George Hall was thrown out of the game in 1877 for throwing a game? I'm suprised that organized ball was even coordinated enough in 1877 to accomplish this. As an aside, thrown games in all sports were very common in this era and was not unknown (and frequently dealt with fairly generously) in any professional sport - amateur sport was an entirely different matter.

Dalrymple, Jones, and O'Neill (better believe I'm voting for the Tipper) are very close and all seemingly on the borderline. There are a LOT of borderline candidates in this era!

Win Shares per 162 games played (NA not included):

Abner Dalrymple:25.15
George Hall:24
Charley Jones:29.42
Andy Leonard:20.35
Darby O'Brien:24.9
Tip O'Neill:32.73
Joe Sommer:16.2
George Wood:21.01
Tom York:25.12

Jones is a definite, IMO. I'd probably take Dalrymple second, then York, O'Neill and Wood can fight it out for third.

I posted this on another thread (baseball's worst moments):

The gambling scandal involving Louisville Colonels players in the NL of 1877. Star pitcher Jim Devlin, star outfielder George Hall, shortstop Bill Craver, and utility player Al Nichols were banned for life for throwing games. (This set the precedent for Landis' punishment of the Black Sox 42 years later.)

Six more leftfielders worthy of some scrutiny turned up in my little database, including a hall of famer:

Cliff Carroll 1882-93
Joe Hornung 1879-90
Jim O'Rourke 1872-93 (token appearance 1904)
Blondie Purcell 1879-90
Emmett Seery 1884-92
Walt Wilmot 1888-98

There is also still the question of what to do with Ed Delahanty. I don't remember us ever settling the question of whether we would allow early eligibility for deceased candidates. IMHO, we should not.

As far as I know, Thurman Munson is the only player ever allowed onto the regular BBWAA ballot early because he died. (Gehrig and Clemente were elected in special votes.) I think it's more interesting to see how a player fares in voting against his direct peers. Make 'em wait the five years.

DG

Dan:
Jim O'Rourke will be included with the rightfielders.

Dan:
Jim O'Rourke will be included with the rightfielders.

Jim, see the post above yours. Don't worry, you'll be looked at.

Scruff would have the percentages concerning Orator Jim.

editor's note: I've moved the extra players John added to the top of the thread. Thanks John! Back to John's comments:

I left off Blondie Purcell because he started off as a pitcher. I need the formula that Scruff is working on for the pitchers.

Ed, on the earlier discussions (back in January I think) we pretty much came to the consensus that we would disregard token appearances.

It came down to a weighing of the pro's and con's. The 'pro' of comparing a player to his true peers outweighed the 'con' of not waiting until the player is truly retired. I have no issue if you want to reopen this discussion though.

Sure thing Eric:

WS/162 Games: 27.85

I don't know where exactly, but I'd be shocked if he doesn't wind up on my first ballot. A truly great player from that time.

Likewise. I'd be shocked if he weren't in my top 5.

Updating my top five leftfielders (in order):
Jim O'Rourke (leaps and bounds over everyone else)
Charley Jones (I am not as sure about his HoM qualifications)
Tip O'Neill
Tom York (probably number two when counting his NA numbers)
Abner Dalrymple

I have taken George Wood off my list.

Just in case somebody missed it, Joe corrected Harry Stovey's adjusted Win Shares.

Continuing my process of reconsideration: LFers eligible through 1939 and worth considering.

• Already on my ballot somewhere, not nec. top 15--C. Jones, Sheckard
• Reconsidered--Dalrymple, T. O'Neill, Schulte, G. Stone, York
• Newly eligible--S. Magee
• Coming--G. J. Burns, J. Jackson, Veach, Wheat, K. Williams
• Negro Leaguers coming--P. Hill, H. Johnson, McNair

I'll go straight to the rankings.

1. Joe Jackson--#1 peak, #1 prime, #3 career. Only the #8 career by adjWARP1, and only the #5-6 prime by adjWARP1 (years, total value, rate). And his peak is not as dominant as I expected except according to LWTS. WARP really doesn't like him a whole lot. But then many don't like him: I'll be boycotting in '26 but in '27 he'll be in the top 2-3, I think, if he's still eligible.

2. Charley Jones--#2 peak, #4 prime, #5 career. Trails Jackson for 3 year adjWARP1 peak by just 38.4-38.2 and for 5 year non-consecutive adjWS just 183-182. WARP prefers Jones for 5 non-consecutive years and by a fair margin, 66.5-59.0.

3. Jimmy Sheckard--#3 peak, #5 prime, #4 career. #1 for career adjWARP1 with 136 to Zack Wheat's 128. Second longest prime but fairly low prime rates.

4. Sherry Magee--#5 peak, #2 prime and #1 (tie) career. Tied with Wheat for career. For adjWS it's Wheat 388-368 (followed by Sheckard 354), for adjWARP1, Magee is third. LWTS likes Magee better than either. His prime rates are better than Sheckard or Wheat, too.

5. Zack Wheat--#6 peak, #3 prime, #1 (tie) career. #1 career in adjWS (388), #1 in prime length by every measure (WS, WARP, LWTS), but at low rates (e.g. 22.5 WS/prime year vs. Magee 26, Sheckard 24...Joe Jackson at 31). Not much of a peak, 82 adjWS for 3 years vs. the other top guys at or above 100. An odd career, had three great years and like Sheckard's they were spread out--1914, 1916 and 1924. Frankly, if he had retired after what looked like a fairly standard decline phase at age 35 in 1923, he would be, well, Bobby Veach or George Burns today. IOW his deadball career, taken as a whole, was a shade better than mediocre. That one more great year in '24 cemented his reputation.

6. Pete Hill--okay, what gives. Shouldn't Hill be up higher? He is generally regarded as the #4 Negro League LFer, (the Pittsburgh Courier even had him #2 on its famous 1952 all-time Negro League team) and he probably is.

But consider that from 1910-1913, for which we happen to have some numbers, at age 30-33 he hit .371. Spot Poles, at age 20-23, hit .435, and Grant Johnson, at age 36-39, hit .389 while playing in the middle infield.

I've seen MLE projections for RC at 1800 (comp. Jesse Burkett) and 1441 (comp. George Davis). But seriously. The same projections show him hitting .308. His OPS projection of 868 comps Bill Dickey (#83 all-time) and his OPS+ of 140 ties Burkett, Wally Berger, Tip O'Neill and Reggie Jackson for #56 all-time. His comp of 2,985 hits is pretty damn good, comping Sam Rice. His R and RBI comp Jimmie Foxx and Tony Perez at #17 and #18 all-time.

In other words, these comps cannot be trusted. But OTOH, discount them 20 percent and he still comps Enos Slaughter (#84) for RC, Roger Connor (#70) for RBI and Billy Williams (#68) for R.

James says he was a left-handed line drive hitter, and captain of Rube Foster's Chicago American Giants from 1911 to 1918. When Foster created a second team (the Detroit Stars), Hill became their first manager. Cum Posey said he was "the most consistent hitter of his time," and he was often compared to Ty Cobb.

My impression, and it's not a terribly well-informed one, is that like his mentor, Foster, his reputation rests in part on his leadership qualities, his likeable personality, his integrity, the respect that people had for him, and his managerial contributions. I just don't see a guy who hit .371 in four prime years, while Grant Johnson, 6 years older, was hitting .389 and Spot Poles, starting out as a 20 year old, was hitting .435, as Ty Cobb or Jesse Burkett.

Sheckard or Magee or Wheat is more like it. Which is still not bad. And everybody listed here so far, except Jackson, is close enough to one another that they are either all HoMers or all not HoMers. I'm not entirely sure which.

7. Bobby Veach--a big fall-off from the top 6--the #6 peak, #6 prime, #6 career. His strong suit is his #4 rating on adjWARP1 5 year non-consecutive peak of 55.6 (behind Jones, Sheckard and Jackson) and #4 adjWARP1 prime rate of 10 WARP for 9 years (trailing Tip O'Neill, Charlie Jones and George Stone on rate). An outstanding player but not a HoMer and probably not a ballot-maker.

8.George J. Burns--the one who played LF for the Giants--#7 peak, #8 prime, #8 career. Woulda been a better HoF choice than most of the Giants of this era who did get picked. 6th in career adjWS with 306, one less than Joe Jackson.

9. Tip O'Neill--#4 peak but that's all there is. #9 prime, #10 career. Took him until age 28 to find his way from his native Canada to a regular major league spot. Was he lost in space or just hadn't perfected his skills yet?

10. Tom York--$12 peak, #7 prime, $7 career. Could easily rate ahead of O'Neill--a classic peak vs. career choice. His 12-13 year prime was a rare enough thing in his day though his prime rates are mediocre.

11. Kenny Williams--#10 peak, #12 prime, #9 career. I didn't realize he didn't become a regular until age 30, but he really blossomed with the coming of the lively ball (not unlike Zack Wheat, except that Wheat, though only 2 years older than Williams, had already been a regular for 10 years when Williams joined him in 1920).

12. Heavy Johnson--a 250-lb power hitter, apparently couldn't field a lick. KJOK projects him to a .363 MLE BA with a .602 SA! In 1924 he is supposed to have hit 60 HR but the KC Monarchs played about 250 games against all comers. From 1922-24 he hit .400 with 30 3Bs and 32 HRs in 182 Negro League games. But he only played 8 years, which makes him comparable to...

13. George Stone--a big 3 year peak, but falls off precipitously even for a 5 year peak. Has the #8 (tie) peak, #10 prime, #12 career. Very very very short career.

14. Abner Dalrymple--#11 peak, #11 prime, #11 career. WS kinda likes him if you adjust for season length.

15. Hurley McNair--projects to .317 MLE with .468 SA. Played 12 years. He was reputed to be "the best two-strike hitter in the Negro Leagues."

16. Frank Schulte--#13 among 13 for peak, prime and career. One player in this set is not like the others. Despite his colorful nickname and MVP award, that would be Schulte. Don't remember how he got into this set in the first place--oh, yes, I do. Ranks #3 for 5 year non-consecutive adjWS peak with 177 (Jackson 183, Jones 182, Schulte 177, Dalrymple (!) 165, Magee 162, Sheckard 161). Could his choice of teammates be the reason for that?

My final words of advice? HELP! Can somebody distinguish Sheckard, Magee, Wheat and Hill for us???

My two cents here is that I counted 21 left fielders with 300+ win shares, (23 if you give boosts to Joe Jackson and Minnie Minoso).

Of those 21, we have already elected Ed Delahanty, Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Jim O'Rourke, and Joe Kelley. Of the remaining 16, we will not yet have eligible when we reach the "present" Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, or Barry Bonds. Of the remaining 13, one is Jose Cruz. Of the remaining 12, 3 are Jimmy Sheckard, Zach Wheat, and Sherry Magee. I think that all three will go in eventually, or else we will have only elected about 12 left fielders over the next 7 decades. That makes ranking them now somewhat less important, although I concur that they appear somewhat identical. I distinguish as follows:

1. Sherry Magee: 112.1 WARP-1; 354 WS; Bill James Rank #21. Best NL Left Fielder between 1905-1915, bar none. Best or second best at his position 9 times.
2. Jimmy Sheckard. 130.7 WARP-1; 339 WS; BJ Rank# 24.
Directly comparable to Magee, playing the same position in the same era. Better than Magee in some years, but Magee wins in the "sustained peak" measure. Best or second best at his position 7 times. I'd put Wheat 2nd between Magee and Sheckard, but he's not really comparable, playing really a half generation later.
3. Charley Jones 73.2 WARP-1; 160 WS; BJ Rank #67. I don't know if it's technically "legal" but I give Jones "blackball credits" for 1881 and 1882 that more than compensated for the AA demerits of 1883 on. That puts him a solid third here.
4. Tom York: 68.9; 217 WS; unranked. Best outfielder of the early NL. Might be ballot worthy if Jones and Pike have already been inducted.
5. Elmer Smith: 81.8 WARP-1; 284 WS; BJ Rank#75. Bob Caruthers within the wins.
6. Tip O'Neill: 65.1 WARP-1; 213 WS; BJ Rank#48. Bob Caruthers without the pitching at all, but with more hitting. He and Smith might be in the wrong order.
7. John Anderson: 67.2 WARP-1; 210 WS; BJ Rank#86. "A third choice." Never really the best, but always very good.
8. Kip Selbach: 86.2 WARP-1; 213 WS; BJ Rank# 74. Trailing off in an attempt to finish a weak top 10.
9. Sam Mertes:63.2 WARP-1; 181 WS; BJ Rank#73. I think he was a Mason.
10. Patsy Dougherty: 54.0 WARP-1; 188 WS; BJ Rank# 72. Even in his prime, he wasn't that good.

Quick comments on Pete Hill

1) I often see him described as a center fielder; I think he probably played more center than left.

2) the home ball park of the Chicago American Giants for most of the 1910s was a strong pitcher's park; even at 39, Hill's batting stats jump when he goes to Detriot, even before the lively ball.

3) My impression is that Hill's best years as a hitter came before 1910. My sense (others with better history can correct me) is that players tended to peak as hitters at a somewhat younger age than they do now: 25-28 tended to be the peak. So looking at Hill at 30-33, we've already missed his top hitting years. (Reason players tended to peak earlier: after the lively ball, hitters' skills as a power hitter tends to continue to improve as the player ages: without the power-hitter skills angle, when players begin to lose a bit of foot-speed, bat-speed, and resilience, performance starts to decline a bit.)

These three factors lead me to see Hill as a notch above Sheckard, Magee, and Wheat, who I agree are very similar. I don't think Hill was quite as good as Johnson, though.

I rate Sheckard, Magee, and Wheat as eventual HoMers.

Philly, good work. I probably shoulda had Elmer Smith in my set. I may not do a good job of sorting out the pitcher/position players. Nice to see Sam Mertes remembered, I actually looked at him when he first became eligible. He had a nice peak but not enough to make my reconsideration set.

Chris, re. Hill, I didn't mean to imply his peak was 1910-13, just that we had some numbers. By comparison from that limited sample and assuming that the career curves were more or less conventional, he doesn't look as good as HR Johnson or Spot Poles, however. That's the only comparison I had intended to make. The ranking vs. Sheckard, Magee and Wheat doesn't derive from that number, particularly. But let's just say that at his peak he was a .435 hitter against Negro teams. That would still make him less of a player than Sheckard, Magee and Wheat. Obviously it's all guesswork.

I wonder if KJOK would mind telling us how he derived his MLEs again???

By comparison from that limited sample and assuming that the career curves were more or less conventional, he doesn't look as good as HR Johnson or Spot Poles, however. That's the only comparison I had intended to make. The ranking vs. Sheckard, Magee and Wheat doesn't derive from that number, particularly. But let's just say that at his peak he was a .435 hitter against Negro teams. That would still make him less of a player than Sheckard, Magee and Wheat.

I agree that he's below Johnson; Poles I'm not so high on, but I care more about career value than you do, Marc. But I'd say that if Hill was hitting .435 against "all competition" with good power, that he was a better hitter at his peak than Sheckard, Magee, or Wheat.

What sort of a guesswork discount are you applying?

Chris, re. Hill, I didn't mean to imply his peak was 1910-13, just that we had some numbers. By comparison from that limited sample and assuming that the career curves were more or less conventional -

I don't think you can quite assume a normal career arc with Pete Hill though. When I get a chance I'll post (in the Negro Leagues thread, not here) the year-by-year stats I have on him from the Macmillon encyclopdia.

Short answer: He was great, really great, based on the very limited statistical evidence we have of him when he was young. Then in his early 30s, his average falls to sh*t for 3-4 years. Notably, his statistical record for those years are the most complete of his entire career, so the numbers on him available at the database in the yahoo group are skewed downward. Then in his mid-30s, he recoverd & hit well for the next several years. But he did dip down but hard for a couple years.

I don't believe in short generations, so I agree with the impulse to include Jackson, Wheat, and Veach in the present analysis.

What about left field? Should it be the focus of attention as a distinct fielding position with its distinct stars? There is a long history of part-career centerfielders, from O'Rourke and Ryan to Reggie Smith and Jimmy Wynn. What's more, Joe Jackson split his outfield games played 45-11-43%. Babe Ruth, 47-3-50%.

I'm guessing about -20% off of KJOK's spreadsheet numbers which are already MLEs rather than real Negro League numbers. That puts Hill at about .290 with OPS maybe around .750 and 1150 RC. In effect I am guessing that with discount he is Enos Slaughter instead of Jesse Burkett.

Paul,

I could see looking at left field TODAY as a place where old centerfielders go to die, but in 1910, the two positions appear much closer together in terms of put outs per game for the position.

Just randomly pick some teams. You'll see that pretty consistently, the CF will, of course, have the most POs, but LF will have only slightly less, and the RF will have much less. Today, you are more likely to see a LF with the lowest PO/G totals, but that was not the case in the period we are examining.

I would definitely agree that RF should not be considered its own position at this time (just like today I would not give a player credit for being the Best Designated Hitter), but LF was much more of a defensively important position -- combining them would be akin to combining 2B and SS.

On a related point, Joe Jackson did switch from right field to left field when he left Cleveland, but Cleveland at the time had two prominent lefty pitchers (Vean Gregg and Willie Mitchell), so RF play in Jackson's early career should be the equivalent of a LF on other righty-dominated teams.

I just don't think that a CF to LF move had the significance in the 1910s in terms of movement along the defensive spectrum as it would today (or as a move to RF would have.) It certainly had some meaning, but not enough to lump LFers in with the outfield masses.

My look at LFers is just a stage. You'll see me integrate the OFers later. Of course, Paul, I know that then you'll say that I shouldn't mix in the CFers.

Actually eventually I'll get to 1B-OF as a class. The hard part isn't being fair to CFers vs. corner OFs, it's being fair to each individual as an individual. Categories and classes (including positions) are just a help.

Matt made a general point about change in LF fielding responsibilities --a decrease, so that LF was once comparable to CF, later comparable to RF. True. But the change was probably continuous; players with 20th century debuts are now on the table; Magee Jackson and Ruth careers were centered c. 1910, 1915, 1925.

Quoting myself:

Matt made a general point about change in LF fielding responsibilities --a decrease, so that LF was once comparable to CF, later comparable to RF. True. But the change was probably continuous; players with 20th century debuts are now on the table; Magee Jackson and Ruth careers were centered c. 1910, 1915, 1925.

Quoting myself:

Add Pablo "Champion" Mesa to my list in #22. A player worthy of consideration. But below Heavy Johnson somewhere. Maybe Mesa is the real G. Stone comp.

Reconstructed all posts up to #25.

Al Spink on left field in the early days. Salt to taste.

_ Left field has always been considered the hardest place to fill in the outer works.
_ It was especially hard in the early days of the professional game, when the pitching was slower than it is now, when the ball contained more rubber than the ball used at the present time and when hits to the left field, long rangy hits, were the order of the day in nearly each and every game.
_ So it happened that in the earliest days of the professional game the fleetest men on each team were assigned to positions at left field.

"The Left Fielders." The National Game, 2d ed. 1911.

Thanks, Paul. I think I'm going to post that at the Tom York thread. Maybe I can get one more voter to submit his name on a ballot now. :-)

Ya know, I always liked these positional threads. I mean, a thread about LFers is more useful than separate threads on Tom York, Veach and Burns, etc. etc. The positional thread encourages a more comparative approach while the individual threads just scream out for advocacy, and the positional threads got more than 3-8 posts before they faded into oblivion.

With all of that in mind, I thought post #22 above was pretty brilliant.

(Signed) Charley Jones

Wow! He was born a staggering 154 years ago, yet he's computer savvy. Now that's what I call being hip!

FWIW, I agree with Marc on this one. This project is all about comparison, and I certainly would find it more useful to compare Charley Jones to Bobby Veach and Ned Williamson to Pie Traynor than the current method. Hell, there hasn't been any deal discussion on Williamson (who I still think is a very viable candidate) for years, I think with an active "Third Base" thread, he might still be in the spotlight a bit when the Traynors and other new candidates of the world hit the ballot.

Best LF 1871-1940 by WARP

Lexicographic key:
Upper Case -- A TOP star; one of top N players in MLB
Lower Case -- a 2nd tier star; one top 2N players in MLB
(in parentheses) -- nearly a 2nd tier star (withing 10%)
<in angle brackets> -- best at position; not an all-star season
Note: N is approximate number of teams:
9 from 1871-1881; 12 from 1882-1900; 16 from 1901-1960
Note: All TOP stars are listed, even if not best at position
This represents a level of play where one might expect the player
to be the best on his team, except for uneven talent distribution.

1871 fredtreacey
1872 andyleonard
1873 ANDYLEONARD TOMYORK
1874 ANDYLEONARD
1875 tomyork
1876 GEORGEHALL
1877 CHARLEYJONES
1878 ABNERDALRYMPLE
1879 CHARLEYJONES
1880 ABNERDALRYMPLE
1881 abnerdalrymple
1882 abnerdalrymple
1883 georgewood
1884 jimo'rourke
1885 charleyjones
1886 HARDYRICHARDSON
1887 TIPO'NEILL
1888 HARRYSTOVEY HUBCOLLINS
1889 HARRYSTOVEY
1890 petebrowning
1891 BILLYHAMILTON
1892 BILLYHAMILTON
1893 EDDELAHANTY ELMERSMITH
1894 JOEKELLEY EDDELAHANTY
1895 EDDELAHANTY JESSEBURKETT JOEKELLEY
1896 JESSEBURKETT JOEKELLEY EDDELAHANTY ELMERSMITH
1897 FREDCLARKE EDDELAHANTY JOEKELLEY JESSEBURKETT
1898 EDDELAHANTY
1899 EDDELAHANTY JESSEBURKETT JOEKELLEY
1900 KIPSELBACH JESSEBURKETT
1901 JESSEBURKETT JIMMYSHECKARD EDDELAHANTY FREDCLARKE TOPSYHARTSEL
1902 EDDELAHANTY JESSEBURKETT
1903 JIMMYSHECKARD PATSYDOUGHERTY
1904 jesseburkett
1905 GEORGESTONE TOPSYHARTSEL
1906 GEORGESTONE
1907 GEORGESTONE SHERRYMAGEE
1908 MATTYMCINTYRE
1909 FREDCLARKE
1910 SHERRYMAGEE
1911 JIMMYSHECKARD
1912 maxcarey
1913 (georgeburns)
1914 GEORGEBURNS TILLYWALKER ZACKWHEAT
1915 BOBBYVEACH
1916 BOBBYVEACH ZACKWHEAT
1917 BOBBYVEACH GEORGEBURNS
1918 georgeburns
1919 BABERUTH BOBBYVEACH GEORGEBURNS
1920 JOEJACKSON
1921 BABERUTH BOBBYVEACH
1922 KENWILLIAMS BOBBYVEACH BABERUTH
1923 KENWILLIAMS CHARLIEJAMIESON
1924 ZACKWHEAT
1925 GOOSEGOSLIN
1926 BABERUTH GOOSEGOSLIN BIBBFALK KIKICUYLER
1927 RIGGSSTEPHENSON
1928 HEINIEMANUSH GOOSEGOSLIN
1929 LEFTYO'DOUL
1930 ALSIMMONS
1931 ALSIMMONS
1932 LEFTYO'DOUL ALSIMMONS
1933 ALSIMMONS
1934 bobjohnson
1935 AUGIEGALAN JOEVOSMIK
1936 JOEMEDWICK
1937 JOEMEDWICK BOBJOHNSON
1938 joemedwick
1939 BOBJOHNSON
1940 TEDWILLIAMS HANKGREENBERG
</pre>

Left Fielders

Again, eligible through 1980. Total is Career/10 + BWS/162.


LF Career Games BWS/162 Total Fielding
Williams, T 512.4 2292 36.2 87.5 C
Musial, S 538.7 3026 28.8 82.7 A-
*Burkett, J 335.2 2066 26.3 59.8 B
*Delahanty, E 311.1 1835 27.5 58.6 B-
*Jackson, J 262.8 1332 32.0 58.2 C+
*Clarke, F 335.7 2242 24.3 57.8 A-
*Magee, S 305.8 2087 23.7 54.3 B-
*Wheat, Z 322.1 2410 21.7 53.9 B-
*Simmons, A 305.4 2215 22.3 52.9 A
*Goslin, G 305.4 2287 21.6 52.2 C+
Howard, F 272.1 1895 23.3 50.5 D+
*O'Rourke, J 258.7 1774 23.6 49.5 C+
Medwick, J 267.4 1984 21.8 48.6 B-
*Stovey, H 232.1 1486 25.3 48.5 B+
*Sheckard, J 272.4 2122 20.8 48.0 A
*Kelley, J 252.2 1853 22.0 47.3 A-
Johnson, B 250.8 1863 21.8 46.9 C
Keller, C 193.9 1170 26.8 46.2 C+
Kiner, R 216.3 1472 23.8 45.4 C-
Burns, GJ 241.3 1853 21.1 45.2 B-
Minoso, M 239.7 1835 21.2 45.1 B-
Manush, H 245.0 2008 19.8 44.3 C
Walker, D 234.9 1905 20.0 43.5 B
Galan, A 223.5 1742 20.8 43.1 B
Hartsel, T 193.0 1356 23.1 42.4 C+
Heath, J 194.0 1383 22.7 42.1 C-
O'Neill, T 164.6 1054 25.3 41.8 A
Veach, B 219.1 1821 19.5 41.4 B
Donlin, M 157.0 1049 24.2 39.9 C
Jones, C 140.7 881 25.9 39.9 C+
Sievers, R 206.5 1887 17.7 38.4 D
Stone, G 131.1 848 25.0 38.2 C-
Woodling, G 200.2 1796 18.1 38.1 C
Dougherty, P 161.7 1233 21.2 37.4 C
Ennis, D 201.9 1903 17.2 37.4 D+
Selbach, K 183.9 1610 18.5 36.9 C-
Williams, K 170.3 1397 19.7 36.8 B-
Smith, E 159.0 1234 20.9 36.8 B
Stephenson, R 164.4 1310 20.3 36.8 C
Hafey, C 161.2 1283 20.4 36.5 C
Gordon, S 172.5 1475 18.9 36.2 D+
O'Doul, L 133.0 970 22.2 35.5 D
Buford, D 157.1 1286 19.8 35.5 n/r
Smith, A 165.4 1517 17.7 34.2 C
Mertes, S 144.7 1190 19.7 34.2 B+
Meusel, B 156.2 1407 18.0 33.6 C-
Moore, J 144.4 1291 18.1 32.6 D+
Dalrymple, A 119.6 951 20.4 32.3 A
Moon, W 151.2 1457 16.8 31.9 C
Valo, E 165.1 1806 14.8 31.3 D+
Meusel, I 137.6 1289 17.3 31.1 C-
Wood, G 136.1 1280 17.2 30.8 C+
Bescher, B 132.6 1228 17.5 30.8 C-
Tresh, T 130.2 1192 17.7 30.7 C+
Slagle, J 135.4 1298 16.9 30.4 A
Gonzalez, T 148.4 1559 15.4 30.3 B-
McIntyre, M 120.5 1072 18.2 30.3 B
Goodman, I 122.2 1107 17.9 30.1 C
Nieman, B 120.4 1113 17.5 29.6 D+
Stone, J 123.6 1200 16.7 29.0 C+
Lewis, D 137.0 1459 15.2 28.9 B+
Shotton, B 132.8 1387 15.5 28.8 C
Walker, T 133.4 1421 15.2 28.5 C+
Jamieson, C 147.7 1779 13.4 28.2 C+
Hopp, J 129.7 1393 15.1 28.1 A-
Cunningham, J 115.5 1141 16.4 27.9 n/r
Francona, T 143.3 1719 13.5 27.8 C-
Jones, D 110.3 1089 16.4 27.4 B
Case, G 116.9 1226 15.4 27.1 C
Falk, B 122.7 1353 14.7 27.0 C
Wright, T 104.2 1029 16.4 26.8 C
Cooley, D 119.6 1316 14.7 26.7 C
Thomas, F 138.5 1766 12.7 26.6 C+
Vosmik, J 123.5 1414 14.1 26.5 B
Mann, L 125.0 1498 13.5 26.0 B-
Walker, G 136.1 1784 12.4 26.0 B-
Skinner, B 118.2 1381 13.9 25.7 C
Zernial, G 106.9 1234 14.0 24.7 D+
Maye, L 106.5 1288 13.4 24.0 C-
Graney, J 109.2 1402 12.6 23.5 C
Bressler, R 103.9 1305 12.9 23.3 B-
Lopez, H 104.6 1450 11.7 22.1 C
</pre>

I put Musial here as well as at 1B for those who, like me, think of him as an outfielder. He also gives Teddy a run at the top. We have elected a lot of LF, and Medwick is very close to election. That leaves one name among the leaders, the surprising Frank Howard. Hondo wouldn't be the worst fielder we have elected (that's Harry Heilmann) but he would be the second-worst, and he doesn't quite as well as Heilmann.

One interesting thing from these charts is the easy ability to extrapolate careers. For example, with 121 more games at his career BWS/162 rate, Bob Johnson would have the exact same hitting rating as Joe Medwick. Now, Medwick has a better peak and is a better fielder, but Johnson may deserve some more credit.

Another extrapolation of sorts can be done with Charlie Keller. So he probably wouldn't maintain his 26.8 hitting rating with a few more war years (although this was during his prime). Give Keller about two seasons and drop his rate to 25.3, and you have Harry Stovey.

Of the others, Kiner, Burns and Minoso have or will have some support, as does Charley Jones further down the list. I think that Heinie Manush is probably the cut-off without some serious extra credit.

Player Overall Wins - LF:

Bob Johnson - 36
Joe Medwick - 26
Ralph Kiner - 24
Charlie Keler - 22
Harry Stovey - 21
Charley Jones - 19
Bobby Veach - 18
Ken Williams - 18

Again, including eligibles up through very recent retirees. See Catcher Thread post #128 for method. The percentage compares the individual player to my system's theoretical max. A few players have outscored the max: Ruth, Wagner, Williams, and Cobb. All seasons are prorated to 154 games. Credit for War, skin, trapped in the minors, and blackballed.

Ted Williams 102.7%
Stan Musial 92.6%
Rickey Henderson 75.2%
*Jim O'Rourke 74.1%
*Ed Delahanty 72.8%
*Joe Jackson 72.4%
*Jesse Burkett 70.2%
Carl Yastrzemski 68.2%
*Al Simmons 67.5%
*Fred Clarke 67.0%
Charley Jones 66.4%
*Harry Stovey 66.1%
*Sherry Magee 66.1%
Tim Raines 65.0%
Charlie Keller 64.0%
*Joe Kelley 62.9%
*Jimmy Sheckard 61.9%
*Goose Goslin 61.6%
*Zack Wheat 61.6%
Willie Stargell 61.4%
Ducky Wucky Medwick 61.1%
Billy Williams 59.6%
George Burns 59.4%
Frank Howard 59.3%
Ralph Kiner 58.4%
Albert Belle 58.1%
Minnie Minoso 56.7% (Does not include any MLEs)
Bobby Veach 55.9%
Lou Brock 53.6%
Bob Johnson 53.3%
Heinie Manush 53.3%
Jim Rice 53.2%
Roy White 52.7%
Jose Cruz 52.7%
Augie Galan 52.3%
Tom York 51.4%
Jeff Heath 48.7%
Ken Williams 48.6%
Brian Downing 47.4%
Del Ennis 46.8%
Chick Hafey 44.6%
Gene Woodling 42.8%
</pre>
He Who Shall Not Be Named of the Pirates and Giants will soon take his place near the top. Also, looking at
this list should do a good job in explaining the ballot positions for Keller and Jones.

I forgot to include Monte Irvin at 63.6% in the above list.