Dizzypaco, I couldn't agree with you more. I strongly support War Credit, since we know the player was MLB-caliber based upon the seasons before and after. I support MiLB credit for blocked players who, as soon as they reached MLB, were stars, because there's no reason to believe that, say, Charlie Keller or Wade Boggs magically transformed between their last MiLB game and first MLB game. I support NgL credit for guys who played in the best league in which they were allowed to play in, and starred. But I do not believe in credit for guys who could have been signed by any team in a top-flight league, but were ignored; I think the "test" of a great league is essential to prove the ability of the player, and I think the notion that we're better able to judge a player's abilities than his contemporary talent evaluators is ludicrous.

According to the BBWAA, Brooks Robinson was a better player than Ron Santo, even though Santo was actually the greater player. Should I discount that and just go along with the former's greater reputation instead?

Ron Santo did not have a bad reputation. He was voted to the all star team almost every year. Its not clear that cotemporaries thought Robinson was better than Santo, and I can guarantee you that some people thought Santo was great while he was active.

No one thought Bus Clarkson was even potentially a great player. If you take two thirty something year old African American ball players playing in the late 40's/early 50's. One is thought to be a great player, with a chance of dominating in the majors, while the other is thought to be possibly a good one, and who might have a decent career, but no superstar. What was likely to happen is that the player who was thought of as potentially great would be given a shot, while the one was not would never be given that chance, because of the quota system and other sources of bias, even though he might have been good enough to play. The point remains - no one thought Bus Clarkson was even potentially a great player when he was active. Its not at all the same thing as Ron Santo.

Why the short trial? Because the Braves had changed managers. On June 2nd, they hired Charlie Grimm, and Grimm's first move as manager was to send down Clarkson and replace him with Johnny Logan.

Since Grimm didn't like black people and had a good player in Logan to replace him with, it's not really surprising why Clarkson went back down to the minors. Of course, if Grimm hadn't been the manager...

I think the "test" of a great league is essential to prove the ability of the player, and I think the notion that we're better able to judge a player's abilities than his contemporary talent evaluators is ludicrous.

Then why are we involved with this project? Why don't we just rubber-stamp every candidate's reputation and be done with it.

The point remains - no one thought Bus Clarkson was even potentially a great player when he was active. Its not at all the same thing as Ron Santo.

Clarkson made All-Star teams, so I'm not sure that his contemporaries didn't think he was potentionally a great player.

As for Robinson-Santo, my point was that reputations are sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean we ignore them, but it shouldn't mean that we blindly follow them, either.

Since Grimm didn't like black people feuded with Buck O'Neil.

Fixed.

Then why are we involved with this project? Why don't we just rubber-stamp every candidate's reputation and be done with it.

The more that you are able to rely on the statistical record, the less reputation matters. Whether or not contemporaries thought Ron Santo was great is irrelevent. He did play in the majors, and he did well. The next level down is probably the Negro Leagues from the 30's - as I understand it, statistics from this era are reliable enough, and the competition was good enough, that the players who clearly dominated this era statistically, year after year, should go in, even if their reputation is not that they were the best players in the league.

But for players who played in the Negro Leagues in earlier years, or who, like Clarkson, played a few years here and there in leagues mostly of questionable quality, or where the statistical record is questionable, reputation has to be an important factor - a very important factor.

Then why are we involved with this project? Why don't we just rubber-stamp every candidate's reputation and be done with it.

"Reputation" doesn't help much when comparing, say, Greg Nettles to Kirby Puckett. Both have sterling reputations in their own way; Nettles as a fabulous defensive player, Kirby as a balls-out player and great hitter. What we're doing is using the stats to compare and contrast players, and, yes, where necessary, to correct an erroneous reputation.

But generally, the reputations have been a pretty good guide for us, don't you think? Most MLB guys for whom the reputations and the stats have been way out of line, its been more of a peak-career issue than an issue of the reputation being way off. In fact, I think if you gave each player a reputation score, and correlated it with your stat of choice (WARP, Dan's WARP, WS), you'd find a really high r^2.

What you're asking with Clarkson is to assume that the reputation (not worthy of bringing up to the Majors) and the reality are further apart than almost any other player in history. I grant that there are outliers, and maybe Clarkson is, in fact, the one player for whom reputation is completely, totally in error. But the burden of proof to convince me of such an improbable event is extraordinarily high.

If anything, my biggest disappointment with the HoM is that we've followed the conventional wisdom (reputations, HoF voting, etc.) too much. So I think it's great that Clarkson is in our consideration set and, as I've said, I'm satisfied that he was the victim of racism (racial quotas) as much as Dick Lundy was. I just don't see him as being as good as Lundy and Don Newcombe and a bunch of other guys.

Since Grimm didn't like black people feuded with Buck O'Neil.

Fixed.

Did O'Neill have a habit of using the race card?

The more that you are able to rely on the statistical record, the less reputation matters.

I agree. I don't see how that hurts Clarkson, though.

But the burden of proof to convince me of such an improbable event is extraordinarily high.

That's probably a task not suited for mere mortal men, so it makes more sense that supporters of Clarkson make their case to the other 50+ voters.

That's probably a task not suited for mere mortal men, so it makes more sense that supporters of Clarkson make their case to the other 50+ voters.

When in doubt, resort to the ad hominem. You stay classy.

"How is that not a damming contemporary assessment of Clarkson's ability to play at the big league level?"

It would be if you truly believe that decisions regarding black players at that time were only made on the ability to play. It is clear that they weren't.

The Negro Leagues are now a "minor" league in 1941?

Newcombe got a better shot mainly because he was younger. That does play into "value".

<i>The Negro Leagues are now a "minor" league in 1941?<i>

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning Clarkson's early career, but rather the post-1950 section, when he starred in the International & Texas leagues.

When in doubt, resort to the ad hominem. You stay classy

What ad hominem?!

The truly amazing thing about this little quibble is that 'zop, of all people, is intimating that someone else lacks "class."

Was Clarkson's level of play in his mid/late 30's HOM play? Probably not. What it was, was a very strong indication that his prime level/quality of play may very well have been of HOM standard. The choice before us is what to make of his later play. Do we believe in the implications therein, or not? I do. Moreso than I believe in the bare record of many of the MLB candidates still before us from the backlog.

John Murphy: That's probably a task not suited for mere mortal men, so it makes more sense that supporters of Clarkson make their case to the other 50+ voters.

'zop: When in doubt, resort to the ad hominem. You stay classy.

The "mere mortal men" is a general comment; it's not a snide remark directed at anyone in particular, 'zop. I've never seen John roll that way at the HoM (even in some pretty strong debates) and I'd be surprised to see him start now.

The truly amazing thing about this little quibble is that 'zop, of all people, is intimating that someone else lacks "class."

And its truly amazingthat you would call me out for calling someone else out. It's like hypocrisy folded within hypocrisy folded within hypocrisy. Very post-modern.

It would be if you truly believe that decisions regarding black players at that time were only made on the ability to play. It is clear that they weren't.

The Negro Leagues are now a "minor" league in 1941?

Getting back to the Clarkson debate...

How many years did Clarkson:

A. have a significant level of plate appearances
B. in a league of comparable quality to the major leagues
C. and perform at a HOM level?

It is my understanding that this number is very, very small. And I don't believe he was historically dominant in the few years this may have been true. So if you believe he met all three criteria in 1941, how many other years does this hold true? And exactly how dominant was he in the very few years in which all three criteria do hold true?

Its also clear that while the decisions to sign and play Black players in the late 40's/early 50's were not entirely based on ability and reputation, the decision of which players to sign and play were based, at least in part on these criteria. If there was a player that someone considered to be among the greatest that ever lived, I believe someone would have given that player a shot. I believe it was players that were considered the next level down, who were quality ballplayers but considered unlikely to be superstars, that were denied their opportunity. And I believe that description fits Clarkson.

Satchel Paige was *41* and it didn't keep him out of the majors...

Satchel Paige was *41* and it didn't keep him out of the majors...

Satchel Paige was Satchel Paige, inner-circle HoFer, and an entertainer whether he could bring it or not. And his employer was Bill Veeck. It's an even less appropriate comparison than Ron Santo.

Satchel Paige was *41* and it didn't keep him out of the majors...

Paige was Paige. If Satch had been dead, I would think that Veeck would have found a way to get his corpse on the roster anyway. :-)

Well, Tiboreau beat me to the punch, I see. :-)

Paige was Paige. If Satch had been dead, I would think that Veeck would have found a way to get his corpse on the roster anyway.

And if you think there was this free HOM-caliber player floating around the minors, that Veeck wouldn't have leaped at the chance to play him on the Browns?

A little thought experiment. Over the course of baseball history, there have been several players who started out like sure HOM players, and whose careers kind of fizzled, so that they were still quality ball players into their 30's but who definitely came up short. Guys like Cesar Cedeno and Fred Lynn, to name two who come to mind.

Lets say that after their first few great years, they missed a couple of years entirely (such as due to a war), and then were restricted to playing in the high minors or similar quality leagues. How do you think they would have performed playing in these leagues?

My guess is that they would have dominated. If you are 32 years old, and can play well in the majors, there's a real good chance you can dominate a lesser league.

So if you believe that a pre-war Bus Clarkson was as good as a young Fred Lynn or Cesar Cedeno (which I don't know that I believe), why are we assuming that he would have continued to be that good into his 30's, based mostly on his ability to dominate a minor league?

So if you believe that a pre-war Bus Clarkson was as good as a young Fred Lynn or Cesar Cedeno (which I don't know that I believe), why are we assuming that he would have continued to be that good into his 30's, based mostly on his ability to dominate a minor league?

He stayed healthy, and he didn't shoot anybody, and besides, our best projections based on his minor-league stats suggest strongly that he did?

He stayed healthy, and he didn't shoot anybody, and besides, our best projections based on his minor-league stats suggest strongly that he did?

Then why didn't a big league team snap him up? Say you're going to argue the Braves would play an obviously qualified player because were racist. I don't think I buy that, since they took one look at a rookie, 20 year old Henry Aaron during spring training next season and batted him 5th on Opening Day (and stuck with him the whole year, although Aaron was no superstar in his first season). But forget that. Say you buy that the Braves didn't want to play a black player. How, then, do you explain that no one else wanted Clarkson either? Bill Veeck, who was busy selling off Bob Turley to the Yankees to make ends meet and had a 60OPS+ at SS, he wouldnt have taken a flyer on Clarkson if he thought he could succeed? Given the inherent imprecision in MLE's, why do you ignore the compelling non-statistical evidence that Clarkson wasn't a HoM-caliber player after the war?

Well, Bill Veeck brought up Willard Brown and dumped him the first chance he got. Even Veeck had not particular interest in a black player actually succeeding as a Brownie. Willard was just a tall, black midget.

And if you think there was this free HOM-caliber player floating around the minors, that Veeck wouldn't have leaped at the chance to play him on the Browns?

Was he a free player? Wasn't Clarkson property of the Browns? Besides, this ignores the poin I made earlier: that Paige was an entertainer. He would've drawn crowds whether he was his HoF self or not. Bill Veeck was also an entertainer, and would've recognized Paige's value in that regard and given him a job (also there were other reasons, more personal, for Veeck's hiring of Paige).

So if you believe that a pre-war Bus Clarkson was as good as a young Fred Lynn or Cesar Cedeno (which I don't know that I believe), why are we assuming that he would have continued to be that good into his 30's, based mostly on his ability to dominate a minor league?

I don't know how others view Negro and Minor league translations, but I don't see them as hypotheticals, as "what they would've done," but as what they did. They've been adjusted for competition level, just as the AA and WWII-era MLB should be, and, in the case of the Negro league players, adjusted for Small Sample Size (SSS) syndrome. If we assume that Gavy Cravath, that Buzz Arlett, that Bus Clarkson , that a host of Negro leaguers were held back unfairly from the majors then we, or at least I, assume that what they did in the minors, adjusted for competition and SSS syndrome, is what they would've done and that the pennants they strove for were of value as the pennants MLB players sought.

OK, next topic. This one has been covered. So we disagree.

To respond with a somewhat lower level of snark to this debate:

The contributors who think that Clarkson's failure to get a real shot at the majors is evidence against his HoM case have a right to their opinion.

I think that opinion is 100% wrong. Older black players had a lot going against them. There were quotas for black players per ML team into the early 1950s, and some teams were not breaking the color line anyway. There were a number of instances of highly talented older black players who were brought in, but who had a very tenuous hold on major-league jobs nevertheless-- see the cases of Luke Easter and Bob Boyd. The transition from the Negro Leagues to the major leagues was difficult because it called for a different style of play on top of the social challenges of it, that meant it generally took players a half season of full-time play to make the adjustment, and a full year to start really playing up to their potential -- see the cases of Monte Irvin, Larry Doby, etc. We know that a number of black stars were not given the time to make this adjustment -- see Willard Brown, the early ML career of Boyd, Clarkson, etc.

A plurality of the electorate has been convinced by these sorts of arguments, since they chose to elect both Willard Brown and Quincy Trouppe, both of whom did not succeed in brief major-league stints late in their career and who excelled in minor-league play in the 1950s. Trouppe even lacked, as does Clarkson, a sterling reputation, partly because he, like Clarkson, played outside of the U.S. for much of his prime. So I am confident that the electorate, in the aggregate, has better judgment on this issue than those who are arguing against Clarkson because he didn't succeed in the majors.

Does that mean we ought to elect Clarkson? Not necessarily. Does that mean that I accept Clarkson's minor league MLEs at 100% face value? No, it doesn't. But I think it is more appropriate to debate the merits of Clarkson's case based on what we actually know about his career and to examine the reliability of the MLEs rather than to make arguments about why we should accept the talent judgments of a (significantly) prejudiced baseball establishment and simply dismiss the evidence of what Clarkson accoomplished when he was playing in the minors.

Then why didn't a big league team snap him up? Say you're going to argue the Braves would play an obviously qualified player because were racist. I don't think I buy that, since they took one look at a rookie, 20 year old Henry Aaron during spring training next season and batted him 5th on Opening Day (and stuck with him the whole year, although Aaron was no superstar in his first season). But forget that. Say you buy that the Braves didn't want to play a black player. How, then, do you explain that no one else wanted Clarkson either?

They didn't snap him up because he was a 37-year-old black middle infielder at a time of racial hatred and quotas who was also property of the Boston Braves. A 37-year-old white middle infielder would be given a decent chance to prove he can have a solid year, Bus Clarkson would never be given the same chance. Meanwhile, Hank Aaron was a 20-year-old toolsy, potential superstar, potential inner-circle HoFer; it was two years later and there's no way and team would give up that talent.

If we assume that Gavy Cravath, that Buzz Arlett, that Bus Clarkson , that a host of Negro leaguers were held back unfairly from the majors then we, or at least I, assume that what they did in the minors, adjusted for competition and SSS syndrome, is what they would've done and that the pennants they strove for were of value as the pennants MLB players sought.

Then the question really becomes this: is there a sound and logical basis for the assumption that those players WERE held back UN-fairly? And in that context, MLEs don't help - because MLEs, while being a measure of "what the player did", tell you nothing about whether or not "what the player did" was repeatable at the major league level for an entire career. MLEs are a statistical model; they represent about 2/3 of players fairly, as do most statistical models, and then can severely overvalue or undervalue players on the extreme ends. We don't really know whether Clarkson is fairly represented by his MLEs, or whether he was just able to play at a high level for 4-5 years, a la Cedeno, and then burned out.

-- MWE

> on top of the social challenges

Bus Clarkson didn't go to Mexico and Canada because the beer was better there.

> We don't really know whether Clarkson is fairly represented by his MLEs

We don't know about Oms either and he just got elected. Clarkson out-performed HoM honored players in comparable leagues.

I (similarly to sunnyday) see myself as sort of in the middle on this debate. There's no question that the older black players of the integration era faced blatant discrimination and disruption of their careers. Jackie Robinson was 28 years old when he broke the color barrier in 1947. How many black players older than Jackie had a "fair" shot (e.g., more than 250 PAs or 100 IP)? I can think of only 3--Sam Jethroe (one year older than Robinson), Luke Easter(3 years older), and Satchel Paige. Am I missing anyone? And, as has been discussed on earlier threads, even these three players (especially Easter) probably didn't get as fair a shot as they deserved.

Clarkson was age 32 when the color barrier broke. The barrier came down very slowly--6 years after Robinson's entry (in the spring of 1953), 10 of the 16 teams still had never played a black player. To argue that Clarkson is undeserving because MLB passed him over during this period is to ignore the history of discrimination.

On the other hand, I'm not sold on Clarkson as a candidate either. As I've said before, I think Eric's translations of minor league statistics are too high (a little bit high for Triple-A, quite a bit inflated for Double-A). However, when he asked me for evidence, I didn't (and don't) have it. It would be great to have reliable quality factors for minor leagues--they must be available somewhere, since a number of folks are doing translations. But without the data, I'm just saying that it's my impression that Eric's overstated Clarkson's Texas League MLEs. Regardless, I think Clarkson was a good hitter for a SS/3B, probably not an OPS+ of 126, but maybe 110-115. What I don't have, however, is a good impression of his fielding ability. If I was confident that he was an average or above-average major league SS/3B, he'd easily make my ballot. However, I'm not confident that he was.

Well, Bill Veeck brought up Willard Brown and dumped him the first chance he got. Even Veeck had not particular interest in a black player actually succeeding as a Brownie. Willard was just a tall, black midget.

I wanted to double-check my sources before responding to this, but this post is almost certainly in error. I say, almost certainly because it's possible that Veeck engaged in a lot of post-facto revisionism of his stance towards integration. But every source that I can find, including Veeck's own autobiography and other secondary sources, indicates that Veeck was strongly in favor of integration, even before 1947. Veeck appears to have thought that black players were better athletes than white players, so why not play them?

Well, Bill Veeck brought up Willard Brown and dumped him the first chance he got. Even Veeck had not particular interest in a black player actually succeeding as a Brownie. Willard was just a tall, black midget.

Also, in 1947 Veeck was in Cleveland with Doby, and because syndicate baseball was frowned on at the time he was not the owner of the Browns.

I'm enjoying the discussion, but here is my question.

Traditionally the middle infielder of this period that was considered MLB worthy but held back by quotas is Artie Wilson. Maybe because he was a star in the more visible PCL instead of in the Texas League.

Is it possible that this is the right discussion about the wrong man?

Clarkson out-performed HoM honored players in comparable leagues.

Did Clarkson do that "consistently", over a long period of years, or did he outperform "some" of them for a handful of years? You can always find years where non-HoM players outperform HoM players; the former don't stay at that level, where the latter do. It seems to me that if you want to present the argument for Clarkson as a HoM-worthy player who was "held back" unfairly, you should be addressing whether his quality of play was such that there is NO question he'd have been a bonafide star at the highest level.

I want to emphasize the word unfairly, again. In reading these discussions, it seems to me that there is a de facto assumption that any minority player who performed at a high level in segregated ball was being held back unfairly. There is no question that such players were held back, and for a reason that had nothing to do with their talent - the question is whether such players would have been "held back" ANYWAY, for reasons that DID have everything to do with their talent, if MLB had been free and open. It seems to me that's what you have to assess - would this player have been among the recognized stars in a completely free competitive environment? And if you cannot answer that question with a (close to unequivocal) YES, then I don't see how you can put the player high on the HoM ballot.

I realize this is an incredibly difficult task to do with the fragmentary evidence out there for many of the players under discussion - one that the HoM electorate has handled very well. I suppose what I'm arguing against here are blanket assumptions that, because Clarkson wasn't one of the "elect" during the transition from segregated ball to integrated ball, he was being held back unfairly. It's not at all clear that was the case, just as it's not at all clear (to me, anyway) that Cravath and Arlett (who were raised as points of comparison up-thread) were also being held back unfairly.

I totally agree with this Chris Cobb statement, above:

So I am confident that the electorate, in the aggregate, has better judgment on this issue than those who are arguing against Clarkson because he didn't succeed in the majors.


and I would add that I am also confident that the electorate, in the aggregate, has better judgment on this issue that those who are arguing for Clarkson based in large part on his MLEs.

-- MWE

#237 and 238 are correct,my error. But the point holds. The Browns, sans Veeck, had no interest in Willard Brown actually succeeding. I hope you enjoyed my line about Brown being a tall, dark midget. His function and importance to the Brownies was the same as Gaedel's.

The fundamental problem with MLEs as I see it is this. And of course I myself use the MLEs quite extensively,and I think they are probably the most valuable contribution that the HoM has made to baseball knowledge. But there is still a fundamental problem with them.

Take guys like Lundy and Oms, e.g. MLEs pretend to show what they would have done if they had had the opportunity to perform in the MLs. So far, so good. However, they do so in something of a vacuum. In effect, if you are looking at Lundy, it presumes that MLB rosters consist of all of the players who are in the MLs at that time + 1. Plus Lundy. Ditto Oms, and ditto Clarkson, and so on. In the aggregate they assume on behalf of the players whose MLEs we are looking at that there are X + Y spots on ML rosters.

Meanwhile the MLers themselves are restricted to filling the actual X number of slots. The players whose MLEs we are looking at escape the real competition for roster spots that MLers had to contend with.

This is a small factor, I suppose, except that we end up with NeLers who consistently have flat peaks, but very long careers. In theory, the flat peak and long career cancel one another out. But not really. For career voters the NeLers look great, for peak voters not so great. The bias is built in either way. Of course, voters make their own adjustments for the most part and probably pretty successfully.

The same holds true, of course, when looking at MLEs from the MiLs only more so. If the cream of the crop of NeLers represents a theoretical expansion of ML rosters of X + Y, then a theoretical expansion of ML rosters by virtue of an influx of MiLers who give the appearance of being ready for ML ball must be on a magnitude of X + 2Y. If, IOW, MiLers can generally carry 80 to 85 or 90 percent of their value into the MLs--which those who make the jump actually do, often enough--then the fact is that the players who are "ready" for ML ball represent a substantially larger number than there are roster slots available.

Again, I have used MLEs and supported many players on their basis. But it seems to me that MLE players actually have an unfair advantage over MLers in that, again, they don't actually compete for roster spots except theoretically, and in a universe where there are theoretically an almost unlimited number of roster spots available. And so we all split hairs, accepting MLEs for some players but not others. And the basis on which we reject players like Clarkson has almost nothing to do with the MLEs themselves--that is to say, the numbers--but with the fact that they are theoretical. We discount some and not others for reasons that are almost entirely qualitative.

So IOW the opposition to Clarkson is not based on HIS MLEs but on the concept of MLEs generally. That not every great MLE describes a player who was great in reality.

Does any of this make sense?

So IOW the opposition to Clarkson is not based on HIS MLEs but on the concept of MLEs generally. That not every great MLE describes a player who was great in reality.

Does any of this make sense?

I think this is precisely accurate. My problem with Clarkson is the same as my problem with MLE's. I do not think the ability to dominate a lesser league is the same thing as the ability to slightly less dominate a greater league. If you play at level 9 on a ten point scale at a lesser league, it is not the same thing, nor as impressive, as playing at level 7 or 8 in a league with more talent.

This is just one of the issues, but when a player jumps to a higher league, adjustments sometimes happen. Sometimes they are moved to an easier position, either because of difficulty in playing the more difficult position, or because someone else is already there. There have been lots of players who played shortstop in the minors, but moved to an easier position once they reached the majors. Sometimes a player has to compete for playing time, and spends several years in platoon situations or something similar. Sometimes a player simply has difficulty adjusting to the higher level of play.

So as I have said before, the ability to dominate a lesser league suggests the possibility that you can dominate a greater league. It does not mean that it is probable that you would dominate that higher league.

All of which is to say that I don't believe in ever electing players to the HOM based solely on MLE's, particularly when comparing players from inferior leagues to those with superior leagues. This has two implications. First, that reputation while active, whatever it may have been, matters. And second, that the precision with which we can determine the value of many under discussion is far lower than among those who played in the majors. It is the maddening lack of precision in the evaluation of non-major leaguers that has prevented me from voting all along. I just don't think we really know how good these guys were.

Sunnyday, this is exactly the same thing I say about segregation, and why I dock all pre-integration players in my rankings. If Ruth had had to hit against Williams and Paige and compete against Charleston and Gibson, his OPS+/WARP/WS would have been lower. But, conversely, if Williams/Paige/Charleston/Gibson were being translated to an integrated league rather than to the contemporaneous major leagues, that league would would be more difficult and the NgL/ML conversion factor would be lower, resulting in lower MLE's and MLE OPS+/WARP/WS. Theoretically, the segregation penalty (applied to ML'ers and NgL'ers alike) should be similar to the change in league quality from the 1899 to 1900 NL--moving from 12 teams to 8 is the same % change as moving from 24 teams to 16.

First, that reputation while active, whatever it may have been, matters.

...and should be looked at much more closely to understand the reasons for it.

-- MWE

I think focusing on the Texas League numbers loses focus on Clarkson. Those numbers help you determine that he was still an effective ballplayer LONG past his prime - which is a Keltner question. To me the most compelling evidence is he came out of college and went straight to the NgL all-star team. Then, after sojourns outside of the country due to war and race, he comes back 9 seasons later and puts up another NgL All-Star season. Are there a lot of players who are All-Stars at ages 22 and 30 that aren't during their prime years? He wasn't going to get a fair shot in the 1950s, but he destroyed the upper minors in his late 30s. I'm not going to project that he would be a major league all-star at that age from those MLEs but I'm going to say, yeah he could have contributed in the majors at 37, which is pretty old for an infielder.

All those innings at SS indicate he was a decent fielder at his worst and I've chosen Jay Bell as a comparable defender. Try looking in the historical record for player opinions about Jay Bell's fielding, they're not going to be as easy to find as Ozzie Smith.

I'm still trying to figure out how we elected Willard Brown. He has decent, not great MLEs but he never walked, was an indifferent fielder and the contemporary opinion (Buck O'Neill) was that he was too hard to motivate to consistently get full use of his talent.

Dan, I think that is completely wrong theoretically.

For one, if all of these Negro Leaguers had been allowed into the majors circa 1920, baseball most assuredly would have expanded before 1961. If not, you'dve had a super league with no expansion for 60 years.

I don't believe there should be ANY dock pre-integration.

If integration made these leagues so much tougher - why didn't all of the established stars stats go in the toilet, for one?

I think focusing on the Texas League numbers loses focus on Clarkson. Those numbers help you determine that he was still an effective ballplayer LONG past his prime - which is a Keltner question. To me the most compelling evidence is he came out of college and went straight to the NgL all-star team. Then, after sojourns outside of the country due to war and race, he comes back 9 seasons later and puts up another NgL All-Star season. Are there a lot of players who are All-Stars at ages 22 and 30 that aren't during their prime years? He wasn't going to get a fair shot in the 1950s, but he destroyed the upper minors in his late 30s. I'm not going to project that he would be a major league all-star at that age from those MLEs but I'm going to say, yeah he could have contributed in the majors at 37, which is pretty old for an infielder.

Think about this for a moment. He had a very good year at age 22. Not MVP level, but all-star level. Several years later, he had another very good year. That's two. And based on this and A LOT of extrapolation, people are arguing for him to be voted into the HOM. There are far too many assumptions being made to elect someone to the HOM.

All those innings at SS indicate he was a decent fielder

But it doesn't indicate that he would have played short in the majors, which I think matters.

Are there a lot of players who are All-Stars at ages 22 and 30 that aren't during their prime years?

It's not a precise analogy, but Elston Howard springs to mind, particularly since that's a screwed, integration-era African-American player whose candidacy I've supported in the past. The essential difference between Clarkson and Howard/Newcombe is that the latter two demonstrated that their talents translated to MLB.

It's interesting to me that a couple of the people who are most strenuously arguing against Clarkson have voted for Elston Howard in the past. As others have pointed out, there's a fundamental difference of opinion about the ability to project a player's MLB value purely from MLEs achieved in a lesser league.

Are there a lot of players who are All-Stars at ages 22 and 30 that aren't during their prime years?

Not a lot. But there is Lonnie Smith.

RE. points 246 and 249.
I agree with both. I support Clarkson's candidacy due to his performance in the Negro Leagues when situation dictated he play in them. Two AS years so widely seperated, and seperated due to reasons not entirely of his own making, provide me with a strong indication that this was a high quality, meritorious ballplayer throughout that period - with no factor indicating that he was not. The late stuff simply tell me that he had a long career, and remained somewhat effective later on.
That said, without a high reputation regarding his defense, I look at him with the value of a solid third baseman within the defensive spectrum.

Joe Dimino, why would that be the case? Expansion is driven by the game's economics, not the absolute quality of the player pool. Even pre-integration, every study I've seen of quality of play show that the major leagues of 1946 would definitely be considered a "super-league" by the standards of 1901.

And other players' stats DID go down after integration--that's exactly what the league quality studies show! We could both cherry-pick examples to find guys who either did worse or didn't in the late 50s NL compared to 1946, but on the whole, the performance of established regulars definitely deteriorated. The recorded gap in league strength between the AL and NL in the mid-50s is clear evidence of this. Take a look at Baseball Between the Numbers; I think David Gassko did a similar study using pitcher hitting as well. If you really don't believe me, I'll look up the exact data and methodology.

And other players' stats DID go down after integration--that's exactly what the league quality studies show!

Please show me the studies . . . Just cherry picking the superstars I don't see this. Adjusting for age, do guys like Musial, Spahn, Williams, Aaron, Mathews who were around in the late 40s and early 50s get worse as the 1950s progress and integration is fully implemented? I certainly don't see evidence of that.

The recorded gap in league strength between the AL and NL in the mid-50s is clear evidence of this.

All this shows is that the NL was better than the AL in the 1950s - it does not show that the overall level of play in say 1955 was any higher than in 1941.

To be clear on my position, integration certainly improved the quality of play, I'm not denying that.

I'm saying that other factors caused a decline in the quality of play, and all integration did was to offset what otherwise would have been a decline - mostly due to the war, but also due to some other less important factors.

Because of this - the lack of evidence of overall improved play in the 1950s, followed by 50% expansion from 1961-69, I basically see correcting for integration as timelining, which I'm strongly against.

I've heard that baseball was either a higher quality in the 1930's or at least the same level in the 1930's as it was in the 1950's. I know people have attempted studies, but I'm skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a major change in the quality of play in the AL during this time, since there wasn't much integration, but I would be very surprised if the quality of play in the National League in the late 50's wasn't better than it was in the 1930's. I don't know of any changes that would be large enough to balance the impact of integration in the National League during this period.

If you don't do some form of adjustment, you end up with a situation where the 1930's are overrepresented - which is precisely what ended up happening.

The main one is the war Dizzy.

This wouldn't show up in 1946, when most of the established stars came home.

But by the 1950s, when the 18-25 year olds of 1942-45 would have been in their primes, many, who we never heard of were dead, maimed or lost key development time and turned into the players they would have otherwise.

IMO, integration basically offset this, as well as the increased competition from other sports and a booming economy.

By the time we had another 'full' generation of players, baseball started expanding like crazy, which again offset the gains.

So IMO, NL up, AL down, overall neutral.

League quality adjustments versus "timeline" adjustments is nothing but gray area with one exception.

That is making league quality adjustments within the same season. The NL was better than the AA in 1882. The FL was weaker than the other 2 leagues in 1914-1915. The UA sucked.

Any differences between the AL and NL are of an order of magnitude LESS than these, though they're there. AL in 1910s was better, NL in 1955ff and probably continuing through the 1980s, and etc.

Whether the AL in 1955 was better or worse than the AL of 1941 is immaterial AFAIAC. It would be "timelining" to say it was better IMO. OTOH to say the NL of 1955 was better than the AL of 1955 and therefore Gil Hodges 23 WS are better than Ted Williams 23 WS that year, that seems to me to be defensible, though I myself don't make that judgment. Any reasonable person OTOH would agree that Fred Dunlap's 38 WS in 1884 are NOT better than Jim Whitney's 37. But was Kid Nichols' 37 in 1894 or Honus Wagner's 37 in 1901 better than Whitney's? Not that I care.

I agree wholeheartedly sunny - although I do make exceptions for expansion - which typically takes 4-8 years to wash out, WWI (1918), WWII (1942-45, though 1942 is slight, mostly in AL), and sudden changes in the number of teams (1882, 1884, 1890-92, 1900, Federal League).

But for the most part, I follow your post #262.

I also think a portion of the AL's advantage in inter-league play comes from the built in advantage they have using the DH in AL parks. The NL can't just keep a David Ortiz or Travis Hafner or Edgar Martinez or Frank Thomas on the bench for these games.

The AL doesn't have a similar disadvantage in the NL parks, because 1) they can still work such a player into their new 8-man lineup anyway and 2) their pitchers don't hit all that much worse than the NL pitchers.

I'm not sure how to quantify this edge, but it does show up in my BS dump.

The main one is the war Dizzy.

This wouldn't show up in 1946, when most of the established stars came home.

But by the 1950s, when the 18-25 year olds of 1942-45 would have been in their primes, many, who we never heard of were dead, maimed or lost key development time and turned into the players they would have otherwise.

Several problems with this. First, the country's population was growing at this time, so that even including the war, the number of males of professional baseball age grew from the 1930's to the 1950's, not shrunk.

Second, any impact of a "lost generation" of players who were 18 to 25 from 1942-45, if such a thing existed, would wash out by the mid to late 50's, when this generation would be past its prime, anyway.

In the late 40s, when the impact of the war was high, and the impact of integration was low, quality of play might have dipped. By the mid to late 50's, the quality of play in the National League should have far exceeded the 30's, unless there were other factors at work.

Whether the AL in 1955 was better or worse than the AL of 1941 is immaterial AFAIAC. It would be "timelining" to say it was better IMO.

By not timelining people are creating a huge bias toward the 1930's, which has resulted in far more players being elected from that decade than from almost any other. Either you assume that the players of the 1930's were just flat better than the players of the 1950's, and therefore you should be electing more players from the 30's, or you use some kind of timelining. Those are really the only options.

Joe, I'm arguing that the entire period where you had the NgL's alongside the major leagues was one giant expansion period, when you had 50% more teams for the same talent pool. Then with integration you had a 50% contraction, just like 1899-1900.

Except that the 1899-1900 contraction shows up in the numbers, and integration does not.

My particular explanation may not fit, but some combination of factors offset integration in terms of quality of play.

Ah, OK, this really is empirical. OK, when I get home I'll post all the data I have on this.

Cool, I'm looking forward to it.

I've posted my numbers (derived from Prospectus) before also, on the "pitchers" thread, but I don't have time to look for it right now.

I'm certainly open to seeing other data.

I realize that there is data "showing" the effects of expansion leveling off over a few years.

However I remain a bit skeptical--intuitively the replacement level has to drop permanently with expansion absent other factors. And some of those factors, like growth of population base, were ongoing even in the pre-integration, non-expanding AL and NL.

Is there perhaps a competitive balance mechanism that makes it look like the quality of the league goes back up to pre-expansion levels, when in fact it does not? I am speculating here...

I think assuming that integration counteracts segregation is only broadly true, but then again I was the first person to use the phrase "reverse timelining", so you know my commitment to "a pennant is a pennant" is pretty suspect. :-)

Why the number of electees should be proportional to the number of teams has always eluded me. Leagues expand for reasons unrelated to league quality.

If we were doing the NHL hall of merit this would be obvious, but applying the principle to baseball still is only correct in a very general way.

Jim, I've said this earlier this week, but in case you missed it - I think the talent pool develops based on the available jobs - in essence enough players are produced to fill the jobs that are out there. More teams mean more minor league teams which means more players get a chance to experience professional coaching, etc..

I think it's only very loosely based on population, there's no other explanation (that I can think of) for such high concentrations of talent coming from such small population areas like the Dominican Republic.

Sure it takes some time to 'wash out' but typically, I think it's 4-8 years (not 3 like James suggested in his Abstracts, but not 'never' either).

*******

Here's what I posted on the Gibson thread awhile back. Still looking for other stuff, I'm almost positive I posted the actual numbers somewhere.

I'm into the early 70s. Summary, no data now, not enough time . . . this 'theory' makes a lot of sense to me. As I've said earlier, this methodology used by Davenport nails all of the 'big ones' (AA, UA, PL, FL, WWII), so to me the burden of proof is on the doubters for the other years when they disagree.

Remember this applies only to pitchers. The background stuff of 1871-1925 or so is important, but the really interesting stuff comes later.

1871 NA - plays gets better until 1874.

1875/76 NA/NL - NA falls apart, NL gets started, competition suffers a bit.

By 1877 this has washed out, play gets progressively better, with a big leap forward in 1880.

1882 AA comes along. NL takes a minor hit, AA is very bad early, much worse relative to the NL than the WWII quality of MLB or the Federal League, for example.

1884 UA hurts NL AA stagnates.

1885-88 - AA makes gains, overall MLB quality improves. By 1889 both leagues combined are at about 1880 NL quality, but NL is still the better league. AA never reaches equality with the NL, gets closest in 1888.

1890 PL is the best league, AA takes the very serious hit. NL is worse than PL, but not by a lot, all three leagues worse than either league at any point after 1886. Seriously watered down baseball everywhere.

1891 AA is pretty bad - worse relative to NL than at any point since 1884.

Note the expansion to double the major league teams never really 'washed out' until the AA folded.

1892-1899 - 1892 NL is essentially the same quality as 1881 NL. NL makes steady progress, especially from 1897-99.

1900 NL - by far the toughest league ever to this point. NL of 1900 as strong relative to 1899 as 1899 was relative to 1889, with 33% more teams.

1901, NL far better than AL. But in 1902 the tables are turned and AL is the better league through 1905. Expansion doesn't wash out until 1907.

Overall quality of MLB from 1902-06 is equivalent to MLB of 1892-96. It doesn't get back to the level of 1897-99 until 1907.

1911-12 - MLB pitching takes a dip - perhaps the offensive explosion was simply caused by the fact the overall quality of pitching took a little dip?

1914 - Federal League doesn't have much impact on the two existing leagues in terms of overall quality - but is signficantly worse than ML overall. This tells me there were many good minor league players out there for the taking, since the FL wasn't God-Awful and MLB quality barely felt the impact (the few quality MLB players that were taken were replaced by minor leaguers of a similar quality). The FL quality is equal to that of the 1886-87 AA a little worse than the 1873-74 NA in absolute terms. Relative to MLB of 1911-13 it's about as bad as the 1891 AA (slightly worse, technically).

1916 - overall MLB as strong as ever (saving 1900 NL). AL still the better league.

1918 - slight dip in overall quality due to players leaving for WWI. This mostly impacts the AL for whatever reason (meaning I don't know).

1919-20 - play returns to quality of 1917, not quite 1916 level.

1921-23 - pitching a little worse - I think part of this might have to do with WWI - kids that would have been 18-23 in 1917 are now 22-29 . . . it's probably because a few pretty good pitchers that we never found were killed in WWI.

1924-31 - play steadily improves as population and scouting improve, and no teams are added. AL far ahead of NL pitching wise from 1919-27. By 1928 parity is reached, then from 1929-37 NL has the better pitching.

1932 overall quality of play takes another leap forward.

1937 another big leap.

1942 - AL is much more hurt by WWII than NL - makes sense, AL loses Feller and Greenberg for one. 1942 NL is the strongest league ever to this point.

Note huge gains have been made over the last 25 years. There has been no expansion of teams during this time.

1943-45 - overall quality of play gets much worse - 1943 the quality of play has regressed back to that of 1934. 1943-44 is knocked all the way back to that of the early 20s. Again - AL much worse, the 1945 AL had essentially the same pitching quality of the 1901 AL.

I know some might see this not being strong enough - how could the quality of pitching of the war years overall only be as bad as the early 20s? Shouldn't it be worse?

Well for one, you've still got guys like Bucky Walters, Hal Newhouser, Mort Cooper, Dizzy Trout - it's not like everyone left. And you've had 25 years of improvement, that's a pretty serious setback.

Now here's where it gets interesting, if you are still reading . . . 1946-51, we're basically back to 1937-41 levels, slightly worse but close enough.

But there's a huge drop from 1952-55. Why? Korea for one, but I think also as important an issue is that an 18 year old in 1942-44 is 25-33 during these years. Several of the guys that would have been great early 50s pitchers never got the chance because of WWII.

From 1956-60 pitching is improved but not quite to the 1946-51 level. I don't think integration was enough to offset the WWII/Korea impact. The NL is far better than the AL during this time - which makes sense since they integrated faster.

1961 AL expands and quality dips, but not as bad as you'd think. But when the NL expands in 1962 things are much worse. This expansion doesn't wash out until 1966-67.

1969 Expansion is even worse than 1961-62. I'm not done yet - but based off the few guys I've checked into the mid-70s, this expansion probably isn't washing out before the 1977 expansion.

OVerall - WWII really did a number on MLB quality in the "Golden 50s". By the time this washed out, MLB expanded by 50% over a 9-year period - while baseball was fully integrated by this time, it is also competing with the NFL and NBA for athletes and the plusses don't offset the minuses enough to allow a 50% expansion.

I think this lays out a pretty strong argument that is extremely logical for why the baseball of the late 30s is probably the strongest we've seen at least by the time of the early 70s. The AL is going to expand again in 1977 - I'm guessing baseball doesn't get back to the late 30s quality until the mid-1980s.

Again, when I say 'quality' I'm talking about the overall quality of play - obviously there are more good players in 1969 than 1939 - but not 50% more, and there are 50% more teams.

Integration was just one thing pulling quality higher - but there were three very strong forces (wars, expansion, competition from other sports) hurting the average quality of play. Those two forces appear to me to be stronger than integration, based on Davenport's numbers.

Anyway, I'm not penalizing guys based on the overall quality of play (except for cases of expansion and wars), but I thought it was interesting to document WARPs interpretation of it. I am going to adjust for the relative quality of league compared to other leagues those years.

I'm adjusting for de- or ex-pansion/war for 1875-76, 1882-91, 1900-06, 1918, 1942-45, 1952-55, 1961-67, 1969-?

I'm also adjusting for AL/NL league quality relative to each other from 1901-forward.

Out of town this weekend hope to have a new PA chart with these adjustments up sometime next week.

I'm nearer the center of this debate than one might think.

I agree that MLEs are a blunt tool. I also agree the TxL years look weird in my MLE. I don't deny it, and I never have. I have before and still do encourage everyone to take them as a guide not a Bible.

But on the other hand, I also think the fact is that the conditions were very weird after Jackie for like 20 years. The idea that "baseball" thought that a black player was good or not isn't really applicable. It's more like 25% of baseball thought no black players were good. 25% thought that 3 black players per team was enough. And 50% were feeling their way from the first to the second position. The only true blanket statement to make of the era was that black men had very complicated and less-fair circumstances for inclusion than white guys.

Now as to whether Clarkson's a HOM-level talent, hard to say. He's an obvious backlogger. And it's fair to him and to the other candidates to say that. If elected, he'll be the 225th or so guy on the list.

Also, Webber's right. Artie Wilson should be getting looks from glove-oriented prime voters.

Joe, OK, I've got the book out. The methodology is just comparing the aggregate performance of players from one year to the next and seeing if they get better or worse. It has the NL with a .74 difficulty in 1899, a .81 difficulty in 1900, and a .74 again in 1901. It has the NL with a .95 difficulty in 1953, .98 in '54 and '55, and 1.02 in '56, where it held steady until roughly the late 1970s (with expansion canceling out talent pool increases). It has the AL with a .91 difficulty in 1953, .93 in 1956, .97 in 1960, and 1.01 in 1968, where it held steady until the early 1980's. In both leagues, the quality of play increase correlates overwhelmingly to their rate of integration. (I have black players per team data, I could get you the exact correlation if you're interested).

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but these are the numbers published in the book.

but what do those #'s mean? That a player in 1899 would have .74 RC relative to one in 1968? That's ridiculous - that's basically saying Honus Wagner would be replacement level in modern times - anything that says that is ludicrous from the start, IMO.

To me, the actual numbers they base their WARP, DERA, etc. on seem a lot more reliable. I take those above with a grain of salt without seeing the methodology.

Or do they mean a 10 win player in 1901 would be a 7.4 win player in 1999? That seems a lot more plausible, not that I would necessarily treat it that way for HoM purposes.

They're meant to be applied to EqA, so that that a .300 EqA in the 1901 NL would be a .222 EqA in the 1975 AL. Here's the commentary:

Let's put Babe Ruth into our Time Machine and transport him exactly seventy years forward so that he comes up as a rookie in 1984 and finishes in 2005. Ruth's career EqA would be .274. He probably would have made the All-Star team a couple of times, with an EqA in his best seasons approaching .300. But he'd be remembered as merely a good player and certainly wouldn't be a credible candidate for the Hall of Fame...

The Time Machine standard, however, is not entirely fair to Ruth...because he doesn't get to reap the benefits of new technology. If Ruth were playing today, his nutritionist would take notice of his penchant for red meat and put him on the Atkins Diet, keeping his muscles strong but subtracting the excess weight that hampered him toward the end of his career. Perhaps the Yankees' team psychologist would detect that Ruth's periodically heavy drinking was the result of clinical depression and compel him to turn to Prozac rather than the bottle. Perhaps would have been able to DH instead of playing the field, extending his career by a couple of seasons.

We can also think of things the other way around: What if Barry Bonds had somehow overcome the color barrier and were playing in the 1930s? Bonds severely damaged his elbow during the 1999 season, suffering from bone spurs and a damaged triceps tendon. He also had bad knees for msot of his thirties. The most productive portion of Bonds's career has come in spite of these injuries. Without access to modern medicine, his career might have ended much sooner.

Our solution to this problem is to eschew the Time Machine in favor of something more moderate: the Timeline Adjustment. Let's take another look at the graph of league difficulty factors. We can draw a trendline on the graph representing the typical increase in difficulty since World War II. The end of World War II brought a confluence of events that combined to sharply increase baseball's difficulty level over a short period: the integration of blacks, the expansion of the game into Latin America, and the widespread acceptance of the farm system. These events went beyond the ordinary, inevitable, and highly linear increase in difficulty that we see in other seasons. As a result, essentially all of the data points before World War II fall below the trendline. To make the Timeline Adjustment, we compare players not against an absolute standard of quality by against the relative standard of quality represented by the trendline. Honus Wagner's .354 EqA in 1908, for example, is adjusted downward not to .232, as under the Time Machine standard, but only to .344.

The relevant point in all of this, Joe, is that the data DO show an increase in quality of play resulting from integration that is of exactly the same magnitude as that of the 1899-1900 contraction, just as one would expect.

Why do you not adjust for the effect of the Negro Leagues on the majors (and vice versa), but you do adjust for the effect of the Federal League? It seems to me to be the *exact* same phenomenon.

Except that it shows in that chart, but doesn't show in the numbers I used. Where's the consistency.

Also - I have very little faith in any metric that shows Babe Ruth hitting to a .274 EQA in any era. I'll stick with what I've been using for now.

"I hope you enjoyed my line about Brown being a tall, dark midget. His function and importance to the Brownies was the same as Gaedel's."

This intrigued me, bluntness not a deterrent for me either.

What are the details for this conclusion?
Thanks.

Howie, the first half of that statement is mine, the second half is BJ's, from his BJNHBA comment about Jeff Heath who made it his mission to torment Willard and nobody from the Browns lifted a finger for Brown. The team told him not to bring any bats, but then they somehow neglected to get him any. The only bats his teammates would allow him to use were already broken.

The only bats his teammates would allow him to use were already broken.

And obviously, there are no places to buy bats in the city of St. Louis.

Hey I read a story, I shared it with you. Excuuuuuuuse me.

I think James got the story wrong. The version I've read is that Heath broke the knob off of one of his bats. Brown liked Heath's bats, but since Heath wouldn't share with a black man, Brown actually used the broken, knobless bat to hit his first home run with, and afterwards Heath shattered the bat to prevent even his discarded bat to be used by a black man.

Yes, and nobody (manager, front office, etc.) nobody took Brown's part. James himself said the part about the Browns not really wanting him to succeed. He was just a promo.

Hey I read a story, I shared it with you. Excuuuuuuuse me.

No need for an apology, Marc.

Joe Dimino
1924-31 - play steadily improves as population and scouting improve, and no teams are added. AL far ahead of NL pitching wise from 1919-27. By 1928 parity is reached, then from 1929-37 NL has the better pitching.

How large are these swings? or this swing from 1927 to 1929?

1932 overall quality of play takes another leap forward.

1937 another big leap.

How can it be that pitching quality "leaps"?


I think this lays out a pretty strong argument that is extremely logical for why the baseball of the late 30s is probably the strongest we've seen at least by the time of the early 70s. The AL is going to expand again in 1977 - I'm guessing baseball doesn't get back to the late 30s quality until the mid-1980s.

Why late 1930s rather than early 1940s --AL 1940-41 and NL 1940-42?

I'm reposting earler posts that were either chewed up or lost during the last transition:

Posted 2:08 p.m., July 10, 2002 - Brian Kaplan
George Wright's best years were probably before the formation of the NA. He was the highest paid player on the first all-professional team, the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings.

Posted 2:17 p.m., July 10, 2002 - MattB (homepage)
You might be mixing George up with his brother Harry. Both are in the Hall of Fame, but Harry was 36 in 1871, George was only 24. George was a young stud for Cincinnati, but it would be a stretch to say that he "peaked" at 22. Harry, on the other hand, was clearly past his prime by the time the NA started, but was still a great player.

Posted 3:03 p.m., July 10, 2002 - John Murphy
George Wright and Jack Glasscock are the definites. I'm not to keen on Kean (sorry). George Davis and Bill Dahlen don't make the ballot for a while.

Scruff:
Did you get the stats on Davy Force that I sent you last month? He should definitely be on the list. His NA numbers will be fun to look at.

Posted 12:16 a.m., July 11, 2002 - scruff (e-mail)
SS fielding letter grades:

Tom Burns A (as a 3B)
Jack Glasscock A-
Davy Force B+
Frank Fennelly B
Bill Gleason D+
Ed McKean F

Posted 3:13 a.m., July 11, 2002 - John Murphy
Here are the Win Shares per 162 games for the shortstops (NA not included as of yet):

Tom Burns: 19.94
Frank Fennelly: 25.35
Davy Force: 10.55
Jack Glasscock: 24.34
Bill Gleason: 22.13
Ed McKean: 21.65
Mike Moynahan: 30.68
John Peters: 17.49
Phil Tomney: 16.58
Sam Wise: 21.65
George Wright: 25.11

Posted 1:48 p.m., July 11, 2002 - ed
George Wright and Jack Glasscock are probably my only candidates for votes at shortstop. No need to reach for somebody like McKean who is basically an outfielder playing SS. If they get in, I'll probably won't vote for any other SS until George Davis and Bill Dahlen get on the ballot. BTW where is good ol' Monte Ward? In the pitchers category?

Posted 2:41 p.m., July 11, 2002 - MattB
I don't know if I agree with the fact that McKean is definitely "out."

It seems to me that after Wright and Glasscock are in, you have to decide whether McKean, as the third best (and best available)shortstop is better than, say the third best third baseman or the fourth best first baseman, or whoever are the other best players not in.

How do you compare those? I'd look at positional dominance. Now, I still have some doubts about the precision of Win Shares, but putting those aside, if McKean is the best shortstop available, and had 265 WS, I'd look at the fourth best on the list, Tommy Burns, who had only 224, and played more games at third base. That makes McKean 41 WS better (or 18% better).

I'd then look at the best available at other positions. If Anson, Brouthers, and Connor are already in at first, I'd see that the best candidates are Harry Stovey (381 WS) and Joe Start (244 WS + NA stats + pre-NA ball = say, 370 WS). If I decide that Stovey is only a little bit better, I don't know that I'd necessarily take the fourth best first baseman (who is only marginally better than the fifth best) over the third best shortstop (who is significantly better than the fourth best).

IOW, Stovey is more easily replaceable than McKean, even though McKean's raw numbers aren't as good.

Posted 3:14 p.m., July 11, 2002 - John Murphy
Monte Ward is on the pitchers list, ed.

Posted 3:14 p.m., July 11, 2002 - scruff (e-mail)
Matt, I don't know that because there happened to be 5 very good 1B and only 2 very good SS that that means McKean is harder to replace.

The top end a position has very little to do with the replacement level. Once you are down at that level there are a lot more players. Robert Dudek has done some work that shows the replacement level for AL SS's has not gone up significantly in this era, despite the presence of ARod, Nomah, Jeter, Tejada, etc..

Posted 3:26 p.m., July 11, 2002 - MattB
I guess I was thinking of it more along the lines of "Who would I pay more for in a rotisserie league if everyone were available at the draft." If McKean is the first name thrown out, I know that there are only two players better than him, and the fourth is significantly worse. If Stovey's is, maybe I don't bid as high, because I know there are four other guys who'll give me comparable numbers.

Of course, I never did very well in rotisserie leagues when I used to play in them.

Posted 4:14 p.m., July 11, 2002 - Rob Wood
I love this issue, so let me chime in too. I strongly believe that you should NOT use the "ranking relative to your position" argument to elevate weaker players (in some absolute sense) just because they are higher ranked than others at different positions. Ed McKean is the example used above, but this issue will come up in various guises throughout our extended voting.

In other words, I don't think a rotisserie-like draft is the proper mental model for our voting. We are not filling spots on a hypothetical team here. If two first basemen are the best two players of this era, say, then they should be the first two Homers.

I am generally unwilling to give any points for "rarity" except as it reflects special difficulties of playing the position. I know this may be hair-splitting but I think it is important to be clear on this issue. Think ahead about catchers. There I am willing to extend a little rarity credit since catchers generally are unable to play as many games or perform at their best throughout the season due to the hazards of the position. But this is probably the only instance I give something that may look like a rarity credit. In reality, this is a positional adjustment, and does not reflect voting by relative rankings.

Posted 1:07 a.m., July 12, 2002 - DanG (e-mail)
Just to make sure we aren't overlooking any good candidates, here are a few more shortstops I found who had careers of a decent length:

Shorty Fuller 1888-96
Arthur Irwin 1880-91
Jack Rowe 1879-90
Germany Smith 1884-98

Smith amassed a career with 1,710 games played.

DG

Posted 1:21 a.m., July 12, 2002 - John Murphy