Champions (1959, 1963 and 1965), plus a 1962 team that tied for 1st and lost a special 3 game playoff (Koufax was injured). The Dodgers, after sinking into the second division in 1967 and 1968 (after trading Wills to Pittsburgh) reacquired him, and resumed pennant contention. (At age 39, Wills hit .281 and the Dodgers finished one game shy of the Giants in the NL West division race.)

Wills' career is not particularly long, but this is due, in part, to segregation, and, in part, to being stuck behind Pee Wee Reese. It is highly likely, given his subsequent performance, that Maury Wills was a Star Quality major leaguer at least 3 years before he came to the majors.

Wills' reputation with players and the press, while active, was not always positive (although I attribute some of that to reputed relationships with white women in the racist 1960s). I remember articles about him as a boy in which he clearly appeared to be something of a malcontent. He was a flop as a manager, and had a drug arrest in the 1980s, which certainly suggests a personal problem. In Dick Allen's case, similar factors tore his teams apart; they didn't win; hence, I wouldn't put Allen in the HOF. In Wills' case, however, these factors do not appear to have hampered either his role as a player or as a clubhouse leader. There is evidence that Wills provided the type of leadership on a team that stars are supposed to provide.

Is Maury Wills the best SS not in the HOF? I'm not sure. I'm certain he'd be far from the worst.
Right now, I think Alan Trammell is the best SS not in the Hall, but Wills' case has factors that don't apply to Trammell (years lost to segregation and being trapped behind Reese).

Should Wills get special consideration for his late arrival to the majors? I think so, yes. Segregation was clearly a factor, and segregation was a condition of the time, not a consequence of the player's particular skill type or level.

Yes, I think Maury Wills is HOF-worthy.

What do you think?








Does Wills meet existing HOF standards? I think he is clearly in the gray area. Shortstops have been more subjective selections, traditionally?

[VNV Nation]

I don't think so. Willis is a decent candidate I suppose, but the comp to Bancroft is somewhat dubious:

1. Big hitter's era
Actually, Bancroft's career was split between deadball and lively ball, and in the lively ball era, he played for four years in Braves Field, one of the worst HR parks ever.
2. Wills' defensive ability. He won two Gold Gloves, but I don't think anyone who ever watched the Dodgers in those days would suggest Wills was a great defensive player. I've never heard it. In fact, Dodger fans have told me that it's strange that the Dodgers have had so many bad shortstops, and include Wills (Wills, Russell and Offerman) but so many good first basemen (Fairly, Garvey, Parker).

Bancroft was pretty much the standard of excellence with the glove, the way Ozzie was, I think. You might argue that Omar Vizquel is a better player, but I think you could argue that Bancroft was better than Reese, let alone Wills.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Wills was born in 1932 and made his debut in 1959.

He complained about segregation his entire career (he still does, to this day), but he lost NOTHING to it. Wills was 15 years old when Jackie made his debut with the Dodgers.

He wasn't called up until he was 26, in 1959, because he wasn't good enough until he was 26.

[SmedIndy]

Wills was a good ball player, but not great. Even in his era, his steals didn't add up to many wins. He was caught stealing a lot, and hit into more DPs than a leadoff man should (over 10 three times).

According to Lee, he had only two seasons of 10+ RCAA.

He was a terrible manager, not that it counts.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
I don't think so. Willis is a decent candidate I suppose, but the comp to Bancroft is somewhat dubious:

1. Big hitter's era
Actually, Bancroft's career was split between deadball and lively ball, and in the lively ball era, he played for four years in Braves Field, one of the worst HR parks ever.
2. Wills' defensive ability. He won two Gold Gloves, but I don't think anyone who ever watched the Dodgers in those days would suggest Wills was a great defensive player. I've never heard it. In fact, Dodger fans have told me that it's strange that the Dodgers have had so many bad shortstops, and include Wills (Wills, Russell and Offerman) but so many good first basemen (Fairly, Garvey, Parker).

Bancroft was pretty much the standard of excellence with the glove, the way Ozzie was, I think. You might argue that Omar Vizquel is a better player, but I think you could argue that Bancroft was better than Reese, let alone Wills.

Bancroft did not "split" his career between eras; he played five "dead ball" seasons (1915-19) and 10 "lively ball" seasons (1920-29).

There is no way that Bancroft was better than Reese. Reese's batting stats were much better; he had surprising power; plus Bancroft's "caught stealing" stats are terrible.

Anyway, this is about Wills. I think that Wills did more things to help his team win than did Bancroft. I think he was a better SS, overall, and a better player. I think Wills' offensive credentials are far, far more impressive than Bancroft's, given the eras each played in. Additionally, Wills is more of a unique player. Uniqueness is usually an argument for inclusion into the HOF, in that the player exhibited a combination of skills unusual for the position (the 30-30 guys, for example). Bancroft hit .279 in an era where shortstops hit .265-.270; Wills hit .281 in an era where DAL MAXVILL WAS A REGULAR ON A WORLD CHAMPION, and where a manager was happy with a glove man at SS if he hit .230.
Wills' record is far more impressive for its time than Bancroft's is for its time. In fact, Wills record, in the context of its time, is extremely impressive by the standards of all players not in the HOF.

[SmedIndy]

Wills hit .281 but did nothing else on offense, besides run, and he ran into a lot of outs. His OBP was only .004 above league average, and his SLG was .331 compared to .392 league average.

He was a mediocre offensive player who stole more bases than anyone else. Nothing special about that.

[VNV Nation]

OK, this is about Wills but you keep using "Wills was better than Bancroft." I just don't see it in any way shape or form. At his best, 1962, Wils was better than Bancroft. That's about it.

Bancroft's OPS+ was 98 and Wills 88. I think, at least, they are comparable offensive players, I can't see a big advantage for Wills there. And there's no comparison defensively.

[KCBOOMER]

Wills, was pretty good, but not exceptional.

[VNV Nation]

I don't mean to knock you on Wills because he's an interesting player and was briefly a great player. I think he would have been better suited to baseball in the 1970s and 1980s, when he could have played on turf fields. But I think not only Trammell but Concepcion, Vizquel and Tony Fernandez are superior players.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
Wills was born in 1932 and made his debut in 1959.

He complained about segregation his entire career (he still does, to this day), but he lost NOTHING to it. Wills was 15 years old when Jackie made his debut with the Dodgers.

He wasn't called up until he was 26, in 1959, because he wasn't good enough until he was 26.

In the 1950s, after baseball, as a whole, "integrated" (as a whole; the Red Sox didn't integrate until Pumpsie Green graced their roster in 1959!) teams were still concerned with the number of black players on their roster. There were fewer black players on the bench in those days; you were either a regular or you were in the minors.

There was also no minor league free agency, so Wills was trapped behind a HOFer, Reese, another HOFer, Robinson, and a minor star, Gilliam, in the Dodger infield. Guys with jobs tend to keep jobs; that's the nature of baseball.

Just because baseball "integrated" doesn't mean blacks were on equal footing with whites in the Golden Fifties. If the Red Sox couldn't find a spot for a black player until Pumpsie Green came along in 1959, what are the chances Wills could have been traded there? How many teams were interested in a black starting shortstop in the 1950s? The Washington Senators, Baltimore Orioles, and Kansas City A's needed shortstops in 1957, but these cities were cities where racial issues were the most sensitive (other than St. Louis).

To say Maury Wills lost no time to segregation is to imply that baseball's racial issues were solved in their entirety in 1947. They were not, and this fact is germane to an evaluation of the quality of Wills' career.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
I don't mean to knock you on Wills because he's an interesting player and was briefly a great player. I think he would have been better suited to baseball in the 1970s and 1980s, when he could have played on turf fields. But I think not only Trammell but Concepcion, Vizquel and Tony Fernandez are superior players.

This is probably good fodder for another thread!
I agree with you on Trammell, and am unsure on the others. (I do think Tony Fernandez is mega-underrated!).