— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Hall of Fame’s 2006 Negro League Election
This is phenomenal news, especially this:
Written recommendations for inclusion on the ballots from fans, and historians not a part of the committees, will be accepted through the month of October. Recommendations can be sent by e-mail to info@baseballhalloffame.org, or can be submitted by mail to: Committee on African-American Baseball, 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. A letter or e-mail of receipt will acknowledge all proposals. All proposals will be made available to the Screening Committee and a final set will be kept for archival purposes.
A few of the committee members will be at the SABR Convention. I think it’s very obvious that we should submit something from our group of Negro League experts, recommending our electees to them. At the convention I will make a point of explaining the Hall of Merit to any of them that will listen, so they understand the context in which these players were elected - not just against each other, but also considered against white players of their eras as well.
Thanks to Chris J. for pointing this out!
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I also think that gives you a list of a reasonable finite length, and doesn't discriminate invidiously between them (I would not have voted for Johnson, for example -- my top 3 would be Torriente, Santop and Wilson, plus a sentimental vote for Grant because he was the ONLY NEL player in our consideration set (and on my ballot) for about 15 years.)
On my usuual demographic grounds, I would strongly oppose a longer list, which in any case can't be said to reflect a HOM consensus (and indeed, as I said elsewhere, I would oppose the HOF electing more than 5-7 more NEL players, and wish they'd throw out a couple of the ones they've elected already.)
======================================
Dear Hall of Fame Negro League Screening and Voting Committee Members,
We are writing to you in response to the National Baseball Hall of Fame’s announcement of your charge to examine players of color from the 1860–1960 period for possible induction. Our organization, the Hall of Merit, is a dedicated group of more than fifty baseball enthusiasts, researchers, and thinkers who have undertaken a lengthy deliberative process to honor the greatest players in the history of American baseball.
One of the key aspects of our election process is the consideration of pre-integration black and Latino players alongside their white contemporaries. Therefore, we are able to compare the relative merit of, say, Al Simmons and Turkey Stearnes. We have, to this point, elected numerous pre-integration black and Latino players, and what follows is a short list of those players whose careers we believe, based on our discussions, should be strongly considered by the committee for induction to Cooperstown.
Our discussions of all of these candidates and many others are publicly accessible at www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom. We hope that you will find this list helpful, and that you will visit the Hall of Merit online and see how we’ve gone about our work. If you have questions, you may contact members of the Hall of Merit any time via baseballthinkfactory.org’s email feature.
Finally, we intend to follow up this brief list by the announced October deadline with a longer elaboration on this clutch of candidates as well as many others, relating more about our methods, our findings, and the results of our voting.
Thank you for considering our group’s opinions and, most of all, for undertaking the important work of recognizing baseball’s forgotten superstars.
Yours sincerely,
The Members of the Hall of Merit
HOF: Hall of Fame Approves Election Process for Negro Leagues and Pre-Negro Leagues Candidates
C- Santop
1B- Suttles
2B- Grant
SS- Johnson
3B- Wilson, probably Beckwith
OF- Hill, Torriente
P- Brown
Could Wilson or Beckwith take a turn in the OF? Then, we've got a team! No DH for us, BTW. P Ray Brown once led the Cuban League in HR.
Yes, I agree that our list should be limited to HoM/not HoF, which list Beckwith will likely join soon.
In my view, the above list is a good start, but we should not limit ourselves to HoM criteria, since the HoF has a different (not necessarily worse) standard, which can include both on field and off field accomplishments.
We have researched these players enough, I think, to support players for other categories -- Sol White as player/owner/manager/historian, and Frank Grant and George Stovey as early star/pioneer.
They may not meet HoM standards, but those are not the only relevant standards to consider.
The "committee," a small subset of our group, may well want to support Dobie Moore, for example, but in our last election he ranked 28th, and I refuse to be represented even collectively as having supported him for HOF membership (whereas I'm happy to be represented as having supported Home Run Johnson, even though I personally didn't vote for him.)
You might want to point them down into the Negro League home page (the one with all the individual threads). A newbie might have trouble finding that link right away and get frustrated.
Also, the Frank Grant and Home Run Johnson threads don't have any comments. They were inducted before we got into having separate threads for each candidate. Information about them is buried in the discussion threads (and might be corrupted due to the transition). Anyone with any collected FGrant/HRJohnson stuff might want to post stuff there.
====================================
CRISTOBAL TORRIENTE
This fast, powerful, graceful centerfielder is among the best players not currently enshrined in Cooperstown, irrespective of race or era. According to currently available research, Torriente batted .336 in his 15 Negro League seasons, smashing 53 homers. This, however, understates his contribution because he spent several seasons in the offense-suppressive environment of the Chicago American Giants’ Schorling Park. Hall of Merit estimates peg his park-adjusted lifetime average in the vicinity of .350. Using rigorous translation methods, the Hall of Merit estimates that Torriente would have hit in the .320s as a major-league player. Independent research by Hall of Merit participants shows that Torriente had an above-average walk rate, further boosting his offensive value. By reputation and the limited defensive statistics available, he appears to have been an outstanding defender.
Based on the available evidence, members of the Hall of Merit have suggested that Torriente would have earned roughly 375 Win Shares in major league baseball and possibly more. The Hall of Merit’s voters selected Cristobal Torriente for enshrinement in the 1937 election, when he received 1101 out of a possible 1224 points (a strong 90%).
============================
Suggestions welcomed!
1. Provide our voting history. e.g. the became eligible in such and such a year, and were elected in such and such a year with this many ballots and so many 1st and 2nd place votes etc. A quick table would do the job.
2. But more importantly, we ought to explain to them the MLEs that "we" have developed and what their MLEs are-- what "we" thought their ML performance woulda been if they coulda. Here again, a quick standard statistical table is worth a thousand words.
The MLEs are what really make our efforts more specially informed that other similar efforts, if there are or have been any similar efforts.
Of course, conceptually, we want them to understand what the HoM is and how the NeLers fit in--e.g. we elect them right along with and head to head against the MLers. That is vastly different than the HoF.
Joe and John are the guys to do that part of it. I'd suggest you guys get a quick one page cheat sheet together on "What is the HoM" to hand out to these guys, or to mail to them later.
I just saw your comments about the MLEs as I finished up my first draft of Ray Brown. I'll revise both Torriente and Brown later today with the kind of information you've suggested and repost them both. In the meantime, here's what I got on "paper" for Brown. As always, further suggestions for revision or for other information to include are welcomed!
====================================
RAY BROWN
Ray Brown is the finest Negro League pitcher not currently enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Brown was the backbone of the Homestead Grays’ pitching staff throughout their dynastic period. According to statistics published by John Holway, Brown won more league games than any other Negro League pitcher, had the fourth-most decisions, and the fourth-best winning percentage among pitchers with fifty or more decisions. Despite playing for great teams, Brown outwon his teams regularly, finishing with by far the most Wins Above Team of any Negro League pitcher. In addition to fifteen years of excellent pitching stateside Brown wound down his career with four yeoman years in the Mexican League and was a fixture in Cuban League play.
While pitching translations are more subject to variation and error than hitting measurements, Hall of Merit translations estimate that Brown’s adjusted career ERA in major league baseball would have been 119 (19% above the league average), and that he would have won between 270 and 300 games with a winning percentage of .580-.585. Factoring in his outstanding batting skills (he led the Cuban Winter League in homeruns one year), Hall of Merit participants have estimated that Brown would have accumulated 300-325 win shares.
Brown was elected to the Hall of Merit in 1955 in his first year of eligibility, garnering 962 of a possible 1128 points (a robust 85%) after being named on all 47 ballots.
Might want to throw in something like "in particular contact Joe Dimino and John Murphy, who are running it." or words to that effect.
According to currently available research, Torriente batted .336 in his 15 Negro League seasons, smashing 53 homers.
Do you need to include their numbers? My understanding is that these voters are the top experts and apparently have access to better info than the HoM has.
The two things I think should be included in the intro when you talk of the HoM are (and obviously keep both as brief as possible while still getting the point across): 1) the level of consideration that goes into this project. It's been going on what? 2-3 years? 2 weeks are spent looking at each new batch of candidates and voting on them. 2) Most - though not all - voters in the HoM tend to approach things from a sabermetric POV. This, I feel, is especially true if you're going to talk about their translated stats in each page.
From reading these threads, it seems there's something of a consensus about which of these guys are the best - Wilson, Torriente, etc. May want to make that clear. The write-ups of each will clearly say nice things about all the candidates, and ideally the reader of this summation will come away with a sense not only that the HoM as a whole thinks these players are worthy of induction, but also that some are particularly deserving.
Heck, if possible, you may want to have Joe or John set up a blitzkrieg special election where HoM voters rank the 9 guys in post #5. But there may not be time for that. Maybe have that done by the October report - not only a list of who the HoM thinks should be inducted, but a ranking of the deserving from most to least important to go with it.
Mention how far along the HoM is - so they know why there's no interest in Buck O'Neill or Sam Jethroe or Willard Brown, etc. This could be done by Joe/John when they hunt down people at Toronto.
You may also want to do a write-up on Biz Mackey, too. From what I know, he's generally one of the most highly regarded guys outside of Cooperstown and his absence from the HoM would definately be noted. May need to explain why the HoM voters tend to think he's overrated. Then again, maybe that's something Joe/John can talk about.
Brown was elected to the Hall of Merit in 1955 in his first year of eligibility, garnering 962 of a possible 1128 points (a robust 85%) after being named on all 47 ballots.
May not want to mention the 962 of a possible 1128 points (a robust 85%). Unless you're going to explain the details of the voting system in the summary (which I wouldn't advise) the 962/1128 numbers just might confuse more than enlighten. Just say he got elected in his first year on the ballot after being named on every ballot. Maybe say how many had him 1st or 2nd or something like that.
I agree a table of MLEs, with OPS+/ERA+ would be useful. "Torriente would have hit in the 320s in the majors" for example is less useful than whetever OPS+ figure we calculated for him.
That depends on whether or not the committee members or more familar/comfortable with average or OPS+/ERA+.
That's basically how I would handle it, but while I'm the CEO, Joe is the Chairman of the Board, so he may have a different opinion. :-)
BTW, I like the little summaries that the good Doctor has been cooking up. I think all of the MLE guys (especially Chris) should create a article regarding their work with the equivalents so that we can better convince the HOF sub-committee of our picks. Gadfly and Gary come to mind as part of our group that could highlight discrepancies in regard to the historical record of certain players.
As for a list, I think we should have it in three tiers: 1) the inductees (and Beckwith, since he is a given) 2) the NeL candidates who have some support and 3) some prominent NeL candidates who are not registering at all any more (was it Marc that suggested something similar?)
That's why I suggested a little table of voting histor--either year by year for each player, or maybe just one table showing the final election-year totals for each. What the consensus was would be evident from the number of ballots the player was on, or the percentage of possible votes they received, etc.
I also agree that we probably don't need to give them their NeL numbers, but it would be more important to give them our MLEs, that would be something they couldn't know unless we tell 'em.
That might make Torriente seem to be less of a candidate than many HoM voters feel he was. He came in with the Super Crop and had to wait a few years when normally he'd be a first-balloter. That's one case where the pecularlities of HoM voting could muddy the situation up.
Here is his voting history, BTW.
1934 6th 55 of 56 ballots High 2 5ths 787 pts 58.6% of total
1935 4th 51 of 52 1 3rd 830 66.5%
1936 4th 49 of 50 25 3rds 826 68.8%
1937 2nd (elected) 51 of 52 22 1sts (to only 19 for Heilmann) 1101 88.2%
It doesn't take much info to show that he was a very strong candidate, very highly regarded by us HoMies, and that his 4 year voting history is not a sign of weakness.
Or, a really good table would have all of our HoM/not HoFs on it with their voting totals for the year they got elected. Maybe you delete the above and just show that--i.e. show 1937 for Torriente. This BTW would show that we regarded Torriente as comparable to Lloyd and Williams.
Johnson 1925 44 of 48 8 1st 67.7%
Grant 1926 43 of 50 5 1st 736 61.3%
Hill 1927 45 of 48 1 1st 706 61.3%
Santop 1932 49 of 49 36 1sts 1126 95.7%
R. Foster 1932 40 of 49 2 1sts 595 50.6%
Lloyd 1935 52 of 52 11 1sts 1147 92.9%
Williams 1936 50 of 50 7 1sts 1138 94.8%
Torriente 1937 51 of 52 22 1sts 1101 88.2%
Rogan 1940 47 of 51 22 1sts 978 79.9%
Charleston 1943 52 of 52 49 1st 1238 99.2%
W. Foster 1945 48 of 50 19 1st 975 81.2%
Stearnes 1946 53 of 53 35 1st 1232 96.9%
Wilson 1948 50 of 51 3 1st 938 76.6%
Dihigo 1950 52 of 53 17 1st 1055 82.9%
Gibson 1952 50 of 50 49 1st 1193 99.4%
Wells 1954 48 of 49 3 1st 922 78.4%
Leonard 1955 47 of 48 24 1st 1040 90.3%
R. Brown 1955 47 of 48 17 1st 962 83.5%
Finally I don't have Suttles numbers handy. But this helps reinforce the degree to which we may support some players over others. And including the ones who are already in Cooperstown gives both a frame of reference and also lends credibility. I mean, we were smart enough to give Josh Gibson 99+% of the possible vote tally.
The 90+% for Santop really stands out, BTW, as the only 90% for a HoM/not HoF.
Also, I don't feel all that comfy writing up Grant and Johnson since that discussion was a few years before my time and I don't have any feeling whatsoever about the consensus that formed around them. Could someone else (Sunny?)take them on?
==============================================
[COVER LETTER]
Dear Hall of Fame Negro League Screening and Voting Committee Members,
We are writing to you in response to the National Baseball Hall of Fame’s announcement of your charge to examine players of color from the 1860–1960 period for possible induction. Our organization, the Hall of Merit, is a dedicated group of more than fifty baseball enthusiasts, researchers, and thinkers who have undertaken a lengthy deliberative process to honor the greatest players in the history of American baseball. For more than two years, we have held biweekly elections to enshrine a fixed number of candidates, each of which is preceded by lengthy examination of the major candidates. We are currently in the midst of our 1957 election cycle.
One of the key aspects of our election process is the consideration of pre-integration black and Latino players alongside their white contemporaries. We have relied on Negro Leaguer’s reputations and the available statistical evidence of their accomplishments. Using these pieces of information, we have assembled a more complete picture of each player by using traditional measures like hits, ERA, and batting average, rate indexes like ERA+ and OPS+—which show how far above or below league average a player’s rates are—advanced tools like runs created and DERA (a way of looking at ERA that isolates the pitcher from his defense), and omnibus calculations like Bill James’s Win Shares, and Baseball Prospectus’s Wins Above Replacement. Additionally we have in many cases devised unique and rigorous, homegrown methods that allow us to translate a Negro Leaguer’s performance into a major-league setting to facilitate comparisons among black and white candidates
We have, to this point, elected numerous pre-integration black and Latino players, and what follows is a brief history of our voting on Negro League players, then a short list—with commentary—of those players whose careers we believe, based on our discussions, should be strongly considered by the committee for induction. Our discussions of all of these candidates and many others are publicly accessible at www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom and are noted below each candidate’s synopsis. We hope that you will find this list helpful, and that you will visit the Hall of Merit online and see how we’ve gone about our work. If you have questions, please contact our executive officers Joe Dimino (email address here) and John Murphy (email address here).
Finally, we intend to follow up this brief list by the October deadline with a longer elaboration on this clutch of candidates as well as many others, relating more about our methods, our findings, and the results of our voting.
Thank you for considering our group’s opinions and, most of all, for undertaking the important work of recognizing baseball’s forgotten superstars.
Yours sincerely,
The Members of the Hall of Merit
[NGL INDUCTION RESULTS TABLE]
HALL OF MERIT VOTING SUMMARY FOR NEGRO LEAGUE ENSHRINESS
1st-PLACE
PLAYER ELECTED ELIGIBLE BALLOTS VOTES POINTS PERCENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Johnson 1925 1921 44 of 48 8 780 67.7%
Frank Grant 1926 1909 43 of 50 5 736 61.3%
Pete Hill 1927 1927 45 of 48 1 706 61.3%
Louis Santop 1932 1932 49 of 49 36 1126 95.7%
Rube Foster 1932 1923 40 of 49 2 595 50.6%
John Henry Lloyd 1935 1934 52 of 52 11 1147 92.9%
Joe Williams 1936 1934 50 of 50 7 1138 94.8%
Cristobal Torriente 1937 1934 51 of 52 22 1101 88.2%
Wilbur Rogan 1940 1940 47 of 51 22 978 79.9%
Oscar Charleston 1943 1943 52 of 52 49 1238 99.2%
Willie Foster 1945 1943 48 of 50 19 975 81.2%
Turkey Stearnes 1946 1946 53 of 53 35 1232 96.9%
Jud Wilson 1948 1947 50 of 51 3 938 76.6%
Martin Dihigo 1950 1950 52 of 53 17 1055 82.9%
Josh Gibson 1952 1952 50 of 50 49 1193 99.4%
Willie Wells 1954 1953 48 of 49 3 922 78.4%
Buck Leonard 1955 1955 47 of 48 24 1040 90.3%
Ray Brown 1955 1955 47 of 48 17 962 83.5%
Mule Suttles 1956 1946 41 of 46 6 743 67.3%
</pre>
[RECOMMENDATIONS LIST, THUS FAR INCLUDING TORRIENTE, BROWN, AND WILSON]
HALL OF MERIT RECOMMENDATIONS
CRISTOBAL TORRIENTE
This fast, powerful, graceful centerfielder is among the best players not currently enshrined in Cooperstown, irrespective of race or era. The Hall of Merit relies heavily on previously published statistics as well as the findings of independent researchers within its ranks, and according to the data available to us, Torriente batted .336 in his 15 Negro League seasons, but we believe, however, that because he spent several seasons in the offensive-suppressive environment of the Chicago American Giants’ Schorling Park his park-adjusted Negro League average, was really about .352. Independent research by Hall of Merit participants shows that Torriente had a decent walk rate which further boosted his offensive value. By reputation and the limited defensive statistics available from our independent researchers, he appears to have been an outstanding defender.
Using translation methods initially developed by www.I9s.org and refined by Hall of Merit members (especially Christopher Cobb), the Hall of Merit estimates that Torriente would have earned roughly 374 Win Shares in major league baseball, a considerable total, particularly for a career of 16 seasons. The Hall of Merit’s voters overwhelmingly selected Cristobal Torriente for enshrinement in the 1937 election, placing him on 51 of the 52 ballots cast. His inevitable election was waylaid until his fourth year of eligibility because a cluster of inner-circle Hall of Famers were eligible at the very same moment (including Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Alexander, Joe Williams, Walther Johnson, and others), and these elections only allowed for two enshrines at a time.
Discussion of Cristobal Torriente publicly available at:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/cristobal_torriente
RAY BROWN
In our opinion, Ray Brown is the finest Negro League pitcher not currently enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Brown was the backbone of the Homestead Grays’ pitching staff throughout their dynastic period. According to statistics published by John Holway, and compiled by Hall of Merit participants, Brown won more league games in his career than any other Negro League pitcher, had the fourth most decisions, and the fourth best winning percentage among pitchers with fifty or more decisions. Despite playing for great teams, Brown outwon his teams regularly, finishing with by far the most Wins Above Team of any Negro League pitcher. In addition to fifteen years of excellent pitching stateside Brown spent wound down his career with four yeoman years in the Mexican League and was a fixture in Cuban League play.
While our pitching translations are more subject to variation and error than hitting measurements, translation systems developed by Hall of Merit participants estimate that Brown’s adjusted career ERA in major league baseball would have been around 119 (19% above the league average), and that he would have won between 270 and 300 games with a winning percentage of about .580. Factoring in his outstanding batting skills (he led the Cuban Winter League in homeruns one year), Hall of Merit participants believe that Brown would have accumulated 300–325 win shares. Brown was elected to the Hall of Merit in 1955 in his first year of eligibility after being named on all 47 ballots.
Discussion of Ray Brown publicly available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/ray_brown
Discussion of Negro League pitchers available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/negro_league_pitchers
JUD WILSON
With the possible exceptions of Ron Santo and Ezra Sutton, Jud Wilson is the most qualified third baseman not already enshrined at Cooperstown. A line-drive machine with an outstanding eye and plate discipline, rigorous Hall of Merit translations suggest that Wilson would have been a high-octane performer in the white big leagues.
Translated stats BA OBP SA G AB H BB TB OPS+
1922–1938 .336 .431 .448 2532 8466 2845 1413 3789 132
</pre>
Wilson played in the Negro Leagues until he was 48, but our translations suggest that his production would have dropped too far below the level of usefulness (replacement, if you prefer) after 1938 for him to have sustained an MLB career thereafter.
Defensively, the Hall of Merit concluded that Wilson would have played third base adequately for much of his career then would likely have shifted to first base later on. With all of this information, a Hall of Merit member concluded that Wilson would have generated 378 win shares, a number greater than the career totals of Ron Santo and Home Run Baker and just a bit below Wade Boggs, the latter of whom we believe Wilson may have been highly comparable to. In 1948, his second year of eligibility, Wilson appeared on 50 of 51 ballots cast to win election to the Hall of Merit.
Discussion of Jud Wilson publicly available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/jud_wilson
I like that, Marc, and it's factual, too. If it had been almost any other election, he would have gone in his first year of eligibility.
BTW, I hope my earlier posts didn't come off as passing the buck to the rest of you. I just feel there are more qualified people than myself to construct a proper argument for or against any NeL candidate. It would be improper of me to take what many of you constructed and put my name on it.
Also, I don't feel all that comfy writing up Grant and Johnson since that discussion was a few years before my time and I don't have any feeling whatsoever about the consensus that formed around them. Could someone else (Sunny?)take them on?
If Marc doesn't want to handle it, how about the biggest proponent of the two?
But the draft so far looks great. I'm pleased to be part of this august body.
I think Suttles, Mackey, Santop, and Redding are among the top candidates to be elected (not our top candidates, obviously). They will have a separate pre-1920 ballot--maybe Santop and Redding will end up there. I'd say this is good news for Frank Grant fans, too. Sol White stands a good chance, since they're electing executives, managers, and so on.
I wonder if any limit to the number of electees will be set. Would it really be a good thing if 10, 15, or 20 NeLers were suddenly inducted, all at once? On the other hand, this could be the last chance to get NeLers into the HOF, which could put pressure on committee members to increase the number they vote for.
=============================================
LOUIS SANTOP
This Latino superstar of the deadball era is relatively unknown today, but was very clearly one of the game’s most lethal hitters in his day. The Hall of Merit echoed the nearly universal expert opinion that Santop was the best catcher in the Negro Leagues during the 1910s, and may have been the best catcher anywhere during his career. Beginning with a translation of his batting from I9s.org, one of our members carefully fine tuned the existing translation to better match the arc and trajectory of Santop’s published statistics. Santop was also credited in our translation for time missed due to war, a tenet which has been true for each translated player who has missed time due to military service—but which is, per our rules and regulations, an option each individual voter considers for him or herself. In the end, the translation of Santop estimates that he earned 300 win shares, a remarkable total for anyone of the time who played catcher for a lengthy period.
This estimate may, however, underrepresent Santop’s offensive contributions. The distribution of Santop’s actual games between catcher and outfield is unknown, and our estimates conservatively assign his position this way: catcher 1909–1910; c/of 1911; of 1912–1915; c 1916–1924; ph 1925–1926. Santop made his main contributions as an offensive player; despite a strong arm, he is not reputed to be a great defender, and so our translations say that he was about average with the leather. If Santop played more outfield than our translations assume, then he may well exceed 300 win shares by a considerable margin owing to the increased opportunities to hit afforded by playing the outfield.
In 1932, his first year of eligibility, Santop was enshrined in the Hall of Merit, appearing on all forty-eight ballots, and overwhelming the field by capturing thirty-six of the forty-eight available first-place votes in the process.
Discussion of Louis Santop publicly available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/luis_santop
It's about freakin' time, don't you think, Gary? :-)
I've been a long-time fan of Bill James' suggestion of expanding the voting privileges to other groups. It shouldn't just be handed to a bunch of elites. Fans, players, researchers, management, the media, etc. should all play a part in the process.
MULE SUTTLES
Mule Suttles ranks among the greatest homer hitters in the history of the Negro Leagues. This slugging first baseman/outfielder was a multidimensional batter; in addition to his prodigious power, he hit for high average and get on base frequently. Speed and defense weren’t key elements of his game, but he didn’t need them because when he kicked, the whole place knew it.
Hall of Merit translations of existing, available data reaffirm his rank among the great hitters:
Translated stats BA OBP SA G PA H BB TB OPS+
1923–1941 .302 .366 .538 2420 10163 2791 924 4967 137
</pre>
One challenge in figuring out Suttles is determining how much his home park would have helped him. The St. Louis Stars' home field was an exceptional offensive environment and the translations above attempt to make some account of that contextual influence on Suttles's power numbers.
Although he may have been overshadowed by the likes of Gehrig, Foxx, and Greenberg, Suttles would have, in the opinion of the Hall of Merit’s voters, been a major offensive force in the white big leagues, enough to earn him 353 career win shares. Recognizing his greatness, the Hall of Merit enshrined Mule Suttles in its 1956 election, naming him on forty-one of the forty-six ballots cast.
Discussion of Mule Suttles publicly available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/mule_suttles
--------------------
PETE HILL
The first great outfielder in Negro League history, Pete Hill posted a string of sterling seasons in the early 1900s while playing a very good centerfield. His prime extended into the 1910s, where after his batting skills seem to disappear altogether. However, research conducted by Hall of Merit members indicates that, in fact, some of the drop in batting ability may be an illusion of context wrought by Hill’s move into the cavernous Schorling Park in 1914. Thirty-four at the time of the move, he would play on for another ten years, and when he moved to Detroit’s Mack Park, a much less extreme park, his high batting averages returned.
On the whole, a consensus developed in the Hall of Merit that Hill’s case is built around a wonderful peak and prime and that the information about his ballparks contributes to a new understanding of his career, one in which he doesn’t simply drop off, but rather loses ground as an aging outfielder typically would. In his first year on the ballot, Hill won the 1927 election, and though he garnered only a single first-place vote, he appeared on forty-five of the fort-eight ballots cast.
Discussion of Pete Hill publicly available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/pete_hill
and at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/1927_ballot_discussion (See pages 1 and 2.)
Second, I know a couple of them would have no idea what a Win Share is. Maybe Gadfly could give his opinion, but my general impression is they aren't that kind of fan.
Although he may have been overshadowed by the likes of Gehrig, Foxx, and Greenberg, Suttles would have, in the opinion of the Hall of Merit’s voters, been a major offensive force in the white big leagues, enough to earn him 353 career win shares. Recognizing his greatness, the Hall of Merit enshrined Mule Suttles in its 1956 election, naming him on forty-one of the forty-six ballots cast.
I think this is an excellent summary, and would be just as good without the phrase enough to earn him 353 career win shares.
If its a ballot for only NeL-ers than MLE's are not as essential as they've been to us. After all, they are not trying to rank MLB-ers and NeL-ers on the same ballot like we do. Because of this, all of the conversions might seem unnecessary to the members of the committee.
On the other hand, MLE's are nice in comparing NeL-ers who played in stronger and weaker leagues.
Just thinking out loud here.
And I think that both Mike and Marc are right. On one hand we must know our audience, on the other hand we can only present our point of view as we've arrived at it, especially since, as Marc points out, that's what makes us, well, us.
As they say in the cheffing business, it's all in the presentation, and I'll do my best to revise the synopses so that anyone can find information they can work with from it.
That's the concern I had when reading the summaries. We've got to walk a fine line here -- I think it's appropriate (and ethical) to let them know that HoM voters tend to be followers of Bill James and statistics of that ilk, but not bombard them with stats that make their eyes glaze over because the voters themselves aren't that interested.
My suggestion: mention HoM voter tendencies in the introduction section (and even there I don't know if you want to get lost too much into the detail - maybe just mention HoM voters tend to prefer the sort of statistical analysis commonly associated with Bill James and generally known as sabermetrics). Also, I don't really know if mentioning Chris Cobb by name does anything. Yea, he's done the best dang work of anyone here (IMHO anyway) and he deserves credit, but if I'm Dick Clark reading this I'm going to wonder "Who the f*** if Chris Cobb?"
Also - still my suggestion, just needed a paragraph break - keep "new wave" stats out of the players section whenever possible. There are ways around it. For example, instead of saying Mule Suttles would've won 353 win shares, find a similar player with that total of win shares and say he would've had as good a career as ____. Or if he's got more estimated win shares than X but more than Y, say that he would've been a bit below X but better than Y. Going back to Mule Suttles, his estimated career win shares total is almost exactly halfway the career win shares of Greenberg and Foxx. Say that instead of 353 win shares.
Also, rather than give the numbers for Torriente's BA with and without park effects, maybe mention that the HoM believes he was considerably better than his numbers because he played much of his careers in pitcher's parks.
For Judd Wilson, just say the HoM consensus is that his career value would've been far better than Baker or Santo (or Pie Traynor) but just a hair below Wade Boggs's. No need for win shares to be mentioned.
For Santop - The Hall of Merit echoed the nearly universal expert opinion that Santop was the best catcher in the Negro Leagues during the 1910s, and may have been the best catcher anywhere during his career.
Ain't that an understatement? My memory might be playing tricks on me, but wasn't he arguably the best catcher prior to Mickey Cochrane? Or at the very least the best catcher of the 20th century prior to Cochrane?
For Torriente - he had 374 win shares -- rather than say that why not say he appears to us to have been as good as Al Simmons (375 win shares)? I think that would work better.
For Brown - take the reference to Wins Above Team out and have it shot. Instead, find a MLBr with 270-300 wins and a .580 winning percentage and say he's similar to that guy. Your description makes him sound like a slighly better version of Robin Roberts or Fergie Jenkins. Go with that instead.
I'd challange all HoMers - especially those who have been following the Negro Leaguer threads closely and most especially those regarded as HoM experts on the Negro Leagues, to try to find - and list in this thread - the best comps for the various Negro Leguers that are being given a brief write up.
When doing this, please try to avoid players that the HoM feels are considerably under/overrated. For example, saying that Louis Santop was even better than Charlie Bennett wouldn't have much impact. See the HoM doesn't think Pitcher Y was much better than Dizzy Dean wouldn't have the impact people would be hoping for.
Essentially, what I'm saying you do is tell them (in general terms rather quickly) what sort of standards HoM voters tend to support and then give them a list of players the site things are worthy and discuss their attributes. Only when discussing their attributes, put it in terms the readers (i.e - the voters) can relate to easier. That way the HoF voters have an idea where the HoM is coming from and what it things of certain players without having their eyes glaze over from indifference due to lack of interest in sabermetrics. That way the memo is both upfront with the HoM's standards and is as effective as it can possibly be.
Year Ballots Points Pct Elected Points Pct Elected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1898 29 657 94.4 *Deacon White 553 79.5 *George Gore
1898 29 654 94.0 *Paul Hines 476 68.4 *Ross Barnes
1899 31 699 94.0 *Jim O'Rourke 625 84.0 *King Kelly
1900 35 756 90.0 *John Clarkson 617 73.5 *John M. Ward
1901 35 657 78.2 Tim Keefe 640 76.2 George Wright
1902 42 1005 99.7 *Dan Brouthers 752 74.7 *Buck Ewing
1903 44 984 93.2 *Roger Connor 900 85.2 *Cap Anson
1904 43 850 82.4 Jack Glasscock 720 69.8 *Amos Rusie
1905 41 706 71.7 Charles Radbourn 660 67.1 Hardy Richardson
1906 43 758 73.4 Al Spalding
1907 41 877 89.1 *Billy Hamilton
1908 42 762 75.6 Ezra Sutton
1909 43 1015 98.4 *Ed Delahanty
1910 44 780 73.9 Pud Galvin
1911 42 997 98.9 *Kid Nichols
1912 42 957 94.9 Jesse Burkett 731 72.5 Joe Start
1913 42 751 74.5 Bid McPhee
1914 41 723 73.5 Cal McVey
1915 44 1011 95.7 *George Davis 939 88.9 *Bill Dahlen
1916 44 667 63.2 Harry Stovey
1917 45 1080 100.0 *Cy Young 920 85.2 *Fred Clarke
1918 45 747 69.2 Elmer Flick
1919 47 827 73.3 Willie Keeler 768 68.1 Joe Kelley
1920 46 822 74.5 *Ed Walsh
1921 48 814 70.7 Jimmy Collins 701 60.9 Charlie Bennett
1922 46 1091 98.8 *Nap Lajoie 1065 96.5 *Christy Mathewson
1923 48 1152 100.0 *Honus Wagner
1924 46 1102 99.8 Sam Crawford 907 82.2 Eddie Plank
1925 48 780 67.7 Home Run Johnson 766 66.5 Three Finger Brown
1926 50 736 61.3 Frank Grant 722 60.2 Sherry Magee
1927 49 875 74.7 Joe Jackson 706 60.0 Pete Hill
1928 47 932 82.6 *Frank Baker 685 60.7 Joe McGinnity
1929 48 703 61.0 Bobby Wallace 629 54.6 Sam Thompson
1930 51 754 61.6 Jimmy Sheckard 693 56.6 Bob Caruthers
1931 52 661 53.0 Dickey Pearce
1932 51 1126 92.0 *Louis Santop 595 48.6 Rube Foster
1933 54 1296 100.0 *Walter Johnson 997 76.9 *Zach Wheat
1934 56 1334 99.3 *Ty Cobb 1102 82.0 *Tris Speaker
1935 52 1220 97.8 Eddie Collins 1147 91.9 John H. Lloyd
1936 50 1193 99.4 *Pete Alexander 1138 94.8 Smoky Joe Williams
1937 52 1131 90.6 *Harry Heilmann 1101 88.2 Cristobal Torriente
1938 53 826 64.9 Heinie Groh 794 62.4 Stan Coveleski
1939 53 589 46.3 *Red Faber 580 45.6 Max Carey
1940 51 978 79.9 *Joe Rogan 496 40.5 Lip Pike
1941 53 1272 100.0 *Babe Ruth 1219 95.8 *Rogers Hornsby
1942 53 719 56.5 Dazzy Vance 571 44.9 *Bill Terry
1943 52 1238 99.2 *Oscar Charleston 1102 88.3 *Mickey Cochrane
1944 52 1248 100.0 *Lou Gehrig 1082 86.7 Frankie Frisch
1945 52 998 80.0 Goose Goslin 796 63.8 Willie Foster
1946 53 1232 96.9 *Turkey Stearnes 1192 93.7 *Al Simmons
1947 54 1296 100.0 *Lefty Grove 1193 92.1 *Gabby Hartnett
1948 51 1198 97.9 *Charlie Gehringer 938 76.6 Jud Wilson
1949 51 1171 95.7 *Carl Hubbell 818 66.8 Ted Lyons
1950 53 1212 95.3 *Paul Waner 1055 82.9 *Martin Dihigo
1951 49 1170 99.5 *Jimmy Foxx 1025 87.2 Joe Cronin
1952 50 1193 99.4 *Josh Gibson 1144 95.3 *Mel Ott
1953 49 1076 91.5 Bill Dickey 1048 89.1 *Hank Greenberg
1954 49 1157 98.4 *Arky Vaughan 922 78.4 Willie Wells
1955 48 1040 90.3 *Buck Leonard 962 83.5 *Raymond Brown
1956 46 1012 91.7 *Luke Appling 743 67.3 Mule Suttles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Elected in First year of Eligibility
Pct -- Per cent of Possible Points from Weighted Ballot
</pre>
It's one thing if Chris (or me, FTM :-) were referenced as if he were in the same league prestige-wise as a Bill James, but he still does deserve the credit for what he has done. I would have a hard time presenting our presentation solely under the umbrella of The Hall of Merit Group without giving credit where credit is due.
With that said, I agree with Jim that Chris made some excellent suggestions.
Disagree completely. At most I'd be willing to allow it in an appendix. I'd advice against it -- maybe in the final October right-up, but not now.
You've got to approach it from the POV of the reader. From what it sounds like and what we've been told many/most of these individuals aren't interested in or knowledgable about sabermetrics. To best inform them what we think of a certain player, we'd be better off putting the HoM's perceived value of a player in terms they can most readily understand. Even if the estimated win shares are more precise, they would still be a worse way to get the reader to understand what the HoM thinks of a player because the win shares would be meaningless to the reader.
The goal's to try to get the reader to understand what the HoM thinks of a player. If the reader doesn't think anything of win shares, then that won't mean anything, regardless of how accurate it is.
It's one thing if Chris (or me, FTM :-) were referenced as if he were in the same league prestige-wise as a Bill James, but he still does deserve the credit for what he has done. I would have a hard time presenting our presentation solely under the umbrella of The Hall of Merit Group without giving credit where credit is due.
In that case I'd suggest handling it differently. At the very end of the intro section say something like: the HoM owes a special debt of gratitude to X, Y, and Chris Cobb for the impressive and thankless yeomen work they've done for us in this project." The way it's handled now, it's like name-dropping. And it just doesn't work.
yest has a very interesting suggestion of comparing HoM NLrs versus HoFr NLrs. I don't know how well using Holway, anecdotes, etc would work because my guess is that the committee already knows more of that stuff than all of us put together will ever know. It may help in the comparisons, though, like how I discussed in post #36. How does X compare to Turkey Stearnes, for example. If this were to be done, I'd strongly recommend against comparing anyone to Cool Papa Bell because the HoM thought on him is very different from mainstream opinion.
Random thoughts. . . . in the intro section, when discussing the HoM and its beliefs you may just want to write something as basic as (though not necessarily phrased exactly as I have done it here): "Voters of the Hall of Merit tend analyze players from a statistical perspective most closely associated with Bill James and popularly known as sabermetrics. Its members try to adjust a player's known numbers for park, era, and competition, and gauge how he would most likely have played in MLB had it not been for the infernal color barrier. They tend to focus on the player's on-field performance and are generally quite cautious about assigned too much values to intangibles such as clubhouse chemistry, leadership, etc. Though this attitude pervades a clear majority of HoMers, that does not that these feelings are universal."
The advantage there, IMHO, is that if I'm a reader who isn't that interesting in Bill James or doesn't know anything about Win Shares and thinks that VORP is that badass space robot from "The Day the Earth Stood Still," reading this (or something likeit) will give me a very good idea where this group is coming from, without causing my eyes to glaze over.
Is anything else necessary in discussing the HoM's biases (for lack of a better word) and pervailing framework for determining a player's value? Personally, I don't think it's necessary to get into the minitua and mention the most popular stats and so forth. From the POV of the non-sabermetric reader, that doesn't tell me anything that I understand and doesn't add much to my understanding of the group. It would likely just be empty buzzwords or just meaningless detail. If the group wants to add more, though, that's acceptable.
Final note - Ray Brown's got an estimated ERA+ of 118, 270-300 wins, 300-30 win shares, and a winning percentage of .580? Those numbers just don't add up. I checked all the pitchers from 270-300 wins - no one like that. Blyleven's close - same wins, same ERA+, but a much much lower winning percentage. If he had that winning percentage and wins, he's have had a lower ERA+. It's like that with all of the MLB pitchers with 270-300 wins - if you adjust so he matches hear, he no longer matches there. I don't know what's wrong with Ray Brown - the wins, the ERA+, but something's screwy there. Not terribly screwy, but it's a little off. Best just to say he's roughly comparably to Jenkins and Roberts. Not sure if he's better or worse, but he sounds simliar.
That I agree with, Chris. Everybody gets the credit they deserve without the name dropping. I like it.
Klaatu barada nikto!
Is this a trap?....
But seriously, I'll be reposting the entire revised document within the next 15-30 minutes to see if we can start nailing some of the passages down. I'll do it in three parts to avoid the character limit and make it a little less daunting to review.
1) the letter.
2) the voting history of NgL players.
3) the players we endorse for induction at c-town.
===========================================
Dear Hall of Fame Negro League Screening and Voting Committee Members,
We are writing to you in response to the National Baseball Hall of Fame’s announcement of your charge to examine players of color from the 1860–1960 period for possible induction. Our organization, the Hall of Merit, is a dedicated group of more than fifty baseball enthusiasts, researchers, and thinkers who have undertaken a lengthy deliberative process to honor the greatest players in the history of American baseball. For more than two years, we have biweekly elections to enshrine a fixed number of candidates. These votes are each preceded by lengthy examination of the major candidates on the ballot. We are currently in the midst of our 1957 election cycle.
One of the key aspects of our election process is the consideration of pre-integration black and Latino players alongside their white contemporaries. We have relied on Negro Leaguer’s reputations and what statistical evidence of their accomplishments has been previously published (mostly in the form of books by James Riley, John Holway, and others). While we’ve found these sources to be occasionally frustrating or inconsistent, they are the best currently available to us. Using these pieces of information, we have assembled a more complete picture of each player by using traditional measures like hits, ERA, as well as by embracing advanced statistical tools put forth by the sabermetric community and popularized by Bill James, Baseball Prospectus, and others. Additionally we have in many cases devised unique and rigorous homegrown methods that take what information we have access to and facilitate comparisons among black and white candidates by translating a Negro Leaguer’s performance into a major-league setting. As a group we tend to deal exclusively with on-the-field performance and are quite cautious in assigning value to a player’s character and leadership
We have, to this point, examined dozens of Negro Leaguers and elected numerous pre-integration black and Latino players. What follows is our view of the players we have encountered through 1957, who we believe should be strongly considered by the Screening and Voting Committees for Hall of Fame induction. All of our discussions are publicly accessible at www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom and specific discussion threads are noted below each candidate’s synopsis. We hope that you will find our deliberations helpful in conducting the important work you will soon have at hand, and that you will visit the Hall of Merit online to see the collaborative community we’ve assembled to go about our work.
Finally, we hope to follow up this brief with a longer elaboration on which Negro Leaguers our electorate has voted for (or not voted for), relating more about our methods, our findings, and the results of our voting in the hopes that our process may in some way help you decide among the many well-qualified individuals available for election.
If you have questions about the Hall of Merit or the information we’ve presented, please contact our executive officers Joe Dimino (email address here) and John Murphy (email address here).
Thank you for considering our group’s opinions and, most of all, for undertaking the important work of recognizing baseball’s forgotten superstars. We look forward to seeing the results of your work and seeing these players immortalized in 2006.
Yours sincerely,
The Members of the Hall of Merit
=========================================
SYNOPSIS OF THE HALL OF MERIT’S NEGRO LEAGUE INDUCTEES
To demonstrate how our process has evolved thus far, please see the table below. In it you will find a list of all the Negro League players that have been inducted into the Hall of Merit in chronological order of enshrinement. Among them are eight players who are not currently in the National Baseball Hall of Fame; these players are marked with an asterisk.
HALL OF MERIT VOTING SUMMARY FOR NEGRO LEAGUE ENSHRINESS
1st-PLACE
PLAYER ELECTED ELIGIBLE BALLOTS VOTES POINTS PERCENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Johnson* 1925 1921 44 of 48 8 780 67.7%
Frank Grant* 1926 1909 43 of 50 5 736 61.3%
Pete Hill* 1927 1927 45 of 48 1 706 61.3%
Louis Santop* 1932 1932 49 of 49 36 1126 95.7%
Rube Foster 1932 1923 40 of 49 2 595 50.6%
John Henry Lloyd 1935 1934 52 of 52 11 1147 92.9%
Joe Williams 1936 1934 50 of 50 7 1138 94.8%
Cristobal Torriente 1937 1934 51 of 52 22 1101 88.2%
Wilbur Rogan 1940 1940 47 of 51 22 978 79.9%
Oscar Charleston 1943 1943 52 of 52 49 1238 99.2%
Willie Foster 1945 1943 48 of 50 19 975 81.2%
Turkey Stearnes 1946 1946 53 of 53 35 1232 96.9%
Jud Wilson* 1948 1947 50 of 51 3 938 76.6%
Martin Dihigo 1950 1950 52 of 53 17 1055 82.9%
Josh Gibson 1952 1952 50 of 50 49 1193 99.4%
Willie Wells 1954 1953 48 of 49 3 922 78.4%
Buck Leonard 1955 1955 47 of 48 24 1040 90.3%
Ray Brown* 1955 1955 47 of 48 17 962 83.5%
Mule Suttles* 1956 1946 41 of 46 6 743 67.3%
</pre>
It is our consensus that those players not currently in the Hall of Fame represent the strongest cases for induction among pre-integration players of color whom we have so far encountered.
In addition, John Beckwith* is a heavy favorite to win election in either 1957 or 1958.
Please note that we have not yet examined many players who have very strong resumes. The table below lists those players and the year they will become eligible for enshrinement:
PLAYER ELIGIBLE
Buck O’Neill* 1957
Max Manning* 1957
Willard Brown* 1958
Quincy Trouppe* 1958
Sam Jethroe* 1958
Luke Easter* 1959
Ray Dandridge 1959
Bill Wright* 1959
Satchel Paige 1959
Dave Barnhill* 1959
Leon Day 1960
Silvio Garcia* 1960
Pee Wee Butts* 1961
Jackie Robinson 1962
Hank Thompson* 1962
Monte Irvin 1962
Bus Clarkson* 1962
Roy Campanella 1963
Artie Wilson* 1963
Piper Davis* 1963
Bonnie Serrell* 1964
Bob Thurman* 1964
Larry Doby 1965
Don Newcombe* 1966
Bob Boyd* 1967
Marvin Williams* 1967
Minnie Minoso* 1970
Sam Jones* 1970
Jim Gilliam* 1972
</pre>
=========================================
HALL OF MERIT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HALL OF FAME ELECTION
CRISTOBAL TORRIENTE
This fast, powerful, graceful centerfielder is among the best players not currently enshrined in Cooperstown, irrespective of race or era. Based on the information available to us as well as independent research, we think that Torriente’s abilities are understated by the statistical record. He spent several seasons in the offensive-suppressive environment of the Chicago American Giants’ Schorling Park which dampened his batting average and his power production. By his reputation and the limited defensive statistics available from our independent researchers, he appears to have been an outstanding defender.
Our translation methods estimate that Torriente’s sixteen-year career may have paralleled Al Simmons’s in terms of his overall value. Hall of Merit voters overwhelmingly endorsed Cristobal Torriente for enshrinement in the 1937 election, placing him on fifty-one of the fifty-two ballots cast. His inevitable election was waylaid until his fourth year of eligibility because a cluster of inner-circle Hall of Famers were eligible at the very same moment (including Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Alexander, Joe Williams, and John Henry Lloyd), and these elections only allowed for two enshrines at a time.
Discussion of Cristobal Torriente is available at:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/cristobal_torriente
RAY BROWN
In our opinion, Ray Brown is the finest Negro League pitcher not currently enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Brown was the backbone of the Homestead Grays’ pitching staff throughout their dynastic period, and according to statistics available to us, Brown won more league games in his career than any other Negro League pitcher, had the fourth most decisions, and the fourth best winning percentage among pitchers with fifty or more decisions. Despite playing for great teams, Brown’s own winning percentages regularly exceeded those of the teams he was on.
While our pitching translations are more subject to variation and error than hitting measurements, systems developed by Hall of Merit participants estimate that Brown would have won between 270 and 300 games with a winning percentage around.580, making his career comparable to that of Robin Roberts or Ferguson Jenkins. Brown was elected to the Hall of Merit in 1955 in his first year of eligibility after being named on all forty-seven ballots cast.
Discussion of Ray Brown is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/ray_brown
Discussion of Negro League pitchers is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/negro_league_pitchers
JUD WILSON
With the possible exception of Ron Santo, Jud Wilson is the most qualified third baseman not already enshrined at Cooperstown. Wilson was a line-drive machine with an outstanding eye and excellent plate discipline. The Hall of Merit’s translations suggest that he would have been a high-octane performer in the white big leagues.
Translated stats BA OBP SA G AB H BB TB OPS+
1922–1938 .336 .431 .448 2532 8466 2845 1413 3789 132
</pre>
Wilson played in the Negro Leagues until he was 48, but our methods indicate that his production would have dropped too far below the level of usefulness after 1938 for him to have sustained a major-league career into the 1940s
Defensively, the Hall of Merit concluded that Wilson would have played third base adequately for much of his career then would likely have shifted to first base later on. With all of this information, we concluded that Wilson would have carved out a career far more impressive than that of his contemporary Pie Traynor, more impressive still than Ron Santo or Home Run Baker and just a bit less impressive than Wade Boggs’s. In 1948, his second year of eligibility, Wilson appeared on fifty of fifty-one ballots cast to win election to the Hall of Merit.
Discussion of Jud Wilson is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/jud_wilson
LOUIS SANTOP
This Latino superstar of the deadball era is relatively unknown today, but we believe he was one of the deadball era’s most lethal hitters. The Hall of Merit echoed the nearly universal expert opinion that Santop was the best catcher in the Negro Leagues during the 1910s, and may have been the best catcher anywhere prior to Mickey Cochrane.
Santop is difficult to compare to any player in the white big leagues because as a catcher/outfielder with tremendous power, his profile is rare. Our translations indicate that he may have fused the hitting talent of ____ with the versatile and usually reliable defense of Wally Schang. This analogy yields a player who created tremendous value for his teams, more, we believe, than any other player who caught for any lengthy period of time before the mid 1920s.
In 1932, his first year of eligibility, Santop was enshrined in the Hall of Merit, appearing on all forty-eight ballots, and overwhelming the field by capturing thirty-six of the forty-eight available first-place votes in the process.
Discussion of Louis Santop is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/luis_santop
MULE SUTTLES
Mule Suttles ranks among the greatest homer hitters in the history of the Negro Leagues. This slugging first baseman/outfielder was a multidimensional batter; in addition to his prodigious power, he hit for high average and get on base frequently. Speed and defense weren’t key elements of his game, but Hall of Merit translations of existing, available data reaffirm his rank among the great hitters of his era:
Translated stats BA OBP SA G PA H BB TB OPS+
1923–1941 .302 .366 .538 2420 10163 2791 924 4967 137
</pre>
One challenge in figuring out Suttles is determining how much his home park would have helped him. The St. Louis Stars' home field was an exceptional offensive environment and the translations above attempt to make some account of that contextual influence on Suttles's power numbers.
Although he may have been overshadowed by the likes of Gehrig, Foxx, and Greenberg, Suttles would have, in the opinion of the Hall of Merit’s voters, been a major offensive force in the white big leagues: the Ernie Banks or Willie Stargell of his generation. Recognizing his greatness, the Hall of Merit enshrined Mule Suttles in its 1956 election, naming him on forty-one of the forty-six ballots cast.
Discussion of Mule Suttles is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/mule_suttles
PETE HILL
The first great outfielder in Negro League history, Pete Hill posted a string of sterling seasons in the early 1900s while playing an excellent centerfield. His prime extended into the 1910s, where his batting skills appear to decline rapidly. However, research conducted by Hall of Merit members indicates that, in fact, some of the drop in batting ability may be an illusion of context wrought by Hill’s move into the cavernous Schorling Park. Thirty-four at the time of the move, he would play on for another ten years, and when he moved to Detroit’s Mack Park, a much less extreme park, his high batting averages returned.
On the whole, a consensus developed in the Hall of Merit that Hill’s case is built around a wonderful peak and prime and that the information about his ballparks contributes to a new understanding of his career, one in which he doesn’t simply drop off, but rather loses ground to aging outfielder in a more typical pattern. Compared to Ty Cobb by his peers, the Hall of Merit likened him instead to a slightly less powerful Sam Crawford, and in his first year on the ballot, Hill won the 1927 election, appearing on forty-five of the fort-eight ballots cast.
Discussion of Pete Hill is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/pete_hill
and at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/1927_ballot_discussion (See pages 1 and 2.)
GRANT JOHNSON
We believe that Grant Johnson was the first great shortstop in black baseball. Parlaying his ample athleticism into good defense and combining it with one of the most potent bats of his generation, Johnson blazed the trail that John Henry Lloyd and John Beckwith would soon follow. Because of the lack of published documentation of his early career, our deliberations relied heavily on anecdote and reputation. But the oral record, and what little data exist, are very clear: Johnson was cast in the same mold as his near white major league contemporary George Davis, a strong, clutch player who shone in all aspects of the game and provided leadership to match his accomplishments. Grant Johnson won election to the Hall of merit in 1925, placing votes on 44 of the 48 ballots cast.
Discussion of Grant Johnson is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/1921_ballot_discussion (See pages 1 and 2.)
FRANK GRANT
Frank Grant was the finest player in black baseball before 1900. In addition to integrating the International League (temporarily), he helped build the Page Fence Giants, and contributed to numerous championship-caliber clubs. A smart fielder, fast runner, and powerful batsman, he was virtually always among the best players in his leagues. In considering his case, the members of the Hall of Merit thought of him as comparable to Bid McPhee or Jimmy Collins. Grant’s case, owing to its complexity, was difficult to understand, but finally, in 1926, he was elected after 17 years on the ballot.
Discussion of Frank Grant is scattered throughout the Hall of Merit’s early ballot discussion threads.
JOHN BECKWITH
Boom-Boom’s cause has grown with each passing year and his momentum is due in large part to the hard work of several Hall of Merit microfilm researchers. Beckwith had to overcome an initial electoral hesitance wrought by an influential and perhaps overly negative review of his character and fielding published in recent years. The diligence of our independent researchers has uncovered numerous newspaper accounts and anecdotes that contraindicate this harsh portrait and which paint a more balanced picture of this admittedly complex man.
However, one thing that no one doubts is that Beckwith could hit. His bat and his athleticism have been the driving force behind his candidacy. Our translations for him came out this way
Translated stats BA OBP SA G PA H BB TB OPS+
1919–1935 .333 .387 .522 1905 8010 2451 648 3847 137
</pre>
Comparing him to an earlier model of Chipper Jones, voters have slowly but surely moved their allegiance to Beckwith, and his vote totals have closely trailed Mule Suttles’s for several years. With Suttles now elected, it appears likely that Beckwith will join Joe DiMaggio as the Hall of Merit’s 1957 inductees.
Discussion of John Beckwith is available at
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom_discussion/john_beckwith
Really really minor point -
What follows is our view of the players we have encountered through 1957
Already mentioned the "through '57" bit. Just say "up to now." Minor point, maybe it's just me, but it does sound a bit better.
the thank yous are at the end after the player comments. I'm still not sure if that's where anyone wants them nor whether they are innappropriately long or organizationally self-congratulatory. Let me know if I've missed anyone or overstated anyone's contribution, or what.
=======================================
Where credit is due….
This document and the all the work at the Hall of Merit owes a great deal to our executive officers Joe Dimino and John (Don’t Call Me Grandma!) Murphy.
Our indispensable researchers Gadfly, Gary A., KJOK, and David C. Jones have made tons of information available that would otherwise be lost to us entirely.
Chris Cobb has done the heaviest lifting of us all in assembling a working and incredibly useful translation system for Negro League statistics.
DavidFoss, Brent, and Dr. Chaleeko have also contributed mightily to making the images of these players emerge from the shadows of time and discrimination.
Sunnyday2 and Chris J. have provided great feedback on all matters at the Hall of Merit and their questions and comments have been especially useful in fleshing out the stories of these men as well as the story being told in this document.
Every member of the Hall of Merit has contributed to the greater understanding of Negro League players in some way. Thank you to EVERYONE who participates.
developed by Hall of Merit participants estimate that Brown would have won between 270 and 300 games with a winning percentage around.580
Need a space just before .580.
With the possible exception of Ron Santo
I'd suggest losing this since the HoM evidence is that he was better than Santo. Maybe something like "Quite possibly or even quite likely the best third baseman of any race no currently in Cooperstown . . "
Actually, now that I think about it -- has the HoM come across any third baseman better than him? If not, then flat out say, that the main sentiment of the HoM is that Jud Wilson was the best third baseman in baseball history prior to WWII.
Our translations indicate that he may have fused the hitting talent of ____ with the versatile and usually reliable defense of Wally Schang.
Don't know enough to say. Who's a well-known hitter than could serve as a name? Doesn't necessraily have to be a catcher, though it would help.
No homers for Mule?
the Hall of Merit likened him instead to a slightly less powerful Sam Crawford
This in terms of prime or career value? Or both?
With Grant Johnson, I'd also suggest including that when Sol White wanted someone to write a chapter on hitting in his book, he turned to Grant Johnson; which is as strong an endorsement of his reputation in those days as you could get.
A smart fielder, fast runner, and powerful batsman, he was virtually always among the best players in his leagues.
Then maybe finish off the sentence by adding "despite being a very young player facing exceedingly hostile competition."
Good catch on the 1957 stuff. I should say right now that this kind of suggestion is really helpful since we've got a complete draft of this document. My eyes aren't seeing that kind of thing at this point in the writing process. I also have a tendency to be verbose and hifalutten, so please feel free to point out places where I can condense my thoughts.
Also, Chris J., I read your comments in 43, and I was hoping that this paragraph would be the catchall for both our biases and our methodologies.
One of the key aspects of our election process is the consideration of pre-integration black and Latino players alongside their white contemporaries. We have relied on Negro Leaguer’s reputations and what statistical evidence of their accomplishments has been previously published (mostly in the form of books by James Riley, John Holway, and others). While we’ve found these sources to be occasionally frustrating or inconsistent, they are the best currently available to us. Using these pieces of information, we have assembled a more complete picture of each player by using traditional measures like hits, ERA, as well as by embracing advanced statistical tools put forth by the sabermetric community and popularized by Bill James, Baseball Prospectus, and others. Additionally we have in many cases devised unique and rigorous homegrown methods that take what information we have access to and facilitate comparisons among black and white candidates by translating a Negro Leaguer’s performance into a major-league setting. As a group we tend to deal exclusively with on-the-field performance and are quite cautious in assigning value to a player’s character and leadership.
Which sentences or phrases in this paragraph are tripping you up? (It's easier for the sake of unity and cohesion for me to rewrite rather than to try to work someone else's paragraph in there.)
Great job on the synopsis.
Minor nitpick - Torriente needs an asterisk in post #49. Wouldn't want the committee to overlook him.
Note: I haven't done damn thing with regard to feedback on negro leaguers. I give info on the 192 pitchers on my site, but giving me a thanks on this document is out of place.
I'm against striking this thread from the record. If they want to check on it, let them. Fair's fair, and I don't think what's said about them is insulting -- unless not being interested in sabermetrics is taken as an insult. I think they'd recognize on their own that this doc was likely tailored with the reader in mind.
Oh, I was refering mainly to the part of my post where the intro needs a "thanks to" section, but you covered that at the end instead, so it works just as well.
No homers for Mule?
I'll check the thread for his projected homers. I'm not sure if we even addressed that or not!
This in terms of prime or career value? Or both?
Good question, it was before my time and the Hill commentary is kind of scattered. His main comparisons were Sheckard and Magee (whom he was deemed superior to), while Crawford was the next man up the totem pole. So I think the answer is for both peak and career.
Rick A., nice catch, thanks.