I did remember one of my major problems with White and McVey, and will put up that post probably tonight. The short form is that catchers in the NA played very large percentages of their teams' games - larger than even the most modern catchers, with all the equipment in the world, can match.

Unquestionably, Brock. In fact, I mentioned this years ago myself.

So if you just multiply their teams' schedules through to 162 games, you have badly overestimated the actual playing time that these guys would have had if their schedules had actually been that long. Since the whole point of the 162-game amortization is to give 162-game weight to NA seasons, you do have to make a discount for anything that is actually related to the schedule length. I believe that the reason that NA catchers played so many games was that the light schedule allowed them to take many many fewer injuries and have much longer to sit out and heal them, because they could sit out exhibition games, rather than the league ones.

Again, no disagreement and I have been factoring that in for a long time.

This hurts Deacon White a lot, because he's the poster boy for this. In the entire duration of the National Association, Deacon White missed exactly 3 games, 1 in 74 and 2 in 75. You know that ain't right, given the playing conditions and equipment of NA catchers. You have to make an adjustment for that, and it turns out to be a large one, at least in my methods, although I do take into account that White seems to have been the most durable of the NA catchers. As I said, I'll try to justify this in much better detail later, but I thought I should put it up ASAP, just on general principles.

Here's my problem again: White was the best catcher at his position numerous times, while never claiming that honor as a third baseman. Without a doubt, he was a far greater player as a catcher than a third baseman, just like Ernie Banks is in the HOF for his shortstop years and not for the many more games he played at first.

IMO, you are seriously underrating White.

Brock:
18. Deacon White
My opinion, which you may not agree with, is that he is outmatched by this group, and doesn't really belong here.

x. Cal McVey
Not really a career catcher. The first great multi-position player that I know of. Should be compared to Martin Dihigo, rather than Josh Gibson. That is, I don't have him ranked 19th; I have him ranked as not-a-catcher.

x. Roger Bresnahan
Again, really a multi-spot star. I tend to think of him as the last of the great 1900s catchers, who needed all that speed. I'd compare him to Craig Biggio, rather than to a bunch of career catchers. Again, this ranking is as not-a-catcher.

52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 04, 2008 at 07:48 AM (#2768333)

> 18. Deacon White
> My opinion, which you may not agree with, is that he is outmatched by this group, and doesn't really belong here.

Since White was a better player than Ewing, Brock, I disagree.

First of all, we take into account his NA years years. Secondly, White wrongly gets lumped in with the third basemen because his years as a catcher are not prorated due to the much shorter schedules (of course, his stats need to be somewhat regressed after proration).

Brock:
And I should say something about Deacon White, just because Grandma Murphy has always been a good guy whenever I've run across his work. Here are my problems: Including the NA, White played 458 games at catcher, but 826 at third. Yes, there are more games in the schedule later, when he was playing third, but the ratio is nothing like 826/458.

The latter is simply false. Maybe I'll get back to it.

Why analyse playing time? Here the point seems to be classification and nomination, the composition of the ballot. Brock seems to mean, we should be ranking Deacon White against Heinie Groh and Darrell Evans rather than against Louis Santop and Ted Simmons. On a larger view, White should be on the agenda now based on past comparison with Ezra Sutton and Ed Williamson rather than John Clapp and Buck Ewing.


Since the whole point of the 162-game amortization is to give 162-game weight to NA seasons, you do have to make a discount for anything that is actually related to the schedule length. I believe that the reason that NA catchers played so many games was that the light schedule allowed them to take many many fewer injuries and have much longer to sit out and heal them, because they could sit out exhibition games, rather than the league ones.

The latter needs research. It may be so, in part. It isn't simply true. We know that teams did not travel with many players.
What is the general point, "anything that is actually related to the schedule length"? Does "actually" mean on the field rather than in the record books or the statistical analyses? Does it mean physiologically rather than culturally?

As you probably known, I would say first, the point is correctly weighting the successive seasons of a players career. When we classify someone as a thirdbaseman, or a 120 OPS+ batter, we should weigh his seasons equally, if he played full time, rather than weigh them by plate appearances, atbats, or games.

[Brock Hanke wrote a while ago:]
>>And I should say something about Deacon White, just because Grandma Murphy has always been a good guy whenever I've run across his work. Here are my problems: Including the NA, White played 458 games at catcher, but 826 at third. Yes, there are more games in the schedule later, when he was playing third, but the ratio is nothing like 826/458.
<<
[I wrote yesterday:]
The latter is simply false. Maybe I'll get back to it.
====

826/458 = 1.8 but Brock's claim is simply false even at ratio 2.0, even if we interpret "nothing like" as "less than", and even if we interpret "schedule" literally and begin in 1877. (For 1877 a schedule committee prepared and the NL adopted a schedule of championship games to be followed by all clubs, replacing the system where every pair of clubs arranged and rearranged games by mutual agreement, or canceled them pending rearrangement by notice from either one to the other.)

For 1877 and 1878 there were 60 games scheduled for every club; for 1888 and 1889 in the National League and 1890 in the Players' League, there were 140. So the number of games scheduled by Deacon White's major leagues increased by the factor 2.33 during the period when they did schedule games, his last 14 seasons in the majors.

What if we start in 1871 and use the ratio 1.8?
In 1875, White's Boston team played 82 games, second to Hartford's 85. If we compare team games played in this and other early seasons with team games scheduled by the leagues in 1877 and after, the increase from 1875 to the end of White's career is 140/82 = 1.7. That does fall short of 1.8 = 826/458. In almost any context, I would say that 1.7 is "something like" 1.8, but never mind, set 1875 aside. Only for 1871-1874 and 1876-1878 is it true that the number of games increased in proportion 1.8 or more, from then until the end of White's career,

The N.L. adopted 126 games in 1886. If we make the comparison from the early years to 1886, 1874 drops out, for White's Boston team played 71 games and 126/71 is merely 1.77. Only for 1871-1873 and 1876-1878 is it true that the number of games increased in proportion 1.8 or more, from then until the end of White's career.

The N.L. adopted 112 games in 1884. If we make the comparison from the early years to 1884, then four 60- and 70-game seasons drop out. Only for 1871-1872 is it true that the number of games increased in proportion 1.8 or more, from then until 1884.

What do we get if we use games to count shares of full seasons? I call it Full Seasons Equivalent (FSE). For Deacon White here is the sum of his FSE games by fielding position for 1871-1890.

POS seasons
C_ 7.42
3B 7.11
OF 2.38
1B 1.48
2B 0.66
SS 0.076
P_ 0.023

Ignoring his play before 1871 and in the minors, that may be called his (major league) career FSE games played by position. Including 1869-1870, I add another 1.50 fse at catcher, total 8.92. In major league history through 2006, Chief Zimmer ranks 37 with 8.96 fse at catcher.

(In my desktop baseball database I have the queries (simple programs) to count fse games at LF, CF, and RF separately. I have used them several times for material posted here, concerning primary outfielders.)

POS seasons
C_ 7.42
3B 7.11
OF 2.38
1B 1.48
2B 0.66
SS 0.076
P_ 0.023

Then there's no question in my mind anymore (not that there really was any for me :-) that the idea that White should be classified as third basemen is flat-out wrong, especially considering his actual contributions at both positions beyond playing time.

Great stuff, Paul!

I was wondering about the quantitative significance of Kelly's work as a catcher so I generated this list of all-time leaders.

mlb seasons at catcher (FSE) thru 1893
10.78 Pop Snyder
8.614 Charlie Bennett
8.579 Silver Flint
7.42 Deacon White (almost 9 from 1869)
7.27 John Clapp
6.16 Doc Bushong
5.93 Doug Allison (almost 8 from 1869)
5.70 Bill Holbert
5.70 Jack Clements
5.45 Buck Ewing
5.09 King Kelly #11

In 1893 Charlie Bennett and Mike Kelly played their last games in the majors and Buck Ewing played his last game at catcher. They were three of only 11 players with 5.0 seasons at catcher from 1871 (measured by FSE games).

Among the eleven only the lefty Jack Clements was active in 1894, although the rest of the top twenty was full of active catchers (six of nine, total 10 of 20, active in 1893).

They were all among the seven men with four full seasons at catcher, 1883 to 1893, or 98 to 154 games in contrast to the earlier 30 to 84 team games per season.

mlb seasons at catcher (FSE), 1883-1893
5.91 Charlie Bennett
5.70 Jack Clements
4.76 Wilbert Robinson
4.52 Buck Ewing
4.42 Jocko Milligan
4.12 Chief Zimmer
4.08 King Kelly

All seven were active in 1893.

--
Tidbits
(I don't recall reading that Clements was a good catcher. He was a good batter so he may be the one whose team --the Phillies under Harry Wright and Arthur Irwin-- would have gained most from making him an everyday batter.)

(White and Allison were regular catchers exclusively, and John Clapp mainly (and I won't continue) when one catcher sometimes worked all of a team's championship games barring injury.)

There was a kind of generation gap or half-generation gap.
Kelly and Ewing were still 16th and 14th through 1900 (the 19th century career list). All six who had worked as catchers since 1893 were active in 1900. Probably that was partly the effect of improvements in equipment. The new glove (~1888) and the chest protector