A Top 5 by position, in no obvious order, for starters (plus 10 or so pitchers). I'm guessing its a good bet that the most of the top 15 will come from this list of 50. Let me know if I missed anyone who should be considered, as I'm not trying to exclude anyone who should reasonably be considered, just giving a handful of names to focus on.

Deacon White, C
Cal McVey, C
John Clapp, C
Jack O'Brian, C (probably the best AA Catcher)
Fred Carroll, C

Joe Start, 1B
John Morrill, 1B
Dave Orr, 1B (check out the OPS+!)
John Reilly, 1B
Wes Fislfer, 1B (Philadelphia NA star)

Hardy Richardson, 2B
Ross Barnes, 2B
Jack Burdock, 2B
Fred Dunlap, 2B
Jack Farrell, 2B

George Wright, SS
Tom Burns, SS
Jack Rowe, SS
Bill Gleason, SS
John Peters, SS

Ezra Sutton, 3B
Ned Williamson, 3B
Bob Ferguson, 3B
Hick Carpenter, 3B
Levi Meyerle, 3B (best player of 1871)

Abner Dalyrmple, LF
Charley Jones, LF
Tip O'Neill, LF
Andy Leonard, LF (NA Boston star)
George Wood, LF
Tom York, LF

Paul Hines, CF
George Gore, CF
Lip Pike, CF
Harry Wright, CF

Orator Shaffer, RF
John Cassidy, RF
Chicken Wolf, RF (AA star)
Ed Swartwood, RF

Old Hoss Radbourn, P
Al Spalding, P
Pud Galvin, P
Jim McCormick, P
Mickey Welch, P
Will White, P
Tommy Bond, P
Jim Whitney, P
Bob Caruthers, P
Bobby Mathews, P
Guy Hecker, P (AA star)

Extremely preliminary:

1) D. White
2) R. Barnes
3) P. Hines
4) C. Radbourn
5) G. Wright
6) G. Gore
7) H. Richardson
8) P. Galvin
9) A. Spalding
10) J. Whitney
11) F. Dunlap
12) T. Bond
13) J. McCormick
14) T. Mullane
15) J. Start

Also under consideration: Williamson, Caruthers, Sutton, C.Jones, McVey. Top third of the ballot is pretty firm; could rearrange the middle third; drop and add to the bottom third.

Great stuff already! I'd just like to correct a couple things and mention a couple other guys.

These two are not eligible for our first election:
Tony Mullane retired in 1894, eligible 1900.
Bob Caruthers retired in 1893 after playing 14 games in the outfield.

Another player to consider is shortstop Dickey Pearce, who I mentioned elsewhere. A couple pitchers who may deserve consideration are Larry Corcoran and the oft-maligned Candy Cummings.

My bad. I messed up on Mullane and Caruthers (and I checked Bob's pitching stats, too; he played OF only in 1893). By the way, Charlie Bennett isn't eligible yet either (unless we're going the Gehrig route due to his horrific train accident).

Bennett will be part of the bumper crop of new eligibles in 1899, along with O'Rourke, Kelly, Keefe, Caruthers, Stovey and Browning.

That's one of the reasons I picked 1898 as the starting year. Another reason is because 1892 marks the end of the 50-foot pitching distance.

Extremely preliminary:

1. Al Spalding
2. Ross Barnes
3. George Wright--these first three have very high peak value
4. Deacon White
5. George Gore--Gore/Hines, Hines/Gore, I can't decide
6. Charles Radbourn
7. Paul Hines
8. Hardy Richardson
9. Mickey Welch
10. Pud Galvin
11. Charley Jones
12. Cal McVey
13. Ned Williamson
14. Tommy Bond
15. Lip Pike--prominent as early as 1866 as I understand it, played mostly IF for entire career, but mostly CF in NA

Suggested Provisional Ballot:

CATCHER
1. Fred Carroll (LF Also)
2. Cal McVey (1B Also)
3. John Clapp
4. Jack O'Brien (1B Also)

1ST BASE
1. Dave Orr
2. Joe Start
3. John Reilly
4. John Morrill (3B Also)

2ND BASE
1. Hardy Richardson (LF Also)
2. Fred Dunlap
3. Ross Barnes
4. Hub Collins (LF Also)
5. Yank Robinson
6. Pop Smith (SS Also)
7. Jack Burdock

SHORTSTOP
1. George Wright
2. Frank Fennelly
3. Jack Rowe
4. Candy Nelson
5. Davy Force
6. John Peters

3RD BASE
1. Deacon White (C Also)
2. Ned Williamson (SS Also)
3. Ezra Sutton
4. Levi Meyerle ((2B Also)
5. Tom Burns (SS Also)

LEFT FIELD
1. Tip O'Neill
2. Charley Jones
3. Tom York
4. George Wood
5. Abner Dalyrmple
6. Emmett Seery
7. George Hall

CENTER FIELD
1. George Gore
2. Paul Hines
3. Jim McTamany
4. Ned Hanlon

RIGHT FIELD
1. Orator Shaffer
2. Chicken Wolf
3. Ed Swartwood
4. Dick Higham

PITCHERS
1. Charlie Radbourn
2. Tim Keefe
3. Pud Galvin
4. Jim McCormick
5. Mickey Welch
6. Al Spalding
7. Charlie Buffinton
8. Tommy Bond
9. Wil White
10.Larry Corcoran
11. Guy Hecker
12. Jim Whitney

Getting my list down to 15:

1. Dave Orr, 1B
2. Hardy Richardson, 2B
3. Deacon White, 3B/C
4. Ned Williamson, 3B/SS
5. George Wright, SS
6. Frank Fennelly, SS
7. Fred Carroll, C
8. Tip O'Neill, LF
9. Charly Jones, LF
10.George Gore, CF
11. Paul Hines, CF
12. Chicken Wolf, RF
13. Hoss Radbourn, P
14. Tim Keefe, P
15. Al Spalding, P

Dave Orr's career ended to a paralyzing stroke. (See link)

KOJK,

Not to gang up on your ballot but:

Frank Fennelly?

pretty hefty on peak value eh

With only 22 years of organized professional ball, only a very few players eligible at this time will have had anything even close to full careers. Cap Anson, who played in the National Association in 1871, and is a far better candidate than anyone on this ballot, won't even be eligible for several years.

If you don't go heavily skewed to peak, you'll be electing players who couldn't even carry the jockstrap of the players playing at the current time. And even these guys are (generally) quickly made obsolete... most of the players on the "top 5 eligibles by position" list were washed up or retired by the time they were 30, and hardly a man among them had ten good years. In most of those good years, they were playing very short seasons.

Sorry, "current time" meaning 1898, not 2003.

Sorry, "current time" meaning 1898, not 2003.

How many people are we going to elect? DanG's plan mentioned 1 (or 2), but Joe talked about electing 4 this first time. I would prefer electing only 1 or 2.

Frank Grant actually played at a high level through 1903, he was only "eligible" I think because originally we were going to start in 1910 or something... I forgot about that.

George Stovey is listed by Baseball Library as finishing in 1896, which I think is right, or at least close. So he wouldn't have been eligible either.

Speaking of pretty hefty, have you looked at Dave Orr's measurements?

5'11, 250 lbs. I guess they were more honest about this stuff then.

The average player during those times was 5'9 (compare to 6'1 today) and 170 lbs (compare to 195 today). To translate any player from then to today, add 4 inches to height and 15% to weight. (Anybody know how this compares to growth in the general population?)

Dave Orr translates to 6'3 and 285 lbs. Remind you of any modern 1Bman?

"I think KJOK's list of 15 is not in order of preference its in order of position. Check it out above Orr is first because he's a 1b and all of the Pitchers are last."

Yes, that is correct. Are we supposed to be putting the players in order??

I do have to take exception to the notion that Ezra Sutton was somehow better than Ned Williamson:

EQA
Williamson - .285
Sutton -.289 (with weaker competition)

Adj OPS
Williamson - 112
Sutton -119

TOTAL BASEBALL RATING
Williamson - 10
Sutton - 8

Wins Above Replacement-Position
Williamson - 79
Sutton - 77

Win Shares:
Williamson - 173
Sutton - 158

Bill James All-time ranking
Williamson - 45
Sutton - 98

Defensive Win Shares per 1000 innings
Williamson - 5.5
Sutton - 4.9

Baseball Prospectus Defensive Rating (100=Ave)
Williamson - 124
Sutton - 110

plus Williamson could play an adequate SS

Basically, Sutton was a slightly better hitter, but Williamson was a much better fielder and could hold down a more demanding defensive position.

MattB wrote:
"KJOK,Not to gang up on your ballot but:
Frank Fennelly?"

I'll admit Fennelly was my last choice added, but

1. SS was an important position in that era, and I only had George Wright as a SS on my ballot.

2. Fennelly played over 6,800 innings at SS, which I believe was only topped by Bill Gleason among potential candidates.

3. Fennelly had defensive winshares of 5.5/1000k innings and 106 BP Fielding Rating.

4. Fennelly could hit also - .294 EQA with 118 Adj OPS.

Who else would be a better 2nd SS selection? Other than maybe Jack Rowe, I don't see any...

KJOK,

Sorry. I also did not realize that you had not placed the candidates in order. The answer to your question is yes, they need to be ranked so that points can be allotted.

Frank Fennelly may very well be the best choice as second best shortstop of the era.

Where I am not convinced is that the second best shortstop is a better candidate to make the top 15 than, say, Joe Start (perhaps the second best first baseman) or Ross Barnes (perhaps the second best second baseman) or Ezra Sutton (perhaps the second best third baseman).

Here is a min-NA study I just did:

The question was raised about how to consider the Boston NA players (Spalding, Barnes, Wright, etc.) since they were essentially an all-star team, and never had to play against each other.

What I did was look at every Boston game against the team that finished second that year (except 1871, where I looked at games against Philadelphia, who finished first.) Thank you Retrosheet.

These games should give a view of how the Boston players did against GOOD competition. (Note, I have no idea which players played which games, but overall, most probably played most.)

Here are the scores: (Boston's first)

1871: (Philadelphia Athletics)

11-8
8-20
23-7
17-14

Total: 59-49

1872: (Philadelphia Athletics)

7-10
13-4
1-9
16-4
4-6
10-8
10-0
1-5

Total: 62-46

1873: (Philadelphia White Stockings)

5-8
8-22
11-6
17-18
23-10
11-8
4-9
7-5
18-7

Total: 104-93

1874: (New York Mutuals)

12-3
11-4
20-14
9-5
11-19
2-5
9-8
8-9
5-8
3-4

Total: 90- 79

1875 (Philadelphia Athletics)

14-5
12-0
3-3
11-6
1-10
10-10
12-4
7-3
16-0
3-6
17-13
15-3

Total: 121-63

Looking at these numbers, it seems that offensively, Boston could take all comers. These games are littered with double digit runs. They scored 436 runs in 43 games, for better than 10 runs per game.

Over those 5 years, Boston scored 3,227 runs in 292 games, which is almost exactly 11 runs per game.

Offensively, therefore, playing the second best team only cost Boston one run per game.

Al Spalding pitched well over 90% of Boston's innings in these years, and well over 90% each individual year except 1875, so looking at Spalding stats against team pitching stats shouldn't be too out of line.

Boston gave up 330 runs is 43 games. That's a run per game average of 7.67.

Over those 5 years, Al Spalding gave up 1553 runs in 2,347.7 IP, for a 5.95 Run Average. Against the best competition, therefore, Spalding gave up almost 2 runs per game more than he did against the league as a whole.

Overall, I would conclude that not having to face McVey, Barnes, and Wright helped Spalding significantly more than not having to face Spalding helped McVey, Barnes, and Wright.

I don't have an opinion re. Tip O'Neill just yet, but re. the AA and Tip's peak seasons, all his black ink are in '86-'87-'88 (in '87 he was the only major leaguer in history, to this day, to lead his lead in all three species of XBH). Here are the league ratings:

86 N -.009 AA -.008
87 N -.001 AA -.007
88 N -.002 AA -.009

.00 = 1881 NL. With the advent of two leagues, both were down relative to earlier. Tip led the AA in RBI the one year the AA was stronger. His really big year '87, the AA was not better.

Re. Radbourn, the HoF enshrined him very early ('39) and all the other guys (Clarkson, Keefe, Welch, Galvin) waited until after 1960. But I've been downgrading him. I agree his '84 season may be the best ever, but look at how fast his ERA+ (by season) fall off (in numerical, not chronological order):

Radbourn 206-151-134-133-122-113-109-106-nothing else over 100
Keefe 170-157-138-138-138-134-126-121-119-114-104
Galvin 158-127-118-117-117-115-114-111-101
Welch 160-142-130-119-117-114-112-111
Clarkson 163-153-150-147-146-139-131-115-110-103

Everything after 2 years Clarkson has a big edge, everything after 4 years ditto for Keefe, everything after 5 years Galvin and Welch are his equals. Granted Clarkson and Keefe are not on the ballot yet but that is just because they were better longer. Even voting in 1898, we would know that significantly better pitchers who were his almost exact contemporaries are coming up on the ballot. DOB:

Clarkson 1861, Galvin '56, Keefe '57, Radbourn '54, Welch '59. Yet Clarkson was pitching in the NL within one year of Radbourn. Galvin started in '75, the others all in '80-'82.

I would rather support a pitcher like Spalding (and maybe, stressing maybe Bond) who clearly stood out among his peers rather than a guy like Radbourn who is only #3 among his peers. And note that even Bond faced tougher competition that Radbourn did in '84:

78 N -.005
79 N -.004
80 N .002
81 N .000
82 N .002 AA -.037
83 N -.003 AA -.027
84 N -.008 AA -.026 U -.065

Joe, unfortunately we don't have league strength numbers for the NA. But working backwards from 1876, one might guess (and it is nothing more than a guess) that the NA was perhaps -.020 to -.030 vs. the 1881 NL. That makes it comparable to the early and late AA.

76 N -.013
77 N -.014
78 N -.005
79 N -.004
80 N .002
81 N .000 - I referenced all to 1881 NL
82 N .002 AA -.037
83 N -.003 AA -.027
84 N -.008 AA -.026 U -.065
85 N -.007 AA -.015
86 N -.009 AA -.008
87 N -.001 AA -.007
88 N -.002 AA -.009
89 N .004 AA -.005
90 N -.005 AA -.036 P .001
91 N .009 AA -.024
92 N .010
93 N .011
94 N .011
95 N .010
96 N .012
97 N .015
98 N .020
99 N .021

But there is a very important difference between the NA and the early and late AA, even assuming that their numerical strength was indeed equal, and it is this: In the early and late '80s, the AA did NOT represent the state of the art. Neither actually did the NL. The state of the art was represented by some NL teams and players and some (fewer) AA teams and players. A player who was, say, 20 percent above the norm in the AA was not a good as a player who was 20 percent above the norm in the NL. A player who earned 25 WS in the AA was not as good as one who earned 25 WS in the NL, and so on. The AA as a whole represented a second tier of play.

Assuming the NA was equivalent to the early and late AA, the NA was, however, the state of the art. It's players were generally the best players in America. A player performing at 20 percent above the league had no peer anywhere else.

That makes an NA player "better" in my way of thinking than an otherwise equivalent player in the AA.

Obviously I cannot make the same argument for the NA vs. the NL, but I think the best players in the NA deserve some credit for being the greatest players in America.

Here's my preliminary 1898 ballot.

1. Deacon White
2. Paul Hines
3. George Gore
4. George Wright
5. Ross Barnes
6. Ezra Sutton
7. Hardy Richardson
8. Al Spalding
9. Jim McCormick
10. Ed Williamson
11. Fred Dunlap
12. Mickey Welch
13. Pud Galvin
14. Hoss Radbourn
15. Cal McVey

Here's my preliminary 1898 ballot:

HINES, PAUL
WHITE, DEACON
BARNES, ROSS
RADBOURN, OLD HOSS
SPALDING, AL
GORE, GEORGE
GALVIN, PUD
WELCH, MICKEY
H.RICHARDSON
MCCORMICK, JIM
WHITE, WILL
BUFFINTON, CHARLIE
CORCORAN, LARRY
BOND, TOMMY
ORR, DAVE

My preliminary ballot:

1. Paul Hines
2. Deacon White
3. Ezra Sutton
4. Hardy Richardson
5. George Gore
6. Joe Start
7. Al Spaulding
8. Ross Barnes
9. George Wright
10.Cal McVey
11.Charley Radbourn
12.(N)ed Williamson
13.Pud Galvin
14.Jim McCormick
15.Lip Pike

My preliminary ballot.

1. Deacon White
2. Paul Hines
3. George Gore
4. Al Spalding
5. Hardy Richardson
6. Ezra Sutton
7. Ross Barnes
8. George Wright
9. Ned Williamson
10. Hoss Radbourn
11. Joe Start
12. Charley Jones
13. Pud Galvin
14. Abner Dalrymple
15. Tip O'Neill

After reading some excellent points above and rethinking some guys, here's my real preliminary ballot, this time in order:

1. Charley Radbourn, P
2. Tony Mullane, P
3. Hardy Richardson, 2B
4. Deacon White, 3B/C
5. Dave Orr, 1B
6. George Gore, CF
7. Tip O'Neill, LF
8. Joe Start, 1B
9. Pud Galvin, P
10.Fred Carroll, C
11.Jim McCormick, P
12.Orator Shaffer, RF
13.Paul Hines, CF
14.Michey Welch, P
15.Al Spalding, P

Sorry about posting another list again, but I accidently left off a three 1870's guys that I definitely think belong which, due to trying to balance positions, is going to push a couple of guys off my list:

1. Charley Radbourn, P
2. Tony Mullane, P
3. Hardy Richardson, 2B
4. Deacon White, 3B/C
5. George Wright, SS
6. Ross Barnes, 2B
7. Dave Orr, 1B
8. George Gore, CF
9. Charley Jones, LF
10. Joe Start, 1B
11. Pud Galvin, P
12.Jim McCormick, P
13.Paul Hines, CF
14.Mickey Welch, P
15.Al Spalding, P

Lip Pike was born 1845 and a noted player as early as 1866. He was 26 when the NA was started and had an NA OPS+ of 161. He was 31 when the NL was formed and had an NL OPS+ of 152 over three years through age 33 (not counting 6 later games). He played about 325 of about 425 NA and NL games in CF, but apparently played most 2B and SS previously.

Dickey Pearce was born in 1836, and thus was 35 when the NA was formed. He played SS throughout his career and led the NA in FA twice. His OPS+ was just 84, but he was at 100 and 109 at age 38 and 39. He played 33 games in the NL finishing up at age 41 but his NL OPS+ was just 44.

I posted a very preliminary ballot a few days ago, here's how it is evolving.

1. Paul Hines. Up from 7th. What can I say, his NA years boost him above Gore (and all) now that I look at them and the whole package a lot closer.
2. Al Spalding. Down from 1st but still the giant of the first decade. The guy George and Harry Wright almost add up to.
3. Deacon White. Up from 4th, but no peak, I wish there was somebody worth putting ahead of him.
4. George Gore. Up from 5th due to a lack of competition more than anything else.
5. Charles Radbourn. Up from 6th. Not half the pitcher John Clarkson was, nor three-quarters of Tim Keefe. Good thing we're only electing four.
6. Hardy Richardson. Up from 8th. A solid player, but don't forget he only played 41 fewer games in the OF than at 2B.
7. Cal McVey. Extra credit: Red Stockings in '69, still OPS+ 134 in 1879. Still better than most when he quit the NL and played all over the West long after.
8. Charley Jones. Up from 11th even after I discounted his AA years somewhat, but OPS+ 150 hard to beat.
9. Dave Orr. Not in my previous 15, but OPS+ 162 also hard to beat even for another AA guy. This is the guy Tip O'Neill wanted to be.
10. Lip Pike. Up from 15th. Prominent as early as 1866 as I understand it, played mostly IF but CF in NA. OPS+ 152. This is the guy Joe Start wanted to be.
11. Ross Barnes. Down all the way from 2nd. I've always been a big Barnes fan and I don't discount the fair/foul thing. It's just that he declined so young, and it's not like he played much before '71.
12. Larry Corcoran. Not on previous 15, he leapfrogged a lot of pitchers: Only Spalding on this ballot has better ERA+ and his 5 year consecutive peak is better than anybody but Albert Goodwill.
13. Ezra Sutton. Not on previous 15, but you guys are wearing me down. Better than Williamson (just a little) after I looked at the NA.
14. George Wright. All the way down from 3rd. On closer look, the numbers just aren't there, and I think he sometimes gets credit for brother Harry's pioneering work.
15. Ed Williamson. The numbers just aren't there but how come some of the old timers said he was the best player of the 19th century? Gotta respect that.

Mickey Welch, Pud Galvin and Tommy Bond drop off the list. Galvin the Rusty Staub of pitchers, looooooong but not really distinguished career. Bond dominant for awhile but finished at OPS+ 110. Welch never that dominant and 114 just doesn't cut it.

I can change my mind until when?

Brian H. wrote
"KJOK - I don't think Mullane is technically elgible this ballot."

You're right, of course, which means another revision to my preliminary ballot...

Here is my preliminary ballot. I gave considerable credit to fielding and a little less to pitching. Also I lean slightly towards high peak versus longevity.

1. White
2. Hines
3. Gore
4. Barnes
5. Sutton
6. Start
7. Wright
8. Spalding
9. Williamson
10. Radbourne
11. Pike
12. York
13. Richardson
14. Jones
15. Galvin

I still don't have a preliminary ballot yet. I keep getting stuck with "A is better than B and B is better than C, but C is better than A" problems.

And that doesn't even include the pitchers I have randomly inserted throughout the Top 15 on the theory that some pitchers were probably better than some hitters, but most of them probably weren't.

I hope to have something post-worthy soon that doesn't include Buck Ewing twice (or even once, actually).

Also, when did we decide actually balloting would start?

When are final 1898 ballots due? Due we post them here or at yahoogroups?

"I guess when it came down to it, I decided that his pitching record in those days was indicative of someone who was the 3rd or 4th best pitcher in baseball for a period of 15 straight years or so."

But there are only 6 years where he is in the top 4 in wins, 1 year where he is in the top 4 in ERA, and 2 years where he is in the top 10 in ERA+. It looks to me that if you took out his best year (1884), his ERA+ wouldn't even break 100, and even in his best year, he was not as good as Radbourne (who won every 1884 category). And 1884 was diluted by the existence of 3 major leagues.

I see lots of wins and lots of losses. He's basically Bobby Mathews with longer seasons in which to rack up more wins and more losses. Why do I want him on my team rather than, say, Jim McCormick or Mickey Welch.

I would agree that he was "about average, give or take" for 15 years, but not one of the best.

Further point for consideration re. 1880s pitchers. Almost every single one of them had a career year in '84. The good ones went to work for the credible teams that year and all five HoFers except Clarkson (14 games) beat the hell out of the also-rans.

Keefe (37-17, ERA+ 138)
Galvin (46-22, 158)
Welch (39-21, 119)
Radbourn (59-12, 2.06).

Plus Corcoran (35 wins)
McCormick (mediocre in NL, then 21-3, 166 in UA)
Buffinton (48-16, 135)
Will White (34-18 but just 101 in AA)
Whitney (23-14, 138)
Hecker 52-20, 172

And then at least one of the guys not yet on the ballot:

Mullane 36-26, 135 in AA

Some of these guys had other big years or even a better year or two, but some never did. For a guy like Radbourn, take this season out of his record and he's somewhere between Wayne Garland and Jim Lonborg, maybe Spud Chandler but nowhere near Ed Reulbach. You gotta discount '84 pretty good.

1. Hines
2. Gore
3. Williamson. Joe you are wrong on the Williamson/Sutton debate. Your hyper-adjusted stats are leading the electorate down a path towards an egregiously errant selection. Should we choose to enshrine Sutton ahead of Williamson, our HoM will start with a flaw not unlike the HOF selection Tommy McCarthy. James cites an 1894 poll where 3 of 11 contemporary eyewitness experts select Williamson as the greatest PLAYER they ever saw. They aren’t merely suggesting that Williamson is better than Sutton, they are saying he was better than Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Ewing, White, etc. That is why James ranks Williamson so much higher than Sutton, not because he got lazy or is brainless (inferred by his disagreement with your “no brainer”) . In the original HBA, he cites a 1938 poll seeking to identify the greatest 3B ever – Williamson is listed as receiving consideration, Sutton is not. James also names Williamson to his 1880’s Gold Glove team. We all take our baseball history seriously and I am sure most of us have cherished the works of Bill James. His analytical tools are the building blocks we are working with. We accept as fact his theories on the defensive spectrum and shifts in the defensive spectrum. To reject his findings that may reflect a little subjectivity as lazy is wrong.
4. Richardson
5. Radbourne
6. O’Neill
7. White
8. Jones
9. Dalrymple
10. Bond
11. Dunlap
12. Galvin
13. Sutton
14. Welch
15. Robinson – because James puts him over 40 places above Barnes.

Dan B-
I rely on James (and worship at his alter etc.) as much as the next guy but I'm not sure he even considered NA achievments much in his ratings. We should recognize that as a limitation (for our HOM purposes) and not tacitly shaft the NA guys because James didn't include their achievments in his ratings. (This is evidenced by the fact that he never figured out Win Shares for the NA seasons)
That said I'd still take Williamson over Sutton.

By the way Dan B. who is your #15 "Robinson" ?

I can't resist a couple obsevations about the consensus thus far.

I don't think I'm prejudicing anyone by stating the obvious, that Paul Hines and Deacon White are dominating most ballots. Seven others who have gained strong support are (alphabetically) Barnes, Gore, Radbourne, Richardson, Spalding, Sutton and Wright.

Ten others also have significant advocates for their election: Galvin, Jones, McCormick, McVey, O'Neill, Orr, Pike, Start, Welch and Williamson.

Half of those latter ten will quickly fade when the newcomers for the 1899 election hit the ballot (O'Rourke, Kelly, Keefe, Caruthers, H.Stovey, Bennett and Browning). I think things are shaping up wonderfully.

That could only be William H. "Yank" Robinson to which I must say, huh? James has Yank as his #86 2B with 131 WS and a peak at 24-21-20/101. Didn't know he had Barnes at #126. Now it's true that his adjusted WS add up to 168-37-24-24 and 130, but yahoo. He played from 1982 to '92, mostly AA except 78 games in the NL and, oh yeah, 102 in the UA in '84, where he racked up an impressive OPS+ of 100. Yes, this man was an average offensive player in the UA.

And for his career, in fairness in career OPS+ is 101. And his FR is minus 124.

Let's be honest. I love Bill James and WS, too, but James as much as said he didn't give a d**n nor know a d**n about the 19th century. The proof is right here, Yank Robinson #86 and Fred Dunlap #89.

Dunlap career WS (unadjusted) 165 peak 38-17-17/100 and 27.7/162
Robinson career 131 peak 24-21-20/101 and 21.7/162

In 1884 both played in the UA: Dunlap OPS+ 213 Robinson 100. Get this, both men were 25 years old in '84.

After 1884 Robinson played about 850 games (career total 978) at OPS+ 101. After 1884 Dunlap played another 500 games (career total 965) at OPS+ 132. Dunlap's career FA was .924, Robinson's .883, Dunlap's fielding runs were farther above +100 than Robinson's were below -100.

But James wrote a long essay about the UA not qualifying as a major league (and he is of course right) and so goes out of his way to goose Dunlap. He seems not to have noticed that Robinson spent that season in that minor league and then the bulk of his career in the weaker of the two continuing leagues, and to have done so at a lower level than Dunlap.

I see that you have Dunlap on your ballot four slots ahead of Robinson. If you dig Bill James you'll follow his lead on Dunlap, not on Robinson.

And generally there can be no question that he totally dismisses the 1870s. If you do that across the board and not just to Barnes, how do you get Hines #1?

I'm not sure that James dismisses the 70's -- just the first half of the 70's (the NA).
Hines' best seasons are 78 & 79 when he was James' best player in Baseball. Without the 1st part of the '70's Barnes' career is essentially two years (including the one great season) that's why James ignores him in his rankings (he similarly ignores Spalding).

My understanding is that for us the NA years are open to consideration. And, to some extent, even the years preceding the 1870s can be considered. Unfortunately, I have found that the statistics from befoe the NA are virtually useless.

Still very preliminary, but though I'd throw something out there to work from.

Since we are electing 4, I concentrated most on the top of the ballot, thinking who should be inducted first. Deacon White and Paul Hines seem to be the best overall candidates, and the only ones who I had on my "Top 15" before the years got changed, so they clearly got the Top 2 slots.

After that, I thought that at least one pitcher from the era should be represented, so, still unclear how to rank pitchers against position players, I put Radbourn -- my top pitcher -- third. Al Spalding, my #2 pitcher, therefore drops a few notches. For fourth place, I put my top "early" player. Barnes and Wright were about even, but Wright gets extra pre-NA points so squeeks by Barnes.

The rest of my Top 10, I did the same thing: 5-8 are four more "overall best candidates", and then 9 and 10 are my #2 "early guy" and #2 pitcher.

11-15 are the guys who are left who are not very well ranked at the moment.

1. Paul Hines
2. Deacon White
3. Charley Radbourn
4. George Wright
5. George Gore
6. Ezra Sutton
7. Ned Williamson
8. Tip O'Neill
9. Ross Barnes
10. Al Spalding
11. Hardy Richardson
12. Charley Jones
13. Joe Start
14. Cal McVey
15. Jim McCormick

Here's my prelimanary ballot:

I separated my ballot into 3 groups: (1-4) clearly deserving HoMers, (5-9) players making a good case for the HoM, (10-15) players of which I?m not completely convinced.

1. Hines --- Highest peak (if not Barnes) and highest career value. Very good defense at key position
2. White --- Consistently very good offense at very demanding positions. Especially comparing his offense to an average catcher his value becomes apparent. Lack of peak leaves him behind Hines.
3. Gore --- Great 5 year peak, just behind Hines, though better defense at a key position
4. Barnes --- Game’s top all-round player for a 6 year period. That should do it.

5. Sutton --- Very good defense at tough defensive position. Good offense, high career value
6. Wright --- Great peak in NA at the most demanding position. Short career drops him below Sutton
7. Start --- Great career at an old age. Uncertainty about pre-NA years and thus no visible peak drop him slightly
8. Williamson --- Great glove, good offense for a 19th century 3B, though shorter career than Sutton
9. Richardson --- Long consistent career. Most playing time at 2B/LF less demanding defensive positions than those above him.

10. Radbourne --- Praised for 1 tremendous season. Other than that a very good, but not great career
11. McVey
12. Pike --- May well have been best player in baseball pre-NA.
13. Spalding --- I put him here mainly for his accomplishments with the bat
14. York
15. Jones --- Great peak, dropped a bit because of AA

Just off the ballot: Welch, Galvin, Dunlap, O’Neill, Dalrymple, Orr, Bond, McCormick

"I've reviewed Pud Galvin's case...and I'm not any smarter. I can't figure these guys out. I like him, I think he matches up to a Gaylord Perry or something, but I don't know how to judge the early pitchers, and neither does anyone else."

I don't think it was the comparison to Gaylord Perry that we were questioning. It was the comparison to his contemporaries. The issue is, given Galvin, Radbourn, Spalding, McCormick, Welch, and Mathews, rank them 1 to 6. Many of us have some combination of Radbourn, Spalding, McCormick, and Welch as 1 through 4.

Those names in that ordering are by no means set in stone. But given that general preference, we were curious how your rankings had Galvin jumping to the top. You explained why you thought Galvin was qualified, but the question is what makes him more qualified than the other eligible pitchers?

Just to clarify for Deacon White, he played 7,243 NL Innings at 3B. He played 3,756 NL an NA innings combined at C. I understand trying to adjust for some of the shorter NA seasons, but I think it's giving a false picture of Deacon White being a Catcher when most of his actual playing time was as a 3rd baseman...

George Gore Comments.
There seems to be a lot of support for Hines, when Gore may actually be the better player.

They were basically contemporaries. Although Hines did play longer on both ends of his career, Gore actually had MORE playing time in the middle of career seasons when they both played, a fact that is somewhat skewed by the "short-season" adjustments.

Just some facts to consider:

1. Gore has an EQA of .315 vs. .304 for Hines.
2. Gore has an adjusted OPS of 136 vs. 130 for Hines.
3. Gore has a "HOF Standard Score" of 31 vs. 28 for Hines.
4. Gore has a "HOF Monitor Score" of 55 vs. 50 for Hines.
5. Peak 5 year Win Shares (NA not incl) - Gore -111, Hines - 98
6. Win Shares Per Year (NA not incl) - Gore - 30.9, Hines - 27.2
7. Bill James Ranking - Gore- 40, Hines - 53
8. Def Wins Share/1000 Innings - Gore 4.4, Hines - 3.4

Hines may be a worthy candidate, but Gore should be right up there with him...

Also, to pile back on the Williamson vs. Sutton debate, Baseball Prospectus rates Williamson's 3B defense as 124 (24% above average), which is the highest rating I can find for any 3B (incl Brooks Robinson, Schmidt, etc.) except for Joe Battin, an 1870's guy who played less than half the innings at 3B that Williamson did. Win Shares rates his defense at 5.5/1000 innings, which would be only behind Lave Cross, Jimmy Collins, Tommy Leach & Art Devlin (all of whom fall considerably behind Williamson in the BP system). So, the evidence points to Williamson being equiv. to Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski on defense at his position...

KJOK et al :
The difference between Gore and Hines seems to be that Gore's NL career is worth more but Hines has a NA career that we must account for. Also, Hines had at least 2 seasons when he was (omitting Pitchers) the BEST player Gore may have had one (this is from James).
Yet again the issue is how we treat NA achievments which are harder to evaluate versus NL (or at least post NL achiebments).

With Deacon White this is also a problem. Many of his Catching points are derived from his NA sesons which were shorter. In fact as pointed out above he really played alot more 3B than Catcher (this is why James, who ignores the NA, ranks him as a 3B).

How do we want to evaluate NA acheivments as opposed to post 1876 achievements ?
If we accept James as gospell -- generally not the worst idea but here rather dangerous -- we tacitly ignore the NA because he did.

To follow up on my preliminary ballot posted last night, the inclusion of Yank Robinson was intended as a tongue in cheek reminder to all voters holding a high view of Ross Barnes that Bill James refused to put him in his list of the top 125 2B. Yank won�t be on my final ballot. My view on the matter would be that when you accept his exclusion of all NA accomplishments, James makes a valid point to not recognize Barnes on the basis of one great season (of just 66 games) in what would be the weakest year ever over the context of 125 years of baseball. But I also recognize that our context is much different. We are dealing with just 17 years of evolving major league baseball plus the 5 years of the NA. We are choosing from short careers played over short seasons. The best players were all still active in 1893, and therefore ineligible for our first ballot. As poor a choice as I think Barnes would be, it will be difficult to find fifteen players to place ahead of him on our opening ballot.

Do I have to list 15?

Revisiting the controversy over Ross Barnes. Perhaps no other player on the first ballot will garner as wide a variance in support. Many see him as a top five candidate, a deserving HoMer. Others see him as barely deserving of a vote, either due to his brief career or the slam from Bill James.

I used to be persuaded by James' idea that Barnes was nothing more than a "one trick pony", learning to take advantage of a rule that is not "baseball as we know it". Two things persuade me otherwise: 1) There is every indication that Barnes was a superior fielder. Total Baseball has him first or second in the league in fielding runs every year of the NA. 2) He was one of the league's top sluggers, leading the league in extra base hits three times, and finishing runnerup in another year.

The evidence also indicates that it was injuries, not any rules change, that led to his shortened career. Maybe think of a comparison to Alex Rodriguez. If injuries had ended ARod's career after last season, would you think of him as deserving (forget the 10-year rule) to be in the Hall? Or if Barry Bonds was done after the 1993 season? I think that's about how dominant Barnes was in his time.

Bill James dismisses the first generation of major league stars, saying "I regard the entire generation as suspect, and I will only rate the legitimate stars among them". He considers the 1870s to be strictly minor league baseball. There's two problems with that, mentioned here before, IIRC: 1) This was the highest level the game was played at the time (unlike Buzz Arlett's competition in a later era). Can we penalize a great player for being born too soon to play in the "real majors"? 2) Many young stars of the NA remained stars as the game developed through the 70s and into the 1880's. They could still compete as the game became "major".

The bottom line, while James' arguments may be full of holes, I think Barnes' career was just a little too brief to be a top five candidate in 1898.

I would like to point out that in this era of 1-3 man pitching staffs how well a pitcher hits is important because of the large variance in this ability. Here are some stats from 1883:

ER..IP..ERA

That's interesting. Have you done the same for other pitchers. I am particularly interested in Spalding.

Dan b, the constitution states that you don't need to list 15 players on your ballot.

1898 ballot

1. Paul Hines - I agree with those who say Gore is very close, but in part I want a true pioneer of pro baseball in the No. 1 slot.

Joe,

Just a question on the posting of ballots. As I understand it, we should post on a thread at BBPrimer rather than on the yahoo list. This may not be something to worry about, but anyone with a web browser can come here and place a ballot. Not that I think there is a really huge crowd of people looking to join all of a sudden, but I'd rather not have my ballot devalued because some people decided on the spur of the moment to place a vote.

Is there any way to check that someone voting here is actually registered to vote? I'd personally rather vote here than on yahoo. I come to BaseballPrimer almost every day, and almost never go to yahoo.

I suppose we can all include our e-mail addresses and you can cross-reference that with the yahoo list.

Hey, Rick, I registered at least three months ago, if that's what you mean ;)

But I see the point....

Joe,

Like I said, I may be worrying for nothing. If people have to explain their ballot and not just list 1-15, that may take care of it. I really don't care if someone is registered to vote or not. I just wanted to make sure that people who vote have thought through their ballot and didn't just throw 15 names together.

Interesting perspective by TomH on career vs. peak.

A couple of points on Spalding: I've been reading a biography of him published around 15-20 years ago. According to that, by 1874 he was the highest paid player on Boston's "All-Star" team (including Barnes, Wright, O'Rourke, White, McVey). When he jumped to Chicago in 1876, he got a share of the gate receipts as part of the deal. He also wound up with a piece of the team (no details given, unfortunately). He became the front-office (club secretary; team management was much less complex back then) when he stepped down as player/field manager in 1877. He made much more money cashing in on his fame than he did actually playing baseball. (baseball book publishing, and

Excellent discussion. I don't like penalizing these guys for doing what most people who had their intelligence and their options would have done.

Great analogy (I think). During WW2, basketball was revolutionized by really TALL players. Everybody knows George Mikan (6-10) because he happened to choose to go play pro ball in the NBL and then the NBA. Nobody today knows Bob Kurland (7 feet) who went to work for the Phillips Petroleum Company and played for the Phillips 76ers "amateur" team in the National Industrial Basketball League (and as a result, later won two Olympic golds). Kurland probably made almost as much money as Mikan as an employee of Phillips and had a job that he could keep at until he was 55 years old rather than be forced to retire at 30-35. It was an economically superior opportunity at that time. But because of the choices they made, one is well remembered, the other pretty much forgotten.

That doesn't change the fact that Kurland was a better player. His team, Oklahoma A&M;(now State) won the NCAA title both his junior and senior years. In their senior years, Mikan's DePaul team declined to play in the NCAA in favor of the then more-prestigous NIT, which DePaul won. In the NCAA-NIT playoff game, Oklahoma State easily beat DePaul and Kurland dominated Mikan, in fact fouling Mikan out in less than 20 minutes.

Spalding was pretty much Bob Kurland, a giant of his time. That he made a more economically attractive choice than playing baseball after 1876 does not negate his ability or achievements.

These appear to be the major candidates for consideration for adding to the 1899 ballot (aside from players who were eligible in 1898, but didn't make your top 15.)

Charlie Bennett

mattb-

Matt and Rob, right on every count. Browning in '99. Where did the list come from? Can you enlighten us further re. other 1900 and '01 eligibles? We received a list long ago starting in '06 but I have not seen a list of priors.

Heck, Joe, that's just a three hour delay...no apology needed, really!

BB-Ref now gives you a list of every player who played his final game each season. The above link will take you to the 1893 retirees. Of course, you still have to do a little research to find guys like Browning and Jim O'Rourke, who are also eligible in 1899, though they played their final game later on.

Another strong crop enters the ballot in 1900 with John Clarkson, John Ward and Tony Mullane leading the way.

The 1901 newcomers are less stellar, led by Jack Glasscock, Oyster Burns and Dave Foutz.

Yeah, I completely missed Jim O'Rourke. He should definitely be eligible.

I just ran through the "Last Year Played" column of b-r.

With four inductees in 1898, I was curious whether I would be including four of the new eligibles on my ballot, or if number 16 on my list would get a chance to move up.

Pete Browning, Jim O'Rourke, King Kelly, and Tim Keefe look like definite Top 15ers. Charlie Bennett and Harry Stovey, too, actually, although at first glance they'd be down-ballot.

With 6 new names to intersperse somehow (give or take one or two), it looks like about of my Top 15 will be bumped off (assuming that all of the first inductees were somewhere on my ballot, which seems fairly likely). That means striking at least Pud Galvin and Charley Jones, which I am okay with. Right now, I can't think of a seventh person who would bump off my #13 candidate (Tip O'Neill). If a seventh comes along, I'd probably leave O'Neill on and drop the next higher pitcher (Jim McCormick), leaving the pitching/hitting ratio intact.

We will now be selecting 20 (or maybe it's 19) players by 1906. Let's just say for the sake of argument that these might have been the top 20 players who were on the previous 1906 ballot when we were going to start in 1906.

Roger Connor Dan Brouthers Cap Anson Jim O'Rourke John Clarkson King Kelly Deacon White Buck Ewing Amos Rusie Paul Hines Jack Glasscock John Ward Tim Keefe Hoss Radbourne George Gore Sam Thompson Bid McPhee Ross Barnes Al Spalding

If it plays out this way, then only the first four (in 1898) and two others from the 1898 ballot will make it by then. How many will make it after 1906? The newly eligible list after 1906 is frankly a little weak but our number of electeds drops mostly to one per year: 1907 Hamilton, 1908 Childs (holdover from 1906) or Jennings, 1909 Delahanty, 1910 open unless McGraw (I doubt it), 1911 Nichols and maybe Burkett, 1912 open unless Clark Griffith (no), 1913 Beckley (no), 1914 J. Collins, 1915 G. Davis, Dahlen, 1916 Flick, Joss, Keeler, Waddell?, 1917 Cy Young, 1918 open, 1919 Chance?, 1920 open, 1921 open, 1922 3 Brown, Lajoie, Mathewson, 1924 Crawford, Wagner, Walsh...now it's over for the early guys.

So, anyway, the 1898 guys will mostly have to wait until 1912-13-18 but will get chances then. Overall, however, I doubt that more than 9-10 of our 1898 ballot will get in. Even electing 4 in '98, some guys in the 1898 top 15 will never again make the top 15.

I dunno Tom, it looks to me like a two-possession game, but only if a certain player should get shut out completely on those two possessions, which seems unlikely. It would be a hell of an upset, baabeee!

I agree with Joe, except I would add that, yes, the HoF overrated the pitchers of the '80s. If pitching 5000 innings and winning 300 games was so tough, how come 5 guys did it? Though I think the same question can legitimately be asked of the deadball era--how come so many pitchers had such great records? Were they all really the best pitchers of all-time? It will be interesting to see how the conventional wisdom plays out at different times. But for the 1870s and '80s, I think we've got it right. The real HoF in the 1930s didn't know how to evaluate 19th century players--they didn't even have the numbers and so generally they picked the guys who had the highest peaks (Radbourn over Clarkson, etc., except Barnes).

I would add that the NA was not considered (and I think technically still is not considered) a "major league" by the baseball establishment. Likewise the Negro Leagues were apparently not up for discussion. Otherwise Rube Foster and Pop Lloyd -- to name just a couple -- would have been very strong candidates. Also, we have more statistics from those early days today than any voter had in the 1930's.

Also, as I recall, players like G. Wright and Candy Cummings were honored largely as "innovators"/"originators" which is not an express part of our criterion ("merit"). Nonetheless the orignal voters botched up the innovators/originators by neglecting Harry Wright.

Looking ahead to 1899 (that's kind of funny) - Is it within the

Looking ahead to 1899 (that's kind of funny) - Is it within the

Can someone explain Joe Start to me? One of the things Im doing in preparing my 1899 vote is looking at the players who werent in my top 15 of 1898 who got strong support. Assuming Start doesnt make it in as of 1898, he is getting the strongest support of the guys I didnt vote for. I understand wanting to adjust for his "late start"/pre-1871 play, and it might make more sense if he was one of the top players of 1871-1873. But, he doesnt show anything resembling quality until 1874. After that he is consistently good, with no big peak. I would like to adjust for pre-1871, but I think I would need to assume play at the 1871-1873 level.

To me, he looks like a 1870's version of Jeff Fassero. Okay, maybe that isnt fair, he was better (although the pitcher/hitter comparison isnt the best) than Fassero. However, Jeff got to his performance level at age 28, not age 31.

If anyone has any evidence that 1871-1873 was just fluke down years (it was only 141 games) and not his pre-1874 level of performance, please post it. After re-evaluating, I think Start is about 17/18 on my 1898 list, and in the 20s for 1899.

I am also startled by the amazing amount of both agreement and dissent.

By my count so far (without naming names), only four players have been named on every ballot, and just one more is named on every ballot but one.

Not surprisingly (based on the gap between on-ballot and off-ballot worked into the point system), these persons are the current top 5.

On the other hand, the rest of the top 10-15 are all omitted on multiple ballots. The points are close enough together than a few persons chosing to include or exclude a person as their 14th or 15th choice is sufficient to affect placement by a several points either way.

I do not see this as a problem (the system was set up explicitly to value consensus), but the moral appears to be that deciding who to fill in the last few spots on your ballot with will make a significant impact on the results.

More on Joe Start:

I have a problem with the Minoso comparison. At age 28, Minoso was playing at the level he would play at for the next ten years. Looking at WARP, Start was slightly above replacement level for 1871-1873, and then jumped up for 1874-1885. Those 12 years by themselves put him right at the edge of career value that I was considering for the HOM. Its amazing for the age he was. He averaged more than 4 WARP3 or less than 5 WARP1 for age 31 to 42. But, not having the numbers for pre 1871, I (personally, YMMV, etc) have to consider that his play then was more like 71-73 than 74-85. That plus the lack of a special peak keep him out of my top 15.

Minoso we know was a good player pre 1951 (Im ignoring his appearances in 1949). Then, in 1951, he immediately proved it at the major league level. If we had no other evidence, I would (and will) assume a normal aging process for Minoso and give him some credit for his mid 20s.

Start looks like one of those weird exceptions who finally put it together at a late age. Normally its pitchers who do this but, well,

One more thing about George Wright: He was considered the best player in baseball for a few years before the NA (which influenced my ranking of him). Considering that he was the best shortstop in the NA and for a few years in the NL, I would tend to believe the opinion of him back then.

"Best SS of the 1870's" is an oft-seen comment. Uh, so what? numbers don't lie.

As one who stated on his ballot "Best SS of the 1870s," let me just state that was only a description, not a reason in itself to honor Wright. Bert Campaneris was probably the best shortstop of the seventies: I have no intention of electing him on that basis.

As stated above, I included in my ranking Wright's Red Stocking work. I also took into account, besides a normal positional adjustment, a career adjustment for the position. Except for catchers, the attrition rate for shortstops was the worst of all position players. I know some here will disagree with this, but I'm comfortable with it.

And the first balloting closes when?

Incidentally, I expect the next voting to be perhaps the most important we ever do. We're doing fine picking our first four, but we REALLY need to figure out a solid pecking order for the next round. Every place an old-timer drops in the next balloting is one step closer to oblivion. Radbourn, Start, Williamson, etc: We'll have to fine-tune the judgement on each.........

It appears we are missing more than half of our members for this first election. What happened to them?

I also think that alot of people were intimidated by the task of trying to rank 19th century players. I myself am 28 years old, but I still feel extremely comfortable picking players from the 1930's and ranking them for all-time's sake. We have a wealth of information about these players and that increases the comfort level of just about everyone here. I personally wanted to be a part of this from the beginning, but will be very happy when we get 30 years into the future and I feel a little more comfortable in my knowledge of the players I am voting for. As it stands right now, I am fairly easily swayed by the arguments of others(if they make sense) and have not contributed to these arguments myself(for the most part). You can bet that when we get into the later years, I will be involved in some lengthy and passionate debates over this player or that. I'm just not sure enough of myself and my opinions of these 'really old-timers' to do that now. I think people will start to vote when we get into later seasons, particularly when we get the the players of the 60s, 70s and beyond. Just my take on the low turnout thus far. I am having fun learning about these players, despite my lack of confidence in ranking them.

Joe,

Reconstructed posts up to #98.

Reconstructed posts up to #98.

Reconstructed posts up to #98.