Paul Wendt presented this nugget on the leftfielders thread:

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

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

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

Solid evidence that left field was considered the same way that we consider centerfield. Maybe a great fielding player at that position who played a long time for his era may get a second chance now with the electorate.

At last, a venue to pass on this tidbit! When he was sold to Baltimore for $500 (1882-1883), "York considered retirement. However, he signed after receiving a bonus -- the scorecard concession at Oriole Park."
--Richard A. Puff, "Thomas J. York," 19c Stars

Glad I could be of service, Paul! BTW, I love all of those SABR books.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm failing to see a screaming need to induct anyone else from this era. It is quite well represented.

So in order to make a serious case for me to have York (or Tommy Bond, who I like better than York) on my ballot, one is going to have to make the case to me that he was better than someone we have inducted from that era. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Hell, Lip Pike just barely edged in, and I can't see any serious argument that York is nearly as good as Pike.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm failing to see a screaming need to induct anyone else from this era. It is quite well represented.

I have never had York in an elect me spot, so I don't think he's an outstanding choice either. But he deserves as much respect as the "usual suspects" from the outfield glut have been earning. Why Van Haltren (who I have at the bottom of my ballot), but not York? York would have had as many WS or more playing during Rip's time, plus he played a more demanding position that he was best at for numerous seasons, but he is forgotten man with the electorate.

I think your unjustified leap is in going from LF was the most important OF position (a position with which I agree) to it was an important defensive position. It was, at best, 6th on the defensive importance scale, and quite likely 7th behind P, too. Meaning, defensive great or no, he's gonna have to bring a lot more bat than he did to be a serious HOM candidate.

I think your unjustified leap is in going from LF was the most important OF position (a position with which I agree) to it was an important defensive position.

I have never made that leap, Michael.

What I do see is a great fielder and fine baserunner who played a long time for his era (I adjust for that) at a tougher position than most people realize.

I believe that Spink's quote tends to be more relevant to the late 1860's extending into the early NA period. Offensive levels were dropping rapidly during this time, perhaps due to the introduction of the strike zone, or the curved ball, or other factors.

Win Shares does not distinguish between OF positions. So if LF in the 1870's was like CF today, he would get his props from Win Shares, overly so due to a) Win Shares giving the OF collectively a fixed share, and b) over all baseball history, the OF made the smallest percentage of non-K putouts during the late 1870's (causing Win Shares to collectively overrate the OF).

WARP-1 also adjusts defensive roles, so WARP-1 should adjust him appropriately defensively. He should get a larger piece of a smaller OF pie; the smaller pie will hurt him when compared to Win Shares. WARP-2 uses fixed defensive proportions based on the modern game (extending the Win Shares philosophy to the individual OF positions), giving him a smaller piece of a larger pie; this will not be as favorable as Win Shares either.

My guess is that Win Shares will tend to overrate OF defense in general from this period, though it will adjust to the LF/CF change, and overrate all the OF equally.