For karlmagnus.

The second coming of Bob Caruthers?

The second coming of Bob Caruthers?

I don't see it, Marc. He was a good pitcher and position player, which translates into a good player overall. I don't that's a HoMer, however. He's not remotely Caruthers, IMO.

Rick Ankiel's patron saint, perhaps :)

Just for the record, here's how I see his pitching.

1887--ERA+ 148 WS 54.

AA discount is about 5 percent, AA was pretty good. AdjERA+ 141. Then adjust the WS to 162 games BUT award half of the WS to the defense, which I do/did prior to 1893, you get 31 WS.

Adj ERA+ 141 AdjWS 31

Raw numbers 52 GS, 49 CG, 447 IP, 34-17, 2.94. Led the league in ERA, ERA+, OAB and OOV. Clearly the "CYA" winner.

1888--ERA+ 116 WS 30.

AA declining a bit, discount is 10 percent. Then adjust WS as above.

AdjERA+ 104 AdjWS 16

Raw numbers 40 GS, 37 CG, 348 IP, 22-17, 2.74, 116.

His pitching the rest of the way (1886, 1889, 1892-98) 19-23 in 44 GS, 36 CG, 13 relief appearances, ERA+ of 95, 80, 91, 117, 21, the latter two in one game each. He threw 203 IP in 1889 but with that 80 ERA+.

So the pitching part of the equation is one CYA year, another above average (#2-3 starter type) year, and that's about it. Better than George Van Haltren or George Sisler--i.e. twice as many innings as GVH and a 113-96 ERA+ edge. GVH was more of a #3-4 type guy for 3 years, which is not nothing. Sisler only threw 111 IP but with ERA+ 123. So I think the pitching factors in in a way GVH's doesn't but it's still just 2 real years.

I'll leave the hitting to others other than to say that Charlie Keller he ain't.

He's not Caruthers, who I regard as a top-100 player, but with the two extra credit years he's well above 300WS, even if you appropriatrely discount his pitching WS. In 1893, he's the Pirates' best player ahead of one of Beckley's best years, also in 1896 (Beckley had an off year.) I have to say, I think we missed him -- well ahead of Cupid Childs, on WS, and better hitter and much better pitcher than Van Haltreen, with career not much shorter if you add the 2 years. Anyway, thanks John, for the thread.

Somebody wanna transfer over to this thread the argument about the extra two years? I forget what the evidence is.

yeah, if that's ankiel time, should he be getting ex-cred? Or just chalking it up to developing his hitting/fielding game?

He's not Caruthers, who I regard as a top-100 player, but with the two extra credit years he's well above 300WS, even if you appropriatrely discount his pitching WS.

I'd like to see that info about those extra years.

I have to say, I think we missed him -- well ahead of Cupid Childs, on WS, and better hitter and much better pitcher than Van Haltreen, with career not much shorter if you add the 2 years.

...and he was also a better fielder than Ralph Kiner! ;-)

Seriously, Childs dominated his position to a far greater degree than Smith ever did, not to mention 300 WS from a 19th century outfielder/pitcher is not the same thing as from a middle infielder.

Anyway, thanks John, for the thread.

You're very welcome, karlmagnus. If I had been posting player threads back when he was initially eligible, he would have deserved one.

Well, his 2nd most similar batter is a Hall of Famer. Of course, it's Ross Youngs. (This is just trivia, I have no point.)

From "2004 Ballot Discussion"

22 Aug 2007
Mike Green
>>You guys probably know this, but in Mullane's big year (1887), the Red Stockings had 2 and 1/2 starters and Mullane was the 2nd best. The 19 year old left-hander Elmer Smith was the best. Smith ended up as an outfielder for the Pirates in the 1890s and was among the league leaders in OBP and slugging for several years, although he wasn't quite Ruthian.
<<

karlmagnus
>>Does he deserve minor league credit for 1890 and 1891, which should have been his prime years (and with 3 leagues, why wasn't he playing for somebody?)
<<

Paul Wendt
>>From "Elmer Smith" by Bob Tiemann in Nineteenth Century Stars (SABR, 1989).

"The sore shoulder reappeared in 1889 and Smith pitched less and less as the season progressed. Finally he was released in October." [Summary: He played 1890-91 in Kansas City, Western Association (the AA club of 1887-88?). As a pitcher 23-9, 1-4. As a batter, bat/slug .331/.512 and .314/.479]
. . .
"Elmer was sought after by several National League clubs. He signed with his hometown Pirates for 1892.
. . .
"Elmer was a fast runner and good base stealer, so he was used in the leadoff position a fair amount."
<<

karlmagnus
>>OK, deduct 10% from Elmer's 1890 and 1891 batting and slugging percentages we get 301/461 and 284/431 resectively. Comparing agianst the PL of 1890 gives an OPS+ of about 130, against the NL of 1891 gioves an OPS+ of about 139. That gives him 14 years of full-time play; adjust those to 130 game seasons (which I did for 19th century players gives him about 2140 hits at an OPS+ of 128-129 plus a pitching record of about 1400IP at an ERA+ of 113 and a W/L of about 96-72.

Elmer baby, you're on my ballot, albeit at the bottom of it. Only 97 years late.
<<

25 Aug 2007, Howie Menckel:
>>Here's one ESmith vote from 1907, from Clint:
11. Elmer Smith (--). This is really what you're missing because of my computer crash. I had an extensive discussion of Elmer that I won't repeat here. Here's a summary. Great pitcher in '87 -- tied for most win shares in baseball with Bob Caruthers. Did the Roy Hobbs thing, and came back with seven strong seasons as an outfielder. Great season in '92 as a slash. An MVP candidate in '93 (fouth among position players in baseball in win shares, and within 3 win shares of the leader). Also was in the top ten among position players in win shares in '96 and '98, and had some high quality years in '94-95 and '97 to fill in the seven year period. Not HoM worthy, but certainly ballot worthy.
<<

Not HoM worthy, but certainly ballot worthy.

I wouldn't argue with that point. Back in 1907, that is. ;-)