Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, October 20, 2003

1912 Ballot

Will this finally be the year that one of the holdovers gets in?

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 20, 2003 at 05:43 PM | 64 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. MattB Posted: October 20, 2003 at 06:20 PM (#518414)
Am I first? Very well, I am first.

Many comments copied from last year and few other changes:

1. Joe Start (2) -- On the one hand, I think Start should have gone in before Galvin, since I has Start ahead last year. On the other hand, I don't think that Start is better than any currently inducted first basemen, while Galvin was better than some already inducted pitchers. Galvin's election leaves no players who should be obviously in based on those who are in already. I consider myself 50% peak and 50% career, and Start is as much as peak choice as a career one. His peak was just less documented, existing as it did in the mid-1860s.

2. Jesse Burkett (3) -- another great peak/career mix, but not as far above his peers as Start was above his.

3. Charlie Bennett (4) ?- Still head and shoulders above the other catchers who came after, and it looks like people are finally starting to notice. After finishing 12th in 1899, he climbed up to fifth in 1910. I am confident that soon he will complete his Galvin-esque climb to the top.

4. Harry Stovey (5) ?- These are the only five who I consider worthy on EITHER peak or career measures. Those below fall somewhat short on one area or the other (or there is simply not enough information to judge).

5. Frank Grant (6) ? The loss of a non-Grant voter and the addition of two new Grant voters pushed Frank up two relative spots. It will be interesting where he is hovering in five years or so when his direct competitor Sol White is added to the ballot.

6. Cal McVey (7) -- With Spalding in, he's now my top "pure 1870's" candidate. Start tops him only with 1860s and 1880s stats thrown in.

7. Bid McPhee (8) ? My main "peak" stat I look at is "Win Shares Above Average". On that calculus, he shouldn't be on my ballot at all. Only an overwhelming career case knocks him up this high, but no higher.

8. Pete Browning (10) ? really strong peak, no matter the league. Really would be #3 or 4 if I was a strictly peak voter. Missed too much time to be higher, though.

9. Dickey Pearce (11) -- See 1910 ballot for rationale.

10. Cupid Childs (12) ? McPhee?s career value trumps Childs? peak, but they are close.

11. Sam Thompson (13) ? In the glut of 1890s outfielders, there is room now for Burkett + one more. I think that one more is Sam Thompson.

12. Bob Caruthers (9) ? Originally, my thinking was that Caruthers, Welch, McCormick, and Mullane were a big amorphous blob of really good but not the BEST. I was assuming that many new pitchers would join this group ? one every year or so ? until they became an even larger group of indistinguishables. So far, that has not happened, though. These four may end up being exactly on the in/out HoM borders, and letting some or all in won?t really create a slippery slope of similar players. I?m not advocating letting all four in, but I am also a lot higher on them than the large group of voters who won?t list any of the four on their ballots this year.

13. Mickey Welch (14) ?- See Caruthers

14. Jim McCormick (off ballot) ? See Caruthers

15. Charlie Jones (off ballot) ? I was convinced by the discussion of Jones and York to add him this year.

I omitted Duffy, but explained that on last years ballot. Jimmy Ryan was 15th last year, and 16th this year, so is also just off. Here?s the next 15:

16. Jimmy Ryan
   2. RobC Posted: October 20, 2003 at 06:25 PM (#518415)
Similar to my 1911 ballot, with a few changes. Mostly, everyone moved up a spot. Work kept me from posting a prelim ballot last week, but there isnt much new to add anyway.

1. Bid McPhee (1) - The top career value on the ballot. As an interesting note, guys with most of their value in fielding are going to have a tendency to not have a great peak. Fielding skill does not have the same season-to-season variance that hitting does.
   3. RobC Posted: October 20, 2003 at 06:30 PM (#518416)
I post #2, I meant if McVey had played a few more years, he would be a mid-ballot guy. Although, considering the lack of great talent heading towards the ballot in the next few years, he may be mid-ballot in a few more voting years.
   4. karlmagnus Posted: October 20, 2003 at 06:30 PM (#518417)
For Start, Sutton, Meyerle, Pike and McVey, I now take adjusted hits as actual hits *130/actual games, normalizing them in each season to 130 games, with the exception of mini-seasons at the end where they were clearly winding down. I have also looked at another metric, total bases+ BBs (why aren?t BB in TB?)/plate appearances and (TB+BB)/outs, which puts the 1890s players more into context, with each other although not with the 1870s players, who hardly ever walked (not surprising, with the pitcher allowed 9 balls!).

My 1912, nearly identical to 1911, with Griffith added near the bottom. McGuire is 1st reserve, and will come on in 1913, I think. Of the other 1912 entrants, I?m somewhat tempted by Stahl, less so by Selbach.):

1. (7-5-6-3-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-2) Joe Start ? I?m convinced by the arguments of his greatness in the 1860s. If you normalize his 1871-85 to 130-game seasons, season by season as above, he gets 2,705 hits after the age of 28? Add say 7 ?normal? seasons of 150 hits for 1864-70 and he?s around 3,800. TB+BB/PA .389, TB+BB/Outs .572, both lowish, but we presumably only have his latter years, in gentle decline (would be on this ballot, but at the bottom end, if he?d been say eight years younger, with only 1871-86 career.) Nobody else loses this much of their career, yet still puts up decent numbers. He?s Ezra Sutton in 1871-86, plus the 1860s.

2. (n/a-9-7-5-3-3-3-3-3-3) Cal McVey ? 1,986 hits in 9 normalized seasons of 1871-79, normalized season by season, at the end of which he was 28 1/2. Peak of 7 successive ?adjusted? 200-hit seasons in 1871-77. Giving any reasonable credit for post-29 puts him in HOM territory, even though he slowed a little from his peak in 1878-79 (to level of 170-hit ?adjusted? seasons.) TB+BB/PA .453, TB+BB/Outs .700, less than Meyerle, but played more. Considerably higher peak than Sutton, even if shorter career. Don?t entirely believe sabermetric ?funny numbers? but to the extent I understand them, they point to McVey.

3. (N/A-4) Jesse Burkett TB+BB/PA .498, TB+BB/Outs .847, must be very close to Delahanty if Delahanty had a decline phase. Put him where Delahanty was (have lost 2 from above, one from below since then.) Gap between 2 and 4 is quite large, so plenty of room for him.

4. (8-9-8-14-13-11-8-5-4-5-4-5) Bob Caruthers ? a first class pitcher/position player, with a high peak on some top teams, but a significant AA discount. Only 1,047 ?normalized? hits, so only a moderate addition to his 218 wins, but 218-99 is kinda impressive. Don?t see that Rusie had much over this guy, except an overblown NY reputation. As a batter TB/PA .483, TB/Outs .793, so significantly better than McPhee and Sutton, and even beats Duffy slightly. Tough to beat double peak, as hitter and pitcher ? don?t know why others aren?t more impressed.

5. (N/A-13-13-14-12-11-7-6-6-5-6) Sam Thompson Only 2,136 hits adjusted to 130 game season. However TB+BB/PA was .534 and TB/Outs .865, among the highest figures on the ballot, so high peak, in a more difficult hitting era than the 1890s guys.

6. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7) Mickey Welch ? 307-210 comes to impress me more and more (yes, I know it was mostly with the strong Giants.)1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson?s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. Welch not as good as Clarkson, but not that far off.

7. Jimmy Ryan (N/A-10-9-8) Counting stats very similar to Van Haltren and better than Duffy, peak slightly better than Van H, not as good as Duffy. TB+BB/PA .508, TB+BB/Outs .809, higher than Duffy.

8. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9) Hugh Duffy TB+BB/PA of .489 and TB/Outs of .788, but this in the high-offense 1890s, and he?s way below Burkett on total hits. Like the 1894 peak, though ? and it?s ?94 not ?93, pitchers had had a year to adjust. Drops down because of flood of competition, now just behind Ryan on counting considerations.

9. Harry Wright (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10) Better than Pearce, but how good was he really compared to the rest? But I?m convinced by the anecdotal evidence that he has to have been at least as good as this.

10. (N/A-8-7-11) Frank Grant. The most plausible comparison I?ve seen was to Hardy Richardson, although others are comparing him to the (IMHO) somewhat inferior McPhee. Here he?s halfway between Richardson?s ex-spot and McPhee?s spot.

11. (--15-15-15-15-14-13-9-8-11-11-12) Harry Stovey Best years were in AA, and only 2,084 ?normalized hits (adjusting 1880-92 to 130 games). TB/PA .512, TB/Outs .800, puts him above McPhee, but lack of production and AA discount puts him below Ryan/Duffy.

12. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14) Levi Meyerle. Normalize 1871-77 season by season to 130 games and he gets 1,577 hits, only 15 less than Pike in 1 less season, and he was only 2 months younger, so 1860s value presumably similar. Better peak, too. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .751, though this, like McVey and Pike?s figures, includes no ?decline? phase. Also, he was a 3B. Why did Meyerle quit? -- unlike Pike, he was nowhere near done in 1877.

13. George van Haltren (N/A-13-12-13) Counting stats almost like Delahanty, but again need to be deflated for the 1890s. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s. No peak to speak of ? what happened to him in 1893-95, when he should have been in his prime?

14. Clark Griffith (N/A) He?s another Amos Rusie, but not quite as good (Rusie was #12 the year we elected him, I?d have him about 9 on this ballot.) 237 wins is not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice ? but he doesn?t quite match up to Welch or Caruthers, in my view (Welch?s 1885 is better than Griffith?s 1898.)

15. (N/A-7-7-14-13-off-15-15) Bid McPhee 2,466 hits, adjusted to 130 games in 1882-99. Modest AA discount for first part of career. TB/PA only .432 and TB/Outs .668, so now below Meyerle and Pike, and probably not HOM, since much of this was in the 90s, and most of the rest was in the AA.


(N/A) Deacon McGuire No fewer than 2,821 hits, adjusted to 130-game seasons over 1884-1906, which works just as well for catchers as it does for 1870s players, with the same rationale behind it. Rate stats unexciting though ?TB+BB/PA .412, TB+BB/Outs .630, less good than McPhee (but catcher more difficult than 2B.) Unadjusted or adjusted, almost twice as many hits as Bennett; Bennett?s rate stats better, but this reflect his lack of McGuire?s extended decline phase. If you take the 15 seasons 1887-1902 (he missed 1889), and compare it with Bennett?s 15 year career, McGuire has 1,436 hits vs. 978, and rate stats of 435/675 vs. 454/689. Not much in it compared with Bennett, but a significantly longer career.

(N/A-14-N/A) Charlie Bennett Only 1,796 ?normalized? hits over 1878-93, but he was a catcher. However McVey and Clements were catchers too, and both better hitters, while McGuire went on much longer. TB+BB/PA.454, TB/Outs .689, but much shorter career than Start/Sutton. Further thought gets him above Pike and Clements, on edge of ballot, to return no doubt in a weak year, but now below McGuire

(9-12-12-11-9-10-10-13-12-15-14-N/A) Lip Pike ? Like Start, give some credit for missing 1860s. However, normalize 1871-78 season by season and he gets 1,592 hits after 26 ? not quite an obvious HOM-er. 4 ?normalized 200-hit? seasons, but only just, whereas Meyerle?s 1871 peak normalizes to 320 (obviously a random fluctuation, but in the right direction!)TB+BB/PA .478, TB+BB/Outs .713 Also, unlike McVey who was clearly damn good in 1880, Pike was through by 1881.

(N/A-11-13-12-15-14-N/A) Jack Clements. Normalizing for Clements over 1885-1898 gives him a normalized 2,004 hits, not bad for the most difficult fielding position. TB+BB/PA .455, TB/Outs .696, pretty impressive for a catcher and slightly better than Bennett and McGuire, but he played more in the 1890s than Bennett.
   5. Rusty Priske Posted: October 20, 2003 at 08:00 PM (#518418)
1. Jesse Burkett (3,-,-)

I am a FOJS, but Burkett just rates higher. I had him below Start last year due to my intentional conservatism on new candidates, but he held up to all scrutiny.

2. Joe Start (2,2,3)

I'm really glad this is a 2 inductee year because Start deserves to get in, and then we can focus more on other, also deserving candidates like McPhee and McVey.

3. Bid McPhee (4,3,5)
   6. MattB Posted: October 20, 2003 at 10:00 PM (#518420)
Jim Spencer wrote:

"1898 is a great peak year (190 ERA+, 1.88 ERA), and he was impressive every year 1895-1899."

Not intending to "pile on" by attacking the same point on two threads (especially he's one of the few who actually DOES include all of the 1880s pitchers on his ballot), but Jim posted this while I was responding to his previous post in the Discussion thread.

Clark Griffith's 1898 season failed to impress me, despite the gaudy ERA. Of the 12 pitchers who led their teams in innings pitched in 1898, Griffith ranked a solid 12th! Another 50 innings would have brought him to 4th or 5th in the league, and saved the team 47 innings of Buttons Briggs (5.70 ERA) and Danny Friend (5.29 ERA). Griffith was strong in those years (1895-9), but not durable. He only finished in the top 10 in innings pitched twice (in a 12 team league).
   7. ronw Posted: October 20, 2003 at 11:29 PM (#518421)
1. (3) Jesse Burkett - He vaults ahead of McPhee based on hitting dominance during the 1890s. That last Boston year dropped him from a .344 lifetime batting average to .338.

2. (4) Joe Start - I want him in this year. His lifetime 121 OPS in documented years clinched it for me.

3. (2) Bid McPhee - Hitting, he just doesn't make it. His fielding and longetivity should get him in some day.

4. (5) Cal McVey - The pre-NA years are factored into my decision, post-NL years are not.

5. (6) Charlie Bennett - I'm swayed by WS, perhaps by too much.

6. (13) Hugh Duffy - The biggest beneficiary of a recent career evaluation. WS sees him as a fine fielder, and his WARP numbers are outstanding all around.

7. (7) Harry Stovey - Consistency is key, and he had it for a long-enough career for eventual election.

8. (9) Frank Grant - Only time will tell if Sol White will display him.

9. (10) Jimmy Ryan - My outfield glut is moving over the pitcher "glut." I am just not sure of either group's eventual election, although the '24-'31 ballots will be interesting.

10. (11) George Van Haltren - See Jimmy Ryan.

11. (14) Sam Thompson - I keep thinking we are underrating him, but the WS numbers are so strongly against him that he can't seem to rise above the fray. I'm looking forward to the recalculation of the BP WARP numbers to see if Thompson stays high.

12. (8) Jim McCormick - The biggest drop. In reexamining his career, I saw seven solid years, and about three All-Star type seasons. When compared to the ten + solid years of some of the outfielders, and the 5+ All-Star seasons of Duffy, I don't think that the pitchers jump ahead of the outfield glut.

13. (12) Mickey Welch - Again, maybe seven solid years, here two possible All-Star type seasons. The Pud Galvin factor makes me want to elect Welch, but I feel that I shouldn't compare available players to those already in, but rather to their actual competitors.

14. (--) Clark Griffith - He had maybe six solid years, one or possibly two All-Star seasons. I don't see him getting elected. Very similar relative to Mickey Welch.

15. (--) Mike Tiernan - He replaces Mike Griffin this year. I don't think either belong.
   8. Jeff M Posted: October 20, 2003 at 11:40 PM (#518422)
Pretty much the same as last time, with Griffith squeezed in.

1. Burkett, Jesse (#2)

2. Stovey, Harry (#3)

3. Start, Joe (#4)

4. McVey, Cal (#5)

5. Bennett, Charlie (#6)

-----------------------MY HOM LINE---------------------------

6. Browning, Pete (#7)

7. McPhee, Bid (#8)

-----------CAN ENVISION THEM "IN" ABOVE, NOT BELOW------------

8. Tiernan, Mike (#9)

9. Griffith, Clark (--) -- Fantastic winning percentage considering some of the teams he played on. I think he (and pitchers like him) had quite a bit more responsibility than the pre-1890 pitchers, yet his stats still match up favorably.

10. Thompson, Sam (#10)

11. Jones, Charley (#11)

12. Long, Herman (#12)

13. Grant, Frank (#13)

14. Welch, Mickey (#14)

15. Duffy, Hugh (#15)

My other ballots explain my thoughts on Jimmy Ryan, who is in the consensus Top 10 but not on my ballot.
   9. EricC Posted: October 21, 2003 at 12:33 AM (#518423)
I rate players on a system that includes peak, durability, and consistency.
   10. jimd Posted: October 21, 2003 at 02:26 AM (#518425)
On the other hand, I wouldn't want, say, a pro football hall of fame with only 10 quarterbacks and more than 30 linebackers.

From what I understand, the reasoning behind "treating each position on an equal basis" is more than just a democratic impulse. There's no reason in football for each position to have equal value. The reason in baseball is because players have to play both ways, but they all play the same offensive position (batter). Then the assumption of equality allows the defensive value of each position to be estimated from the "missing offense" that managers accept to get a glove at that position. Each position is equal in total value (when measured over many years), but that value is distributed differently between offense and defense.

This theory breaks down for pitchers because the pitcher is TOO important. No hitting and execrable fielding are acceptable from a pitcher, a sign that pitching is much more than 1/9th of the game (otherwise some amount of hitting would be a prerequisite instead of a bonus). This was explained by Bill James in one of his early abstracts when describing the defensive spectrum. It's also why we will undoubtedly have more than 11% pitchers when we are done. (How much more is the debate.)
   11. Chris Cobb Posted: October 21, 2003 at 03:50 AM (#518426)
1912 Ballot

Order is almost the same as my preliminary ballot. See it for more discussion and numbers.

1) Jesse Burkett (n/e) (2) With Nichols elected Burkett rises to the top. Best career and peak values on the ballot.
   12. EricC Posted: October 21, 2003 at 12:11 PM (#518428)
<i> From what I understand, the reasoning behind "treating each position on an
   13. Jeff M Posted: October 21, 2003 at 02:19 PM (#518429)
Each position is equal in total value (when measured over many years), but that value is distributed differently between offense and defense.

I'm operating at a purely theoretical level here (and not arguing the point), but what if the majority of all baseball managers decided the worst position players on their team should play 3b? 3b has only average defensive value (it is difficult to play, but not extraordinarily responsible for a lot plays). Assuming that player is your eighth best hitter and there's no one on the bench who hits better, couldn't it work out that over time, 3b is a weaker position, ergo each position is not of equal value vis-a-vis the greatest players of all time?

I just used 3b as an example, but I could have chosen any of the positions on the weaker end of the defensive spectrum. I happened to choose 3b because of the dearth of 3b in the HOF.

I'm not suggesting this has happened, because I haven't studied it, but isn't it possible?
   14. RobC Posted: October 21, 2003 at 03:20 PM (#518430)

While hypothetically it could happen, it shouldnt. Think of it like efficient market theory. If this happened, any manager who bucked the trend and used an appropriate 3B would have an advantage and win more games. Others would see this and change their strategy appropriately. The 3B position would adjust back to its appropriate spot.

Then again, are managers using closers in the most efficient manner today? After the changes in reliever usage in the 70s and 80s, it seems everyone has settled into the same usage patterns. Those that try something different (Red Sox) end up switching back. Either it is possible for all of baseball to use a position inappropriately or closers pitching for 1 inning whether up 1 or 3 is the best.
   15. Carl Goetz Posted: October 21, 2003 at 04:17 PM (#518431)
Here goes:
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 21, 2003 at 04:33 PM (#518432)
I'm operating at a purely theoretical level here (and not arguing the point), but what if the majority of all baseball managers decided the worst position players on their team should play 3b?

I agree with Rob C's point; it doesn't make sense that the managers of that time wouldn't have had the best offensive players at that position if they could have. But in the end, it doesn't matter.

Let's say you and I both have exactly average players at every position for our two teams, but we both have a Barry Bonds duplicate in LF with the same exact stats, yet I have a .400 OPS slick-fielding third baseman (and yours is a .200 OPS slick-fielder). Without a doubt, I'm going to win more games against you, not because of my Barry duplicate because his play is negated by your Barry clone, but by my third baseman. Using this logic, you can't ignore the actual wins by the third basemen of the 19th century.
   17. Marc Posted: October 21, 2003 at 04:42 PM (#518433)
Must-Be HoMers
   18. Marc Posted: October 21, 2003 at 05:00 PM (#518436)
BTW, I should also have mentioned Cupid Childs. Childs had a reasonable peak for a middle IFer, about the 20th most valuable peak available. Granted middle IFer don't seem to have the great, high peaks, except Jennings does, and even one catcher does, so I don't give any real bump because of his position. Then add to that, that his career value is also around 20th to 25th in this field, there's just nothing to really hang a top 15 rating on.

There was a time when it would have been conceivable that there would be no RFers in the HoM but that time ended in the 1890s (King Kelly being otherwise a completely unique case; he was just King Kelly and not really a RFer). Since then I don't see that there is a position that managers have used to hide a player who is the weak link both on offense and defense. That being the case, it would take a massive string of coincidence for there not to be HoMers at every position. 3B remains the toughest position to value properly on the whole (that is, 1865 to the present).
   19. Marc Posted: October 21, 2003 at 05:13 PM (#518437)
Andrew, no, that's what I see in Duffy's record, though I do not disagree re. Ryan, I just didn't think to mention it. I have a hard time with Duffy, at one time I had him as high as 5th or 6th. Every few years I need to reorient myself re. the OF glut, though they are all dropping anyway. Duffy had a nice high peak but so did Tip O'Neill.
   20. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 21, 2003 at 05:16 PM (#518438)
Ryan is the one who hung around for a longtime while a roughly average player.

What years are you referring to, Andrew? Actually, Ryan was above average for the years he played in RF, so he had quantifiable worth. His years before he switched to RF were certainly above average (if not great).
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 21, 2003 at 05:20 PM (#518439)
Actually, Ryan was above average for the years he played in RF

Above average compared to other rightfielders, that is.
   22. OCF Posted: October 21, 2003 at 05:43 PM (#518441)
Predictable changes from previous ballots.
   23. favre Posted: October 21, 2003 at 11:44 PM (#518442)
This week I'm using a new evaluation system, which gives a player scores for the following: 1) career value 2) number of "all-star" seasons 3) extended peak 4) straight peak. This has led to some changes on my ballot, particularly at the bottom.

1. Jesse Burkett
   24. OCF Posted: October 22, 2003 at 12:31 AM (#518443)
I meant Clark Griffith, of course, not Calvin. But you knew that.
   25. Marc Posted: October 22, 2003 at 01:00 AM (#518444)
OCF: In a head-to-head between Welch and Calvin Griffith, heck, I'd take Welch, too. Calvin had a horsebleep fastball.
   26. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 22, 2003 at 01:27 AM (#518445)
OCF: In a head-to-head between Welch and Calvin Griffith, heck, I'd take Welch, too.

I agree without any hesitation. The image of Griffith in a bikini repulses me.

Oh, you mean MICKEY Welch! :-)
   27. Jeff M Posted: October 22, 2003 at 01:44 AM (#518446)
Without a doubt, I'm going to win more games against you, not because of my Barry duplicate because his play is negated by your Barry clone, but by my third baseman. Using this logic, you can't ignore the actual wins by the third basemen of the 19th century.

That's not really what I'm getting at. The above seems to focus on two teams in comparison, and whether one wins more games because it has a better 3b. I don't disagree with the statement above, and if that performance continued, that particular 3b should be in the HOM.

What I'm saying is, theoretically, if you (John) have a .400 OBP 3b, but I and the rest of the league have poor hitting 3b, and this trend continues throughout baseball history, wouldn't that mean that 3b is overall a weaker position than other positions and therefore should have fewer representatives in the HOM?

I'm not saying that's the case with 3b, but it seems possible that one position could be weaker than another.
   28. jimd Posted: October 22, 2003 at 02:44 AM (#518447)
I think Jeff has a good point. The example that comes to my mind is catcher.

Catcher was a very tough, injury prone position. At some injury rate it makes sense to move your star hitting catcher to a less risky position to preserve his bat for the pennant race, even though it gives up an edge in each game, assuming the replacement catcher doesn't hit as well as the player who sits down to make room for the star catcher who was moved.

Given the reserve clause, once franchises become stable enough to think about a player's entire career, the incentive to move a great young hitting catcher to a less risky position increases.

If a position is risky enough or debilitating enough (in its impact on hitting), the very best hitters might be shifted away from that position to maximize their offensive output (assuming they can play another position) because offense is more important than defense for most/all of the position players. It's accepting a short-term tactical disadvantage to gain a longer-term strategic advantage.
   29. sean gilman Posted: October 22, 2003 at 09:02 AM (#518449)

1. Jesse Burkett (2)--Close with Start, but I?ll take Burkett?s definitely great peak versus Start?s probably great peak.

2. Joe Start (3)-- He?s got a better peak than McPhee and more career value than McVey, even without counting the 1860s (where all indications are his real peak most likely occurred).

3. Cal McVey (4)-- Bumping McVey?s massive peak advantage over McPhee?s career edge. Only the 60s keep him behind Start.

4. Bid McPhee (5)--Slight edge on Harry Stovey due to defense and career length.

5. Harry Stovey (6)--I think some people have been applying an awfully harsh AA discount to him. He was a tremendous hitter and looks great in WS pennants added and in the baserunning info that?s been posted. More career value than any of the other ?hitters? further down the ballot. Much better peak than the other outfielders (by WS). I think he clearly stands out from the glut.

6. Lip Pike (7)--Tough to get a handle on him: not as good in the NA as McVey, but better before; much better in the NA than Start, not as good before. He?s a much more worthy HOMer than any of the 90s outfielders in the glut.

7. Charlie Bennett (8)--Great defense and hitting (for a catcher) moves him ahead of the Outfielder/Pitcher Glut, at least according to WARP.

8. Pete Browning (9)--AA discount brings him down to the rest of the glut. Browning still has easily the highest peak though.

9. Jimmy Ryan (10)--I could see any of the next 7 oufielders, plus Childs/Grant/Jennings/McGraw, Wright/Pearce, and even Nash/Williamson filling spots 9-15 on a ballot. But, using the adjWS and WARP numbers, along with the Penants Added info, it seems the Outfielder Glut was just more valuable than those infielders and pitchers. If I was going to move anyone above the glut right now, it?d be Dickey Pearce. But I just haven?t seen enough to make me think he?s more George Wright than Harry Wright.

10. Hugh Duffy (11)--Peak and Career value puts him in the middle of the outfielder glut; comparison to Ryan and VanHaltren shows me I was overrating him. Slightly higher peak than those two, slightly less career value. Decided to rate them by Joe?s adjWSrepl.

11. Gerorge VanHaltren (12)--Solid career WS lead puts these three ahead of the next two.

12. Sam Thompson (13)--His advantage in WARP3 over Tiernan is slightly larger than Tiernan?s advantage over him in Win Shares.

13. Mike Tiernan (14)--About even peakwise with Jennings, significantly more career value though.

14. Hughie Jennings (15)--Just ahead of Griffin and Childs(Grant) on peak.

15. Mike Griffin (-)--Back on the ballot. Congrats to Charley Radbourn who makes My Personal HOM this year.
   30. Philip Posted: October 22, 2003 at 05:12 PM (#518450)
<U>1912 Ballot</U>
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 22, 2003 at 06:37 PM (#518452)
1 (1) Sam Thompson--Still at the top, still undervalued by the voting bloc. I was looking forward to John Murphy's promised defense of Big Sam, but never saw it.

I'm still working on my ballot, Mark. It will probably be finished over the weekend. It looks like Thompson and Tiernan will make my top ten, though (but I'm not 100% certain yet).
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 22, 2003 at 09:09 PM (#518454)
This is Tom Hanrahan's ballot:

review of Hanrahan?s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2 wins per full year, or WS minus 12 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 95 adjusted for speed and defense. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

No essential changes from 1911 ballot

The ?IN? Group

1- Jesse Burkett (2)
   33. Rick A. Posted: October 22, 2003 at 09:36 PM (#518455)
1. Cal McVey (2) - I?m becoming a FOCM. Never had an off-year. Every season ranked as above average, also gets subjective bonus for undocumented play.
   34. dan b Posted: October 22, 2003 at 10:38 PM (#518457)
1. Jesse Burkett
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 22, 2003 at 11:19 PM (#518458)
I take responsibility for the Walter Holke posts on the discussion thread. Thanks to Ron Wargo for observing the intent to poke some fun at similarity scores, although not so much the concept as the misuse of the concept by

Thanks for acknowledging the posts, Dan. I agree misuses similarity score and wish they would make the proper adjustments (or stop using them altogether).

As for the 2nd Walter post that John Murphy found ?offensive?, was it the use of the word ?pretend? that was so offensive? I think you may have overreacted there, John. I have pointed out before that adjusting short seasons to 162 games makes 1871 baseball?s Golden Year. It wasn?t.

Recheck earlier posts of mine from other threads that state, if you are analyzing the short schedule seasons, you must use standard deviation so that the outliers are more in line with the rest of baseball history. I know for a fact that Levi Meyerle would not have been close to hitting .492 in '71 if he had played a 162 game season. Deacon White, by using normalization, is projected as playing a full season schedule in our time as a catcher. This is preposterous. However, it doesn't mean we ignore the season entirely. There were still great players in the league regardless.

This explains my annoyance with your second post. I (and many of the other FOJS) have stated many times that you have to adjust those NA seasons for the shorter schedule (and weaker competition). In our estimation, he still meets our qualifications.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with us about Start. I disagree with your placing Tip O'Neill on your ballot, but I respect your decision (I actually agree with most of your ballot). I hope you can respect ours.
   36. Marc Posted: October 22, 2003 at 11:40 PM (#518459)
Once again, it is helpful to think about the future ramifications of our various ratings methods. Let's say MLB goes to a PCL schedule--200 games. How long before all of our heroes become bums (unless we normalize)?
   37. RobC Posted: October 22, 2003 at 11:46 PM (#518460)

Immediately! Bonds was a bum, a decent hitting SS hits 70+ home runs every year, what with the 1162 game schedule.
   38. Marc Posted: October 23, 2003 at 01:59 AM (#518462)
I thought I was a "peak guy"! Clint, your ballot makes sense as a "peak" ballot except:

Burkett--yes, he had a great peak, but not sure it's #1 even among this crowd. In fact, I'm sure it's not.

Bond--I'm surprised you haven't taken a shine to Tommy Bond. Better peak than McCormick (though I rate McCormick higher overall) or Griffith.

Charlie Bennett--look at 1881-83, he was the equal of anybody. I don't care how many games he played, or didn't play, a massive peak value.

Mike Tiernan--what peak?
   39. Yardape Posted: October 23, 2003 at 05:13 AM (#518464)
1. Jesse Burkett (2) I think he's clearly the best outfielder, and the most obviously deserving candidate on the ballot. In he goes!

2. Frank Grant (3)Others remain unconvinced he's a HoMer; I remain unconvinced he's not.

3. Bob Caruthers (4) Joins Frank Grant in my controversial section.

4. Cal McVey (5) Shouldn't have to wait too much longer, I wouldn't imagine. A great peak.

5. Lip Pike (6) I think he's clearly better than any 1890s outfielders not elected (well, besides Burkett). He seems to be getting more attention lately, though, which is encouraging.

6. Joe Start (7) I think there are better candidates than Start, but he had a long and productive career that is probably worthy of his inevitable enshrinement.

7. Jimmy Ryan (8) The best of the rest of the outfielders.

8. Jim McCormick (9) And the best of the remaining pitchers, IMO.

9. Harry Stovey (10)

10. Tony Mullane (11)

11. George Van Haltren (12)

12. Hugh Duffy (13)

13. Charlie Bennett (14)

14. Charley Jones (15)

15. Dickey Pearce (n/a) He returns to my ballot this year. One of the great pre-NA stars, may deserve more attention from me.

My only notable omission this year is Bid McPhee, as usual. He's inching closer to my ballot (it'll be interesting to me to see if he gets there before he gets elected), but with no discernible peak, he's just off, and never going to rate very high, I'm afraid.
   40. DanG Posted: October 23, 2003 at 07:42 AM (#518465)
Crab is a shoo-in for 1912, along with one of the backlog. In 1913, Jake Beckley will battle the backloggers for honors, while Lave Cross makes his Bid for McPhee-like status. In 1914, Joe Kelley and Fielder Jones pile on to the outfield glut, while Jimmy Collins will try to show that he?s not Ed Williamson and Joe McGinnity will try to show that he is Amos Rusie II.

1) Burkett (2,ne,ne)? A HoMer any way I look at him. Poor pitching in 1890 probably takes away from his career WARP ratings.

2) Start (3,1,2)? Now age 69 and still waiting for glory. At least we?ll have one HoMer born before 1847, right?

3) McVey (4,3,3)?A great hitter (152 OPS+) at important defensive positions who had nine great seasons in the best leagues of the time. Evidence shows his post-NL career was not long.

4) McPhee (5,4,5)? Secondbasemen with the most career extra-base hits through 1911:
   41. dan b Posted: October 23, 2003 at 06:09 PM (#518466)
Clint writes ? ?Joe Start. Nothing great in the 16 seasons we can see, so I discount the press notices about the seasons we can?t see. Without some indication that he suddenly lost steam in 1871, I?ll have to believe that he had unusually great PR?

Blame New York media hype.
   42. Al Peterson Posted: October 23, 2003 at 06:23 PM (#518467)
And away we go...

1. Jesse Burkett (2). The Crab claws his way to the top. Peak, career, not much to dislike. Story goes it was Burkett who caused the rule change involving two strike bunts.

2. Harry Stovey (3). Five players have led their league in homers and triples in the same year. Harry Lumley, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Jim Rice, and Stovey. Stovey actually did it twice (1880, 1891). Don't ya love useless trivia.

3. Bid McPhee (4). The gloveless wonder.

4. Cal McVey (5). Multi-positional star of the 1870s.

5. Joe Start (6). If it hasn't been said about Joe Start by now then you ain't been reading.

6. Charlie Bennett (8). Best catcher on the board.

7. Sam Thompson (7). Bad back derailed his career a bit.

8. Hugh Duffy (9). Gotta have a space for the better Heavenly Twin.

9. Pete Browning (10). Just a great story about his peaks and valleys in baseball.

10. Frank Grant (11). Speculation on my part as to his level of play.

11. Jimmy Ryan (13). Was on Cap Anson's all-time team from Sporting News article in 1918. Big surprise there since Jimmy played in Chicago.

12. Mike Tiernan (12). In the OF mix...

13. Clark Griffith (-). Don't worry too much about his low IP due to lack of durability. Early in his career he was being managed and told when to pitch. Later in his career sometimes he got busy doing his own managing.

14. George Van Haltren (14). Ryan after taxes.

15. Mickey Welch (15). "Hey everybody, doesn't anyone notice I had 307 wins?"

Hanging around...16. Tip O'Neill 17. Cupid Childs 18. John McGraw 19. Dickey Pearce 20. Lip Pike
   43. Adam Schafer Posted: October 23, 2003 at 08:03 PM (#518469)
1. Charlie Bennett (3) - I bump him ahead of Burkett this year. Burkett was a GREAT player. HOM worthy, but he wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of the other outfielders. Bennett on the other hand was considerably greater than nearly all of the other catchers of his time. Playing catcher does indeed get a big bonus from me. I don't believe that Carlton Fisk was a better player than Jim Rice, but I'd vote Fisk into the Hall in a heartbeat, and would have Rice much lower on my ballot. This is my reasoning for having Bennett above the popular Burkett

2. Jesse Burkett (2) - See above for explanation.

3. Joe Start (4) - Looks like Joe will be going into our Hall really soon.

4. Bid McPhee (5) - Nothing new to add

5. Cal McVey (8) - Another huge jump for McVey on my ballot, I'm finally feeling comfortable giving him reasonable credit for his early years.

6. Sam Thompson (6) - I have found no reason to move him either up or down this week

7. Jimmy Ryan (7) - Jimmy isn't moving either, but I like his consistency and career just a shade more than Van Haltren

8. George Van Haltren (9) - Just a smidgen below Ryan in my mind

9. Clark Griffith (n/a) - not overly dominant, but did offer some nice consistency fora 10 year span. Not HOM worthy, but does belong on my ballot

10. Hugh Duffy (10) - If he had only had another year or two of the massive peak he had, I'd feel more strongly about him. As it is though, I'm not much of an advocate of putting him in the HOM

11. Deacon McGuire (n/a) - Even being a strong friend of the catchers I can't put him a whole lot higher than this with a good conscience. I do admire him for his longevity, but that's not enough to merit admission to the HOM

12. Bob Carruthers (11) - Still holding on to one of the lower spots on my ballot.

13. Hughie Jennings (n/a) - Was in the upper part of those just missing my ballot last year, but he's getting a 2nd chance from me now

14. Harry Stovey (15) - I'm still not a believer in his greatness, but believe he was better than anyone else I have left to chose from

15. Mike Tiernan (n/a) - I realized that I couldn't justify leaving him off of my ballot when I had so many of the other outfielders on it. A small move up, don't know how long it will last though.

Frank Grant is finally bumped off of my ballot. I was never really convinced of his greatness. If he hadn't been black I'm not sure we'd even be giving him the slightest of consideration. I again want to reiterate that I'm a big fan of the Negro Leagues (Biz Mackey will be getting a lot of support from me), but Grant just doesn't cut it for me.
   44. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 23, 2003 at 11:51 PM (#518471)
Clint writes ? ?Joe Start. Nothing great in the 16 seasons we can see

Here is an interesting project: how many players who have documented seasons of at least three seasons as the best major league player at his position (which Start unquestionably has) with a long career who, nevertheless, we wouldn't consider ballot worthy? I'm actually curious myself.

Each position is equal in total value (when measured over many years), but that value is distributed differently between offense and defense.

That's not really what I'm getting at. The above seems to focus on two teams in comparison, and whether one wins more games because it has a better 3b. I don't disagree with the statement above, and if that performance continued, that particular 3b should be in the HOM.

What I'm saying is, theoretically, if you (John) have a .400 OBP 3b, but I and the rest of the league have poor hitting 3b, and this trend continues throughout baseball history, wouldn't that mean that 3b is overall a weaker position than other positions and therefore should have fewer representatives in the HOM?

I'm not saying that's the case with 3b, but it seems possible that one position could be weaker than another.

Here's my turn for a belated response :-): Theoretically, it's possible. It may be possible that shortstops have had a similar problem.

However, I doubt this is what happened. We're not talking about a ten-year span, but at least a seventy-year one where defense was more cherished than offense. I can't see management not figuring out that you could put some more punch at that position if they could have. I think the responsibilities of the position prohibited low defense/high offense players though (for the most part).

I think once the Deadball Era up and died, there wasn't as much of a premium on defense (it took a generation before the transition took hold). I'm not sure that a guy like Killerbrew or Horner would have been able to play the hot corner before the lively ball, regardless of how well they were hitting. At any rate, I don't think they would have lasted too long.
   45. Rob Wood Posted: October 24, 2003 at 01:43 AM (#518472)
1912 final ballot:

1. Jesse Burkett -- HOM worthy for sure
   46. Ken Fischer Posted: October 24, 2003 at 05:18 AM (#518473)
1912 Ballot

Probably Start's year...Griffith is # 20 on my depth chart. Browning is back in my top 15.

1-Bid McPhee

2-Joe Start

3-Jesse Burkett

4-Harry Stovey

5-Frank Grant

6-George Van Haltren

7-Jimmy Ryan

8-Mike Tiernan

9-Bob Caruthers

10-Dickey Pearce

11-Cal McVey

12-Charlie Bennett

13-Hughie Jennings

14-Hugh Duffy

15-Pete Browning
   47. jimd Posted: October 25, 2003 at 12:30 AM (#518476)
Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles. This is very similar to last time, though I dropped Stovey somewhat, and raised Burkett.

1) B. McPhee -- Very long career; imperceptable peak. Post-27 career played at higher level than Start.

2) C. Bennett -- Best catcher available; stands out from the other catchers far more than any of the other OF'ers do from their pack.

3) J. Burkett -- Best career of all the current OF candidates.

4) J. Start -- Very long career; debatable peak.

Following 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.
   48. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2003 at 02:35 PM (#518478)
   49. RobC Posted: October 26, 2003 at 01:45 AM (#518479)

McPhee top 10 in,

Games 4 times
   50. Howie Menckel Posted: October 26, 2003 at 01:48 PM (#518480)
McPhee was "almost never in the top 10 in any category of significance."
   51. RobC Posted: October 26, 2003 at 04:37 PM (#518482)

Evaluating defense in the 1890s is not at all like evaluating the 1860s. We have actual numbers for fielding. We have putouts and assists and errors and double plays, which is all we have for Mazeroski's fielding (for example). Are you saying the doubts about Maz are the same as Start in the 1860s?

Speaking of Maz, he is a guy with virtually no significant top 10s. Maz will probably make my HOM (on the grounds of being the best defensive player ever), but while he was a better fielder than McPhee, McPhee was a much better hitter.

Just checked something else out, McPhee defeats Ozzie Smith on both the black ink (6-2) and Gray ink (64-51) tests. The fact is, neither McPhee nor Smith will get elected to the HOM on the basis of their bat, but to claim they had no 10 ten finishes in significant categories is silly.

I hope no one interprets above that I think McPhee was better than Smith. If McPhee and Maz are still on the ballot when Ozzie becomes eligible, their relative order will be Smith, McPhee, Mazeroski.
   52. Howie Menckel Posted: October 26, 2003 at 05:18 PM (#518483)
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 26, 2003 at 05:38 PM (#518484)
Thanks for putting my ballot in.

No problem, Tom.
   54. RobC Posted: October 26, 2003 at 07:21 PM (#518485)

I saw where you had McPhee, and I dont really have a problem with someone who has him 6th. It was the statement about very few top 10s that bothered me. A defensive run saved is worth slightly more than a offensive run added (in most cases). The best hitters do tend to add on more runs than the best defensive players save though, so your last statement is technically right. Completely ignoring his defensive, the 2nd best hitting RFer is better than McPhee's offensive and defensive. :)
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 26, 2003 at 07:27 PM (#518486)
My ballot for this week is a combination of two systems: my old one and my new one. This is because my new one needs a great deal of time for each eligible player, so I haven't been able to finish my analysis yet. Therefore, my ballot will probably have a few more interesting changes in the coming weeks (I did work on everyone who was in contention for a spot in the Hall this week).

I'm still using the same base system as previously, but now I compare each player's sum total with the eight best players at the same position (weighted for the seasons that the players played while the test subject played). Why eight? No particular reason except I wanted enough players to be statistically significant for each era, yet not not have to include every comparison available for time's sake.

My new method validated many of my earlier picks, but also highlighted some guys that didn't stand out to me. I might do some more tinkering with it, but I'm very comfortable with my ranking system for the very first time.

1) Bid McPhee (2): Greatest second baseman of the 19th century. If any AA guys should go in, he should be numero uno. Consistently near the top of the list for second baseman (and did it longer than any of them). Extremely durable for his position and a fine peak for his position. Best major league second baseman for 1886.

2) Jesse Burkett (3): Balancing peak and career, there's not too much difference between the Crab, Delahanty and Hamilton. That sounds like Burkett is a HoMer to me.

Best major league left fielder for 1895 and 1901.

3) Cal McVey (4): Awesome player. I gave him credit for his pre-NA work and for a little bit of his post-NL career out west.

Never had an off year in the NA or NL. 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.

4) Dickey Pearce (5): Glad to see more love for the first great professional 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. Even though his NA and NL was meager (he was 35 in '71), he still had the most value after 35 until Dahlen and Davis, FWIW.

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.

5) Joe Start (7): Moves up one more under my new system. Maybe we won't have "Old Reliable" to kick around anymore ... in the ballot discussion threads, that is. :-) 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 1871, 1878 and 1879.
   56. EricC Posted: October 26, 2003 at 08:15 PM (#518487)
<i> They may have had shorter-than-you-would-like careers, but compared to the
   57. Esteban Rivera Posted: October 26, 2003 at 10:44 PM (#518488)
Getting it in before time's up. Not much in new candidates but there was movement in the middle of the ballot.

1. Cal McVey - I strongly feel McVey is a HOMer. Played very demanding positions, produced at high offensive level and, when he left because of the reserve clause, his career was looking like Cap Anson's. Was still playing when he was 40 in the Texas League.

2. Jesse Burkett - An outstanding career that is head and shoulders above the rest of the outfielders on the ballot. The Crab earns a top 3 spot.

3. Charlie Bennett - Best catcher available. His defense was excellent and his hitting great for a full time catcher, even if his numbers are uneven. Campanella was pretty uneven during his career and not many people discredit his greatness as a catcher.

4. Joe Start - Was the best "old" player of his time.

5. Bid McPhee - The long career of Bid still keeps him in the top half.

6. Harry Stovey - More value than the numbers tell.

7. Sam Thompson - Moves up a bit more this year as my reevaluation continues.

8. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball. Definitely deserves more attention.

9. Hughie Jennings - A historical monster for five years.

10. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 90's. Then he just fell off. However, I feel his peak gives him the slight edge over Ryan.

11. Frank Grant - Grant has started sliding on my ballot. Still believe he was great, it just gets a bit harder to justify placing him higher than the ones above.

12. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress.

13. Clark Griffith - His impressive record on weak teams and in a high offense era makes hin the top pitching candidate on my ballot. However, all the talk this time about the value of pitchers has made me decide to redesign my pitcher evaluation for next time. Next year may move up or down.

14. Jimmy Ryan - A strong candidate who was effective after his injury. Kind of weird how all the really great outfielders of the 90's had short periods as great and then very good due to either injuries, late starts, or other reasons.

15. George Van Haltren - Of all the 90's outfielders on the ballot, the only one that never really cracked the greatness barrier. However, he did make a fantastic career for himself that is ballot-worthy.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 26, 2003 at 11:37 PM (#518489)
I understand your concern, Eric, but this phenomena lasted for decades. I just can't buy that it was a coincidence. Something was going on there.

BTW, I use standard deviation to draw in the outliers. Bert Campaneris or Dave Concepcion won't be higher ranked on my ballot may "years" from now just because they lucked out by being the best shortstops of their era by default.
   59. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: October 27, 2003 at 06:40 AM (#518491)
Here's this week's offering. Not a lot of changes. (I think Amos Rusie's making my personal HOM this week, but I have that list at work right now.)

1. Jesse Burkett. (2) Clearly a step ahead of all the other OFs.

2. Charlie Bennett (3) To my mind, absolutely far ahead of all the other eligible catchers - that's the definition of a HoMer.

3. Joe Start (4) See post #54

4. Cal McVey (5) Great hitter for several years, played a decent defensive role, and I'll give him some credit for his off-the-books work.

5. Bid McPhee (6) Should get in eventually. Wouldn't mind something resembling a peak.

6. Dickey Pearce (8) I know he was an star for his era; I'm not so sure of the guys below him.

7. Lip Pike (9) Creeping up my ballot. I'm still not totally sure he belongs, though.

8. Harry Stovey (7) May be sliding back down towards The Glut. He did dominate his leagues more than the other candidates, though.

9. Frank Grant (10) Similar to Pearce, but I'm just not as sure how good he really was.

10. Hughie Jennings (11) Historically notable peak, but not enough to demand admission.

11. Mike Griffin (12) I think he's as good as any of these guys, he just doesn't have the name recognition or the sexy RBI numbers.

12. Hugh Duffy (13) More peak value than Griffin, but they're very similar players and I think Griffin was the better fielder.

13. Jimmy Ryan (NR) I'm not sure now why I was down on him last time. But he does have a lot of "hangaround" value.

14. George Van Haltren (NR) Similar to Ryan, but not quite as good.

15. Pete Browning (15) He hit the ball REAL HARD.

Dropped out: Sam Thompson (14). I still don't see what the excitement's about. A good player, but not a great one, and I don't see him as any more outstanding than the other OFs.
   60. RobC Posted: October 27, 2003 at 05:25 PM (#518493)

How about some explanations? I dont see anything "wrong" with the ballot, but the rules do require some minimal ballot explanation.
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 27, 2003 at 05:31 PM (#518494)
How about some explanations? I dont see anything "wrong" with the ballot, but the rules do require some minimal ballot explanation.

I don't mean to be a hardass either, but rules are the rules.

I think Joe should make a decision about whether the rule should be enforced or not.
   62. KJOK Posted: October 27, 2003 at 07:24 PM (#518495)
Sorry to be so late, but Oct. is next year's budget development month at work, so have been extremely tied up...

I look more for wins above AVERAGE as opposed to above REPLACEMENT LEVEL when considering a player's greatness (JUST BEING BETTER THAN REPLACEMENT LEVEL DOES NOT ADVANCE ONE TOWARDS BEING A HOM PLAYER!), while I use best 5 years for a peak, along with heavily weighting C, SS, and 3B defense, and lightly weighting RF and LF defense.

1. CHARLIE BENNETT, C -Comp is Roy Campanella. Until at least Roger Bresnahan, only Ewing was a better Catcher. Catchers may have trouble "adding up" numbers due to the nature of the position, but last I checked you can't play the field without a catcher.

2. JESSE BURKETT, LF - Only Delahanty was a better hitting LF'er in the 19th century.

3. JOE START, 1B,- Similar to Tony Perez, IF you assume a normal career progression that is not fully documented. I basically double his documented career value for analysis purposes, and I'm now convinced he's a worthy 1860's/1870's period inductee.

4. HUGHIE JENNINGS, SS ? Best comp may be Lou Boudreau. Great fielder and great hitter for a SS. Only drawback is played 10,000 less SS innings than Dahlen, over 6,000 less than George Davis, but I don?t see how not having 5 years of Jeff Blauser career performance added on makes him NOT a HOM?er . MVP type years 1895, 1896 & 1897.

5. CUPID CHILDS, 2B - Hitting value almost identical to Hardy Richardson, AND played close to 13,000 innings at 2B. Comp is somewhere between Charlie Gehringer to Stan Hack. Only MVP type year was 1890 in weak AA.

6. JOHN MCGRAW, 3B ? Comp is? no one, as there hasn?t really been an infielder who was this good offensively but played so little. Still has to rank as one of THE best 3Bmen of the 19th century. Would be #1 or #2 on this ballot if he had played a little bit more.

7. HUGH DUFFY, CF ? Strong comp with Kirby Puckett. Note quite the hitter that Mike Griffin was, but played a little longer. One MVP Year - 1894.

8. PETE BROWNING, CF/LF - Hits like Joe Jackson, fields like Greg Luzinski playing CF. Still has one of the highest Win Shares/Year for the 19th century. Possible MVP in 1882, 83, 85 & 90 - that should count for quite a bit.

9. JIMMY RYAN, CF/RF ? Comp is Jimmy Wynn. Good hitter, and average fielder who played quite a bit of RF. MVP type year in 1888.

10. GEORGE VAN HALTREN, CF ? Almost identical to Ryan offensively, but loses out due to fielding and no MVP type year.

11. MIKE GRIFFIN, CF ? Fred Lynn offensively, and was a better CF. Seems to be very underrated, but just doesn't stand out enough in crowded OF talent pool.

12. SAM THOMPSON, RF - Harry Heilmann comp. Downgraded a little due to 19th century defensive spectrum. MVP type year in 1887.

13. MIKE TIERNAN, RF ? Similar value to Gary Sheffiield. Just slightly below Sam Thompson. Downgraded a little due to 19th century defensive spectrum. MVP type years in 1889 & 1890.

14. CAL McVEY, C/1B - Modern Comp: Gene Tenace, only better and longer career. Best catcher before Ewing/Bennett.

15. TONY MULLANE, P ? Think I?ve missed the boat on Mullane previously. Only 4 Win Shares behind Pud (399 vs. 403) in 1,400 fewer innings (but still a substantial 4,500 innings pitched). Peak almost identical to Pud?s (183 WS vs. 182 over 5 years). ERA+ of 118 vs. Pud?s 109. Don?t see how Pud could possibly rank ahead except on career length alone.


BID McPHEE, 2B ? I think Graig Nettles is his best comp, as he was relatively a much better hitter than Brooks Robinson AND a terrific fielder.

CLARK GRIFFITH, P - Still having some trouble slotting current pitching candidates, and none seem to be particularly great, but many are very good. For now, I have Griffith slightly behind Mullane but slightly ahead of Caruthers & McCormick.

FRANK GRANT, 2B, Was probably best African-American player of 19th century, but not enough evidence to suggest he was one of the greatest players of the century. Even the most ardent ?blackball? boosters don?t rank Grant as one of the greatest.

BOB CARUTHERS, P/RF, Combination of Carl Mays & Gavvy Cravath. Not convinced he?s not a better choice than Pud, but quite a few less innings has him down here. Cy Young year in 1885.

JIM McCORMICK, P ?Modern Comp is Eppa Rixey. Below Tony Mullane in effectiveness and playing time.

HARRY STOVEY, LF/1B - Comp is Albert Belle, only with baserunning ability. MVP type years in 1883, 1888 & 1889. Hard to see what basis he belongs ahead of crowded OF glut of Duffy, Browning, Van Haltren, Ryan, Griffin, Thompson, & Tiernan. If anything, I'd probably be more inclined to remove a couple of those guys from my ballot as opposed to adding Stovey.
   63. RobC Posted: October 27, 2003 at 08:44 PM (#518497)

Its not in the consitution that I know of (although it should be)(the "minimal ballot explanations" is my terminology). Back in the late 00s (I cant find the thread, little help from JoeD?) we decided that

1. Everyone needs to explain their ballots, a list of names would not be acceptable.
   64. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 27, 2003 at 08:57 PM (#518498)
I don't give explanations for the simple reason that they are unnecessary; what can I say about (for example) Joe Start that hasn't been said a thousand times already?

Unless you have some new information to add, just repaste what you had from previous elections. That's what I do. I don't feel like retyping everything over myself, but I think we owe it to the other voters that they understand our reasoning.

As Rob said, there's nothing wrong with your ballot. We just want to follow your logic. I can't remember everyone's explanation for a particular player from the discussion threads. Hell, I can't always remember mine. :-)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF


Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats





Page rendered in 1.1424 seconds
68 querie(s) executed