Ray Schalk (from the Hall of Miller and Eric)
I want to give you three sets of numbers. They’ll show up below in this order: AB/OBP/SLG/OPS/Runs/Hits/HR/RBI/SB/TB/WAR/DWAR. The men all have careers that overlap ever so slightly.
Player A: 263/349/337/685/488/1259/13/534/30/614/26.1/11.1
Player B: 253/340/316/656/579/1345/11/593/177/1675/33.2/18.3
Player C: 272/319/357/676/475/1154/20/514/124/1517/28.9/13.7
Take a second and look them over. Except for a major difference in stolen bases and total bases, they look a lot alike don’t they? If you’re clever (and surely you are), you’ve looked at the title and the picture above and figured one is Ray Schalk. You’re right; he’s the guy in the middle. The other two are also catchers: Steve O’Neill (player A) and Johnny Kling (Player C). The three have careers that overlap in 1912 and 1913 only and each has at least one ring. O’Neill’s comes in 1920 with Cleveland, Kling with the Cubs in 1908 and 1907. Schalk has one with the White Sox in 1917.
There is of course one other major difference among them: Schalk is in the Hall of Fame and the other two aren’t. After looking at their stats that leads to an obvious question. Why is that so?
Schalk was a good catcher, even, perhaps a great one. His numbers show him almost always above average in caught stealing, a major stat in the run happy “Deadball Era.” For a career he threw out 48% of base runners trying to steal (the league average is 44%). He’s not much of a hitter. Someone once wrote that he is the only career eight-hole hitter in the Hall of Fame (I couldn’t find the reference and I’m not sure it’s still true, but I suspect it is). But the other two were no slouches behind the plate either (although it looks like Schalk was better) and neither made the Hall of Fame. Which brings me back to “What’s going on here?”
Ray Schalk has one distinction the others lack. In 1919 his socks remained white. Schalk was one of the earliest and fiercest critics of the Black Sox. Hugh Fullerton’s expose was based on information obtained from Schalk (among a host of others). This was a man who hated to lose and was incapable of accepting anyone who would even entertain the idea that “throwing” a game was proper conduct. If you look at the starting everyday players for the 1919 White Sox, Schalk and second baseman Eddie Collins were the only regulars who weren’t involved in the scandal in one way or another (the right field position was platooned). Collins was clearly a better player and certainly deserves his spot in Cooperstown.
Hollywood’s version of Schalk (Gordon Clapp)
So it’s time to give you my answer to the question “why is Ray Schalk a Hall of Famer?” I think it simply boils down to rewarding a quality catcher who did not participate in the Black Sox scandal and played the game “on the square.” That’s not a particularly great reason to put a player in the Hall of Fame, but there have been worse choices.
Tags: Eddie Collins, Johnny Kling, Ray Schalk, Steve O'Neill
Verdun2's Blog 
April 18, 2019 at 4:01 pm
I think you’re probably right about the driver behind Schalk’s Hall induction. Perhaps the same could also be said about Red Faber.
For what it’s worth, I rank Kling 31st, Schalk 41st, and O’Neill 52nd among catchers.
And yes, there have certainly been worse choices…
April 18, 2019 at 6:19 pm
I would not disagree with you concerning Faber.
v
April 19, 2019 at 10:48 am
I remember that Bill James, in one of his Historical Abstracts, had postulated that Schalk’s induction into Cooperstown was a reward for not going in the tank–and I agree that there are worse reasons to honor someone.
April 25, 2019 at 8:07 am
Just as long as they get Walter O’Malley out of The Hall of Fame, I’ll be happy. And for what REASON is he in there? For giving the middle finger to New York City? If THAT’S a good reason to put someone in the HOF (and I was shocked and angry when he was), then why not put Robert Moses and Mayor Wagner in there, too?
Glen