Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, April 21, 2003

1899 Ballot

For those of you that avoided the token appearances debate, we’ll stick with what’s in our Constitution for the time being, meaning that Pete Browning IS ELIGIBLE for this election.

If we decide to re-write the rule in the future, we’ll make sure it covers Browning being eligible for 1899.

Let the games begin . . . balloting will close some time Monday morning (April 28), after I’ve had a cup of coffee and get a minute to announce it.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 21, 2003 at 11:45 PM | 67 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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. RobC Posted: April 22, 2003 at 01:49 AM (#512481)
1899 ballot - still valueing career over peak mostly. Joe, you sorta won our Start debate (see below).

1. Jim O'Rourke - The only guy so far that absolutely must be in the HOM.
2. Hardy Richardson - I was the only person to have him as high as 3 on the last ballot, and he survives the onslaught of new guys to move up to the 2 spot.
3. Charlie Bennett - Another out of sync pick, nice peak and long career as catcher.
4. Pud Galvin - My pitcher who I value different from everyone else.
5. King Kelly - solid middle of the career, needed a few more good years to move higher.
6. Harry Stovey - Hurt by his best years being in the AA.
7. George Wright - This high on peak.
8. Ezra Sutton - Slides down from 6, I dont see him going to much back up anytime soon. I think its bad news from here down.
9. Old Hoss Radbourn - Still hanging out in middle of my ballot.
10. Fred Dunlap - Moved up 2 spots after some re-evaluation.
11. Pete Browning - I really want to see Browning elected. I hope others value him higher than I do.
12. Ned Williamson - I dropped him below Dunlap this time. Not quite as good as Sutton.
13. Tom York - I could probably be convinced he doesnt belong on this ballot. But not this time.
14. Tim Keefe - Another player where I seem to differ from the pack. This time low instead of high. Career value just isnt there for me.
15. Joe Start - I originally had O'Neill here but I had moved him way down from my last ballot, and the more I thought about it, the more I dont see him as a HOMer. Start's 1871-1873 still bother me, maybe he wasnt that good pre 1871, but I think the evidence says to put him on the list. I wont go much higher than this, until someone convinces me that he didnt suddenly step it up in 1874.
   2. Al Peterson Posted: April 22, 2003 at 01:49 PM (#512484)
More shuffling before I finalized this 1899 ballot. Charlie Bennett gets added based on discussion, just not too high.

1. Jim O'Rourke. Was like Old Man River - consistent and strong.
2. George Wright. Hooray for the 1870s. SS worth a place in HOM.
3. King Kelly. Numbers very good, versatile it appears to play anywhere.
4. Tim Keefe. Decent career length and peak is there. Pitchers get my respect.
5. Ezra Sutton. Playing a favorite here. Numbers probably warrent a drop.
6. Harry Stovey. So the AA wasn't the best. He did plenty anyways.
7. Al Spalding. Short career, not a disgrace to have at this position. This bump due to contemporary opinions.
8. Joe Start. OK with adding value for accomplishments before 1871 - just not going to go overboard.
9. Old Hoss Radbourn. Hanging around about same place as 1898 ballot. 1884 season is just a great story.
10. Hardy Richardson. Like, but don't love, this candidate.
11. Pete Browning. See Richardson above.
12. Ed Williamson. Widening the gap between him and Sutton.
13. Pud Galvin. Rolled along for long time - I'll give that some credit. That and he wasn't on the best teams.
14. Charlie Bennett. Hurting him in my mind is the lack of playing other positions. Other early catchers all went out to field other positions. Maybe he was so good he had to stay behind the plate. I doubt it. Add in the fact I'd take White, Ewing, even Kelly as catchers before him and this is where Bennett lands. Sorry.
15. Bob Caruthers. Pitcher/Hitter who just needed to stick around longer.

Dropping out from prior ballot: Mickey Welch, Lip Pike, Cal McVey. Don't feel real bad about any of these.

   3. MattB Posted: April 22, 2003 at 02:05 PM (#512485)
A little shuffling at the top, but similar to my preliminary ballot

1. Jim O'Rourke -- by a long shot
2. George Wright -- Still the top pure-NA candidate.
3. King Kelly -- solid, and lots of points for catching, but I'm not giving him as much "peer-review" credit.
4. Ezra Sutton -- bumped up. I've reconsidered down Williamson, and the gap between best and second best moves Sutton up.
5. Bob Caruthers -- see lengthy debate in the “new eligibles” thread. The pitching peak and the hitting peak are cumulative, and in some ways exponential.
6. Joe Start -- I knew he had ended the Red Stockings win streak in his pre-NA days. I hadn't realized how good he was all the way back to 1860. He was widely considered to be among the best in the mid-1860s. It’s one thing to give a “bump” for pre-1871 play, and another to realize that he was among the best for as many as 11 years pre-dating the NA. That deserves more than a “bump”.
7. Tim Keefe -- was expecting him to be higher, but couldn't justify it.
8. Hardy Richardson -- best second baseman
9. Pete Browning -- couldn't justify putting a third centerfielder (after Hines and Gore got in already) any higher.
10. Ned Williamson -- downgrade from last time, due to my decision to downgrade peer reviews.
11. Harry Stovey -- only the fifth best first baseman, after ABC and Start
12. Charley Radbourn -- serious downgrade, as he is now only the third best pitcher on the ballot.
13. Cal McVey -- upgraded from off-the-ballot after further research
14. Pud Galvin
15. Al Spalding -- five pitchers on my ballot now after none making the first ballot, and one may not make it this time. There may be some serious pitcher backlog soon.
Charlie Bennett is a strong 16th, but he’s no Buck Ewing.


   4. Carl Goetz Posted: April 22, 2003 at 02:21 PM (#512486)
I made a few changes, namely dropping Pete Browning a few notches and raising George Wright a few spots. I also dropped Henry Larkin entirely off my ballot in favor of Cal McVey. I should note that I currently believe that the top 8 players on my ballot SHOULD eventually get in.

1) Jim O'Rourke- He and Kelly are the obvious choices this time around. O'Rourke had a better career and a slightly better 5-year peak, although Kelly had the 2 best single seasons of the 2.
2) King Kelly- See above
3) George Wright- Still the best Shortstop and the best pure 1870’s player.
4) Tim Keefe- Best pitcher of the eligibles
5) Harry Stovey- Strong peak, Strong career
6) Bob Caruthers- His hitting really moved him up my ballot. I see him as borderline for pitching alone and his hitting sealed the deal.
7) Pete Browning- Strong Peak, Strong career, weak defense keeps him lower on this ballot.
8) Old Hoss Radbourn- I dropped him below Wright mainly because I had him artificially high in the last ballot. The reasoning then was that he was the best pitcher and should be elected. He is no longer the best pitcher and has dropped some accordingly.
9) Ezra Sutton- The top 8 all belong in the HoM eventually in my opinion. These next 3 are all borderline, but I wouldn't be too upset if they make it.
10) Joe Start- Will have to get elected soon because he'll drop alot on my ballot(and maybe even off it) when Brouthers, Anson, and Connor show up.
11) Ned Williamson- I've explained my Sutton/Williamson stance in the last ballot. No one has changed my mind.
12) Hardy Richardson- Best 2ndBaseman now that Barnes is in.
13) Charlie Bennett- Best Catcher now that White is in(until Ewing comes along).
14) Cal McVey- I don’t know exactly how to evaluate McVey. He had a high peak and was considered one of the best players of his day, so I’m starting to lean towards his being on my ballot. He had a short career and a lot of it was in the NA, so for now, he’ll be low on my ballot. Out of the current crop of players, I could be convinced to move him as high as 10th and I could also be convinced to drop him off completely. Someone convince me as to where to move him. I dropped Henry Larkin off my ballot to make room. Its bothered me all week that Larkin was on, so I don’t feel bad making this change.
15) Tip O'Neill- Solid peak, but he's just filler to get to 15
   5. Rick A. Posted: April 22, 2003 at 04:32 PM (#512489)
Here is my ballot. There are some changes from my preliminary ballot.

1. Jim O'Rourke - Highest career value among eligibles. Played 23 years

2. King Kelly - Clear #2 guy on this ballot in my mind

3. Tim Keefe - Best pitcher available.

4. Harry Stovey - AA player, but even with a discount, he rates over other players.

5. Pete Browning - Strong bat, but weak defense keeping him down.

6. Hardy Richardson - Very consistent and great career

7. Ezra Sutton - Moved up from prelim. ballot.

8. George Wright - Moved up from prelim. Probably should be higher, but I'm having a hard time justifying it. A few more good years in the NL would've moved him up alot.

9. Joe Start - I'm becoming more and more convinced about him. Very consistent. Good from 1860's to mid 1880's.

10. Al Spalding - Sorry to have him this low, but the stats are just not there. Strong presence in NL's formative years. Will have to wait for pioneers/executives/founders wing.

11. Ned Williamson - Not as good as Sutton, but still a very good player

12. Hoss Radbourn - Very good pitcher, but third best on my ballot.

13. Charlie Bennett - Very good peak and good defense put him on the ballot.

14. Charley Jones - I think he's a little underrated. Missing 2 years during his prime hurts him.

15. Mickey Welch - Again close call for my 15th spot. I've got Welch slightly higher than Galvin here.
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: April 22, 2003 at 11:24 PM (#512494)
Okay, ready to fire:

1. JIM O'ROURKE - First verifiably great player who played forever.
2. GEORGE WRIGHT - The lone leftover 1898er who MUST be in this HOM.

3. King Kelly - great and charismatic, but can wait a year
4. Tim Keefe - Clarkson should be first P, but Keefe's right behind
5. Joe Start - Respect his WHOLE career, and he's a serious candidate
6. Harry Stovey - Recheck of the numbers moves him up
7. Ezra Sutton - Offense, defense, career length; solid
8. Hoss Radbourn - STILL struggling with him, taking middle ground
9. Charlie Bennett - Great C, will be mulled for many years, I bet
10. Hardy Richardson - Good, but does anyone want him in the HOM?
11. Pud Galvin - there's Merit to this workhorse's endless career
12. Pete Browning - Only if Stovey ever gets in
13. Bob Carruthers - Ok, fascinated by hitter-pitcher combo
14. Al Spalding - Referendum on his ever deserving HOM? No, sorry
15. Ed Williamson - Deserves some more ballot time

   7. Howie Menckel Posted: April 22, 2003 at 11:45 PM (#512495)
Damn, no idea why my list appears twice. If one can't be deleted, let this be the notice that my ballot should only count ONCE!!

EDITOR'S NOTE: Howie's duplicate entry was removed.
   8. Marc Posted: April 23, 2003 at 12:03 AM (#512496)
I said a "year" ago (it doesn't seem like more than a couple weeks ago) that I prefer peak (with reasonable longevity) over pure career numbers, especially in a period (like this one) where long careers were the exception. I also discount for players who did not face the best available competition (AA) but not for timeline (NA). The NA was the best available competition.

1. King Kelly--only 3/4 as many games as O'Rourke but slightly better OPS+ (136-134) and three OPS+ seasons better than O'Rourke's best

2. Albert Spalding (#3 last year)--highest paid of the 71-8 Boston Red Stockings of '75, ahead of teammates Barnes, McVey, O'Rourke, Wright et al; highest ERA+ on the board

3. Jim O'Rourke--comparable (and favorably) to Deacon White, already elected

4. George Wright (8)--Barnes, Spalding and Wright are all worthy because of the degree to which they dominated their time and as pioneers; I admit to subjective (OK, sentimental) considerations

5. Tim Keefe--75 more games, 500 more innings, 33 more wins, and 126-120 ERA+ edge vs. Hoss

6. Cal McVey (5)--elite player from '69 to '79, 161 OPS+ in NA, 140 in NL, quit after 161 OPS+ year (age 29) but played many years of minor league ball thereafter; I really wanted some longer career to slot in here but all the candidates had some weaknesses, and McVey's career is not that short for this era

7. Lip Pike (6)--161 OPS+ in NA, 152 in NL, active 1866-78, like McVey I just couldn't find anybody I was convinced was better; one has to imagine some of Pike's record but what is known is very impressive, again I invite everyone to look at Pike head-to-head with Start

8. Pete Browning--164 OPS+ versus Stovey's 140 overcomes Stovey's longer career; his defensive numbers aren't as bad as his reputation; best of the AA, drops down from maybe as high as #5 due to AA discount (8%)

9. Hardy Richardson (9)--would rate higher if he'd stayed at 2B, moved to OF despite good defensive performance at keystone

10. Hoss Radbourn (10)--high peak but only about 3-4 really solid "star" quality years

11. Bob Caruthers--undecided about him, short career, longer peak than Radbourn, AA discount, but the hitting...he may move around on future ballots

12. Harry Stovey--I'm shocked, frankly, at how high some have him ranked, a 141 OPS+ in a second-best league is just not that great for a corner OF; but I'm running out of worthy names for this ballot

13. Charlie Bennett--the best C on the board, comparable to Bresnahan--e.g. worthy of a vote but not a HoMer; fact is, if his managers had thought he was that valuable he would have caught less and played more; they thought they could afford to sit him out

14. Ezra Sutton (13)--last time I had Big Ed ahead of Ezra, can't decide other than they both go toward the bottom, but it's appropriate to recognize a 3rd sacker

15. Ed Williamson (11)--the numbers aren't there but he slides in here on the basis of subjective evidence; Dunlap and Jones were very tempting

Jones (12), Dunlap (14) and Start (15) drop off of the ballot. The bottom four are gonna drop off soon.
   9. Sean Gilman Posted: April 23, 2003 at 12:38 AM (#512497)
Prelim Ballot:

1. Jim O'Rourke--best candidate we've seen yet. He was second only to Anson on my 1903 ballot.

2. King Kelly--despite the quirky defense a truly great player. Behind O'Rourke on career value.

3. Ezra Sutton--spots 3-5 very close. Each is a great player, Sutton and Richardson are close in peak value, but Sutton had the longer career.

4. Hardy Richardson--best second baseman between Barnes and Lajoie, and I think he's better than Barnes. Beats Wright on career value quality of competition and maybe peak.

5. Joe Start--By all accounts a great player in the 1860s. 2 bad years at age 29-30, but a much better NL player than Wright.

6. George Wright--4 great years in the NA, 2 good ones in the NL. How good was he before the age of 24? And what does that say about the pre-NA competition?

7. Harry Stovey--discounted somewhat because of the AA, but not too much. Might be ranking him too low because of the unknown stats/known reputations of Wright and Start.

8. Cal McVey--great hitter: career OPS+ of 152. Played a lot at catcher too. How was he before the NA and after he left the NL?

9. Tim Keefe--best pitcher we've seen yet. But I still suspect pitchers in this era are not all that valuable.

10.Charlie Bennett--didn't have him on my prelim ballot. But he was a great hitter for a catcher, and an excellent defender.

11.Al Spaulding--still don't know what to do with him. Great pitcher, but how good was his competition? Short career hurts his value as well.

12.Lip Pike--might deserve to be higher as he was one of the best players of the 1860s, but there's gotta be a limit to how much credit you can give to pre-NA players.

13.(N)ed Williamson--here mostly because he was so highly thought of by his contemporaries. Decent hitter, excellent fielder, short career.

14.Bob Caruthers--Parisian Bob moves ahead of Old Hoss based on his hitting. Short career makes it tough to call him a HOMer.

15.Charley Radbourne--one great year, four good years and six average years. That puts him somewhere between Pat Hentgen and Dwight Gooden/Orel Hershiser.
   10. dan b Posted: April 23, 2003 at 01:45 AM (#512499)
1.Jim O'Rourke. Joe - he doesn't just dwarf this competition, but those we elected in 1898 as well.
2. King Kelly. Second best player we have considered to date.
3. Harry Stovey. I had Gore and Hines at the top in 1898, Stovey belongs right with them. I would need to impose a 25-30% discount to his AA numbers to put him lower than 3rd on this ballot. My question to you guys that are listing him in the bottom third of your ballot – how much are you discounting the AA?
4. Hardy Richardson. Had him here last time too. I have him 4th in career value, 5th in peak value and gets some good reviews from contemporaries.
5. Hoss Radbourne. Still highest ranking pitcher on ballot per NHBA.
6. Tim Keefe. Almost as good as Radbourne.
7. Ed Williamson. I am toning down the subjective boost I gave him last time based on the observations of his adoring admirers, but not too much.
8. Pete Browning. More career value than O’Neill.
9. Tip O’Neill. Better peak than Browning. These guys belong together.
10. Charlie Bennett. Worthy catcher and one of my favorite places to watch a game once carried his name.
11. Ezra Sutton. A lot of you guys are overrating him. Maybe I am too.
12. Charlie Jones. Two year hold out costs him a few spots.
13. Joe Start. The source naming him as one of the top players in the mid 60’s keeps him on the ballot.
14. Henry Larkin. Even though NHBA puts him 39 places above Start. 7th eligible in raw unadjusted WS.
15. George Wright. Replaces Tommy Bond as my token concession that there was baseball before 1880. Much more deserving IMO than Barnes.

Going off – Dalrymple, Dunlap, Orr, Galvin, Bond

   11. Howie Menckel Posted: April 23, 2003 at 02:08 AM (#512500)
dan b, the token vote for Wright is appreciated. He may keep missing the HOF only by a couple of non-listings; at least giving him a token vote when most have him in the top 5 lessens the impact of the anti-Wright crowd......
   12. Marc Posted: April 23, 2003 at 05:25 AM (#512503)
danb, based on your votes for Stovey, Browning, Jones, ONeill and Larkin, the question is how much are you discounting the NL?
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: April 23, 2003 at 12:22 PM (#512504)
No 'dis intended, Mark, and I'll keep any of that chatter off this voting board anyway......
   14. dan b Posted: April 23, 2003 at 02:33 PM (#512505)
Marc - during the 10 year history of the AA, the 13 hitters on my ballot played 60 seasons in the NL, 36 in the AA and 8 in the PL. I don't think that reflects an NL discount or overrating the AA.
   15. Marc Posted: April 23, 2003 at 04:06 PM (#512506)
danb, to answer your question more directly, I discount the AA an average of about 17% per year, but it varies from 30% to +1% (the AA was actually better in '86). Most players did not play 10 full AA seasons nor did most of the better ones (HoM candidates) play in the AA during its weakest years (first two and last two, though Browning did play in the first two and 9 total). So Browning gets the biggest discount equal to about 8% of total career value. Most of the others are discounted equivalent to about 5% of their total career value, while the "token" AAers (Kelly one year, Keefe two years, etc.) get lesser discounts. Dunlap BTW takes a big hit of about 65% of his UA season, which then dithers down to maybe 7.5% of his career at face value.

As I noted above, I am shocked at Stovey's high ranking. A 140 OPS+ for a corner defender from the AA seems like second-tier (second ten?) to me. Browning's OPS+ was better and while he was a mediocre defender (his numbers are a bit better than his rep) he at least played a more demanding position. I would take Browning as the top AA player and Caruthers ahead of Stovey, too, though that is to some degree novelty value.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2003 at 05:10 PM (#512507)
I would take Browning as the top AA player and Caruthers ahead of Stovey, too, though that is to some degree novelty value.

Bid McPhee would be my pick for the greatest player who played for the majority of the AA's existence. If we are sticking with what a player did in the AA only, then I would agree that Browning was the best.
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2003 at 05:36 PM (#512509)
I'll second that emotion John. I slot McPhee in just behind Hardy Richardson on the overall ladder, you could go either way on those too. I like to compare McPhee to Brooks Robinson.

I have McPhee over Richardson, but, as you mentioned, it's close. Not a bad comparison with Brooks; consistently near the top at his position for a very long time (plus both were wizards with the glove).

The funny thing about McPhee was that he was only the third best second baseman for the 80s, while behind Childs for the 90s. But he kept going...
   18. KJOK Posted: April 23, 2003 at 05:58 PM (#512510)
General: BEST players of NA should be in HOM. Value established level of performance (peak) for 19th century players. AA WAS a 'major' league, unlike the UA...

1. George Wright, SS - EQA:.294, Fielding: EXCELLENT, WARP:63. Certainly best SS of the 1870's. I have him as similar to Lou Boudreau.
2. Charlie Bennett, C - EQA:.292, Fielding:EXCELLENT, WARP:90. Similar career to Roy Campanella.
3. Cal McVey, C - EQA:.325, Fielding:VERY GOOD, WARP:40. Not sure why there's not more love for McVey, one of the best players of the 1870's. Mike Piazza's offense with Gene Tenace's career length.
4. Jim O'Rourke, LF - EQA:.308, Fielding: AVERAGE, WARP: 125. Didn't hit as well as Browning or Stovey, but played at a high level for a long time. Similar value to Yastrzemski.
5. Pete Browning, CF/LF - EQA:.339, Fielding:POOR. Better hitter than Gore or Hines even considering competition. Loses points for poor CF defense. Similar career to Joe Jackson.
6. Al Spalding, P - ERA+:137, IP:2887. Best pitcher of NA. May have wone 4 or 5 Cy Youngs in row. Comps of Dizzy Dean, Smokey Joe Wood.
7. King Kelly, RF - EQA:.313, Fielding:FAIR, WARP:91, Best RF of 19th century. Similar to Elmer Flick, Jack Clark.
8. Harry Stovey, LF/1B - EQA: .315, Fielding:VERY GOOD, WARP:108. Slightly better hitter and fielder than O'Rourke, but only 2/3rds the career length. Think Albert Belle.
9. Hardy Richardson, 2B - EQA:.302, Fielding:VERY GOOD, WARP: 94.Very consistent, long career. One of top 2nd basemen almost every year. Best comps I could find were Knoblauch & Lazzeri.
10. Ned Williamson, 3B - EQA:.285, Fielding:EXCELLENT, WARP:79. Fielding was way above everyone else. Best comp: Art Devlin.
11. Ezra Sutton, 3B - EQA:.289, Fielding:VERY GOOD, WARP:77. Good hitter, but quite a few mediocre years right in middle of career. Think Harlond Clift.
12. Bob Carruthers, P - ERA+:123, IP:2829, EQA:.313, WARP:88. I've got a bunch of pitchers close together - hitting pushes Carruthers ahead. Carl Mays as a pitcher, Gavvy Cravath as a hitter.
13. Charley Radbourn, P - ERA+:120, IP: 4527, WARP: 94. Baseball's Best Pitcher '82-'84. Career numbers like Blyleven, except value more compressed.
14. Time Keefe, P - ERA+:125, IP:5050, WARP: 112. Slightly better than Radbourn on a career basis, slightly worse on peak.
15. Dave Orr, 1B - EQA:.333, Fielding:AVERAGE, WARP:60. Joe Start's "missing" years would have to be Ruthian to get close to Orr. Best Comp: Jim Thome.
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2003 at 06:12 PM (#512511)
BTW, is everybody having a hard time placing the pitchers on the ballot? The position players are relatively easy, but my head hurts trying to rank Spalding, Keefe, Bond, etc... :-(
   20. RobC Posted: April 23, 2003 at 06:27 PM (#512512)
John - yes. I started looking at 1900, and my pitchers are moving all over the place from where I had them in 98 and 99. Mostly they are moving up. Some of them a lot. And, Im bringing in a guy who I didnt vote for in 1898 or 1899. Of course, this may radically change again in the 2 weeks before the 1900 vote starts. Also, of the 3 pitchers you mention, Im only voting for 1 of them. I will probably have 4 pitchers on my next ballot (and maybe 5).
   21. Adam Schafer Posted: April 23, 2003 at 06:33 PM (#512513)
1. Jim O'Rourke - He offers so much more than anyone else on the ballot. he could hit and was consistent for longer than anyone else on the ballot in my opinion.

2. King Kelly - Very close between him and O'Rourke, but I felt O'Rourke was the better of the 2.

3. Al Spalding - #3 for me last time, remains #3

4. Harry Stovey - even though he played in the AA, he did everything except win a batting title

5. Ezra Sutton - #6 last ballot. a holdover that i'm pleased to see move up 1 spot

6. George Wright - I didn't like George before, and am stil not 100% comfortable giving him a spot. There has been a lot of discussion and I've liked a lot of what I've heard, best player of the 1860's is quite true but being the best player of a decade doesn't necassarily merit Hall induction. Maybe a pioneer, maybe had been very good, but I don't feel that now is his time.

7. Joe Start - #8 last ballot. same arguements

8. Tim Keefe - Had a tough time deciding between him and Radbourne for this spot, but I felt overall Keefe was the better player.

9. Hoss Radbourne - #7 previous ballot. I feel that I might have overrated him a tad last time, but not much.

10. Bob Carruthers - How many men have won and ERA title and come close to winning a batting title.

11. Hardy Richardson - good second baseman, although a lot of time in the OF.

12. Charlie Bennett - gets the vote only b/c he was a catcher

13. Pud Galvin - #10 last ballot. Wish I could justify ranking him higher

14. Mickey Welch - #14 last ballot. Still a great pitcher

15. Pete Browning - This was the hardest spot to pick. I like Pike, Orr, Charley Jones, and Williamson. I still like HARRY Wright but if I read right, we might deal with the managers some other time. Browning could hit, apparently couldn't field and only got the last spot b/c i felt he was just the slightest bit more deserving than the others.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2003 at 06:45 PM (#512514)
John - yes.

Glad to know that I'm not the only one. :-)
   23. DanG Posted: April 23, 2003 at 07:13 PM (#512515)
A couple quickies:

1) For the 1899 Hall of Merit induction exhibition game, how about we match the other two soon-to-be-defunct teams, Baltimore vs. Washington. Maybe Sean G can run the simulation again next week.

2) To RobC: I believe you can revise your ballot, even though you already cast it, up to the time the polls close. You sound like you have second thoughts.
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2003 at 08:01 PM (#512516)
Here's my ballot. Again, I use a combination of peak and career for the rankings. I also view each position on an equal basis. This doesn't mean that I have a quota to fill each position for my top ten. Sometimes a position will not have a viable candidate for a certain "year."

I have changed my mind on some of my picks after examining the reasoning of some of my fellow Primates here for their picks. Whether I agree or don't agree, I enjoy scanning everybody's ballot to try to gain some insight on who is the best.:

1) Jim O'Rourke: Consistently near the top for a very long time. Best rightfielder for 1879. Best centerfielder for 1877 (close in 1876). Best first baseman in 1874. Best leftfielder who played the position for a long time for the 19th century (though had the most value as a centerfielder).

2) King Kelly: It was a battle between O'Rourke, Kelly and Spalding for the top spot. Could be classified the best third baseman or rightfielder for 1879. Best rightfielder for 1881, 1885 and 1886. Played a decent amount of games as a catcher. Best player to play right field for a long time for the 19th century.

3) Al Spalding: Besides being (easily) the king of all NA pitchers (and doing a great job in the NL for 1876), he was also a star pitcher for half of the 1860s. I would give him 4 Jim Creighton Award (:-)) for his NA work.

Negatives addressed to Spalding:
Negatives addressed to Spalding:
1) The quality of the NA: I have adjusted for this because it was worse than the NL. However, does anyone really think there was that much difference (especially at the tail end of the NA's existence) between the two leagues? I don't.

2) Great teams: His winning percentage was certainly helped by the terrific players his Boston and Chicago teams had.

3) He didn't face the great offense on his own team: This, to me, was the best criticism of Spalding. I made an adjustment for this, too.

After all of that, he's still the best of his era. He deserves the honor

4) Ezra Sutton: Simply the best at the position for the 19th century when combining peak and career. Best third baseman for 1875 (probably), 1883, 1884 and 1885.

As has been stated before, third base at the time was more of a defensive position than second base. Offense at the "hot corner" has to be analyzed with that in mind. Third basemen tended to get beat up more than they do today so their career numbers seem truncated as compared to some of the other positions.


5) George Wright: The best shortstop at his peak for the 19th century. King of shortstops for the NA. Best shortstop of the NL in 1876 and 1879, plus best second baseman in 1877. Best shortstop for the 1867-1870 era, too.

6) Dickey Pearce: Really revolutionized the position of shortstop. All-around player at the position. Considered the best before George Wright. Caught many games as a catcher (even was an All-Star at the position one year). Even with my conservative evaluation, he has to rank near the top. He played for over twenty years in the best leagues or on the best teams of the 1850s and '60s.

If we are including pre-NA players, I can't see how anyone could leave him off their ballots, IMO.

I'm not giving him any credit here for the bunt, BTW.

7) Cal McVey: Awesome player. Moved him up somewhat from last "year," I gave him credit for his pre-NA work, though I decided not to give him any for post-NL. This might be unfair of me and I might decide later to include his career out west.

Best offensive catcher for the NA (possibly the best all-around). Best first baseman for 1876 (possibly 1879). Best catcher for 1877. Best third baseman for 1878.

8) Hardy Richardson: Greatest player who played a great deal at second for the 1880s (Fred Dunlap probably had the most value strictly at the position). Best leftfielder for 1886. Best second baseman for 1887 and 1889.

9) Joe Start: Considered the best first baseman for the 1860s. Considering how old he was when he joined the NA and how well he did, that evaluation seems to hold water. Best first baseman for 1878 and 1879.

10) Tim Keefe: I really had a hard time trying to figure out where to place him (and I'm not sure if I got it right). Second best pitcher for his era (Clarkson being "the man"). The Radbourns, Galvins, Caruthers, McCormicks, etc., have to stay behind the rope named Keefe. Best pitcher for 1883.

IMO, I think some here are including too many pitchers on their ballots. But what do I know. :-)

11) Charlie Bennett: Decided to move him down from my prelim ballot. Strictly as a catcher, extremely comparable to Buck Ewing value wise (though based more on career than peak value). Best catcher for 1881, 1882 and 1883. Most durable catcher up to that time (catchers absorbed much more abuse than they do today).

12) Ed Williamson: I decided to move him in front of Dunlap, but it's close. Best third baseman for the 80s. Best third baseman for 1881.

13) Fred Dunlap: most value as a second baseman for the 1880s (though McPhee and Richardson were still the better players career wise). Best second baseman for 1880, 1881 and 1884.

14) Lip Pike: Considered the fastest man of his time. Best centerfielder for 1874, 1875 and 1876 . Best rightfielder for 1871. Star second and third baseman for half of the 1860s. He might deserve to move up.

15) Tom York: Very underrated player. Short schedule really hurt his career numbers. Best leftfielder for 1877, 1878 and 1881 (close in 1876).

   25. Marc Posted: April 23, 2003 at 08:02 PM (#512517)
Re. the pitchers, once you decide to rank everybody based primarily on peak with career value secondary it gets a lot easier. Of course you can't just rate a guy on one single peak season, either, so...but I think top 3 or 4 is about right, and by the time you get even to the 3rd or 4th best year Hoss is pretty much down there with the rest of the '80s pitchers. So sorting out the guys who had a peak is still tricky, but incorporating any concept of a "peak" means I don't have to worry about Galvin and Welch too much.
   26. RobC Posted: April 23, 2003 at 09:38 PM (#512518)
DanG - Yeah, Im aware I can change my ballot. But, I dont need to for 1899. Im not sure how others are doing it, but here is my process: After a vote is complete (and, after analyzing the first 11 ballots that came in, I could tell you which 2 players are getting in - but I wont. The battle for 3/4 and 5/6 are interesting though), I take my remaining players, plus the few guys who almost made my ballot, plus the new guys who look worthy to consider, plus the top finishing guys that I didnt have on my ballot for some reason (like Joe Start in 1898). I then, start from scratch ordering them.

In other words, I dont just keep my ballot order and slot the new guys in. Thus, sometimes I will look at things in a different way, and relative ordering will change. Mostly, things stay the same, but for 1900, I looked at pitchers peak a little more than I had in the past. My 1900 ballot will probably change 3 more times in the next 2 weeks. For 1 thing, I dont know who the guys "everyone else voted for, but I didnt seriously consider" are yet.
   27. Rob Wood Posted: April 24, 2003 at 05:56 AM (#512520)
My 1899 ballot, after just a little more tweaking.

1. Jim O'Rourke. Clear cut top of the class.
2. King Kelly. A great player whose notoriety exceeded his greatness.
3. George Wright. A class act who will soon make the HOM.
4. Hardy Richardson. A favorite of mine.
5. Ezra Sutton. One of the least known stars of the era.
6. Harry Stovey. Unlikely to make a splash on this ballot.
7. Al Spalding. Disagreement on Al. I say he'd honor the HOM.
8. Tim Keefe. To me he is the borderline of serious HOM candidates.
9. Ed Williamson. I'm not sold on his worthiness.
10. Charlie Bennett. Remarkable story.
11. Joe Start. Difficult to value his pre-NL greatness.
12. Hoss Radbourn. I'm belatedly adding him on my ballot.
13. Fred Dunlap. Destined to never see the inside of the HOM.
14. Pud Galvin. I like his longevity, but his quality is not great.
15. Cal McVey. Honorable mention could have gone to Caruthers.
   28. jimd Posted: April 24, 2003 at 07:22 PM (#512522)
1) C. Radbourn -- A close decision between 1 and 2. Pitchers dominate the early 1880's; there's no doubt that they are important in each game (the pitching records like no-hitters, perfect games, a 19 strike-out game all demonstrate this). Individuals also are close to complete pitching staffs. My interpretation is that a great pitching season put a team in contention, even over an All-Star team which hit like Chicago. Radbourn is the best of this generation, the best pitcher of 1882, 83, and 84, after which they let the overhand guys play, and the rapid schedule expansion diluted the impact of individual pitchers.
2) G. Wright -- Giving him credit for his reputation as the best player in the country in the period 1867-70 before the NA started. The 1867 Washington Nationals were considered the best team that year, as were the famous 1869-1870 Cincinnati Red Stockings; he was a star on each, and the highest paid player on the Red Stockings.
3) Jim O'Rourke -- The ultimate "marathon" player; a quality ball-player over a very long period, yet no great individual season to point to for emphasis. Wright was the better player while they were teammates, but Wright turned to other endeavors while O'Rourke played another decade in the majors and two additional decades in the minors. He helped organize the Connecticut League while we were organizing this Hall, and will be various combinations of player/manager/owner/president for the next 15 years. (As president, he will fine his manager self for cursing an umpire.) His last minor league game at catcher was at the age of 62 (a token appearance to be sure but he caught the entire game).
4) M. "King" Kelly -- I have a feeling he was overrated in his day, but he is still a worthy candidate for the HOM, even if he wasn't the greatest 19th century player. If the HOM really had opened in 1898, the 5-year rule would have been very controversial because no HOM would have been considered valid without his (posthumous) induction.
5) A. Spalding -- Most consistent pitcher of any of the pitching generations before the 1890's. The salary deals he negotiated persuade me that he's got to be up there close to Barnes and Wright in value; his overall business acumen makes me think he got every dollar he was worth and maybe more.
6) T. Keefe -- His career value is comparable to Radbourn but Keefe doesn't have the peak. Peaks win pennants. Keefe was on more pennant-winning teams, but he also had better teammates (Connor, Ewing, Ward, O'Rourke, Welch, Tiernan vs. Hines & 41 yr-old Start).

I find it harder to order the guys below here; these are the guys that I might not have in my HOF, but then again I'm a small hall advocate, smaller than the one that exists now. I've tended to go with WARP-3 over DDWS for ranking the other early 1880's pitchers. I give them precedence over the position players for the reasons mentioned above with Radbourn.

7) H. Richardson -- Pretty anonymous for a "great" player; do the numbers lie?.
8) P. Galvin -- Long career plus a good peak in a very tough pre-expansion league. You can't compare Galvin's ERA+ in 1879 against Clarkson's in 1889 until you take into account that the major-league-wide Innings Pitched has gone up a factor of 3 during the decade. (Double the number of teams and nearly double the schedule length.) The third starters of 1889 would not be playing in the majors, and the 2nd starters would have their innings cut drastically if conditions had not changed since 1879; the overall league ERA would be considerably lower. If MLB today contracted to 16 teams playing 100 games, Pedro and Randy wouldn't be as dominant in ERA+ with all the third/fourth/fifth starters pitching in the minors against the lesser everyday players.
9) C. Bennett -- Either 19th century catchers are undervalued by the rating systems like WARP and Win Shares, or they are like modern relief pitchers in that they just don't play enough to accumulate total value competitive with the other positions. The best of the 1880's catchers (White, Ewing, Kelly, O'Rourke for a couple of years) played other positions to keep their bats in the lineup because hardly anybody would catch full-time without the armor which had yet to be invented/accepted. Bennett apparently was not successful at this.
10) J. Whitney -- In 1882 he was 3rd in OPS+ with 183 (the ABC 1b-men were 180, 199, 185 respectively) and qualified for the title (over 500 PA after adjusting for schedule length); for one nearly full-time season, this pitcher hit as well as Connor or Anson near peak. Comparing his peak-2-consecutive with Caruthers (82-83 vs 86-87), Bob outhits Jim .325 EQA to .310 (estimated), but Whitney outpitches Bob. For the two seasons, Bob wins WARP1 32-29 but Whitney wins WARP2 21-18 (WARP2 is WARP1 adjusted for strength-of-opposition on an all-time scale). WARP3 has Jim with the better peak and better career. Take a look at the 1883 Boston pennant-winners and compare them to Chicago; how did Chicago lose? (Anson, Williamson, Gore, Kelly, Dalrymple, Corcoran vs Sutton, Whitney, and some career years)
11) J. Start -- Joe, your arguments in his favor have made me move him up as far as I can justify for somebody with an undocumented peak.
12) B. Caruthers -- Unique story but I have the same doubts about him as others seem to have about Spalding with respect to suspect league quality and "Pitching vs. Fielding". Foutz did a similar role almost as well at the same time; Caruthers left and St. Louis didn't miss a beat, replacing him with Silver King (but not his bat).
13) J. McCormick -- Should have been on my ballot last time instead of Dunlap.
14) H. Stovey -- Not a long enough career or dominant enough peak to place higher.
15) E. Sutton -- Close decision but almost irrelevant (maybe).
16) N. Williamson -- Close decision but almost irrelevant (maybe).


Dunlap falls off due to an error in my initial evaluation (I forgot to downgrade his UA season). Give his points retroactively to Jim McCormick. It doesn't affect the final result? Never mind.

Tommy Bond falls off due to the influx of more qualified players.
As does one of Ezra Williams and Ned Suttonson.


   29. Philip Posted: April 25, 2003 at 12:08 PM (#512524)
1. O?Rourke - Very long consistent career continuously at all-star level (19th century Murray/Winfield/Yastremski).
2. Sutton - Very good defense at tough defensive position. Good offense, high career value .
3. Wright - Great peak. Superstar in NA at the most demanding position. Short career drops him below Sutton.
4. Kelly - Superstar for a number of years. Defensive value unknown, but lower than Sutton and Wright.
5. Bennett - Very good all-round catcher for a decade. Great defense and high offensive peak (I-Rod status).
6. Start - Great career at an old age. Uncertainty about pre-NA years and thus no visible peak drop him slightly.
7. Keefe - Very good adjusted W-L record and ERA+ over a long career. I’m still having difficulty establishing the value of pitching in this era.
8. Radbourne - Praised for 1 tremendous season. Other than that a very good career. Higher peak than Keefe, but slightly lower career value
9. Williamson - Great glove, good offense for a 19th century 3B, though shorter career than Sutton.
10. Richardson - Long consistent career. Most playing time at 2B/LF less demanding defensive positions than those above him.
11. Caruthers - Great adjusted winning percentage, though his career is short. However, great hitting in significant number of at bats.
12. Pike - May well have been best player in baseball pre-NA.
13. McVey - High peak, star in NA, playing a good part of his games behind the plate.
14. Stovey - Strong peak. Somewhat discounted for AA years. Doesn’t stand out among his peers like the players above him on the ballot.
15. York - Great career value, less peak (generally underrated).
   30. Jeff M Posted: April 25, 2003 at 05:01 PM (#512525)
1. JIM O'ROURKE -- About 50% better than the league as a hitter. Good WS peak and career totals. A long, consistent and well-rounded career.

2. TIM KEEFE -- Tons of black ink spread over many categories. Again, a long and consistent career with lots of wins and good relative ERAs. Amazing between 1883-1890 (followed by his only bad year in 1891).

3. HOSS RADBOURN -- Was 3rd on my 1898 ballot and didn't get in. Hoss had some really unbelievable seasons. What a workhorse! Have him behind Keefe b/c Keefe's career was longer and more consistent. I would elect him in 1901.

4. KING KELLY -- Not as productive as O'Rourke when considering the boost he got from the ballparks he played in. Don't know what to do with his defense, so I've essentially treated it neutrally. Lots of STATS All-Star games, but I can't help feeling that part of his reputation has more to do with personality than performance. Still, he deserves a very high place on the ballot and think he should be elected around 1901.

5. HARRY STOVEY -- Powerful hitter for his era. Would have been perennial All-Star. Gave approximate 5% discount for AA play and he still ends up 5th on ballot. I would elect him in 1902.

6. PETE BROWNING -- Poor defense puts him behind Kelly as OF. Of the three hitters ahead of him, he may have been more productive, but he gets an AA discount and had a shorter career than O'Rourke. I would elect him in 1905.

7. BOB CARUTHERS -- Amazing win pct and good ERA with lots of Black Ink. Doesn't dominate like Radbourn for any period and didn't last as long as Keefe, but gets a big boost for his hitting. I would elect him around 1905.

8. TIP O'NEILL -- Carryover from 1898 ballot (where he placed 6th). A feared hitter, but gets a bit of a discount because of AA seasons. I would elect him around 1906.

9. AL SPALDING -- Carryover from 1898 ballot (where he placed 7th). Was really incredible if the ballpark factors from this era are accurate. His numbers may have been supressed by as much as 8%. Who knows about his pre-1871 days? I would consider electing him around 1906.

10. MICKEY WELCH -- Carryover from 1898 ballot (where he placed 8th). Welch was extremely steady, but loses points because he was not dominant. No black ink (unless you count 2 saves as the league leader), but gray ink is fantastic. I would consider electing him around 1908.

11. GEORGE WRIGHT -- I left him off my 1898 ballot, but in light of the voting patterns of others, I looked him over about five more times. He gets a spot here, though I must say I do not think he belongs in the HOM based solely on his playing ability. Maybe a pioneer wing or something. I do not give him (nor anyone else) credit for play before 1871 because neither I (nor anyone else) knows much about that time period. My votes are based on performances in organized baseball. He'll move up on my ballot as the retiring talent gets thin, but I would not elect him. In fact, I hate putting him on the ballot at all, because I'm afraid those few points will result in his election...but my methods are my methods, and I'm trying to stay true to them (which is why Williamson will NEVER appear on my ballot).

12. JOE START -- Carryover from 1898 ballot (where he placed 10th). Will pale in comparison to future 1B we see. Will be in and out of my ballots for a while, but only bringing up the lower half. Possible he could be elected around 1910 when the retiring talent gets thin, but unlikely.

13. CAL MCVEY -- Carryover from 1898 ballot (where he placed 11th). Would have been a perennial All-Star in his time, but he didn't play very long. Played as much 1B as catcher, but gets a small boost for catching activities. Also a discount for NA career. Long shot to be elected.

14. PUD GALVIN -- Carryover from 1989 ballot (where he placed 12th). Lots of up and down years. A poor win pct for someone of his caliber. Still, he put up big numbers. I don't know where to put him, but I think he ought to stay in the Top 15 at this stage. Long shot to be elected.

15. JIM MCCORMICK -- Carryover from 1898 ballot (where he placed 9th). I've lost some confidence in him. Seemed to have either great years or terrible years, but the great ones show how good he can be. He produced lots of black ink. Will never be elected.

Dropped: Charley Jones (13th on 1898 ballot), Hardy Richardson (14th on 1898 ballot) and Tommy Bond (15th on 1898 ballot). Tried to find a way to include Charlie Bennett, but just couldn't get there.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2003 at 06:18 PM (#512526)
Jeff, if you honestly feel that George Wright doesn't belong on your ballot, he shouldn't be there then. We're supposed to be ranking the top fifteen players available you think belong. It shouldn't matter what the consensus opinion is for a certain player.

BTW, are you waiting to elect a third baseman during one of the '20s elections? :-D
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2003 at 07:04 PM (#512528)
Joe, Jeff's statement slipped by me. Obviously, you now how I feel about this subject (Dickey Pearce!). :-)
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2003 at 07:05 PM (#512529)
Joe, Jeff's statement slipped by me. Obviously, you know how I feel about this subject (Dickey Pearce!). :-)
   34. MattB Posted: April 25, 2003 at 07:08 PM (#512530)
I don't think Jeff was saying that he changed his vote because of the way others have voted. He said that he re-examined Wright because of the way others had voted, and determined on his own to place him 11th, but doesn't think that 11th place in HOM-worthy. That is a perfectly valid conclusion.
   35. Marc Posted: April 25, 2003 at 07:40 PM (#512531)
Jeff's notation about when different players might be elected or when he might elect them is interesting. I've mentioned that I did a mock election but haven't published the outcome. This is based not on my ballot but on the old consensus 1906 ballots, so it reflects neither the '98 nor '99 refinements. Another poster said that most of the upcoming slots would go to more newly eligibles. I think that is a more realistic assessment, I think Jeff posits too many of today's eligibles too quickly. This assumes, BTW, that the two leaders in '99 balloting at the present time hold on to win enshrinement, and again this is based on the 1906 prelim. ballots not on the '99 ballot. Based on the '98 and '99 ballots there would be some changes but the number of current eligibles would stay the same.

1900-none of those currently eligible
1901-Keefe
1902-Radbourn
1903-none
1904-none
1905-none
1906-Wright
1907-none
1908-Sutton
1909-Williamson
1910-Richardson
1911-none
1912-Spalding
1913-Start
1914-15-none
1916-Stovey
1917-18-none
1919-McVey
1920-Caruthers

Actually based on '99 voting the order would change but otherwise the only change would be Bennett instead of McVey. So all you fans of Browning, McVey, Galvin, Pearce, Welch, Dunlap, Billy Sunday, etc. etc. eat your hearts out.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2003 at 07:47 PM (#512532)
MattB:

You might be right. I have to stop reading these posts and working at the same time. :-)
   37. MattB Posted: April 25, 2003 at 08:10 PM (#512533)
John,

I guess you'll just have stop working!

Marc,

I'll be surprised if more than half of the players in your mock election are in my 1920. (Not that I think any of them are unworthy, but I think it'll take a lot longer.)

I guess I'll get back to you in 40 weeks to see who is right!
   38. Howie Menckel Posted: April 25, 2003 at 10:19 PM (#512534)
Joe,
this might be a good time for a short clarification on how to approach the earliest of players in particular.
Start and Wright, and others, appear to be losing major ground with a dozen or more voters who are NOT considering pre-1869, even as a guess or via discounted credit. May not have produced any "wrong choices" yet, but eventually it's going to be a problem, I suspect.
Thanks.
   39. Ken Fischer Posted: April 26, 2003 at 10:57 AM (#512535)
1- Al Spalding-while the rules & level of competition were different?his domination of pitching from 1871 - 1876 is unmatched in 19th Century annals?his other contributions to the game are just icing on the cake

2- Jim O?Rourke-maintained consistency over many years?batting .287 in 1893 at 42/43 years old perhaps one of his most unsung achievements?very solid career that makes him an automatic

3- Tim Keefe-incredible 7 year run averaging 35 wins in the 1880s?ace of legendary Giants teams?even came in with 19 wins for Harry Wright?s Phillies in 1892?

4- Bob Caruthers-often overlooked because of his short career?made major impact in Browns & Grooms pennant runs and ranks with Monte Ward as one of the most versatile players in the 1800s

5- Harry Stovey-short changed since he spent most of his time in the AA but played on league winners in PL & NL?premier slugger of the AA

6- George Wright-along with Spalding, Start and Pearce represents the best of the players who made it from the ?Amateur Era? to the early days of the NL. His flag season as the 1879 Providence player-manager helps close the deal

7- King Kelly-a tough player to put in a category?perhaps one of the first true utility men?could do it all?and along with Browning deserves entrance for both merit & fame?his staying with teammates in 1890 was a one of the noble acts in baseball annals

8- Pete Browning-a legendary poor fielder?reality or not?he deserves admission to the HOM?one of the highest lifetime batting averages?winning the PL batting title proved he could compete AA, PL or NL?.Louisville Slugger story is extra

9- Joe Start-27 year career from 1860-1886?amazing numbers for starting his NL career in his mid-30s?if only half of the stories about his days as a New York Mutual & Brooklyn Atlantic are true he should be in?one of the most respected players in the early days of baseball

10- Old Hoss Radbourn-1884 season is one of a kind?300+ wins gets him over the top?being part of the only PL flag winner is a bonus

11- Jim Galvin-perhaps the Don Sutton of his day?he just kept plugging away for the Bisons and Pirates and by age 35 had piled up the numbers?deserves recognition for the volume of his work?1800s, 1900s or 2000s?only a handful of guys have 360+ wins

12- Dickey Pearce-know less about Pearce than we do Spalding and Start?but as the only premier player that lasted from mid-1850s to the founding of NL he represents historical link to NY-Brooklyn All-Star games of late 1850s?and a pioneer in playing the shortstop position and art of bunting

13- Bobby Mathews-perhaps the most overlooked person in baseball history?counting his NA days was all-time wins leaders for several years in the late 1880s until passed by Pud Galvin?short changed because much of his success came in the early days of the AA?as the winner of the first game in NA history plus 296 more victories?deserves a serious look.

14- Fred Dunlap-As long as the UA is considered major league?despite what Bill James says in the updated Historical Abstract?its top player should be in the HOM?even it only amounted to what was his career year

15- Erza Sutton-long successful career?represents unsung 3B (other than Deacon White) of the NA/early NL era?strong lifetime average in an era that went through periods of low offense get him on my list
   40. Ken Fischer Posted: April 26, 2003 at 10:58 AM (#512536)
Sorry...looks like I posted twice by accident.

EDITOR's NOTE: Double post removed.
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2003 at 01:51 PM (#512537)
Sorry...looks like I posted twice by accident.

I'll ignore it since you placed Dickey Pearce on your ballot. I won't be the lone voice crying out in the wilderness anymore. :-)
   42. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2003 at 08:24 PM (#512541)
The problem is George Wright was acknowledged as the best player in all of baseball from 1868 to 1870. It's not the same thing as being the best player in Vermont today.

Does this mean that he would make it into a starting lineup today? I don't know and I don't care. I also don't care if the best players of today couldn't make it into a lineup 200 years from now. We should be trying to pick the best players respective of each era, IMO.

BTW, I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't take into account the competition level for a particular era. There will be certainly more players from our time than from a hundred years ago on my later ballots because there are more great players now. I'm also sure that Wright wouldn't have a 125 OPS+ for his career in today's game either. :-)
   43. MattB Posted: April 26, 2003 at 11:41 PM (#512542)
The best player ever from Vermont was Carlton Fisk, and he made the Hall of Fame.
   44. dan b Posted: April 27, 2003 at 02:18 AM (#512543)
"That's how I feel about pre-1871 baseball. Do I completely disregard it? no. Do I discount it super-heavily? have to."

Mark - I couldn't agree more. For me, being the best player of the 1860's is about like being the best player in Kansas City Athletics history. When we are ready to honor Norm Siebern . . .
   45. Marc Posted: April 27, 2003 at 04:05 AM (#512545)
>For me, being the best player of the 1860's is about like being the best player in Kansas City Athletics history. When we are ready to honor Norm Siebern . . .

This is a wholly falacious analogy. By "best player of the 1860s" we mean the very best player on the face of the earth at that time. By "best player in Kansas City Athletics history" we clearly do not mean any like that.

The issue of "level of competition" is tricky, for sure, but using Bill James' timeline as a case in point...if you fully buy into the timeline, the problem is this. Someday, 100 or 200 years from now, Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire will not longer be among the top 100 players. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, long gone from any such list. In 200 years, replacement level will be above those we consider to be the best. If you buy into a timeline adjustment. I don't.

Then there's the argument by analogy to swimming or track. Look how much faster athletes are today. Well, I believe that if Jesse Owens had been born in 1982, having the training and diet and etc. etc. that athletest have today, he would still be the fastest man on earth.

And then there's the "pennant is a pennant" argument. I refuse to believe that that pennant winner in 1910 that thrilled the hell out of my grandfather should be dismissed. As a matter of fact, my grandfather doesn't give a hoot about any pennant winner after 1945 (which is when he died). Why shouldn't I let him decide which pennants are more "valuable"? He has as much right to make that decision as I do--of course, I kinda prefer 1987 and 1991. But rather than go down that road, let's just say "a pennant is a pennant."

I don't mean to dis any counter-argument (i.e. I don't mean to disrespect but I do mean to disagree). George Wright is not analogous to Norm Siebern.
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2003 at 05:58 AM (#512546)
John, maybe Wright was the best player in all of baseball from 1868 to 1870. The problem is that I'm being asked to judge baseball from 1868 to 1893. And being the best player in 1868 is not equal to being the best player in 1890. It's probably not even equal to being the 20th best player in 1890.

Who peaks at age 22? Unless they're playing against midgets, so to speak.


Mark, I think Wright is a bad choice to make an argument against because he was, unquestionably, the best shortstop of the NA, too. Not to mention the best shortstop of 1876 and 1879 (at age 32) in the NL, while being the best second baseman of 1877. We have objective data to ascertain his brilliance as a player.

Now, if Wright was still the best shortstop in 1879, I think it's a huge stretch to say that he would only be the 20th best player in 1890. We're only talking eleven years here.

By "best player of the 1860s" we mean the very best player on the face of the earth at that time.

Marc, that's my reasoning in a nutshell.
   47. RobC Posted: April 27, 2003 at 01:12 PM (#512548)
In considering 1860s players, let not forget the war effect too. Just as 1943-1945 achievements will be downgraded due to many of the best players being in the military, anyone playing from 1861-1865 will need to have the same effect applied to them. Not that we have numbers to apply it to.

In many ways, these players are much like the WWII players as far as how I am treating them. For WWII, I plan at looking at how the player played his 2 years before the war, his 2 years after the war, consider his age, and give a conservative, but fair, estimate of what he would have done during the war. The same applies to the 1860s guys, only without the pre-years.
   48. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 27, 2003 at 09:23 PM (#512549)
I don't mean to disrupt the debate or anything, but here's another ballot:

1. Jim O'Rourke. Played a long career for any era, maintained a quality level of play. Top 10 in adjusted OPS+ 11 times between 1873 and 1890. Best. Induction Speech. Ever.
2. Tim Keefe. The outfielders all had question marks, the infielders are all from earlier eras - I couldn't find anyone I felt as sure of as Keefe. Just a little bit better all around than Radbourn
3. Old Hoss Radbourn (#4 in 1898). I still give him a lot of credit for what he did in 1884, and I couldn't put him much below Keefe.
4. King Kelly. He was a good player, and his versatility was a big asset, but he got too much credit for his flamboyance. He didn't have a long career, and his peak wasn't that great, so I couldn't put him any higher.
5. Ezra Sutton (#10 in 1898). Big move up, but after a closer look I realize I was underrating him. I don't know why you'd punish him for improving his offense later in his career, as the league was getting better. (I checked a database I made up to find the "unadjusted" rankings in the NHBA - including everything but the subjective assessment. Sutton was ahead of Williamson on those rankings.)
6. George Wright (#6 in 1898). I'm willing to give him some credit for pre-1871 and he was great in the NA, but his career was pretty short, especially compared to Sutton.
7. Pete Browning. Had him higher until I saw everyone ragging on his fielding. OK, put a big discount on 1882, he still had a dominant peak when the AA was comparable to the NL.
8. Harry Stovey. He gets an AA discount, but a 143 OPS+ not great for a corner outfielder? How does Albert Belle, Harmon Killebrew and Eddie Matthews sound? I can't justify putting him below Start right now.
9. Joe Start (#8 in 1898). Gets a lot of credit for lasting so long, but his numbers weren't spectacular. Could move up if I was more certain about how good he was pre-1871.
10. Hardy Richardson (#12 in 1898). Like Sutton, better on closer examination than I realized. The question of why he played so much OF is a good one, though.
11. Al Spalding (#9 in 1898). I do like him a lot, but you can't completely ignore his short career either. There's enough questions about his level of competition that I can't put him too high right now.
12. Bob Caruthers. I don't know. Hell of a pitcher in a short career, very good hitter, but I'm not certain of his greatness, and he did have a short career.
13. Ed Williamson (#7 in 1898). I overrated him last year, I think his "peer credit" is partially due to his playing for the most famous team in his era.
14. Lip Pike (#11 in 1898). Actually, I really like him, I just find him hard to slot. Has a good argument, but Wright's and Start's are better.
15. Charlie Bennett. Some people really like him - I don't quite see it. Probably won't last on my board too long.
Dropped off: Cal McVey, Fred Dunlap, Hugh Nicol.
   49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2003 at 10:02 PM (#512550)
He gets an AA discount, but a 143 OPS+ not great for a corner outfielder? How does Albert Belle, Harmon Killebrew and Eddie Matthews sound? I can't justify putting him below Start right now.

There's a huge difference between a 143 OPS+ then and now. Since the rank-and-file player during Stovey's career was inferior to our era's, he stood out to a much greater degree than he would have if he had been playing today. The standard deviation of both eras illustrate this.
   50. Jeff M Posted: April 27, 2003 at 10:58 PM (#512551)
A few people took issue with my comments about George Wright appearing on my ballot. A couple of things:

1. Matt B correctly interpreted my statements. I reexamined Wright because others considered him so highly. Isn't that why you guys MAKE arguments about players? After looking at Wright again (and again), I concluded he should be on the ballot. I also concluded that I do not think he is a HOMer, unless as part of a pioneer effort.

2. I'm sorry that many of you don't like that I'm not giving credit to Wright's years preceding 1871. I haven't ignored pre-1871 evidence. To the contrary, I have considered it and have concluded that it is meaningless in this case (and many others). So some people said George Wright was the best player in baseball. What was "baseball" then? How many players did the people making that statement consider? 100? 10,000? Did the people making that statement consider every baseball player in the country or just in the Northeast, or maybe only in Southeastern Ohio? -- or as someone suggested, Japan? Who knows? I would love to give Wright credit for pre-1871, but I just don't see any evidence that has meaning to me. It doesn't have to be meaningless to you...just me.

I am permitted to heavily discount that evidence, just as I am permitted to rely more heavily on Bill James than Pete Palmer, and just as many of you are permitted to place incredible weight on contemporary reports about Williamson (notwithstanding that he hit like Doug Flynn -- except for the big homer year). It's my vote. Wright wasn't even on my ballot in 1898. I reexamined him based on your comments. He now appears on the ballot. Give yourself a pat on the back for that.

For those of you analogizing pre-1871 to the Negro Leagues, I will not be applying the same rules to the Negro Leagues. There is structure and context with the Negro Leagues.

On with the voting...
   51. Marc Posted: April 28, 2003 at 01:49 AM (#512553)
>For those of you analogizing pre-1871 to the Negro Leagues, I will not be applying the same rules to the Negro Leagues. There is structure and context with the Negro Leagues.

There was structure beginning about 1920, but I'm not sure about previous to that. And what context? How do we compare Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson? Whatever structure and context there is, we are still going to be relying heavily on our imagination. The 1860s and '70s require nothing more.
   52. Esteban Rivera Posted: April 28, 2003 at 02:40 AM (#512558)
Once more into the breach we go:

1. Jim O'Rourke - Played at a high level for a long time. Best candidate in my opinion.

2. Charles Radbourne - Was my #3 on my last ballot. Moves up here because I still believe what he accomplished at his peak and after, even with a somewhat bum arm, is unbelievable.

3. Tim Keefe - Like O'Rourke, maintained quality over his career. Barely behind Radbourne in my evaluation of pitchers.

4. King Kelly - Probably the most unique player of his time. His versatility and reputation, along with good numbers, lands him here.

5. Al Spalding - I put Al Spalding here because of his dominance during his time. His hitting was good and, even though he did benefit from having great teammates, that doesn't negate his talent. I mean, the man may have gotten a lot of run support but he was always near the top in ERA.

6. Bob Caruthers - Excelled in both pitching and hitting. Something that definitely deserves merit.

7. George Wright - One of the first great players. Ranks here because of the credit given for his pre-NA years.

8. Ezra Sutton - Best third baseman of the 19th century according to my interpretation of the numbers.

9. Harry Stovey - Find him and Browning to be the same type. AA discount but better defense has him just ahead.

10. Pete Browning - Great hitter but defense and AA discount land him just behind Stovey.

11. Joe Start - Drops to 11 because of the new candidates. Was the best "old" player of his time.

12. Cal McVey - Still feel that I am not giving proper credit to McVey's greatness. Can't rank him higher still because of the new candidates.

13. Hardy Richardson - Was the top second basemen of his time.

14. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball.

15. Charlie Bennett - Best catcher eligible. Great defense and good numbers, even if they are uneven. Campanella was pretty uneven during his career and not many people discredit his greatness as a catcher.

   53. DanG Posted: April 28, 2003 at 05:19 AM (#512560)
As will often happen, the winners in this year's voting were very predictable. Not much more needs to be said about O'Rourke and Kelly. Indeed, there are many on the ballot who are virtual shoo-ins for eventual election to the HoM: Wright and Keefe will soon be in; Radbourn, Stovey, Richardson and Sutton seem likely, if their current support is any indication. We've already established a pecking order.

Given this, the most important slots on these early ballots, IMO, are just below the middle, the 9th thru 13th. This is the gray area, where our real work is being done. In the 1898 vote, these spots went to Spalding, Williamson, Start, Galvin and McVey. In 1899 they will be joined by Bennett, Browning and Caruthers in finishing "out of the money". That is, my projection sees this group as being "on the bubble". At most, we'll elect one or two from this group. Maybe none of them.

My ballot:

1) Orator Jim O'Rourke: an easy choice for #1.
2) Mike King Kelly: On this ballot, he's the highest ranked player at his position in the NBJHBA (#32 in RF).
3) Smiling Tim Keefe: can't imagine the HoM without him.
4) Hardy Richardson: his first name was Abram.
5) Charley Old Hoss Radbourn: first pitcher to post 20-win seasons at ages 34 and 35.
6) George Wright: died at age 90.
7) Ezra Ballou Sutton: I'm becoming convinced that he belongs in the HoM.
8) Joe Start: Looking for more pre-1871 info on him.
9) Albert Spalding: did he retire "on top" or did he have some arm trouble in 1877?
10) Harry Stovey: not quite sold on him yet.
11) Cal McVey: looks like a slow runner.
12) Pete Browning: man, this guy could hit.
13) Dickey Pearce: I'm not ready to let him go yet. If he had offensive value, which seems likely when he was in his prime, he's like Ozzie Smith, a sure HoMer. You can make the argument that he had the most defensive value per game of any position player ever: playing key positions, at a gold glove level, at a time when there were barely any strikeouts and the ball didn't go very far. Some voters have said they can't vote for him until they see "proof" of his greatness. However, the corollary to this is equally valid: given what we know, you can't reject him out of hand until it's proven that he was NOT great. Might there be enough anecdotal evidence to shift the burden of proof to the naysayers?
14) Lip Pike: Is he the center fielder on the All Aquatic team?
15) Ed Williamson: reduced to ballot filler.
   54. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 28, 2003 at 03:02 PM (#512561)
There's a huge difference between a 143 OPS+ then and now. Since the rank-and-file player during Stovey's career was inferior to our era's, he stood out to a much greater degree than he would have if he had been playing today. The standard deviation of both eras illustrate this

Crud. I should have realized this, I didn't think it through. However, after I look at things, I'm not revising my ballot this time. Here's a list of 19th-century players who show up on the Career Adjusted OPS+ list (minimum 3000 PAs)

Player ABs OPS+
Brouthers 6711 170
Browning 4820 162
Orr 3289 161
Connor 7794 154
Delahanty 7505 152
Jones 3738 149
Thompson 5984 146
Joyce 3304 144
Stovey 6138 143
O'Neill 4255 142
Anson 10277 141
Hamilton 6268 141
Larkin 4718 141
Swartwood 2876 141
Burkett 8421 140
Kelly 5894 138
Lyons 4294 138
Tiernan 5906 138
Gore 5357 136

I'll agree Stovey doesn't stand out on this list, but he doesn't come out horribly either. 8th in OPS+, 7th in career length. As a junk stat, I multiplied the 2 numbers together, and he comes in 7th, clumped with Sam Thompson and Billy Hamilton. It doesn't say "keep me out" and it doesn't say "put me in", which is about where I'm at on Stovey - if he gets in eventually, fine, if not, I'm OK with it.

Oh and as for my comparisons with Belle, Matthews and Killebrew, I was wrong. If you look at the number of seasons in their league's top 10, Matthews and Killebrew have 10, Stovey has 8, and Belle has 5. Of course, Stovey was playing in a much smaller league, and the other players tended to be closer to #1, so I'll admit they're not comparable.

   55. MattB Posted: April 28, 2003 at 03:55 PM (#512563)
I sent Joe my vote tally.

I was wondering how much attrition there would be after the first ballot, but there were actually 2 more ballots cast (31 instead of 29). That is encouraging.

Based on my calculations, what interested me most were the flip flops in the top carryovers (numbers from 1898 ballot).

#5 and 6: Radbourn and Wright flip flopped
#7 and 8: Richardson and Sutton flip flopped
#10 and 11: Williamson and Start flip flopped
#12 and 13: McVey and Galvin flip flopped
#14 and 15: Pike and O'Neill flip flopped

Looks like there is room for ballot movement. Among the top 15, only Al Spalding remained in the same relative position to the other carry-overs.

   56. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2003 at 06:15 PM (#512564)
Devin, Stovey would be further down the list near Gore if you take into account a 5% AA deduction.

I can see him near the bottom of a ballot, but that's about it. If he played only a couple more seasons, then we would have a HoMer.
   57. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2003 at 06:57 PM (#512566)
I just ask because I don't think I've seen any player, at any position with the career path of Wright's.

One thing you're not factoring in, Mark, is the NA schedule. The standard deviation between the best and worst players would be that much greater just because the schedule of games was so short.

If we stopped the season this year at thirty games, the best players would stand out to a greater extent than usual. If we reverted back to a 162 games schedule next year, it would appear that the quality of play increased greatly (when the competition level hadn't changed at all).

To a much smaller extent, a rapidly increasing game schedule narrowed the differences between the best and worst players. Coupled with Wright aging at a demanding position (remember: he did play 16 seasons, though two of them were really cups of coffee) and an increase in the quality of play (though not as much as James claims, IMO), that would explain the career path that you noticed.

While I do feel, without a doubt, that the quality of play has increased through the years, there would be no way that Sutton, Start, Anson, O'Rourke, Hines, etc., could have played as long as they did if the quality of play was that bad during the NA years.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2003 at 07:53 PM (#512568)
Mark:

Except that ballplayers didn't stop playing games once the regular season ended. If not year round, they played many more games than is commonly thought of.

Which doesn't mean we should give Wright credit for what he didn't do because he broke down after 16 seasons.
   59. Marc Posted: April 28, 2003 at 08:27 PM (#512569)
>If we stopped the season this year at thirty games, the best players would stand out to a greater extent than usual. If we reverted back to a 162 games schedule next year, it would appear that the quality of play increased greatly (when the competition level hadn't changed at all).

One difference between these two scenarios, however, is that there were so many fewer "ML" roster positions in those days that the guys who stood out after "30 games" were the same every year. That isn't true today.

Also the phrase "30 games" is purely figurative. In '71 they played about 30 but then it jumped to 50-60-60-80 in the NA, then stabilized at about 65 for the first few NL years.

But certainly the height of the peaks is slightly exaggerated in short seasons, but when it is the same players over and over the fact of the peak is not in any doubt. Whoever said that Wright was basically A Rod through about now was about right, except that Wright had a pre-'71 career as well.
   60. jimd Posted: April 28, 2003 at 10:46 PM (#512570)
The counts that people are listing are counts of games played within the league/association. These teams also played numerous "exhibition" games against teams outside the league/association. Their seasons began in mid-April and ended in late October, and the actual number of games played increased over time but in the mid-70's was pretty similar to the leagues of the mid-1880's (league schedule expansion came at the expense of the "exhibition" games). Thankfully, the statisticians isolated the league stats from the "exhibition" game stats, otherwise we would have a real problem in determining "quality of opposition".
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 29, 2003 at 05:50 AM (#512571)
Also the phrase "30 games" is purely figurative. In '71 they played about 30 but then it jumped to 50-60-60-80 in the NA, then stabilized at about 65 for the first few NL years

That was my point. As the number of games increased, the standard deviation decreased. The more games played, the differences narrowed.

Take a look at the 1871 season and then compare it to 1872. Same players and league batting average (.285 and .287), yet the extremes are less severe in '72. The change had nothing to do with quality of play.
   62. Marc Posted: April 29, 2003 at 04:58 PM (#512573)
I think you're both right. As I understand John's post, he didn't say quality didn't improve. He said the narrowing of the extremes waas not caused by better quality of play. The narrowing of the extremes was caused by the longer season.

I'm not sure I agree 100% BTW, but I think that is what he said. I think the quality also improved, and the narrowing of the extremes also had to do with the fact that the marginal or replacement level was better. But John is right in that the longer season was probably 2/3 to 3/4 of the change, and the improvement in marginal play accounted for the smaller fraction.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 29, 2003 at 05:29 PM (#512574)
That's fine, as long as you're not giving Wright a full season's worth of 202 OPS+ in his first year of league play.

Agreed. That's why I mentioned standard deviation as part of the discussion.

In fact, that was what I was suggesting to Devin about Stovey's 143 OPS in relation to Belle, Killerbrew and Mathews in a previous post.

But John is right in that the longer season was probably 2/3 to 3/4 of the change, and the improvement in marginal play accounted for the smaller fraction.

I wouldn't argue with that, Marc. Sounds about right. I would be shocked if there wasn't any increased quality of play.

Mark, where did you get your info for the NA concerning the competitive level? I would be interested in checking it out. That's the one area that I'm lacking data on.
   64. John Posted: March 26, 2004 at 11:46 PM (#512576)
NOWY JORK ?Wywar? wp?yw (ulega? wp?ywowi) przez wysoki popyt na Murzy?sk? Lig? pami?tnych rzeczy, G??wny komisarz Baseballu Ligi *Bud* *Selig* oznajmia? Poniedzia?ek co (?eby; kt?ry), dla 2004 okresu, narodowy (pa?stwowy; obywatel) *pastime* b?dzie zwraca? swojemu *storied*, *segregated* przesz?y (przesz?o??). Wy?ej: Atlanta Czarny *Crackers* w?a?ciciel *Tom* *Forst* ??czy jego gracza *Ken* *Griffey* M?odszy. Przy konferencji prasowej. "To jest historycznym dniem dla graczy baseballu i roznieca (amator) podobny (podobnie)," *Selig* powiedzia? (opowiedzia?; opowiedziany; dostawa? wiadomo??) pobudzany t?um czarnych sprawozdawc?w i graczy zbieranych wok?? radia w westybulu jego g??wnych kwater Ulicy Parku. "Dzi?, zaszczycamy pami?? (wspomnienie) takich wielkich czarnych graczy jak (poniewa?) *Satchel* *Paige*, Dolar (samiec; opiera? si?; paradowa?) *Leonard*, i Och?adzaj? *Papa* Dzwonek przez udzielenie Murzy?skich Lig miejsce na Ameryka?ski (Amerykanin) gry sportowe (sportowy) zn?w." *Selig* zacytowa? (zacytowany) obfito?? Murzy?skiej Ligi film?w dokumentalnych, ksi??ka (rezerwuje), sie? (tkanina) rozmieszcza, i muzea jak (poniewa?) dow?d zainteresowania publiczno?ci w *revitalizing* *segregated* baseball. "Baseball jest ca?ym o amatorach," *Selig* . "I amatorzy s? ca?ymi o p?aceniu wielkich pieni?dzy dla nakry? i *T-shirts* z ch?odnym starym Birmingham Czarny *Barons* *logo* na & (oni). One kochaj? ?eby kupowa? *mahogany-framed* druki (odbitki) tamtych *neat* Kansas City rysunku pi?rem *Monarchs* zasp?? fotografii, te?." pierwszy szcz??liwy Murzyn Ligi by? ukszta?towany w 1920, i ligi prze?ywa? (zosta? przy ?yciu) w pewnej ilo?ci kszta?tuj? przed (dop?ki) wczesne 1950-e. Kiedy *Jackie* *Robinson* z?ama? (naruszy?; z?amany) kolorowa bariera (przeszkoda) w 1947, czarny talent zaczyna? *migrate* do g??wnych lig. "Pewna ilo?? najwi?kszych graczy baseballu w historii by?y w Murzy?skich Ligach," *Selig* . "Nawet tak (wi?c), wi?ksza cz??? & (oni) by?y wzgl?dny *unknowns* w ich dniu. Dobrze, teraz mamy przewaga nad prac? w przemianie. Przez branie utalentowany, przedustali? (ustalony; zainstalowa?) Ca?e gwiazdy lubi? (jak; podobny do; podobnie do tego; upodobanie do) *Kenny* *Lofton*, *Sammy* *Sosa*, i *Gary* *Sheffield* zza G??wnych Lig, wyrabiamy momentalnej Murzy?skiej Lidze supergwiazd." *Selig* nowy Czarny Obywatel Ligi i Czarny Ameryka?ski (Amerykanin) Liga okresy b?dzie grany o tej samej porze jak (poniewa?) tamte regularny, biel? G??wny Baseball Ligi. "JA osobi?cie b?dzie zapewnia? ?eby ligi dla bieli i czarny s? r?wny w ka?dej drodze (?rodek)," *Selig* . "Co do amator?w, one b?d? dostawa? si? (otrzymuj?cy) dwukrotnie jak (poniewa?) wiele gry ten (to) lato (letni). I b?dziemy otrzymywa? (dostawa?; rozumie?) prze?ywanie Murzy?skich graczy Ligi, lubi? poprzedni? Filadelfi? Gwiazd *pitcher* *Harold* *Gould*, wyrzuca? pierwsz? pi?k? (kula). Kto (kt?ry) protestowa?by przeciw co (?eby; kt?ry)?" *Selig* Murzy?skie gry Ligi nie by? przypasowywany w kierunku do ca?ej czarnej publiczno?ci. "Tylko okolo 6 procencie od amator?w ucz?szczaj?cy (towarzysz?cy) G??wny gry Baseballu Ligi w zesz?ym roku by?y czarny," *Selig* . "demograficzni my kierujemy do w??cza? *diehard* amatorzy baseballu i Murzyn (murzy?ski) liga zbieracze pami?tnych rzeczy, niezale?nie wy?cig?w albo *creed*." *Selig* obja?nia? co (?eby; kt?ry) ten (to) demograficzny jest sporz?dzany (z?o?ony) przewa?nie *Caucasian* ludzie, i co (?eby; kt?ry) *Nielsen* dane wskazuje co przeci?tny amator baseballu jest 51 latami stary. Dotychczas, baseball roznieca (amator), szczeg?lnie tamte mieszkaj?cy (zamieszkanie) w G??bokim Po?udniu, obj?? *Selig's* decyzja. "To zamierza by? wielki," *Darryl* *Dupey*, 54, Birmingham, *AL*. "*Dad* zawsze m?wi? (rozmawia?; omawiany) o obserwacji Birmingham Czarny *Barons* twarz (stawa? wobec; wobec) na d?? zaspo?y lubi? (jak; podobny do; podobnie do tego; upodobanie do) Atlanta Czarny *Crackers* i Chicago Ameryka?scy Giganci, ale nigdy w moim *wildest* sny zrobi? obmy?lam JA otrzyma? (dostawa?; rozumie?) widzie? to s& (samodzielnie). To jest podobne do sen prawda (prawdziwy)." "To jest *treasured* cz??? Ameryka?skiej historii zn?w i zn?w," *Omar* *Whittlefield*, w?a?ciciel nowego Chicago Czarne Przechowywani& przywileju. "Podczas pierwszej po?owy wieku 20-ego, kolor (kolorowy) linia (wiersz) utrzymywa? czarnych graczy od dostania si? (otrzymanie) uznania one zas?ugiwali. Dobrze, ten czas wok??, gracze zamierzaj? by? ogromny. nie sprzedaj? nakrycia je?eli one *ain't*!" Niestety, niekt?rzy gracze opar? si? ??cz?cy now? lig?. "Piek?o, ?aden (nie)," pi?? obliczaj? Ca?? gwiazd? *Albert* *Belle*, kto (kt?ry) dostawa? wiadomo?? sprawozdanie dla praktyki (wykonywanie; wprawa) z *Tampa* Zatoka *Afro-Marlins* nast?pny (nast?pnie) ?roda. "Zrobi? nie my ju? przechodz? ten (to) *####*? ?adna droga (?rodek) JA jestem zamierza? jest czyj? *sepia-toned* pami?? (wspomnienie)." *Barry* Kontrakt (wi??; sk?ada towary w sk?adzie wolnoc?owym; obligacja), niedawno zwolni? (zwolniony; odsun??; odsuni?ty) od niedawno bia?y (bieli?) cali Giganci San Francisco, on jest *unsure* co on b?dzie robi?. "Przy tym punkcie (sprawa), JA nie poznaje," Kontrakty (wi??; obligacja) . "Je?eli otrzymuj? (dostawa?; rozumie?) wypadek gra? (gra; sztuka) z *Sheffield* i grono (p?k) innych wielkich graczy na Czarnych Yankesach, JA musi przyjmowa? *that'd* *sorta* jest sen prawda (prawdziwy). Z drugiej strony, by? mo?e *it'd* jest obliczaj? podawa? si? do dymisji." Podczas gdy on potwierdza? co jego plan ma swoi krytycy (s?dzia), *Selig* "ciemna liga " b?dzie (wola) *revitalize* baseball. "nowa generacja (powstawanie) b?dzie otrzymywa? (dostawa?; rozumie?) widzie? tragiczny *majesty* Murzy?skiej Ligi gry (sztuka)," *Selig* . "Zn?w, amatorzy baseballu b?dzie zdolny udowadnia? nad czy albo nie czarny gracz m?g?by wyrabia? temu w pe?noletno?ciach, nawet je?eli gracz w pytaniu (zagadnienie) by?o ju? tam. I by? mo?e, po prostu (dopiero co) by? mo?e, ?mia?y *Jackie* *Robinson* nowej generacji (powstawanie) b?dzie o?miela? si? (prowokowa?) rzuca? wyzwanie mojemu kolor (kolorowy) linia (wiersz) i staj? si? symbolem triumfu. *That'd* rzeczywi?cie sprzedaj? bilety."
   65. John Posted: March 26, 2004 at 11:47 PM (#512577)
NOWY JORK ?Wywar? wp?yw (ulega? wp?ywowi) przez wysoki popyt na Murzy?sk? Lig? pami?tnych rzeczy, G??wny komisarz Baseballu Ligi *Bud* *Selig* oznajmia? Poniedzia?ek co (?eby; kt?ry), dla 2004 okresu, narodowy (pa?stwowy; obywatel) *pastime* b?dzie zwraca? swojemu *storied*, *segregated* przesz?y (przesz?o??). Wy?ej: Atlanta Czarny *Crackers* w?a?ciciel *Tom* *Forst* ??czy jego gracza *Ken* *Griffey* M?odszy. Przy konferencji prasowej. "To jest historycznym dniem dla graczy baseballu i roznieca (amator) podobny (podobnie)," *Selig* powiedzia? (opowiedzia?; opowiedziany; dostawa? wiadomo??) pobudzany t?um czarnych sprawozdawc?w i graczy zbieranych wok?? radia w westybulu jego g??wnych kwater Ulicy Parku. "Dzi?, zaszczycamy pami?? (wspomnienie) takich wielkich czarnych graczy jak (poniewa?) *Satchel* *Paige*, Dolar (samiec; opiera? si?; paradowa?) *Leonard*, i Och?adzaj? *Papa* Dzwonek przez udzielenie Murzy?skich Lig miejsce na Ameryka?ski (Amerykanin) gry sportowe (sportowy) zn?w." *Selig* zacytowa? (zacytowany) obfito?? Murzy?skiej Ligi film?w dokumentalnych, ksi??ka (rezerwuje), sie? (tkanina) rozmieszcza, i muzea jak (poniewa?) dow?d zainteresowania publiczno?ci w *revitalizing* *segregated* baseball. "Baseball jest ca?ym o amatorach," *Selig* . "I amatorzy s? ca?ymi o p?aceniu wielkich pieni?dzy dla nakry? i *T-shirts* z ch?odnym starym Birmingham Czarny *Barons* *logo* na & (oni). One kochaj? ?eby kupowa? *mahogany-framed* druki (odbitki) tamtych *neat* Kansas City rysunku pi?rem *Monarchs* zasp?? fotografii, te?." pierwszy szcz??liwy Murzyn Ligi by? ukszta?towany w 1920, i ligi prze?ywa? (zosta? przy ?yciu) w pewnej ilo?ci kszta?tuj? przed (dop?ki) wczesne 1950-e. Kiedy *Jackie* *Robinson* z?ama? (naruszy?; z?amany) kolorowa bariera (przeszkoda) w 1947, czarny talent zaczyna? *migrate* do g??wnych lig. "Pewna ilo?? najwi?kszych graczy baseballu w historii by?y w Murzy?skich Ligach," *Selig* . "Nawet tak (wi?c), wi?ksza cz??? & (oni) by?y wzgl?dny *unknowns* w ich dniu. Dobrze, teraz mamy przewaga nad prac? w przemianie. Przez branie utalentowany, przedustali? (ustalony; zainstalowa?) Ca?e gwiazdy lubi? (jak; podobny do; podobnie do tego; upodobanie do) *Kenny* *Lofton*, *Sammy* *Sosa*, i *Gary* *Sheffield* zza G??wnych Lig, wyrabiamy momentalnej Murzy?skiej Lidze supergwiazd." *Selig* nowy Czarny Obywatel Ligi i Czarny Ameryka?ski (Amerykanin) Liga okresy b?dzie grany o tej samej porze jak (poniewa?) tamte regularny, biel? G??wny Baseball Ligi. "JA osobi?cie b?dzie zapewnia? ?eby ligi dla bieli i czarny s? r?wny w ka?dej drodze (?rodek)," *Selig* . "Co do amator?w, one b?d? dostawa? si? (otrzymuj?cy) dwukrotnie jak (poniewa?) wiele gry ten (to) lato (letni). I b?dziemy otrzymywa? (dostawa?; rozumie?) prze?ywanie Murzy?skich graczy Ligi, lubi? poprzedni? Filadelfi? Gwiazd *pitcher* *Harold* *Gould*, wyrzuca? pierwsz? pi?k? (kula). Kto (kt?ry) protestowa?by przeciw co (?eby; kt?ry)?" *Selig* Murzy?skie gry Ligi nie by? przypasowywany w kierunku do ca?ej czarnej publiczno?ci. "Tylko okolo 6 procencie od amator?w ucz?szczaj?cy (towarzysz?cy) G??wny gry Baseballu Ligi w zesz?ym roku by?y czarny," *Selig* . "demograficzni my kierujemy do w??cza? *diehard* amatorzy baseballu i Murzyn (murzy?ski) liga zbieracze pami?tnych rzeczy, niezale?nie wy?cig?w albo *creed*." *Selig* obja?nia? co (?eby; kt?ry) ten (to) demograficzny jest sporz?dzany (z?o?ony) przewa?nie *Caucasian* ludzie, i co (?eby; kt?ry) *Nielsen* dane wskazuje co przeci?tny amator baseballu jest 51 latami stary. Dotychczas, baseball roznieca (amator), szczeg?lnie tamte mieszkaj?cy (zamieszkanie) w G??bokim Po?udniu, obj?? *Selig's* decyzja. "To zamierza by? wielki," *Darryl* *Dupey*, 54, Birmingham, *AL*. "*Dad* zawsze m?wi? (rozmawia?; omawiany) o obserwacji Birmingham Czarny *Barons* twarz (stawa? wobec; wobec) na d?? zaspo?y lubi? (jak; podobny do; podobnie do tego; upodobanie do) Atlanta Czarny *Crackers* i Chicago Ameryka?scy Giganci, ale nigdy w moim *wildest* sny zrobi? obmy?lam JA otrzyma? (dostawa?; rozumie?) widzie? to s& (samodzielnie). To jest podobne do sen prawda (prawdziwy)." "To jest *treasured* cz??? Ameryka?skiej historii zn?w i zn?w," *Omar* *Whittlefield*, w?a?ciciel nowego Chicago Czarne Przechowywani& przywileju. "Podczas pierwszej po?owy wieku 20-ego, kolor (kolorowy) linia (wiersz) utrzymywa? czarnych graczy od dostania si? (otrzymanie) uznania one zas?ugiwali. Dobrze, ten czas wok??, gracze zamierzaj? by? ogromny. nie sprzedaj? nakrycia je?eli one *ain't*!" Niestety, niekt?rzy gracze opar? si? ??cz?cy now? lig?. "Piek?o, ?aden (nie)," pi?? obliczaj? Ca?? gwiazd? *Albert* *Belle*, kto (kt?ry) dostawa? wiadomo?? sprawozdanie dla praktyki (wykonywanie; wprawa) z *Tampa* Zatoka *Afro-Marlins* nast?pny (nast?pnie) ?roda. "Zrobi? nie my ju? przechodz? ten (to) *####*? ?adna droga (?rodek) JA jestem zamierza? jest czyj? *sepia-toned* pami?? (wspomnienie)." *Barry* Kontrakt (wi??; sk?ada towary w sk?adzie wolnoc?owym; obligacja), niedawno zwolni? (zwolniony; odsun??; odsuni?ty) od niedawno bia?y (bieli?) cali Giganci San Francisco, on jest *unsure* co on b?dzie robi?. "Przy tym punkcie (sprawa), JA nie poznaje," Kontrakty (wi??; obligacja) . "Je?eli otrzymuj? (dostawa?; rozumie?) wypadek gra? (gra; sztuka) z *Sheffield* i grono (p?k) innych wielkich graczy na Czarnych Yankesach, JA musi przyjmowa? *that'd* *sorta* jest sen prawda (prawdziwy). Z drugiej strony, by? mo?e *it'd* jest obliczaj? podawa? si? do dymisji." Podczas gdy on potwierdza? co jego plan ma swoi krytycy (s?dzia), *Selig* "ciemna liga " b?dzie (wola) *revitalize* baseball. "nowa generacja (powstawanie) b?dzie otrzymywa? (dostawa?; rozumie?) widzie? tragiczny *majesty* Murzy?skiej Ligi gry (sztuka)," *Selig* . "Zn?w, amatorzy baseballu b?dzie zdolny udowadnia? nad czy albo nie czarny gracz m?g?by wyrabia? temu w pe?noletno?ciach, nawet je?eli gracz w pytaniu (zagadnienie) by?o ju? tam. I by? mo?e, po prostu (dopiero co) by? mo?e, ?mia?y *Jackie* *Robinson* nowej generacji (powstawanie) b?dzie o?miela? si? (prowokowa?) rzuca? wyzwanie mojemu kolor (kolorowy) linia (wiersz) i staj? si? symbolem triumfu. *That'd* rzeczywi?cie sprzedaj? bilety."
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 08, 2004 at 02:05 AM (#784124)
Posts reconstructed up to #61. Besides the rest, the last two posts need Jim's help big time.
   67. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 14, 2004 at 03:55 PM (#797403)
Thanks to Jim, all posts are fully restored. I assume posts #96 and 97 were destroyed at their creation. Judging by the usual tripe from their author, it's of little concern to anyone. :-)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1133 seconds
49 querie(s) executed