— Our Blogs and Nothing But Our Blogs
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.
Posted: February 14, 2003 at 12:52 AM | 3 comment(s)
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.
Posted: February 11, 2003 at 06:43 AM | 1 comment(s)
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.
Posted: January 24, 2003 at 05:35 AM | 30 comment(s)
I think one way to build towards the first election is to recap each season with a thread, starting with the 1871 NA. I’m thinking a season a day (Monday-Friday). As we go through time this way, we’ll start to get a feel for which players dominated year-in-year out, etc.
Charles Saeger has done a lot of work towards coming up with modified Win Shares for NA (and eventually all 19th Century players). The reliability of Win Shares gets shakier the further back we go in time, mainly because of the pitching and fielding differences. Charlie’s work should correct a fair amount of this error.
The problem with the massive revisions is that they also require a massive effort to work their way into a spreadsheet. It’ll be worth the wait once they are done, and if we go through time season by season, that will also buy us a little bit of time to get the spreadsheet revised and do some testing before presenting the NA numbers.
We’re not saying WS are the be all and end all. But Charlie’s revised numbers will be a very good guide for an era where we don’t have much to go on.
Let me know what you think of the season-by-season approach. Assuming people are in favor of it, I should be able to get the 1871 NA up tonight.
Posted: January 13, 2003 at 03:53 PM | 11 comment(s)
I received two outstanding Christmas presents yesterday, the Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues and the Complete Book of Baseball’s Negro Leagues.
These two books, combined with the Negro League section of the NHBA, and hopefully some testimony from Negro League experts on the panel should give us a pretty solid chunk of evidence to go on. We aren’t going to be perfect of course, but when it’s said and done we should probably have about 20 or so Negro Leaguers among our 200+ inductees.
One player that I ‘discovered’ was Biz Mackey, probably the 2nd best catcher in Negro Leagues History. Cristobal Torriente is another player that hasn’t been honored by the Hall of Fame that should be . . . there are a few others.
There aren’t too many players from the 19th Century for us to worry about, maybe Bud Fowler and George Stovey (Fleet Walker wasn’t really that great of a player, his fame is more symbolic than anything else).
When I get a few minutes, I’ll set up a thread to discuss the Negro Leaguers, I’ll probably start by posting the All-Time All-Star teams from the Complete Book . . . and from from the NHBA, I should be able to get those up there tonight.
We’re also fairly close to NA Win Shares, Charlie Saeger has done a lot of work, but I’ve got to get a spreadsheet reprogrammed before we can test them out. Maybe 2-3 weeks. If you’ve read the book, you know WS is a massive spreadsheet, about 2 MB without any data. This is a massive overhaul, and will require reprogramming almost the entire thing. If this works out well, it’s possible we’ll be able to come up with revised WS for other 19th Century seasons, but much of that will depend on having the time to enter the data, to see if it’s worth the effort.
Posted: December 26, 2002 at 02:34 PM | 2 comment(s)
Statement of Purpose:
The Hall of Merit is an internet group of baseball enthusiasts who will create its own “Hall of Merit” to rival the “Hall of Fame” in Cooperstown. Many believe that the National Baseball Hall of Fame has done a less than perfect job of selecting the game’s greatest players to honor. We will attempt to rectify mistakes made by Hall of Fame selections by conducting our own series of elections. A more thorough description of the Hall of Merit can be found here.
We will ...Read More...
Posted: December 06, 2002 at 11:55 PM | 392 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: Email Conversation with Rob Wood
My ‘conversation’ with Rob Wood will be posted in the discussion thread.
It’s basically a status of where we stand. Rob has volunteered to draft a rules document, based on everything that’s been discussed in the threads.
I think we’ll be ready to vote after New Year’s.
Hopefully this answers your questions.
If any of you have an idea for a thread, let me know and I’ll post it. This section is different than Clutch Hits, in that we don’t have “news” every day to link to. We try to keep the discussion going, but it’s easy to fall into lulls. Any suggestions would be appreciated . . . thanks!
Posted: November 26, 2002 at 12:40 AM | 1 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: Hall of Merit group set up on Yahoo
The group has been set up on yahoo, we’ll use this to send messages, register voters, etc.
I’m not sure how this will work, I only sent two invitations, because it didn’t have an easy way to get to the address book unfortunately. Go to the link above for the home page for the group. Post any questions, etc. here.
Posted: November 15, 2002 at 04:12 AM | 20 comment(s)
Hall of Merit: The Jackson/Rose/Cicotte/Devlin issue
I’ll post Craig’s comment from the rules thread and my reply in the discussion.
Posted: November 07, 2002 at 10:03 PM | 77 comment(s)
Page 126 of 129 pages ‹ First < 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 > | Features Archive | Site Archive