Home
Forums
FAQ
Essays
Rules
Moderators

 

Norm Cash and his Case for the HOF by Fuzzy Bear

I became motivated to do an essay on Norm Cash’s HOF case this morning after reading Bill James’ essay in his 1984 Historical Baseball Abstract. I began the day believing that Cash was a guy who was a pretty good player who was not quite up to the standards of the HOF.

The gist of James’ essay on Cash in the players’ section of the book focused two main points:

(A) Norm Cash was not regarded, either while active or at the time of James’ article (or now, for that matter) at a “great” player, but . . .
(B) By a number of statistical analyses, Cash comes out surprisingly good; better than some obvious HOFers, in fact.

The statistical analyses James cited were Base-Out percentage (better than Roberto Clemente’s), Offensive Winning Percentage (among the top 100 of all time in 1984) and Pete Palmer’s methods, which named Cash as the 88th greatest player of all time. (Palmer’s system certainly had its flaws; James would point out that it rated Gene Tenace 35 notches ahead of Roy Campenella.) James asks the question of how such an ordinary player can shine in various statistical analyses, and then goes on to point out why Cash looks so good:

(A) Cash’s .271 career average is very good, given the league averages in the 1960s. (James points out that Cash’s .263 in 1968 was 33 points ABOVE the league average of .230, and that regulars hitting in the .220s were common in the 1960s.)
(B) Cash would miss some time with injuries every year, and walked a lot, so he had a lot of seasons where his ABs were in the 400s.
(C) Cash drove in more runs per AB than Al Kaline, in an eras where runs were much more scarce than they are now.


Cash’s career stats are good, but not the kind that shout out “HALL OF FAME!” He hit 377 HRs for his career, and that is generally considered NOT a HOF level total for a guy with a BA under .300 or a guy on the left end of the defensive spectrum. To this, I would note two things:

(A) Cash his 29 HRs per 162 games for his career, which is at least borderline HOF for the era he played in.
(B) Cash, inexplicably, sat on the bench behind Earl Torgeson in 1959, despite hitting 4 HRs in 104 ABs. Cash was 24 at the time, for the whole season; one wonders why Cash wasn’t given a shot, given that Torgeson was a weak link on the 1959 Sox. Yes, I know managers are reluctant to change regulars in the middle of successful seasons, but Cash’s subsequent performance indicates that he was CLEARLY ready for a major league job in 1959 (and probably as early as 1957) but fell victim to a manager benching a more talented young player ahead of a “proven” veteran. (The only thing Earl Torgeson proved in the late 1950s was that he was good once, but now stunk.)

Had Cash been placed in the lineup as early as 1958 with Chicago, he would have topped 400 HRs. He probably would have topped 425, in part because he would have been regarded differently. That’s a woulda-coulda that didn’t happen, but it wasn’t Cash’s fault that it didn’t; it was the fault of Al Lopez, who made the traditional decision, which was probably not the best one. Especially during the reserve clause days, guys who HAD the job tended to KEEP the job; Earl Torgeson was not an exception, and Cash paid the price for that.

So, looking at what Cash DID, and not what he MIGHT HAVE DONE, what can we say? Well, one thing we can say is that Cash was the BEST FIRST BASEMAN IN THE AL FOR THE DECADE OF THE 1960s.

This statement surprises some, but it is clearly true. Over the period of 1960-69, the best first baseman in the American League was Norm Cash. Period. You cannot show me otherwise, and while this may be surprising, the truth often is just that.

There were individual seasons where players had better seasons than Cash. In 1967, Harmon Killebrew had a better season, but Killebrew was only a 1B during the 1967 season during the sixties; he would not return to first until 1971, and was an outfielder prior to 1967 (Don Mincher was the Twin regular before that.) Boog Powell was better in 1969; he was a runner-up MVP and would win the MVP in 1970; nonetheless, Cash was better for the 1960s, and, frankly, had a better career, although most people will not believe that. (In the Powell/Cash comparision, tell me how the guy (Cash) who hit more career jacks, hit for a higher BA and had a higher OBP while playing in a slightly tougher environment for a hitter overall during his prime was the inferior player. It sure wasn’t speed and defense!) George Scott in 1967? Scott hit .303 with 19 HRs, then hit .173 the next year; Cash was better. By a lot.

Cash, then, meets a key “Keltner List” standard. He was the best player in his league at his position. This fact allows Cash to be examined to see if he meets Bill James’ “Definition C” for the HOF, which states: “A Hall of Famer is a player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. Such a player would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team unless it was a pennant-winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuable members of the team. This definition would make room in the Hall of Fame for such players as Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Johnny Evers, and Harry Heilmann.” (This is key for me, because I am adamant that “Definition C” represents the ACTUAL criteria that most players ACTUALLY meet to get into the HOF; it’s the REAL standard for the REAL Hall of Fame, and not some mythical “only the Ruths and Gehrigs” standard which never existed in actual practice.)

One can denigrate Cash’s status as the best first baseman in the league by saying he was the best of a weak lot. There is SOME basis for this; Cash was certainly not the equal of McCovey and Cepeda, his counterparts in the NL. On the other hand, Cash DID play his prime years in the worst conditions for a hitter ever during the 20th century. In addition, Cash’s reign as the best at his position in the league was unusually long; it was, pretty much, the entire decade, save for 1960, 1967 and 1969. I also believe that his reign would have been slightly longer had he been brought to the majors and given a position at age 23, instead of age 25.

This, by the way, might be a good time to list the “Keltner List” questions:


QUOTE


1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2. Was he the best player on his team?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in    the league at his position?

4.  Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5.  Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

6.  Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7.  Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8.  Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9.  Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or  worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider.



What about other questions on the Keltner list? Cash was certainly not the best player in baseball. He was behind only Jim Bunning and Al Kaline on his team, however, and I believe that Cash was the best player on the Tigers in 1961. Had Maris and Mantle not exploded onto the home run scene in 1961 I believe Cash would have won the MVP; he may have won it anyway if Maris had not topped the Babe, even with Mantle hitting 54 HRs. (MVP voters have often been partial to batting champions, and Cash’s .361 would not have been lost in the shuffle had Maris not chased and caught the Babe.)

Impact on pennant races? The Tigers won 101 games and finished 2nd in 1961, and Cash had EVERYTHING to do with that. The Tigers seriously contended most years durng the 1960s, finishing 1 game back in 1967 and winning it all in 1968. Cash hit .385 in the 1968 World Series. Cash’s excellent 1971 season was a key factor in the Tigers returning to contention, and his good season in 1972 (at age 37) helped the Tigers finish first again. Norm Cash was one of the top three players on a team that won 101 games in 1961, a World Champion in 1968, and on a division winner in 1972, plus his ADDITION to the Tigers in 1960 was key in their subsequent return to contention.

All-Star seasons? Cash played in 4 All-Star games. It is a mystery as to why he didn’t play in more. One reason may have been injuries. Another was Mickey Mantle’s late career switch to 1B. Given the batting averages and offensive totals of his time, I would say that Cash clearly had 8-9 All-Star caliber seasons.

Good enough to play past prime? This is one of Cash’s strongest credentials; one of his very best seasons came at age 36. Cash’s career progression is such that, while not trying to belabor a point I have already made, it is hard to understand how a guy so good in his late 30s did not become a regular until age 25 (going on 26).

If Cash was your best, could your team win the pennant? I would give Cash a qualified “yes” on this; he was the best player on his team in 1961, and they won 101 games, finishing 2nd to a remarkable (though overrated) Yankee team. I certainly believe that if Norm Cash, in his best years, was your teams best position player, your team could win the pennant, and I would argue that they could win if Cash were the best player on your team, period, in his 3-4 best seasons.

Cash doesn’t do so well on some other Keltner List qualifications. His triple crown stats, as already mentioned, are typical of guys with cases that usually don’t make it. He certainly isn’t the best player eligible that is not in; there are probably 25 players ahead of him, although that is a number I popped out of my head, and the number might be less. Joe Torre, Tony Oliva, Ted Simmons, Ryne Sandberg, Lance Parrish, maybe Bill Freehan (his teammate), Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, all come to mind. That’s 9 names without trying. Dewey is ahead of Cash; Jim Ed is about even, IMO. One of the arguments I would make for Cash vis a vis Rice is that had Cash been brought up to the majors at age 23 and placed in the lineup I believe there would be no question as to who the superior player was.

As to comparisons with Tony Perez and Gil Hodges, it is hard to separate fiction from fact. Hodges and Perez were bigger stars, and played on greater teams. I would rate Perez ahead of Cash because of his years at 3B, and Hodges because of a higher sustained peak, but I’m not comfortable doing either.

I am tempted to rename the “Bonds Line” (for Bobby, of course, and not Barry) the “Cash Line”. This of course, is the line Bill James defined as the line between “unquestioned excellence and marginal greatness”. I believe this describes the borderline of the HOF, and the quality of Cash’s career well.

I doubt many here will advocate for Norm Cash’s enshrinement, and I am not doing so here; there are guys ahead of him, to be sure. But I am surprised by the strength of the arguments in his favor, and I wonder how some of you feel. I am especially looking forward to feedback on my assertion that Norm Cash was the best first baseman in the AL over the course of the decade of the 1960s. Am I missing something? Or did everyone else already miss it?