You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Monday, April 21, 2008
Ranking the Hall of Merit Catchers - Discussion
We’ll be going position by position, starting behind the plate:
Johnny Bench
Charlie Bennett
Yogi Berra
Roger Bresnahan
Roy Campanella
Gary Carter
Mickey Cochrane
Bill Dickey
Buck Ewing
Carlton Fisk
Bill Freehan
Josh Gibson
Gabby Hartnett
Biz Mackey
Cal McVey
Louis Santop
Ted Simmons
Joe Torre
Quincy Trouppe
Deacon White
I expect the election to begin 4/27/2008 and wrap up 5/4/2008.
EDIT: Election will end 5/11/2008 8 p.m. EDT, unless another time is found to be more convenient for John and the ballot counters.
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.
1) Gibson, Josh
2) Berra, Yogi
3) Bench, Johnny
4) Carter, Gary
5) Hartnett, Gabby
6) Dickey, Bill
7) Ewing, Buck
8) Fisk, Carlton
9) Cochrane, Mickey
10) Santop, Louis
11) Campanella, Roy
12) White, Deacon
13) Bresnahan, Roger
14) Bennett, Charlie
15) Torre, Joe
16) Trouppe, Quincy
17) Simmons, Ted
18) Freehan, Bill
19) Mackey, Biz
20) McVey, Cal
My initial ranking:
1. Josh Gibson
2. Johnny Bench
3. Gary Carter
4. Deacon White
5. Yogi Berra
6. Buck Ewing
7. Bill Dickey
8. Charlie Bennett
9. Mickey Cochrane
10. Roy Campanella
11. Louis Santop
12. Ted Simmons
13. Gabby Hartnett
14. Cal McVey
15. Carlton Fisk
16. Joe Torre
17. Roger Bresnahan
18. Bill Freehan
19. Quincy Trouppe
20. Biz Mackey
I think there's only a couple of radical disagreement on ML catchers between my list and those of DL and Sean Gilman above: I'll mention it in the notes.
Catchers—Preliminary Ranking
1. Josh Gibson. In the same class as a hitter as Ruth, Williams, and Barry Bonds. Not reputed to be a great defensive catcher, but that just doesn't matter. He's an easy #1 in this group.
2. Johnny Bench. Total = 365. Best major-league catcher ever. No one else has ever had his combination of offensive and defensive brilliance. Durability during his prime is also a plus.
3. Yogi Berra. Total = 357. Equal to Bench in raw numbers, but his competition was a little bit softer, which the SD adjustment in Dan R's system adjusts for.
--Deacon White?
4. Gary Carter. Total = 349. Closer to Bench and Berra than he is given credit for being.
5. Carlton Fisk. Total = 348. By far the most durable catcher, in a career sense, of all time, as he continued to be a valuable catcher to and past the age of 40. Was hurt a lot during his prime, however, which softens his peak. When he was healthy in his prime, he was as good as Bench, but he only had a couple of seasons like that. Sean's rating of Fisk seems _way_ low. What brings Fisk down in your rankings, Sean?
--Buck Ewing?
6. Bill Dickey. Total = 315. Best of the great 1930s ML trio. This is without war credit, which he could reasonably receive.
7. Gabby Hartnett. Total = 306. Great career.
--Louis Santop?
8. Mickey Cochrane. Total = 292. The best peak of the 1930s trio, but the beanings cut his career short.
--Roy Campanella?
9. Ted Simmons. Total = 270. A great offensive catcher, and adequate with the glove.
--Charlie Bennett, Quincy Trouppe, Cal McVey, Biz Mackey, in some order??
10. Joe Torre. Total = 235. A great offensive catcher and a HoMer at that position, but not quite of HoM quality with a bad glove at other positions in the second half of his career.
11. Bill Freehan. Total = 223. Great but short peak.
12. Roger Bresnahan. Total = 221. High impact player, but very short on playing time. DL in MN, how do you have him so high? Or perhaps I should ask, how do you have Deacon White so low? Seeing the two of them at 12/13 in the middle of your rankings seemed hard to credit.
There's a 36 player gap between Campanella and Bresnahan and a 10 player gap between White and Campanella in my all-time rankings. Bresnahan is just barely above Torre and Campanella is just barely behind the others in that grouping.
I noticed that Torre should also be ahead of Bennett. Bennett and White were my cut-and-pastes from a different list so I think I slotted them both one ahead by mistake. I also noticed that I'm not giving Dickey any war credit. Does someone want to make a case for how much war credit he deserves?
Revised
1) Gibson, Josh
2) Berra, Yogi
3) Bench, Johnny
4) Carter, Gary
5) Hartnett, Gabby
6) Dickey, Bill
7) Ewing, Buck
8) Fisk, Carlton
9) Cochrane, Mickey
10) Santop, Louis
11) White, Deacon
12) Campanella, Roy
13) Bresnahan, Roger
14) Torre, Joe
15) Bennett, Charlie
16) Trouppe, Quincy
17) Simmons, Ted
18) Freehan, Bill
19) Mackey, Biz
20) McVey, Cal
I have no argument to make against having Josh Gibson, Louis Santop or Biz Mackey in either Hall. When it comes to ranking them within the position, though, I have a big problem; it's the lack of reliable (let alone comparable) statistical data, and that's never going to be overcome. Even the data that we do have was compiled under questionable conditions. We can never properly adjust for the level of competition, park factors, record keeping, etc. This means that discussion can't really rise much above the level of the old Veterans Committee, whereby someone says "Boy, that guy could really hit" or "I saw hit Gibson hit one, must've been 600 feet" or "he could turn off a light and be in bed before it went out." In other words, legends are most of what we have when it comes to evaluating the careers of NeLers.
It doesn't serve the purpose here, but I'm personally content to place the Negro League players off to one side, conceding their greatness but unable to rank them among their MLB peers in any disciplined system.
Joe, I don't think you'll see the point if we discuss it yet again. There is, to me, obvious benefit in weighing in our collective opinion on "their guys", telling exactly why they are not deserving of being honored. Just thought I'd give it a shot, to encourage this exercise to relate more closely to the deliberations of the Cooperstown electorate. Thanks for listening.
1) Gibson, Josh - J Foxx, if Foxx had stayed at C his whole career. Only Wagner is a clearer #1 at his position to me.
2) Bench, Johnny
3) Berra, Yogi - dadgum close to Bnech. Better hitter, and brilliant baseball man, as well as ya gotta give him credit for all of those WS titles. In times where SBs were unusual, I'd take him easily over Johnny B, but in 1910 or 1980, no way.
4) Carter, Gary
5) Hartnett, Gabby
next 4 are about tied; not sure what I'll do
6) Fisk, Carlton
7) Cochrane, Mickey
8) Ewing, Buck
9) Dickey, Bill
10) Campanella, Roy - NBJHA overrates this guy; he had some big years that system counted an awful lot.
and the 19th c and NgLgers are tough to rank....
11) White, Deacon
12) Santop, Louis
13) McVey, Cal
14) Bennett, Charlie
15) Simmons, Ted
16) Torre, Joe
17) Bresnahan, Roger
18) Freehan, Bill
19) Mackey, Biz
20) Trouppe, Quincy
Some have changed since I initially voted on them.
1. Josh Gibson
2. Johnny Bench
3. Yogi Berra
4. Gary Carter
5. Carlton Fisk
6. Deacon White
7. Roy Campanella
8. Louis Santop
9. Bill Dickey
10. Gabby Hartnett
11. Joe Torre
12. Mickey Cochrane
13. Quincy Trouppe
14. Cal McVey
15. Ted Simmons
16. Biz Mackey
17. Bill Freehan
18. Buck Ewing
19. Charlie Bennett
20. Roger Bresnahan
If it's mostly career length, I'll understand; White after age 33 was a slightly-above-lg-avg hitter and mediocre 3Bman/RFer, which has some value, but not much for me. Ewing seems to rank clearly above him in their primes, as Buck was a primo glove guy.
One thing we ought to bring back up as we discuss catchers (boy, it's been a long time since we vettted the 19th century guys...) was Ewing's reputation; there are lots of quotes about how stupendous people thought he was, and he was almost voted in as part of the original Hall of Fame class with Cobb Ruth Wagner Matty and Johnson. That buys him points in my book!
My list looks like a bell curve, with a bunch in the middle:
1. Josh Gibson
2. Johnny Bench
3. Yogi Berra, I can see where I could flip-flop Berra and Bench.
4. Deacon White, and this is a tough one. He's got some great numbers in a very short career, but how did we determine he's a catcher? According to BB-Ref, he played more games at 3B.
The next bunch is really close together:
5. Roy Campanella, he edges ahead of the rest of the group on NgL service time.
6. Bill Dickey
7. Carlton Fisk, I tend to weigh peak over career, so he suffers a bit.
8. Gary Carter
9. Buck Ewing
10. Mickey Cochrane
11. Louis Santopp
12. Ted Simmons
13. Gabby Hartnett
A bit of a dropoff to the next group. I admit that the NgL players may be getting a bit of short shrift here.
14. Joe Torre
15. Quincy Trouppe
16. Charlie Bennett
17. Roger Bresnahan
and finally,
18. Cal McVey
19. Bill Freehan
20. Biz Mackey
FWIW, of the three HoF not HoM, Lombardi came in slightly ahead of Torre. Ferrell and Schalk weren't in the ballpark, so to speak.
Bob, thanks for bringing this up, it gives me a good opportunity to reiterate some things. We have decided to go the other way. Just to be clear, we welcome participation from everyone in this part of the project. But if a voter cannot 'get past' this issue, then we do ask that he/she not actually vote.
By 'get past' it, we don't mean being willing to be conservative with the Negro League HoMers either. A voter needs to be willing to give a 'best guess' as to where the Negro League guys stand, as opposed to a 'conservative guess'.
We (not me) have done a lot of work on this project in terms of closing the statistical gap. I definitely encourage voters to check the old threads, and re-posting of relevant MLE's on these threads as well.
Again, I can't stress strongly enough that even if you (they general 'you', not you in particular Bob) don't feel you can vote, we still encourage participation in the discussion. Thanks!
I'm not sure that there is . . . the goal of this project was never to knock the Cooperstown mistakes down a peg. It was more to see who was getting shortchanged by the Hall of Fame.
The Hall of Fame is never going to 'unelect' anyone (barring an OJ Simpson or Pete Rose caliber post-career scandal). So I don't really see much point in that.
As a group we've decided that Ferrell, Schalk and Lombardi (in this case) are below the 20 listed above. I think that's enough, right?
Good questions.
His career was 20 years, it was one of the longest of the 19th Century.
We determined him to be a catcher based on seasons played at a position, not games played.
He was a catcher in his prime years, when the schedule was shorter. He was 34 years old before he played more than 7 games in a season at 3B.
Which brings up the corollary to post 18 . . . if you don't feel like you can give the 19th Century guys (especially 1860s and 1870s) a fair shake because of the shorter schedules we also ask that you refrain from voting. Thanks!
That was not intended at you specifically Raffy, just in case that wasn't obvious.
I didn't take it personally, especially since I have White #4 on my ballot :)
Full Seasons Equivalent games played
major leagues 1871-1890 ==> professional play 1869-1870
C_ 7.423 ==> ~ 9
3B 7.117
OF 2.383
1B 1.483
2B 0.666
Even without the plurality FSE games at catcher, it would be reasonable to classify him here because he was primarily a catcher in his prime. Compare Ernie Banks and Rod Carew.
Preliminary --
1. Gibson -- I don't doubt that he was the best
2. Bench
3. Carter -- I have him higher than most will. If there had never been a Johnny Bench, well...
4. Berra
5. Hartnett
6. Fisk -- Much of his value is in career length, just a couple of good full years
7. Cochrane -- The opposite of Fisk
8. Torre -- I'm a believer
9. Campanella -- Higher than he would be on MLB alone
10. Dickey
11. Santop
12. Ewing
13. Simmons
14. Bennett
15. Freehan
16. White
17. Mackey
18. Bresnahan
19. Troupe
20. McVey
I don't agree with this. At. all. I was there. I saw the discussion.
We ought to revive those discussions, as much as we can.
On Ewing vs. White
TomH wrote:
Ewing seems to rank clearly above him in their primes, as Buck was a primo glove guy
Well, White was excellent defensively also, and was a better hitter in his best seasons. BP's WARP2 has his career fielding rate at catcher as 111. Reviewing both White's and Ewing's records in WARP, I will say that Ewing is better than I remembered (career fielding rate at catcher: 117. Wow!), and may deserve to rank higher than I had him, maybe higher than White. But White was a great, great, player, who ought to rank at least in the top half of catchers all time.
Based on my Win Shares numbers only. Plan to add DanR Warp before actually voting.
1. Gibson
2. Berra
3. Bench
4. White
5. Cochrane
6. Hartnett
7. Dickey
8. Carter
9. Campanella
10. Santop
11. Ewing
12. McVey
13. Fisk
14. Bennett
15. Freehan
16. Troupe
17. Mackey
18. Simmons
19. Bresnahan
20. Torre
Some notes: spaces 2 through 11 are very close. It will really depend on how much I weigh defense and league strength which DanR's numbers should help. Fisk gets dinged because I like a consecutive peak. Freehan's weak AL context has not been taken into account yet. Bennett could push up. And I don't know what to do with McVey yet. I downloaded most of the balloting from when he was eligible to try and get a handle on him.
Things will change on the real ballot.
1. Gibson
2. Bench
3. Berra--those 3 won't change
4. Carter
5. Hartnett
6. Campanella
7. Cochrane
8. White
9. Ewing
10. Fisk
11. Santop
12. Dickey--I agree that there's this middle group that is pretty interchangeable. Carter is better than Dickey but incrementally so, and yet 7 other guys fit in between. (I don't agree that 2 through 11 or 12 are close, however. There's a pretty solid gap between Bench and Berra, and Carter and Campy and the rest.
13. McVey--the poor man's Deacon White. I think some gave him extra credit for an early retirement from "MLB" to continue playing in California. Of course, if he continued playing, it's not really extra credit, it's just credit
14. Simmons
15. Freehan
16. Torre
17. Bennett--PHoM. All of these guys are solid HoMers, though if we went backwards in time or just picked the top 225 or so, Bennett probably drops out. In that sense, Torre and Bresnahan kind of define in/out for me (Bennett kind of defines in/out in the 19C). Not enough catching, not enough offense considering not enough catching. If they had caught throughout, then both would be easy/easier picks. Bennett, OTOH, plenty of catching.
18. Bresnahan
19. Trouppe
20. Mackey--not PHoM though Bresnahan is close.
Not quite, since they were not voted on as a group, but in predetermined slots year by year.
I for one would like to see if a majority of voters would put those three at #21, #22, and #23 (in whatever order).
Then you're not with DL: he has Lombardi at 26th, very near to 21-22-23.
We've passed judgment on them, sure. However, my understanding is that this thread, this ranking exercise, is intended as a reiteration of our analyses leading to those judgments. For the benefit of those outside or new to the HoM, we should include more than just the HoMers. I would quote Chris, writing on a related topic: We ought to revive those discussions, as much as we can.
Which means he'll never, ever make my PHoM. He's currently 110th among non-PHoM players on my lists. Schang is in the top 10 of non-PHoM players on my list.
One thing we ought to bring back up as we discuss catchers (boy, it's been a long time since we vettted the 19th century guys...) was Ewing's reputation; there are lots of quotes about how stupendous people thought he was, and he was almost voted in as part of the original Hall of Fame class with Cobb Ruth Wagner Matty and Johnson. That buys him points in my book!
Wikipedia relays the story of that 1936 election from The Sporting News.
HOF 1936 at wikipedia (see Veterans Committee)
rawagman this doesn't bother me if you put thought into it and feel OK with the ballot yourself.
Awesome Bob, glad to hear it!
I responded to Dan's comments over on the other thread. Please check there . . .
Well said Marc, I agree.
I think I should have put links to all of the player's discussion threads (and other relevant threads) in the first post of this thread.
I would love to do that now, but I really don't have the time right now - any volunteers? If not, I'll try to do it this weekend.
(1) Gibson--Easy.
(2) Bench--Could flip-flop with Yogi.
(3) Berra
(Piazza)
(4) Carter--Top of a tight group.
(5) Harnett--Played in a much tougher hitting environment than Dickey; underrated.
(6) Dickey
(7) Cochrane--At his best, as good as anyone except Gibson but the short career hurts in this tight a group.
(8) Ewing--When you adjust for season length, his career is almost identical to Cochrane's.
(9) Fisk--Actually very close to Carter; lots of very good partial seasons exaggerrate his value but only a little bit.
(10) White--Long career but really a peak/prime candidate as his 3B seasons were so-so; might rank higher.
(I-Rod)
(11) Campanella--Only at top of his game offensively and defensively for a few seasons, but his best seasons are very similar to Bench's.
(12) Santop--Hardest to get a handle on. I see him as a B+ hitter and a B+ defender, not really comparable to anyone else on this list.
(13) McVey--A top of the league hitter and a slight plus as a catcher for a few seasons, mix in another few years as a good hitter at offense first positions and we are looking at the career Joe Torre would have had if he wasn't a defensive liability.
(14) Simmons--Still working on this group.
(15) Torree
(16) Bennett
(17) Freehan
(18) Trouppe
(E.Howard)
(Schang)
(19) Bresnahan
_______PHOM line
(Posada)
(20) Mackey--Not a crazy pick, but doesn't seem to have hit enough. Bob Boone with 2 or 3 big years with the bat.
I should note for the record that he ought to have new MLEs run using the HoF NeL project's numbers. They may not make a difference, but my impression is that they improve his profile as a hitter somewhat. I have a lot on my plate at the moment, so I can't say that I will get to them before the voting starts, but if I can, I will.
Berra . . . 52 48 46 44 36 34 27 24 20 19 16 16 14 13 13 10 4 -1 -4Torre . . . 84 53 43 40 31 31 28 23 17 15 15 9 9 5 4 0 -6 -8
Dickey . . 50 48 46 39 35 34 24 22 20 20 14 14 12 6 1 -1 -3
Bench . . . 64 47 42 35 32 24 23 21 16 15 12 12 11 7 -1 -5-11
Cochraane . 48 42 40 38 34 30 29 26 19 13 7 6 1 0
Hartnett . 41 39 34 32 30 19 19 16 15 14 12 12 12 6 5 4 1 0 -7
Simmons . . 49 48 38 38 35 24 21 18 16 8 8 3 1 1 0 -1 -1 -5 -6 -6-30
Fisk . . . 49 37 33 32 25 21 19 18 17 15 11 10 9 9 3 3 1 0 -1 -3 -3 -4 -7
Bresnahan . 60 43 40 38 26 23 19 19 17 9 6 5 1 0 -2 -6 -6
Carter . . 43 39 37 27 26 21 20 15 14 13 9 5 2 0 -4 -6-11-12-13
Freehan . . 53 46 28 28 25 21 13 4 2 1 1 -4 -4-10-12
Campanella 54 52 41 34 24 17 6 -6 -8-18
Bennett . . 27 25 22 17 13 12 9 4 -1 -2 -3 -3 -6 -8
I put together my OPS+ lists for catchers, with a twist.
The first list tells us what kind of hitters they were, relative to the average player. I list them in only a very rough order of impressiveness, combining peak, prime and career. Frankly, I'm a little amazed at how close they are - almost all have a way to appeal to some groups of voters. The old-era guys get an advantage by this method, but I won't necessarily have them anywhere near there.
The second list adds in any 300+ PA (or schedule-length equivalent), to account for catchers who didn't quite play every day. Hartnett, Bennett, and Bresnahan benefit most from this version.
The third list makes you both be a full-timer, but also a full-time catcher. This crushes Torre, McVey, Bresnahan, and Ewing - but not White or Simmons.
These lists do not account for Negro Leagues catchers Josh Gibson, Biz Mackey, Louis Santop, and Quincy Trouppe.
And we haven't even started yet on defense, baserunning, strength of the era, etc. But it's a start.
OPS+s, batting title-qualifying seasons (3.1 PA per G), can be any position (measure overall hitting effectiveness)
Deacon White...........191 79 56 53 49 45 38 32 31 30 28 14 09 09 08 08 06 06 (91)
Cal McVey................194 77 61 58 51 43 39 32 11
Buck Ewing..............158 55 46 44 36 36 36 30 26 10 (89)
Joe Torre..................171 56 40 40 36 26 26 25 22 17 17
Johnny Bench ..........166 43 41 40 33 33 29 23 19 17 09 07
Carlton Fisk..............162 58 38 34 34 25 18 15 09 05 03 02 (97)
Mickey Cochrane......157 49 37 35 33 28 24 22 17 08
Bill Dickey................158 45 43 35 33 20 17 09
Roy Campanella........159 55 53 35 31 21
Ted Simmons...........148 44 42 41 35 27 26 24 17 16 14 12 03 (87 61)
Yogi Berra................142 40 37 37 35 30 25 20 20 19 10
Gary Carter.............146 43 38 37 26 23 16 15 12 12 (93 83)
Charlie Bennett.........161 52 51 49 30 (90)
Roger Bresnahan......162 40 40 38 13
Bill Freehan..............145 44 39 26 22 05 (83)
Gabby Hartnett.........144 29 17 15
...................................
OPS+s, 300+ PA (or equivalent), can be any position
Deacon White...........191 79 56 53 49 45 38 37 32 31 30 28 14 09 09 08 08 06 06 (91 81)
Buck Ewing..............158 56 55 46 44 44 43 36 36 36 30 26 10 (89 85)
Joe Torre..................171 56 40 40 36 26 26 25 22 23 17 17 12 04 (91)
Cal McVey................194 77 61 58 51 43 39 32 11
Johnny Bench .........166 43 41 40 33 33 29 29 23 23 19 17 09 07 01 (98)
Carlton Fisk..............162 58 55 50 38 36 34 34 25 18 15 09 05 03 02 02 (97 96 60)
Gabby Hartnett.........158 51 44 42 38 29 26 23 18 18 17 15 14 12
Yogi Berra...............142 40 37 37 35 30 25 20 20 19 19 15 15 11 10
Mickey Cochrane......157 49 37 35 33 28 24 22 17 08 (98)
Joe Torre..................171 56 40 40 36 26 26 25 22 17 17
Roy Campanella........159 55 53 35 31 21 02 (88 82 74)
Bill Dickey................158 45 43 35 33 32 21 20 20 17 09 09 08 (82)
Ted Simmons...........148 44 42 41 35 27 26 24 17 16 14 12 03 (87 74 61)
Charlie Bennett........161 52 51 49 37 30 29 (97 90 87 70)
Roger Bresnahan.....162 45 40 40 38 34 32 29 13 04 (89)
Gary Carter..............146 43 38 37 26 23 16 15 12 12 (93 83 82 66)
Bill Freehan..............145 44 39 26 22 22 06 05 (99 95 83 82 76)
...................................
OPS+s, batting title-qualifying seasons, based on 3.1 PA per G as a catcher
Deacon White...........191 79 56 49 45 38 32 30 14
Johnny Bench ..........166 43 41 40 33 33 29 23 19 17 09 07
Carlton Fisk..............162 58 38 34 34 25 18 15 09 05 03 02 (97)
Mickey Cochrane......157 49 37 35 33 28 24 22 17 08
Bill Dickey................158 45 43 35 33 20 17 09
Roy Campanella........159 55 53 35 31 21
Ted Simmons...........148 44 42 41 35 27 24 16 14 12
Gary Carter.............146 43 38 37 26 23 16 15 12 (93 83)
Yogi Berra................142 40 37 37 35 30 25 20 10
Charlie Bennett.........152 51 49 30
Buck Ewing..............146 44 36 36
Bill Freehan..............145 44 26 22 (83)
Cal McVey................177 51 11
Gabby Hartnett.........144 29 17 15
Joe Torre..................156
Roger Bresnahan......138
.............................
Percentages of games each candidate played by position, unadjusted for era (leaves Kelly and McVey and Ewing a little skewed, includes estimates on Negro Leaguers):
Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, JGibson 95, Campanella 95, Freehan 90, GCarter 90, Fisk 90, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Bench 78, TSimmons 77, Santop 75, Bresnahan 71, Trouppe 65, Ewing 47, Torre 41, McVey 30, White 28
(other Hall of Merit guys at 10 pct + as a C are: King Kelly 36 pct and Jim O'Rourke 11 pct)
Kelly was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1945, before mmebers were officially elected as or designated "players" as opposed to managers, executives, etc. Even today the fielding positions are determined by Hall of Fame staff, like the caps that make one team affiliation official in a sense.
The Hall of Fame staff has revised their classifications, too. The first generation of webpages deviated; perhaps authors were essentially free to use judgment. Was Rube Foster either a "Manager" or a "Pioneer/Executive" before the website? I don't think so. He is now both:
Manager in the Negro Leaguers category
Negro Leaguers at NBHOFM and
Executive/Pioneer on his own
Rube Foster at NBHOFM
Full Seasons Equivalent games playerd
Mike Kelly
POS seasons
OF 7.387
C 5.093
3B 1.046 (infield 2.6)
SS 0.890
2B 0.459
1B 0.211
P 0.106
That is more than 33% catcher. Compare Cal McVey 36+, Deacon White 39+, Joe Torre 40+ (from 1871; McVey and White about 30% and 43% beginning 1869).
But catcher was the plurality position for McVey, White, and Torre during their major league careers, not so for Kelly. He was a substitute catcher and everyday player in his prime, when a third catcher sometimes played more than a second catcher plays today. He was primarily a catcher only in 1888 and 1890-93. In 1890-91 he was the manager; in 1892 Bennett was hurt or ill (the number one catcher for Boston 1888-93); in 1893 he was catcher or nothing (17g).
He's the C/OF guy, and White is the C/3B guy, obviously.
Quite a range of eras here, re equipment and basestealers and such.
Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, JGibson 95, Campanella 95, Freehan 90, GCarter 90, Fisk 90, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Bench 78, TSimmons 77, Santop 75, Bresnahan 71, Trouppe 65, Ewing 47, Torre 41, McVey 30, White 28
Permit me to highlight:
This distorts White's career more than the others Howie mentioned because the league seasons were much longer late in his career when he was no longer catching. For Kelly the adjustment goes the other way because he was primarily a catcher at the end of his career.
catcher share of raw games played (beginning 1871)
Ewing 47, Torre 41, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28
catcher share of full seasons equivalent (beginning 1871) <== don't miss it
Ewing 48, Torre 40, White 39, McVey 36, Kelly 33
I've been working through the NgL players a bit and found what you said about Gibson is accurate. My initial problem was the numbers my system was coming up with. As a guideline, I ran Jimmie Foxx's offensive numbers and then gave credit for catching a full career and my system came up with the following scores for a few of the catchers:
1. Gibson 575
2. Bench 388
3. Berra 376
4. White 367
<cut to bottom>
20. Freehan 308
So, there is more than twice as much distance between Gibson and Bench as there is between Bench and Freehan, and I find that a bit hard to credit. I'm going to start running the numbers for the 1B and maybe if I start seeing those 500+ scores for others, I'll feel more comfortable seeing Gibson with that score.
As to Deacon White, yes the increasing schedule during his career misshapes his "% of time at C". However, playing 54 of a 60-game schedule at C is not the same as playing 144 of 160, either; any attempt at 'full season adjustment' should account for this.
Seems like that landscape changed a lot.
Who gets the most 'bonus'?
Let us know what you find.
My guess is that that is you will find "Gibson minus a little" scores for players like Gehrig and Foxx: that's about how it shakes out in my system.
The more players you study, the more being able to see players in a more complete context will help you to (1) have confidence in your results and (2) identify ways to fine-tune your system. I can see how starting with catchers and getting the numbers for Gibson would cause you to view the results with skepticism! It is anomalous. As Tom H. mentioned above somewhere, the only comparable case of positional dominance in the all-time rankings is Honus Wagner at shortstop, a case in which the statistical evidence is a lot easier to accept at face value.
Gibson slotted below Gehrig, but ahead of Foxx (and everyone else, so far).
I disagree, in terms of value in winning the pennant, 54/60 is just as valuable as 146/162.
It's not like the catchers of his day hit a ton because they 'only' caught 50 games a year. They played many non-league games, etc..
BTW, I will post (hopefully today) Pennants Added numbers for these guys, using DanR's WAR, with my pennants added calc. I also give a 50% boost for catcher seasons (this gets them in the ballpark career wise and season wise with other players), and knocks guys like Torre down a little.
1) Gibson, Josh - running away with it. Might not have been catcher in majors but he sure was one in the leagues he played.
2) Berra, Yogi - six of one
3) Bench, Johnny - half-dozen of the other
4) Hartnett, Gabby
5) Dickey, Bill
6) Fisk, Carlton
7) Carter, Gary
8) Ewing, Buck - I might be a little rough on the early catchers since they caught less games but tried to adjust for that. Clearly top 10, maybe high as #4.
9) Cochrane, Mickey - The beaning cost us a fine player retiring early.
10) Campanella, Roy - Speaking of bad luck...gets some NeL credit
11) White, Deacon - I know it was decided long ago but he just feels like a 3Bmen to me.
12) Santop, Louis - There was a gap from Gibson down to him when discussing candidates from the "other" league.
13) McVey, Cal - Played on the Cincinnati team of 1869, went out west to play later when still a top notch player back east.
14) Torre, Joe - Multi position special
15) Bennett, Charlie - Nod to defense
16) Simmons, Ted - Man hit well, baserunning & defense were more pedestrian.
17) Freehan, Bill - last of the 60s/70s grouping
18) Trouppe, Quincy - luckwarm support for the last three
19) Bresnahan, Roger
20) Mackey, Biz
Will get the ballot in there later this week.
I disagree. It's a measure of how much of his career he was a catcher. If you interpret this as doubling his early seasons, and you don't like that, simply reinterpret it as halving his late seasons.
It isn't his fault they doubled the number of championship games (not commercial games) when he was an "old man" playing third base.
How tough was it defensively for each pre-1900 catcher?
I don't entirely grasp the point.
And Al Spink isn't entirely reliable. But I'm sure it wasn't rare to play close to the batter in 1870.
The National Game, 2nd ed., 1911 (SIU reprint, 2000)
>>
Opinion is divided and history fails to prove just which of the veteran catchers was the first to play up close to the bat with neither mask, chest protector or the commonest kind of glove to protect him.
>The honor has been claimed in turn by the friends of Robert Ferguson of the Atlantics, . . . [Malone, Craver, Allison, King, Hastings, McGeary, White, Mills, Jouett, Boerum - he provides full player names and club names].
>I saw all of these players in their work behind the bat in 1870 and not one of them had mask, chest protector or glove to protect them form the swift pitching they then faced. They were all fine, fearless players and took no heed of the injuries to face, head, body and fingers which came to them often.
>There may, however, have been other catchers before those I have mentioned to play up close to the bat.
<<
The adjustment to Galvin and Spalding should be in the pitching/fielding split, not in the games started.
Obviously your opinion is different, but 'indefensible' is a huge overstatement.
I generally choose my words carefully. When I said "indefensible," I didn't mean that you would not have any rationale to offer in defense of your ranking, but that no one would see it as justifiable.
Two quick points for you to chew over:
1) The electorate has learned a thing or two since the 1902 election. Ewing was elected before any of the really serious study of catcher usage patterns had been undertaken: those really got underway as the case began to build for Charlie Bennett. For Ewing to have been elected without usage adjustments having yet been systematically implemented by the electorate shows how good he was. His reputation, remember, was as "the best player of the nineteenth century." Against that reputation, yes he was overrated, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great, great player.
2) Citing James' rankings as meaningful authority for the ranking of nineteenth-century players, given that his system has a time-line and does not adjust for season length, is curious, and I doubt anyone else here thinks James' placements of nineteenth-century players, and especially pre-1893 players, against players of other eras should be taken seriously. I note that you have no difficulty ranking Deacon White and Cal McVey very differently from James.
How are you going to rank Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, and Roger Connor when we turn to first basemen next week? James has them at #11, #18, and #22 all time among first basemen. When I see you ranking Brouthers and Connor at the bottom of the first base pack, then I will believe that you actually take James's rankings seriously and aren't just using him as a convenient justification for your ranking of Ewing. You would at least be consistent, though mistaken, in both cases.
When you look at how James handles the other pre-1893 players, it appears that, by his standards, he holds Ewing in very high regard indeed. The top finishers, among pre-1893 players, at each position are: C Ewing 17; 1B Anson 11, Brouthers 18, Connor 22; 2B McPhee 30, Richardson 39; 3B Williamson 45; SS Glasscock 43; LF O'Rourke 37; CF Gore 40; RF King Kelly 32; P Clarkson 42, Radbourn 45, Keefe 54. So, by James's reckoning, Ewing has an argument to be the second best pre-1893 position player after Anson, and clearly one of the top 5 players of the 1876-93 period. If one is being fair to all eras, is it reasonable to argue that the best catcher of a two-decade period of major league baseball, who was also among the top 5 players of that era, is worse than every modern catcher who was elected to the HoM? If one brings James's rankings into the HoM context, they are not much of a support for your ranking of Ewing.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1902_ballot_discussion
I haven't gotten far enough along yet to weigh in too well re Ewing.
But Ewing has only 4 seasons as a relatively "full-time catcher," among the fewest of the group.
His highest peak OPS+ also is only about average among this group, even though it seemed more common back then to put up monster OPS+s.
Torre, who like Ewing spent a lot of time at other positions, is a good comp re OPS+ alone in full-time seasons at any position. Ewing's lot improves by adding in his part-time seasons.
Ewing has a lot to recommend him - and so do most of the other guys.
I think I'd reserve the word "indefensible" for putting Gibson or Bench or probably Berra and Fisk that low. If I could see someone putting a guy below 10th, then 17th or 18th may seem curious but again I'd pick another word myself.
I exaggerate, but one gets the idea I hope.
We're talking an 1870s C vs an 1880s one vs an 1890s one vs a 1900s one. Heck, we're talking decade to decade throughout history.
--
TomH,
If you are thinking of a wear-and-tear effect on longevity --catchers tend to have short careers-- then of course halving Deacon White's later seasons is not the same as doubling his early ones.
Maybe Carlton Fisk enjoyed a long career partly because he didn't play "every day" like Randy Hundley and Thurman Munson and Johnny Bench --in turn, ironically, partly because he suffered injuries (can't play in August) rather than wear and tear (can't play so well in August). I think Bill James wrote that somewhere, but it may have been someone else. It is analogous to the argument many have made about high workloads for young pitchers --Bill James again? or Craig Wright & Tom House.
We must suppose that Deacon White's workload measured in games was low compared to that of Hundley, Munson, and Bench at similar age and probably throughout his career as a catcher. So he enjoyed "Fisk's advantage".
By the way, the remarkable batting season White enjoyed in 1877, the only season in his twenties when he did not catch, is suggestive. It's only one season, so it isn't more than that.
This description of Ewing's playing time doesn't take account of 1880s conditions.
Ewing played the majority of his games at catcher in eight seasons in which he was a starter: every year from 1881-1890 except 1882 and 1887, when he played mostly third base.
In each of those seasons he led his team in games caught.
Here's a look at catcher usage in those seasons
Year – the season
avg. – average number of games caught by team #1 catcher
Înt – that average expressed as percentage of team games
lead – number of games caught by league leader in games caught
Ew g – Ewing’s games caught
Ew % -- Ewing’s percentage of games caught
Year avg. Înt lead Ew g Ew%1881..59...70%...80...44...52%
1883..65...66%...83...63...64%
1884..69...62%...80...80...71%
1885..59...53%...69...63...56%
1886..58...47%...72...50...40%
1888..71...53%...85...78...58%
1889..75...56%...97...97...72%
1890..76...57%..112...81...60%
Tot..532...57%..678..556...60%
The upshot is that over his eight years as a starting catcher, he was a little bit above average in durability, setting aside his play at other positions. He led the league twice in games caught in those seasons. He caught an above average number of games in five of eight seasons.
There is some similarity between Ewing’s playing time at catcher and Torre’s, but in context their time at catcher was somewhat different relative to their peers.
Torre played the majority of his games at catcher in nine seasons. He led his team in eight of those seasons. In those eight seasons, an average starting catcher caught 845 games, an average of 66% per season. Torre caught 823, an average of 64% per season. He was never close to leading the league in games caught. He caught an above average number of games in four of eight seasons.
Ewing, by reputation and by the available fielding metrics, was a top-notch defensive catcher, probably among the best all time, and he was an above-average fielder at the other infield positions he played (3B and SS during his prime). Torre, by reputation was a poor catcher, by the metrics an average one. He was a defensive liability at the other positions he played.
Anyone else on how catching was more or less challenging in different eras? Can include eras where runners didn't steal as much or hitters didn't bunt as much.
Using Bill Dickey as a comp, Dickey had 6300 career ABs. Eight times he was named as one of the best 16 players in his league (there were 16 teams in MLB at the time). Six times he was one of the top 10 in his league in Batting Wins (BBref). And he played his entire career at catcher.
You wish to rank White ahead of him? Is White's career effectively longer? Was he a better hitter? A better defensive catcher? A better player when he was not catching?
White is his prime was a great hitter, but his rank in batting wins in a small MLB setting is not better than Dickey's. The only truly great year he had in battikng wins was the year he played mostly 1B. His career was longer, but he spent time as a below-avg third baseman, and also as an OFer, where BP rates him lower on defense than Manny Ramirez (!); so I would suggest his ranking should be more based on prime than career. White was a great defender, but Dickey was also very good, so I don't see much diff there.
Deacon is historically vastly underrated, and for us to put him in somewhere near the top half of all HoM catchers is an honor. I just can't see him higher than the 10 or so truly greats we have available. If your mileage varies, I'd ask how many 1870s era players you want in your top 100 all time.
OTOH, if you have White and Ewing at 16th-ish each, the doctor will diagnose you with a case of BillJames19thcentury-itis, and recommend remedial study on the book "good baseball players did actually exist before 1885".
The lively ball appears to have reduced the wear-and-tear on catchers.
Shortly after its introduction, great modern-style catchers began to appear, Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey, Gibson, etc. 14 of the 20 catchers on our list date from after that time. Before 1920, Bennett is the only one who spent most of his time at catcher, and he was at reduced effectiveness in the latter part of his career due to repeated injuries. The others - White, McVey, Ewing, Bresnahan, Santop - all spent significant amounts of time at other positions to reduce that wear and tear.
Most of us give some kind of a bonus to catchers beyond their apparent value. If this was not done, there would be even less catchers in the HOM then there are now. Is this extra value warranted? If it is, then does it vary through time? These are all not easy questions to answer and will make the rankings at catcher more personal than those at other positions might be.
Bill James is right. I believe the quality of "major league" baseball before 1880 was very, very poor compared to 20th and 21st century baseball - it drew from an extremely small number of people. An absurdly small number of people. Simply put, professional baseball was not mature at this time.
The only way to prove me wrong is either to be 150 years old or more, or to find players that played both in 1870 and the 20th century. In other words, the only way to debate this is through logic, which I believe is on my (and Bill James') side.
OTOH, if you have White and Ewing at 16th-ish each, the doctor will diagnose you with a case of BillJames19thcentury-itis, and recommend remedial study on the book "good baseball players did actually exist before 1885".
Methinks the doctor is a quack.
I don't think this is really the issue in dispute. We're not playing time machine.
I think the question is more along the lines, Was a championship in the 1870's "worth" as much as a championship in the 21st century? IOW, is a pennant a pennant? If it's not, how do you calculate the appropriate discount?
True, but can't you make the same argument about the 1860's? How about the 1850's? 1840's? When do you draw the line? With the first game? The first professional team? The first professional league? I would draw the line later than most people, I guess.
Besides, I think many people are arguing that the overall level of play before 1880 was just as good as at any time - so players stats should be taken at face value. I can't agree.
Its one thing to say, roughly, "White was more dominant in his time than Mickey Cochrane was in the 1920's and 1930's. Its a different think to say he was better. I might agree with the former (I'd have to study it more), but I would not agree with the latter. And because I would never agree with the latter, I would also never agree that a player that played in the 1870's is "underrated".
Yeah, there's that.
On the other hand, there are countless examples of major leaguers whose raw stats weren't any better in the majors than they were in the low and high minors. It doesn't mean that the quality of play in A ball is just as good as in the American League.
but the OPS+ and career MLB PA numbers for each:
Josh Gibson
Cal McVey ..........152 OPS+ in 2543 PA
Buck Ewing .........129 OPS+ in 5770 PA
Joe Torre ............128 OPS+ in 8801 PA
Mickey Cochrane ..128 OPS+ in 6206 PA
Bill Dickey ...........127 OPS+ in 7060 PA
Deacon White ......127 OPS+ in 6972 PA
Johnny Bench .......126 OPS+ in 8669 PA
Gabby Hartnett ....126 OPS+ in 7297 PA
Roger Bresnahan ..126 OPS+ in 5374 PA
Yogi Berra ...........125 OPS+ in 8364 PA
Roy Campanella ...124 OPS+ in 4816 PA
Charlie Bennett .....118 OPS+ in 4310 PA
Gary Carter ..........115 OPS+ in 9019 PA
Carlton Fisk .........117 OPS+ in 9853 PA
Ted Simmons ......117 OPS+ in 9685 PA
Bill Freehan .........112 OPS+ in 6899 PA
Biz Mackey
Louis Santop
Quincy Trouppe
I don't think anyone here is actually arguing that. Many people here argue "a pennant is a pennant" - IOW each era is approximately equal in worth.
Otherwise, there are endless unanswerable arguments about 19thC vs 20thC, pre-integration vs integration ball, expansion ball vs modern physical training ball, etc.
Well, every voter has their preference. (And no, you can't make the same arguement about the 1860's, as there were obvious, dramatic advances made in the game's organization immediately after that.) What I prefer, which I believe is similar to many other HoM voters, is to give 100% consideration to years beginning in 1871, when the first professional league pennant was awarded. Before this, diminishing credit is given for years extending back to 1857, when the NABBP was founded.
As jimd wrote, that's not the arguement. One of the challenges of this era is how to interpret the statistical record - indeed, trying to piece together a statistical record.
See, you tripped right over it: "in his time". That's how the HoM is dedicated to judging players. You want to say the quality was poor, the sport was immature, the talent pool was shallow, blah, blah, blah. And in 130 years they can just as easily say the same thing about baseball in 2008.
Nobody doubts that on some imaginary time-transporter basis Cochrane was "better" than White. OK, but why does everyone say that some fat guy whose prime was over 80 years ago is the greatest player who ever lived? Because he's being judged "in his time".
It may not be your argument, but it seems to be the argument of others. Take the following quotes:
OTOH, if you have White and Ewing at 16th-ish each, the doctor will diagnose you with a case of BillJames19thcentury-itis, and recommend remedial study on the book "good baseball players did actually exist before 1885".
Deacon is historically vastly underrated
This strongly implies a belief that players in 1871 were not just good for their time, but good, period. The way Bill James has been talked about in this thread is that he is somehow mistaken in his rankings of players of this era, and that he doesn't know what he is talking about, when it comes to evaluating 19th century players. I think both approaches are fine (I prefer James' reasoning) but I think he has been unfairly maligned for choosing a different approach.
See, you tripped right over it: "in his time". That's how the HoM is dedicated to judging players. You want to say the quality was poor, the sport was immature, the talent pool was shallow, blah, blah, blah. And in 130 years they can just as easily say the same thing about baseball in 2008.
That misses the point. I'm not arguing that whether baseball in 2008 is better than baseball in 1958 or 1908, or will be better in 50 years. Rather that there is some point in baseball history where the rules became pretty similar to the ones played today, and where the major leagues started drawing from huge numbers of people, so that the overall talent was at least reasonable. I think most people would agree that that point occured sometime in the 19th century, and I believe the point was clearly after 1871.
Your response seems to be "There was a league in 1871. It doesn't make any difference to us whether the quality of play in that league was great, good, fair, or positively awful. It doesn't make any difference to us whether the rules under which they played were vastly different than those that have been used for the past 120 years or so. It was a league, so we are bound to treat it like any other league."
I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it.
And yeah, I sorta agree that some here are maligning Bill James. Again, he does it different. I think what irks many here (at least me) is his attitude that since baseball before circa 1885 wasn't quite the game we all know, that it's not worth taking the time to analyze. It's very disappointing that the Sultan of Stats took a "pass" on the era.
Well, yes. But there has long been an attitude that the HOM does things better, not just different. I doesn't bother me that different groups analyze things differently, it bothers me when people have an attitude that "our approach is better - others should learn from us." Obviously, not every poster shares this attitudes, but clearly some do.
I think what irks many here (at least me) is his attitude that since baseball before circa 1885 wasn't quite the game we all know, that it's not worth taking the time to analyze. It's very disappointing that the Sultan of Stats took a "pass" on the era.
My point is that he had solid reasons for "passing" on the era, reasons that I agree with. And what irks me is when people get irked for what is a very reas