Blogpen— Our Blogs and Nothing But Our Blogs
Here’s the article that started all of this off . . . I guess it’s a really long mission statement, for people new to this area of Primer . . .
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 19, 2003 at 09:04 PM |
1 comment(s)
Related News:
Hall of Merit: Links to positional threads from last year
Here’s a link to the postional threads, I’ll just add a few notes if there’s something that needs to be considered that isn’t obvious, for those new to the discussions.
Catchers - by far the worst hitters as a group, so the ones that could hit (i.e. Deacon White, Buck Ewing, Charlie Bennett) were extremely valuable.
First Basemen - the pre-gloves players should get a major boost. Gloves caused the defensive spectrum to shift.
Second Basemen - equivalent to 3B today, it was more offensive ...
Read More...
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 19, 2003 at 04:21 AM |
20 comment(s)
Related News:
Okay, let’s get this rolling.
Let’s open the 1906 polls from March 30 (a Saturday) through April 6 (a Sunday). My fantasy league, of which I’m the commissioner drafts April 5, so I’ll be busy inputting rosters, moves, etc. on the 6th and 7th, but I should be able to tally the ballots by April 9.
We’ll then reopen the polls for 1907 on Monday the 14th, and get on a one-week on, one-week off schedule, generally voting Monday-Sunday. Does this work?
I need suggestions for how to structure the discussion threads leading to the first ballot. Should I reopen the old threads? Organize them by position, etc? What would you like?
The ballot structure we decided on was:
5 electees: 24-23-22-21-20-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
4 electees: 24-23-22-21-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
3 electees: 24-23-22-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
2 electees: 24-23-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
1 electee: 24-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
I think this is the schedule for electees that we agreed on:
1906 5
1907 3
1908 2
1909 2
1910 2
1911 2
1912 2
1913 1
1914 1
1915 1
1916 1
1917 1
Then from 1918 through 1975 we elect two candidates per year. The year we “catch up” to the expected number of HoMers is 1955. Keep in mind that we will be 18.9 candidates behind when we start, plus we should be inducting 1.26 new per year at that time.
From 1976-83 we alternate between 3 in even years, 2 in odd years.
From 1984-95 we elect 3 candidates per season.
From 1996-2008 we elect a 4th candidate in “leap years”.
Starting in 2010, we’ll alternate between 4 in even years, 3 in odd years.
In 2014 we’ll be at 4 every year, except leap year when we’ll elect 3.
We’ll stay with that until another expansion throws us off, but earliest it would change an election would be 2019 (assuming expansion next year).
Here’s a link to the thread discussing the Constitution.
Let me know what else we need.
We’ll be voting through the yahoo group.
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 18, 2003 at 04:39 PM |
31 comment(s)
Related News:
Once again, jimd’s thoughts are in the discussion:
Standings W L PCT GB Adjusted Standings W L PCT GB
Chicago 52 14 .788 -- Chicago 128 33 .794 --
Hartford 47 21 .691 6.0 St.Louis 115 46 .717 13
St.Louis 45 19 .703 6.0 Hartford 112 49 .694 16
Boston 39 31 .557 15.0 Boston 90 71 .557 38
Louisville 30 36 .455 22.0 Louisville 75 86 .467 53
New York 21 35 .375 26.0 New York 61 100 .379 67
Philadelphia 14 45 .237 34.5 Philadelphia 39 122 .245 89
Cincinnati 9 56 .136 42.5 Cincinnati 24 137 .146 104
If you look at the 3 worst teams, only Philadelphia had more than one or two legit major leaguers. Also the three teams were by far the worst fielding teams in the league. Removing them from the standings would produce these records:
Standings W L PCT GB
Chicago 112 48 .700 --
St. Louis 94 66 .589 18
Hartford 89 71 .558 23
Boston 61 99 .379 51
Louisville 44 116 .273 68
Joe Dimino
Posted: March 04, 2003 at 12:45 AM |
8 comment(s)
Related News:
jimd’s summary is in the discussion below.
1875 saw the culmination of the Boston dynasty, Harry Wright’s most dominant team. Here are the standings:
Final Standings W L PCT GB Adjusted Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 71 8 .899 -- Boston 144 12 .926 --
Phil. Athletics 53 20 .726 15.0 Phil. Athletics 125 31 .801 19
Hartford 54 28 .659 18.5 Hartford 114 42 .731 30
St. Louis Browns 39 29 .574 26.5 St. Louis Browns 110 46 .708 34
Phil. Pearls 37 31 .544 28.5 Phil. Pearls 104 42 .669 40
Chicago 30 37 .448 35.0 Chicago 98 58 .628 46
New York 30 38 .441 35.5 New York 93 63 .596 51
St. Louis Reds 4 15 .211 37.0 Phil. Centennials 62 94 .394 82
Washington 5 23 .179 40.5 New Haven 43 113 .277 101
New Haven 7 40 .149 48.0 Washington 43 113 .276 101
Phil. Centennials 2 12 .143 37.5 St. Louis Reds 35 121 .221 109
Keokuk 1 12 .077 38.0 Brooklyn 26 130 .169 118
Brooklyn 2 42 .045 51.5 Keokuk 16 140 .104 128
Boston didn’t just get fat on the club teams either, this team was incredible, probably the most dominant in major league history. They played at least .750 against every team in the league. The Pearls played them the best, taking 2-of-8. Here are what the standings would have looked like if you cut ‘major’ league off with New York, the logical place to draw the line:
Final Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 139 23 .861 --
Phil. Athletics 102 60 .726 37
Hartford 82 80 .507 57
St. Louis Browns 76 86 .468 63
Phil. Pearls 65 97 .404 74
Chicago 55 107 .340 84
New York 47 115 .291 92
I’m just thankful the one season where NY finished 92 games behind Boston concluded 97 years before I was born, and 15 years before my great-grandmother was born.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 24, 2003 at 06:17 PM |
4 comment(s)
Related News:
Thanks again to jimd for the summary in the discussion portion.
1874 Standings W L PCT GB Adj. Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 52 18 .743 -- Boston 120 41 .743 --
New York 42 23 .646 7.5 New York 104 57 .648 16
Phil. Athletics 33 22 .600 11.5 Phil. Athletics 102 59 .636 18
Phil. Pearls 29 29 .500 17.0 Phil. Pearls 84 77 .521 36
Chicago 28 31 .475 18.5 Chicago 78 83 .485 42
Brooklyn 22 33 .400 22.5 Brooklyn 70 91 .433 50
Hartford 16 37 .302 27.5 Hartford 53 108 .329 67
Baltimore 9 38 .191 31.5 Baltimore 33 128 .206 87
Here are the standings removing Hartford and Baltimore, who only had a few true major leaguers amongst them.
Adj.II Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 110 50 .690 --
New York 93 67 .578 17
Phil. Athletics 90 70 .564 20
Phil. Pearls 69 91 .434 41
Chicago 63 97 .395 47
Brooklyn 54 106 .339 56
Boston continues their dominance, winning their 3rd consecutive pennant.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 22, 2003 at 05:29 PM |
10 comment(s)
Related News:
Thanks again to jimd for this summary, which is in the discussion portion.
First the standings:
Actual Standings W L PCT GB Adjusted Standings W L PCT GB
Boston 43 16 .729 -- Boston 120 41 .744 --
Phil. White Stock. 36 17 .679 4.0 Phil. White Stock. 115 46 .715 5
Baltimore 34 22 .607 7.5 Baltimore 100 61 .623 20
Phil. Athletics 28 23 .549 11.0 Phil. Athletics 97 64 .604 23
New York 29 24 .547 11.0 New York 96 65 .594 24
Brooklyn 17 37 .315 23.5 Brooklyn 61 100 .379 59
Washington 8 31 .205 20.0 Washington 38 123 .233 82
Elizabeth 2 21 .088 23.0 Elizabeth 18 143 .109 102
Maryland 0 6 .000 16.5
Just like 1872, a few adjustments need to be made for the weak sisters again. I’ll give the standings how they would look at each possible spot where you could draw the ‘major league’ line.
The first would be to remove Elizabeth, as they were really just a club team that gave it a whirl, Washington had at least tried the year before, and wasn’t total dreck.
The second adjustment would be to remove Washington, who, while not total dreck was clearly not on the level of these teams:
No Elizabeth W L PCT GB No Eliz./Wash. W L PCT GB
Boston 115 47 .707 -- Boston 106 54 .665 --
Phil. White Stock. 109 53 .674 6 Phil. White Stock. 101 59 .628 5
Baltimore 93 69 .571 22 Baltimore 82 78 .513 24
Phil. Athletics 89 73 .549 26 Phil. Athletics 78 82 .489 28
New York 87 75 .538 28 New York 76 84 .476 30
Brooklyn 49 113 .303 66 Brooklyn 37 123 .228 69
Washington 25 137 .156 90
The final adjustment would be removing Brooklyn, since they were clearly below the pack of the other 5.
Top 5 W L PCT GB
Boston 100 60 .622 --
Phil. White Stock. 93 67 .581 7
Baltimore 73 87 .454 27
Phil. Athletics 69 91 .428 31
New York 66 94 .415 34
Feel free to draw the line wherever you’d like.
As far as the individual achievements go, Ross Barnes has solidified his place as the star of the league. George Wright and Levi Meyerle are also looking like superstars, Cap Anson is coming into his own, and Deacon White made his first Silver Slugger squad. Lip Pike and George Hall are also consistently among the best players in the league.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 14, 2003 at 12:52 AM |
3 comment(s)
Related News:
All of the text in the discussion portion is courtesy of jimd, who did an outstanding job; and he makes an interesting case for a defensive spectrum shift as well. It’s one that seems obvious to me now, but which I had never thought of, we’ll save that for later.
Here’s a look at the standings:
ACTUAL STANDINGS W L PCT GB PERFECT BALANCE W L PCT GB
Boston 39 8 .830 -- Boston 141 19 .883 --
Philadelphia 30 14 .682 7.5 Philadelphia 127 33 .796 14
Baltimore 35 19 .648 7.5 New York 119 41 .745 22
New York 34 20 .630 8.5 Baltimore 116 44 .727 25
Troy 15 10 .600 13.0 Troy 107 53 .670 34
Cleveland 6 16 .273 20.5 Bro. Atlantics 72 88 .451 69
Bro. Atlantics 9 28 .243 25.0 Cleveland 71 89 .443 70
Was. Olypics 2 7 .222 18.0 Middletown 60 100 .372 81
Middletown 5 19 .208 22.5 Bro. Eckfords 50 110 .312 91
Bro. Eckfords 3 26 .103 27.0 Was. Olympics 16 144 .100 125
Was. Nationals 0 11 .000 21.0 Was. Nationals 0 160 .000 141
There’s more to this though. There were clearly 5 teams that stood out from the pack. What would the standings look like if we considered only these teams ‘major league’? Also, what would the standings look like for the middle four teams? The last two don’t really matter since they couldn’t beat any of these teams. The only two wins for the Olympics came against the Nationals.
BAL. TOP TIER W L PCT GB BAL. AAA W L PCT GB
Boston 119 41 .744 -- Bro. Atlantics 103 59 .633 --
Philadelphia 89 71 .559 30 Cleveland 100 62 .616 3
New York 73 87 .456 46 Middletown 73 89 .452 30
Baltimore 68 92 .423 51 Bro. Eckfords 48 114 .298 55
Troy 51 109 .318 68
When we compute adjusted Win Shares, we’ll use the top tier standings above for the players on those teams, as a way of letting the air out of their stats. For 2nd tier teams, we’ll give them credit for the wins they would have had under a balanced schedule, if they were the 6th team in the league.
I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to work this out, although it may require more editing than it’s worth. But, there are some players of consequence on those teams, guys like Jack Burdock, Deacon White, Ezra Sutton, Jim O’Rourke and John Clapp, so we’ll have to figure something out. I’m open to ideas here. But if we can find a sound way to let the air out of their stats, it’ll help to ease the concerns of some about the quality of the competition.
There’s a lot more about the season in the discussion portion.
Joe Dimino
Posted: February 11, 2003 at 06:43 AM |
1 comment(s)
Related News:
This will be the first recap of a 19th Century season. Besides baseball-reference.com my main sources will be The Stats All-Time Handbook, The Stats All-Time Sourcebook and The Great Encyclopedia of the 19th Century Major League Baseball.
To save space, I’ll post the standings here, commentary inside the thread.
I’ll be presenting two sets of standings, the first, the games as they were played. The second set will show what the standings would have been over a balanced schedule, with the aim for somewhere between 154 and 162 games where possible.
I have a complex set of formulas that adjusts for the unbalanced schedule. I don’t want to get into too many details here, but I adjust each team’s skill rate based on schedule strength.
Then I prove out the actual W-L record to within .05 for each team (in most cases) using the actual schedule, and the formula for W-L between two teams A and B: (WpctA*LpctB)/((WpctA*LpctB)+(WpctB*LpctA)). I plug that formula in for every combination (multiplied by actual games played), and prove out the records. With wacky schedules sometimes the numbers have to be manually tweaked, but that just improves the accuracy. I’ll send you the spreadsheet if you have any interest in the gory details.
Once that is done, the sheet computes a second set of standings based on a balanced schedule. Since there were 9 teams in the 1871 NA, I had each team play each other 20 times (160 game season). I take one final step of rounding up enough teams to make the standings ‘add up’. Sometimes due to rounding, the whole league comes out 1001-999 or something when you add up the rounded numbers. So I find the team over .5 by the least and round them down instead of up (or vice versa if the league is 999-1001). It’s just for appearances, that’s all. The PCT is based on the actual numbers of adjusted wins and losses, as many decimals as excel calculates.
Since we care about individuals more than teams for this exercise, once we get the Win Shares spreadsheet adjusted for 19th Century purposes, I’ll be computing adjusted NA Win Shares based on the second set of standings (adjusted to 162 game seasons of course), so we account for unbalanced schedules. It’s especially important, with the short, haphazard schedules, to remove this bias.
One other note on the 1871 NA. Rockford’s manager/catcher Scott Hastings played with New Orleans over the previous winter to earn some extra $$. On April 16, New Orleans played Chicago in an exhibition game (this was before the first NA season opener).
There was a rule to discourage revolving, a player under contract with one team could not play for another team for 60 days after his last game. Even though New Orleans wasn’t in the NA, all other teams protested, and all Rockville wins prior to June 16 were forfeited to the teams they beat. This gave Philadelphia two extra wins and the ‘pennant’. The standings below give Rockford back those 4 wins, so they differ from those shown on Baseball Reference, and make the league more reasonable from top to bottom. The best teams were as good (relatively) as the 2001 Mariners, the worst were a little worse than 1998 Marlins, but that’s about the range. There was no one as bad (relative to the league) as the 1899 Spiders here.
Here are the results (the actual standings only include games actually played, no forfeits):
Actual Standings*: Adjusted Standings:
W L PCT GB W L PCT GB
Philadelphia 19 9 .679 — Philadelphia 113 47 .704 —
Chicago 19 9 .679 — Chicago 113 47 .704 —
Boston 20 10 .667 — Boston 108 52 .676 5
New York 16 17 .485 5.5 New York 79 81 .492 34
Washington 14 16 .467 6.0 Washington 77 83 .482 36
Troy 12.2 15.8 .436 6.8 Troy 70 90 .438 43
Fort Wayne 6.8 12.2 .357 7.8 Fort Wayne 55 105 .344 58
Cleveland 10 19 .345 9.5 Cleveland 54 106 .341 59
Rockford 8 17 .320 9.5 Rockford 51 109 .319 62
*see posts 6, 8 and 10 for explanation of Troy and Fort Wayne’s records
You can see that Philly and Chicago both played pretty tough schedules (their adjPCT is .026 higher than actual) while Boston didn’t. In reality, Chicago probably would have won the pennant if it wasn’t for The Fire (see discussion). Boston would have won if it weren’t for an injury that cost George Wright half the season.
There’s more, including a Silver Slugger team in the discussion portion.
Joe Dimino
Posted: January 24, 2003 at 05:35 AM |
30 comment(s)
Related News:
Page 125 of 129 pages ‹ First < 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 > | Features Archive | Site Archive