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, December 08, 2003

1916 Ballot Discussion

A very strong new class . . .

***1916 (December 21)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
333 96.3 1893 Willie Keeler-RF (1923)
291 82.8 1898 Elmer Flick-RF (1971)
272 57.7 1896 Cy Seymour-CF (1919)
240 67.8 1899 Rube Waddell-P (1914)
293 49.9 1898 Vic Willis-P (1947)
229 49.2 1899 Ginger Beaumont-CF (1956)
191 55.0 1899 Bill Bradley-3b (1954)
191 48.2 1902 Addie Joss-P (1911)
212 40.0 1899 Sam Leever-P (1953)
168 51.0 1901 Freddy Parent-SS (1972)
206 32.4 1899 Deacon Phillippe-P (1952)
146 39.3 1905 George Stone-LF (1945)
148 25.2 1902 Bob Ewing-P (1947)
126 22.5 1905 Orval Overall-P (1947)

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 08, 2003 at 10:52 PM | 186 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.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Paul Wendt Posted: December 11, 2003 at 08:15 PM (#519990)
Runs and Wins, Cleveland 1902-1910 (the Addie Joss years)
   102. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 11, 2003 at 08:44 PM (#519991)
Prospective ballot here:

1) Joe Kelley. (4) The more I look at him the more impressed I am. I'd always considered him to be a player who got in the HoF because Frisch heard McGraw say nice things about him. Compared to the rest of the outfielder glut, his career value bests most in quantity & quality.

2) Willie Keeler. (na) My top three are all pretty close, & could change. A great singles hitter for a long time, best WARP3 score of anyone I could find. I expected his stats like OPS+ to be a little better, but then again his prime was in the Silly Ball '90s.

3) Jake Beckley. (3) I think he's being underrated here. One main knock against him is that his peak was non-existant, as evidenced by his 1 point in the Black Ink Test. This is true, but it should be noted that Joe Kelley, who's knocking on the door on induction here, scored 2 points on the Black Ink Test. Is the 2nd point really worth 11 places in the voting standings? Both were not really the Top Flights players at their positions during their career but more best-of-the-rest'ers. Kelley did have a higher peak & does better in OPS+ & EQA, but Beckley played over 500 more games at an above average quality of play while having better power & playing what I believe was the more important defensive position. Also, I went to look up how Beckley fared against his 1Bman peers in his career. I checked his OPS+s versus those of every other starting 1Bman in all major leagues in his career. Here's where he ranked:
   103. DanG Posted: December 11, 2003 at 08:47 PM (#519992)
Random notes

The 1916 election is the toughest to date. The players who dominated the ballot for many years (McVey, McPhee, Start) are gone now. We?re left with Stovey and Bennett, who have been a close pair for the past decade; Kelley and Collins, who have crowded the previous two in the last two elections; and newbies Keeler and Flick, who are seemingly of the same caliber as those four. Close behind these are the top of the outfield glut (Thompson, Duffy) and a newly developing pitcher glut (McGinnity, Waddell, maybe more).
   104. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2003 at 11:24 PM (#519993)
HOMers (30) by position

CATCHER (2): Cal McVey (C-1B), Buck Ewing (C-1/0), see also White, Kelly
   105. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2003 at 02:20 PM (#519996)
HOMers by various eras, updated for 1916, other minor revisions

ERA I: The Pioneers (10): All got their ML start by the second year of organized ball; more than half stretched their careers well into the '80s and '90s.
   106. Robc Posted: December 12, 2003 at 03:24 PM (#519997)
Howie,

<i>HOMER's GAMES (200 or more G, or main position(s), listed; most-played position in CAPS)

C MCVEY 183
   107. DanG Posted: December 12, 2003 at 04:28 PM (#519999)
Robc wrote:
   108. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2003 at 06:15 PM (#520000)
What DanG said.

I try to keep my stuff real simple, but clearly he was more of a C than a 1B for his career. All the 1870s guys have some "problem" in this regard; if I had a weighted chart that translated into something simple, I'd probably use it.
   109. Marc Posted: December 12, 2003 at 06:25 PM (#520001)
Here is my ranking of peak (3 and 5 year) value for position players only. My ballot will ultimately reflect prime and career value, and of course will include pitchers. But this is position players' peak value (27 players in current consideration set).

1. Hughie Jennings--ranks #1 for both 3 and 5 year adjWARP1
   110. DanG Posted: December 12, 2003 at 09:18 PM (#520003)
In #135 above, I showed Elmer Flick?s standing in his 13-year career. In fairness to Willie Keeler, who had a pretty good 13-year stretch of his own, here are leaders in the same two categories set back four years.

Most Runs Plus RBI 1894-1906

R+BI R BI
   111. Daryn Posted: December 12, 2003 at 09:54 PM (#520004)
Something obvious I noticed at baseball reference.com, is that great players do not have many players with similarity scores over 900. The truly great (ruth and young), don't even have guys at 800 or better. Keeler has noone over 900, and only 4 over 802. Flick has 2 over 900, and all ten are over 886. This is a simplistic measure but is emblematic of their careers -- if you give career stats significant weight as i do, it is hard to put flick on your ballot, never mind at the top.
   112. Marc Posted: December 12, 2003 at 10:40 PM (#520006)
TomH is right on. Similarity scores do not adjust for environment. A Flick comp from the mid'90s (either one, the 1890s or 1990s) would have nowhere near the value that Elmer had.
   113. Paul Wendt Posted: December 13, 2003 at 03:10 AM (#520010)
daryn (#147)
   114. dan b Posted: December 13, 2003 at 04:25 AM (#520011)
Jim Spencer is right.
   115. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2003 at 05:43 AM (#520012)
Jim Spencer is not right, at least not on most points. Basically, the argument advanced seems to use Redsox's (certainly questionable) placement of Lip Pike at #1 as an occasion for a general dismissal of the early game. By all means attempt to persuade Redsox to change his mind! I'm quite sympathetic to vexation at apparently outrageous #1 rankings. But the arguments advanced in response to this ranking of Pike go far beyond a case that Pike, in particular, shouldn't be ranked that high in comparison to other eligible players. The position that we all should "move on" from the 1870s game and the sort of arguments advanced in support of this position, seem to me to be deeply problematic in many ways.

First, to say that voters should "move on" from Lip Pike because he might finish ahead of Elmer Flick (he won't), and to raise the spectre of a comeback by Levi Meyerle (why not Bobby Mathews?) seems hyperbolical indeed. Pike is the borderline between in and out for the 1870s, Pearce for the 1860s. Were either to be elected, it would not lead to a stampede for the next guy down from that era.

I'd agree that Redsox is rating Pike too high, which will happen if one doesn't give a competition discount for the NA or pre-NA play. But to discount is not to dismiss. The historical arguments for dismissal are just not sound. Let's go backwards with them.

3) If the players were "barnstorming", then doesn't that say something about the level of competition? For the games to be interesting enough to pay for, wouldn't the opposing level of competition have to be at least not laughable in comparison to the "major league" teams?

I guess the Harlem Globetrotters ought to be fielding a better opposition squad then. Seriously, people come out to see the pros, the stars, play because they want to see the stars, not because they necessarily expect the competition to be good. The records indicate that from 1871, the real NA teams were incontestably superior to amateur teams, following the trend set by the Cincy Red Stockings in 69 & 70. Many of their non-league games were against the other NA teams, or against other lower-echelon pro teams. Even now, ML teams don't just blow away their AAA squads, or Japanese teams. The fact that the major teams played non-league games does not imply either that the teams were not good or that the competition was not worthy. It varied, depending upon the circumstances.

2) Supply of major league baseball must have some connection to the demand. It seems reasonable to me that the NA had short schedules because the quality of baseball wasn't that high. Better baseball leads to higher demand, which brings longer schedules.
   116. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: December 13, 2003 at 01:20 PM (#520014)
I haven't had much time to participate in the discussions as of late, but I simply can't believe the amount of support that Willie Keeler is getting. He played forever, could run a little, get on base and had a slight amount of pop (127 career OPS+). But he was a marginal defender at the least important position on the field. Defense was the name of the game during this era and he added little value to his teams defensively. I could name about a half-dozen players off the top of my head who are more deserving of going in than Keeler:

Harry Stovey
   117. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: December 13, 2003 at 01:42 PM (#520015)
Out of the 18 provisional ballots cast, six have Keeler first. Every single HOM candidate who has gotten that many first-place votes was elected on that same ballot.

Ten have him in the top three. Of all the candidates to get that kind of support, 86% were inducted that same year.
   118. EricC Posted: December 13, 2003 at 02:42 PM (#520016)
It seems reasonable to me that the NA had short schedules because the quality of baseball wasn't that high.

Consider the careers of Cap Anson and Jim O'Rourke. Both were above-average offensively in the early days of the NA and were still above-average into the 1890s. Their career OPS+ progressions look fairly normal. This is inconsistent with the quality of play in the NA being grossly inferior to that of the NL 2 decades later. I've looked more carefully, and, yes, the quality of play in the NA was a little lower than that of the subsequent NL. Taking that into account, and assuming that the quality of play pre-NA was even lower, Lip Pike still deserves to be about 5th on my ballot.

The HoM constitution says:

<i> Voters should simply vote for the 15 best eligible players, ranking them from 1 to 15. Even if it appears a player won't be elected, you should still vote for him if you feel he is worthy.
   119. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2003 at 03:46 PM (#520017)
Re Keeler: I'm going to look at him again before I submit my ballot, but the information that has been posted about his defense has been subject to consistent misinterpretation that needs to be corrected.

James Newburg wrote: But he was a marginal defender at the least important position on the field. Defense was the name of the game during this era and he added little value to his teams defensively.

This claim, I guess, is based on the "C+" rating Keeler gets from Win Shares that has been mentioned from time to time. Now it's true that RF was the least important defensive position (depending on what you think of first base in this era), and that should be kept in mind in evaluating Keeler. But WS does not normalize its outfield rankings to eliminate opportunity advantages. Given the number of chances typical rightfielders received, Keeler's C+ ranking (based on earning 2.68 WS/1000 defensive innings in his career) is actually very good when compared to other rightfielders.

The other rightfielders we have been considering, were C and C- defenders. Elmer Flick, whom some prefer to Keeler, gets a C, as does Mike Tiernan. Thompson gets the C-. None of these three players had a long career with an extended decline phase, as Keeler did. All this suggests that Keeler was a very good defensive right fielder, definitely better than any other right fielder now receiving consideration. If you look at outfield defense season-by-season by WS, Keeler shows up as the best defensive rightfielder in the game during his great years in the mid-1890s.

WARP, as usual, has a somewhat different story to tell, since it compares outfielders by position, not in one big group, as WS does, and it weights defensive skills differently. Looking at RFielders in comparsion to other RFielders, it sees Flick and Thompson as quite good outfielders, Keeler a little bit less valuable but still above average, and Tiernan not worth much at all defensively. Keeler's longer career depresses his rate stats a bit. Over the entirety of Thompson's career, WARP rates him at .178 FRAR/game; Flick, .166 FRAR/game; Keeler, .155. But if you take the first 1440 games of Keeler's career, looking at a stretch comparable to Thomspon (1407 g) and Flick (1483), he shows at .172 FRAR/game.

I believe that WARP puts these RF in a different order than WS does because it places more weight on errors and assists than WS and less weight on putout totals. Esp. for the early game, WS treats arm evidence very conservatively and values range a great deal. Thompson has lots of assists and good hands, but less range (or played in small rightfields). Keeler has somewhat fewer assists and good hands (though he still looks like he had a good arm -- can't imagine he'd have been in RF his whole career, with his speed if he didn't) but _much_ more range (or larger outfields). Flick has fewer assists, less good hands, and less range, though he's not _bad_ in any of these respects.

So when the fielding numbers are examined closely, neither WARP nor WS supports the idea that Keeler was a marginal defender as a rightfielder. Rightfielders contributed less to team defense than other positions, but his contributions were above average compared to other rightfielders as WARP sees it, and WS sees him as perhaps the best rightfield defender of his time.
   120. Marc Posted: December 13, 2003 at 04:09 PM (#520018)
Chris Cobb is right...

...about the NA and the 1870s.

His comments about Keeler's fielding (compared to other RFs), however, has the same small sample problems we often encounter. 'Nuff sed.

But back to the former, two further comments. Great players are not defined or constrained by their competition or by the population argument. "Market demand" is a population argument, a historical averaging. Great players are outliers.

Take a look, also, at the discounts WARP gives to NL players in the 1910s. Compare Sherry Magee and Bobby Veach, e.g. or invent your own comp pairs. Please, everybody, do a couple. Now, let's talk about competition in the NL of the 1910s, and let's talk about how much of a discount Christy Mathewson and Pete Alexander should get because they pitched against a bunch of bums.
   121. Howie Menckel Posted: December 13, 2003 at 05:54 PM (#520020)
re Lip Pike: He is the LAST 1870s hitter who will ever get 100 pts in any voting year, regardless of whether he gets elected. I have him around 4-6, but whether he ever gets in will depend on the quality of the ballot. And I agree that Pearce likely is the last 1860s guy in the mix, though Harry Wright has a tiny, tiny shot.

re Keeler: I, too, have strong reservations about seeing him get elected right away. Haven't done enough research yet, but I suspect Flick's peak in a dead hitting era makes him a better candidate, though I don't want to see either zip in immediately. Not one person has explained to me what makes Rusie better than McGinnity, and Rusie got in on the first ballot!
   122. Howie Menckel Posted: December 13, 2003 at 05:59 PM (#520021)
FYI,
   123. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2003 at 06:43 PM (#520022)
Chris Cobb is right...

...about the NA and the 1870s.

His comments about Keeler's fielding (compared to other RFs), however, has the same small sample problems we often encounter. 'Nuff sed.


Marc, I was in a hurry and didn't (and don't) have time to present all the data, but I have looked at WS for all outfielders in 1894 and 1895, and when I say that Keeler was the best, that's based on looking at all of them, though I am recalling that data from memory. Also, when I say that Keeler was an above average right fielder in general, that is based on what WARP's fielding runs above average say about him -- they say he was above average -- and those numbers are based on an assessment of everybody who was playing right field, so there are no sample size issues there. You may distrust their assessment, but their errors are not because of small sample size. _My_ assessment is _not_ just based on a comparison of him to Flick, Thompson, and Tiernan. I brought them up because those are the specific comparisons at that position that matter.
   124. Al Peterson Posted: December 13, 2003 at 06:51 PM (#520023)
James Newburg stated
   125. Jeff M Posted: December 13, 2003 at 09:45 PM (#520024)
We may be able to do a gentle 'push' on vote-getters with low totals. Not to say "you can't vote for him." But if you are alone or only one of two or three guys who ever vote for someone, I'd suggest making a formal case for him.

Why? It's likely a formal case has been made before. The only reason to advocate pressuring those guys from the ballot is to make room for other candidates that the voter sees as inferior to the player being challenged. Why would we do that? To force the "group will" on the voter -- effectively having a peer pressure vote to remove a player from the ballot forever?

What if a formal case is made and still no one else votes for the player? Do we push harder?

If John Murphy wants to have Harry Wright on his ballot during the year that we are also deciding whether to elect Nomar, A-Rod and Derek Jeter, that's fine with me. (Just using you as an example John because I could remember it and didn't have to go looking through the ballots). He can take up Harry's cause anytime he wants, and if others follow, so be it. If not, then his vote will be meaningful only to John (and Harry's descendants) -- but that counts for something.

I will vote for Charley Jones and Herman Long until they are pushed out of the Top 15 by other eligible players. I don't for a second believe that Jones or Long will be elected, and their cases have already been made. But I'm not going to pretend that Jones and Long aren't in my Top 15 simply because few others agree with me. It isn't going to make me think Ryan and Van Haltren are more deserving than Jones or that Jennings is more deserving than Long.

We each have our rankings. Those lower in the rankings should not improve their chances of election by elimination of higher ranked players at the pressure of the majority, in my opinion. And besides, some of those strange votes are what give the electors their personality.
   126. Howie Menckel Posted: December 13, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#520025)
JeffM,
   127. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2003 at 10:37 PM (#520026)
For those who would like to see more evidence on Keeler's defense, here's a bit. I looked at all the players listed as starting rf for all teams 1895-1905. I cross-referenced those with the fielder grade list to find those who had played enough to get a grade. I recorded those, then checked their career records to see if they had been career right-fielders, or if they had played the majority of their outfield innings at other positions. If a player had spent most of his time at other outfield positions _and_ had a lower rate than Keeler, I tossed him out. If a player with a maority of time at other outfield positions was above Keeler, I saved him for interest, though I was not exhaustive. I then cross-referenced this list with James's defensive WS list to put the players in rank order by WS/1000 defensive innings. Herewith, the rankings:

Letter grades & WS/1000 defensive innings for long career RF, c. 1895-1905

1) B+ Dusty Miller (no stats because regular for only 4 years)

2) B- Socks Seybold, 2.85 WS/1000, 22.7 career

3) C+ Willie Keeler, 2.68 WS/1000, 47.8 career
   128. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 14, 2003 at 12:00 AM (#520027)
Consider the careers of Cap Anson and Jim O'Rourke. Both were above-average offensively in the early days of the NA and were still above-average into the 1890s. Their career OPS+ progressions look fairly normal. This is inconsistent with the quality of play in the NA being grossly inferior to that of the NL 2 decades later. I've looked more carefully, and, yes, the quality of play in the NA was a little lower than that of the subsequent NL.
   129. Paul Wendt Posted: December 14, 2003 at 02:32 AM (#520028)
DanG:
   130. Jeff M Posted: December 14, 2003 at 03:34 AM (#520029)
Chris:

I've got Dusty Miller at 3.12 WS/1000 IP (based on 8.75 innings per game played). There's 96.25 innings of SS in that calculation, so the result is probably a tad lower. Even so, he seems worthy of the B+ rating (though of course it's a small sample).
   131. Chris Cobb Posted: December 14, 2003 at 03:25 PM (#520030)
Using Jeff's estimate of 8.75 def. innings per game played, Keeler comes out at 3.20 WS/1000 innings for his first four seasons as a regular 1894-1897, ages 22-25. He held this rate for two more seasons, giving him a six-year defensive peak as a B-B+ outfielder in right. Over his best six years, he was better than Miller, though Miller didn't stick in the majors until he was 26.

Seybold is another matter, since his fielding numbers come from seasons at age 30-36. Does anyone know anything about Seybold's story, why he didn't stick in the majors until he was 30? From 01-07 he was as good as (and in 07 much better than) Keeler.
   132. Howie Menckel Posted: December 14, 2003 at 04:19 PM (#520031)
(updated version)

Here's my premise: Rate 1890s-1900s OFs by OPS+. I'll list all seasons with at least 300 AB, but put an asterisk if fewer than 400 AB, or if in AA.
   133. Jeff M Posted: December 14, 2003 at 05:36 PM (#520032)
"The Ballplayers" biographical sketch of Seybold is, well, a bit sketchy.

It says when Mack formed the AL in 1901, he brought Seybold with him from the Western Association. Of course, Seybold played in the majors a bit in 1899, but it appears he was a Western Association stalwart before that.

The bio says little about why he didn't play beyond 1908, except "An injury in 1908 ended his major league career." Baseballhistorian.com says he stayed on to scout with Philadelphia after his career ended.
   134. Howie Menckel Posted: December 14, 2003 at 06:49 PM (#520033)
December 22, 1921: Socks Seybold, the holder of the AL season HR record before Ruth, dies at 51 when his car plunges over an embankment.

So if someone ever calls Jessica Savitch the "Socks Seybold of TV newscasters," you'll know what they mean.

Socks' real name was Ralph, which ain't so bad.
   135. MattB Posted: December 15, 2003 at 03:43 AM (#520035)
Howie wrote:

"But if the 1980 ballot results contain 150 names, that's okay with you? And if someone who is in fewer than half the voters' top 10s gets elected, is that okay with you?"

The alternative, though, appears to be (if we have some sort of cut-off), electing people who are in most of the voters' top 10s, but not actually one of the people who the majority of voters think are the 10 most worthy. I don't see why that's any better.

I mean, imagine its 1980 and there's a close vote for a spot between Luis Aparicio and Felipe Alou, and Alou wins by 5 points, because I gave him a 15th place vote. "Actually," I say, "there were about a dozen people I thought were better than Alou, but I couldn't vote for them, so Alou made my ballot and that pushed him over the top.

Enforced consensus may look like consensus, but it really isn't.
   136. KJOK Posted: December 15, 2003 at 05:25 AM (#520036)
I look more for wins above AVERAGE as opposed to above REPLACEMENT LEVEL when considering a player's greatness, , along with heavily weighting C, SS, and 3B defense.

1. CHARLIE BENNETT, C -Comp is Roy Campanella. Until at least Roger Bresnahan, only Ewing was a better Catcher. Look how far ahead he is of Clements, McGuire, Zimmer, Farrell, Carroll, Milligan & Peitz. Only eligible 19th century player in top 2 or 3 at his position not yet elected.

2. HUGHIE JENNINGS, SS ? Best comp may be Lou Boudreau. Great fielder and great hitter for a SS. Only drawback is shorter than normal HOM career, 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.

3. 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. Now that McPhee and Richardson are in, Childs should be in also. Only MVP type year was 1890 in weak AA.

4. 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.

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

6. 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 - I count that quite a bit in moving him up the OF glut pack.

7. JOE KELLEY, LF/CF ? Best comp may be Bob Johnson. A better hitter than all the other remaining OF?ers except Browning. Played some CF, and per BP played it better than Ryan, Van Haltren & Pike. Never really had an ?MVP? year, yet peak was better than Harry Stovey?s.

8. JIMMY COLLINS, 3B ? Ken Boyer offensively, right with Williamson and Cross defensively.

9. RUBE WADDELL, P ? 3,000 innings at 135 ERA+ looks very similar to Whitey Ford.

10. JAKE BECKLEY, 1B ? Comp is Tony Perez or Sam Crawford. Never had an MVP-type year, as Black Ink score is only 1!! BUT, his Gray Ink is 165, so he?s the poster boy of being very good for a very long time to be HOM worthy.

11. 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.

12. TONY MULLANE, P ? Think I?ve missed the boat on Mullane previously. Only 4 Win Shares behind Galvin (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.

13. WILLIE KEELER, RF ? Very good comp with Billy Williams ? almost exact same offensive value over same amount of playing time, while only an OK fielder at a less valuable position.

14. HARRY STOVEY, LF/1B - Comp is Albert Belle, only with baserunning ability. MVP type years in 1883, 1888 & 1889. Decided Stovey should be ahead of Griffin, Thompson & Tiernan.

15. BOB CARUTHERS, P/RF, Combination of Carl Mays & Gavvy Cravath. Cy Young year in 1885.

LEFT OFF THE BALLOT:

ELMER FLICK, RF ? Best modern comps are Ralph Kiner, Tim Salmon and Babe Herman, which won?t get him above the OF glut and onto the ballot.
   137. Howie Menckel Posted: December 15, 2003 at 03:03 PM (#520037)
"I mean, imagine its 1980 and there's a close vote for a spot between Luis Aparicio and Felipe Alou, and Alou wins by 5 points, because I gave him a 15th place vote. "Actually," I say, "there were about a dozen people I thought were better than Alou, but I couldn't vote for them, so Alou made my ballot and that pushed him over the top." "

Well, this seems like a silly exaggeraton, IMO. If "Aparicio" were to win because somebody had Jim Whitney and Levi Meyerle on his ballot, well, that doesn't seem all that satisfying, either.

Let's not do a "straw man" here, and pretend I'm advocating pushing C Jones or Long off the current ballot, or that someone is likely to prefer a dozen players to someone he 'has to' vote for in 1980.
   138. MattB Posted: December 15, 2003 at 03:05 PM (#520038)
Twelve years after he was inducted, Amos Rusie makes my personal HoM this week. (Since I know you're all interested.)

Trying to work in the new guys.

Currently, I have Elmer Flick and Rube Waddell on, and Keeler and Addie Joss off.

As they currently line up, I've got Sam Thompson 16th. He has been on my ballot most years. In my mind, Flick was better than Thompson and Keeler was worse, so Flick is 8th and Keeler is below 16th and off.

Meanwhile, Rube Waddell seems like an incrementally better pitcher than Caruthers, but his hitting drops him down to 12th on my ballot. (Below McCormick and McGinnity, but above Welch, who is 15th.) I now have 5 pitchers on my ballot, which is a product of only 7.5 of 30 inductees (1/4) being pitchers.

I'm less sure of this ballot than I have been of past ones. If anyone once to try to convince me that I've got the wrong outfielder or pitcher (or reinforce that I have the right one), I'll listen.
   139. ronw Posted: December 15, 2003 at 06:16 PM (#520040)
Remind me - are we on a regular ballot schedule during the holidays? I ain't gonna check this site out nearly as often between Dec 23 and Jan 1.

Well, the week of the 23rd will still be interesting. #1 is locked up, but it is a two-person election year. Any chance we could have 1917 be a one person election and 1918 be a three person election or 1919 a two person election so that we could have an simple holiday decision?
   140. DanG Posted: December 15, 2003 at 07:21 PM (#520041)
Well, the week of the 23rd will still be interesting. #1 is locked up, but it is a two-person election year. Any chance we could have 1917 be a one person election and 1918 be a three person election or 1919 a two person election so that we could have an simple holiday decision?

Well, #2 for the 1917 election is probably a lock as well. A simpler solution would be to just extend the balloting two extra days. Instead of announcing results on January 5th, hold off until the 7th. This gives the holiday people time to chime in, while keeping things on schedule. Also, the 1918 newbies have no likely strong candidates, so the delay hardly affects the next election.
   141. Paul Wendt Posted: December 16, 2003 at 02:53 AM (#520042)
Chris Cobb #173
   142. Marc Posted: December 16, 2003 at 03:20 AM (#520043)
My first reaction to DanG's suggestion that #2 is also a lock in 1917 was, "No way." But...following is a list of all players eligible by 1920 with 400 or more raw WS.

1. Cy Young 634 eligible 1917
   143. karlmagnus Posted: December 16, 2003 at 10:18 PM (#520045)
Let's not take an extra week -- for those of us working through the break it will make time seem to drag VERY slowly! Afyter all, most of us presumably took vacations during the summer and caught up OK. But delaying 1 day till 6th seems sensible.
   144. Paul Wendt Posted: December 16, 2003 at 11:26 PM (#520046)
#185, continued.

Someone asked whether
   145. Marc Posted: December 17, 2003 at 12:13 AM (#520048)
I'll second Patrick W.'s proposal.
   146. ronw Posted: December 17, 2003 at 12:36 AM (#520049)
I agree with Patrick W. and Marc. Lets have a one-week break from voting beginning the week of December 22. The next week, beginning December 29, should be for the 1917 discussions. 1917 voting would occur during the week of January 5.

As an added bonus, timed this way, it looks like we will close 2004 with the 1941 election. There is at least one excellent candidate who will be newly eligible with that last election of the year.
   147. ronw Posted: December 17, 2003 at 12:41 AM (#520050)
Never mind about the timing. With the proposed schedule, we would be honoring the 1942 electees on Monday December 27. The Sultan of Sabermetrics would have been elected on December 13.

I still think we should postpone next weeks discussion until December 29, however.
   148. Howie Menckel Posted: December 17, 2003 at 12:48 AM (#520051)
Despite my pseudonym, I'm as Irish Catholic as they come, but I don't necessarily 'need the week off.' My guess would have been that people are more likely to have time off, and thus have MORE time in the week of Dec 22-28 (admittedly not much, if any, on Dec 24-25).

But our constitution certainly permits the wait-a-week option, and I'd have no objection to it. I like the 'catch up with details' idea, too, like submitting comments with a ballot. I bet we have a lot more voters by mid-2004; the 1870-90s were too daunting for some lurkers..
   149. Marc Posted: December 17, 2003 at 05:50 AM (#520052)
People will have time away from work...and home and computers. Besides, a week to argue about the 2004 ballot could be fiendish fun.
   150. Jeff M Posted: December 17, 2003 at 06:11 AM (#520053)
Post #26 on 1916 ballot moved to discussion thread: I calculate my own league factors, using the before-and-after relative performance of individual players in different years (adjusting for age), including players who switched leagues and players who stayed in the same league.

Eric, I tried this same study. I was able to reach a conclusion that the very early AA years and later AA years were weaker than the NL, but that the discount was extremely difficult (if not impossible) to quantify. Also, I could not conclude that Cramer's study in The Hidden Game had any actual correlation when using regular players who played in the AA and at least one other league. Cramer admitted that his chart should not be used to compare players.

How far on either side of the AA years did you track the players? This is important because some pitching rule changes greatly affect performances.

When I did this, focusing on players who had at least one 140+ AB season in the AA and at least one 140+ season in another league, and using only seasons from 1879-1892 (to minimize the effect of rule changes), the overall discount for the AA was about 5%. I used BA, OBA, SLG and OPS+. Obviously, the discount in the middle years is negligible (anything less than 5% essentially may be disregarded as acceptable error), so most of the discount probably applies in the early or later years. However, when I used the same tests but isolated the early/late years from the middle years, the disparity wasn't as big as you might think.

Obviously a study like this suffers from small sample sizes, since there are not that many player seasons captured by a study like this. Not that many players played in multiple leagues at similar ages. Also, standard deviations throw the whole thing into doubt, since there are some years in which STDEVs make the AA look better than the NL.

As I said, it is virtually impossible to accurately quantify the league discount, so from my study, I estimated the discounts as follows based on the OPS+ portion of the study:

1882 - 17%
   151. DanG Posted: December 17, 2003 at 07:28 AM (#520054)
Regarding my take on Clarke, Marc wrote: I dunno, Dan, you wanna rethink your bold assertion?

Not after seeing the strange frenzy attracted by Keeler. Just eyeballing ballots cast so far, I'm afraid he might make it in on the first ballot. I'm tempted to strategically leave him off my ballot just to forestall a mistake...but seriously, I don't vote like that. Sure, Keeler had a lot of hits but that hardly thrusts him beyond the glut. Do high batting averages and membership in that other Hall cast a golden glow in the minds of some voters? Maybe he's a HoMer but he's definitley a guy who deserves more serious deliberation.

If Clarke were eligible now he'd be a clear #1 in my estimation. A longer, steadier career at a higher peak than his "most similar" batter, Van Haltren. Probably a hair worse than Burkett, but if intangibles count (and they do), Clarke was a "peerless leader" (except for Chance, maybe). (On a related note, does anyone know of a list of team captains in the 19th century?)

Again, voters must also consider contemporaries who retired soon after newly eligibles, to more accurately assess players' standing versus their peers.
   152. Paul Wendt Posted: December 17, 2003 at 07:58 PM (#520058)
Jeff M #196
   153. Marc Posted: December 17, 2003 at 08:12 PM (#520059)
Well, Paul, you could have noted a similar Keeler frenzy at What If. It escaped me there, too.

But we wisely dipped back into the pool to elect Fred Clarke many years after his most obvious contemporaries (What If only started in 1936 and is a small hall about half the size of this one). Still I don't see Clarke as quite qualifying as a 1st ballot electee, but OTOH I don't see anybody else on the ballot who is better.
   154. RobC Posted: December 17, 2003 at 10:22 PM (#520060)
DanG,

Comparing Keeler and Clarke, I would probably vote for Clarke over Keeler (first cut calculation) but it is close. Im not sure how that should affect my 1916 ballot though. Should I wait around until after 1917 to put Keeler in his proper ballot spot so that they can be elected in "proper" order? Despite the fact that Clarke is better, Keeler is better (by my calcs) than anyone on the 1916 ballot. What choice do I have but to put him first?
   155. OCF Posted: December 17, 2003 at 10:24 PM (#520061)
I vote that we keep to the original schedule, with minor adjustments for ballot deadlines and ballot tabulation.
   156. OCF Posted: December 17, 2003 at 11:07 PM (#520062)
Roy Thomas' playing record is more interesting than Fred Clarke's, but I don't think he will attract many voters next year.

As someone who likes leadoff hitters, yes, I'm interested. Interested enough that he might make the bottom of my ballot, if I were sure of his defensive quality. But he's not Clarke.

A leadoff hitter's task is to score runs. What he can do about it falls into two categories: (1) get on base, and (2) advance himself as far as possible, through power hitting, basestealing, and baserunning apart from stealing. Many mistakes of lineup construction have been committed over the years by ignoring (1), OBP - it is the most important thing. But being very, very good at (2), self-advancement can still make a great leadoff hitter out of someone who doesn't lead leagues in OBP: Paul Molitor, Bobby Bonds, Harry Stovey.

Roy Thomas is the other side of that. He was spectacularly good at getting on base, but just awful at self-advancement. On the one hand, OPS+ underrates him because it underrates OBP - but on the other hand the XBH matter, too.

It would be hard to imagine the existence of a Roy Thomas outside the dead ball days. But, oddly, Thomas might have been more valuable in a higher-power, higher-run environment when it's so much easier to score a runner from first. Just imagine Thomas leading off for the '30 Cubs or the '99 Indians. In fact, I think Thomas was more valuable in the first few years of his career when teams still scored 5 R/G than he was later on in the extreme low-run environment.
   157. Jeff M Posted: December 18, 2003 at 12:29 AM (#520063)
"any actual correlation when"?

I didn't write that sentence very clearly. I meant that when I used the criteria mentioned in my post #196, the results did not correlate with the discounts that would appear to be applicable from Cramer's study.

For OPS+ (or ERA+), but not for the raw averages (or raw counting statstics), neither rule changes nor interleague rule differences should distort the study. Pete Palmer focused on OPS+ and ERA+ in his study of UA and FL quality.

That's correct, though it certainly affects BA, OBA and SLG. Apart from whether it affects OPS+, there are some good reasons not to follow the players too far before or after the AA years (primarily for reasons of age differences that affect their abilities) and general improvement in quality of play.

Hmm. Theoretically, 10% discount for OPS+ corresponds to 5% discount, on average, for raw statistics --since OPS+ 110 corresponds to On Base and Slugging averages both 5% above adjusted average. Did you find interleague OPS+ differences ~10% for 1885 and 1889?

Approximately, yes. The major problem with identifying a discount for a particular AA season is that sample sizes become very very small. They are small enough when comparing all AA 140+ AB seasons to 140+ AB seasons by the same players in other leagues. When you try to evaluate any one AA season, you are looking at far fewer than 100 player seasons, so the numbers are virtually meaningless. I looked at the overall data and created a sort of inverse bell curve based on some of the standard deviations (and quality of fielding data). So, I would not represent 5% as the "right" discount for 1885 and 1889, but I think it is a fair one.
   158. Paul Wendt Posted: December 18, 2003 at 02:29 AM (#520064)
Thanks. By the way,
   159. EricC Posted: December 18, 2003 at 02:53 AM (#520065)
Jeff (re #196) - My methodology appears to be very similar to Cramer's except that (1) I included a factor for the player's age, (2) I enforced a more or less uniform performance average across time (this is for simplicity- I think that the average quality of competition does increase over time; in any case, I only use these numbers for comparing leagues in the same year, not to compare between years.) (3) my dataset is not complete, although I've tried to include everybody who was ever good (about 9 regular or semi-regular players per team).

Also, in using same-player different-year performances to calculate the league factors, I only use seasons where the player played each year entirely in one league and played a plurality of games in the two years at the same position. I used cross-year comparisons up to 9 years apart. I don't think that changes in rules should have a large effect on the results because (1) I only use relative performance numbers such as OPS+ and (2) while individual players might be affected differently by rules changes, I don't think the changes would affect the aggregate much.

It sounds like you only looked at AA players who had at least 140+ AB in another league? I hope that you can be convinced that the performance progression of career AA-ers can also be used to estimate the relative league factors of the AA and NL. For example, Ed Swartwood had an OPS+ of 193 in the 1882 AA, 184 in the 1883 AA, did not exceed 137 from 1884 to 1887, then had a comeback year with a 158 OPS+ in the 1890 AA. This is consistent with the quality of competition in the AA being low in 1883, 1884, and 1890. I use before-and-after results both for players who stayed in one league and for players who switched leagues, and cross-correlated the data to derive my results. By the way, essentially nobody switched between the AL and NL in the first decade of the 20th century, which is as far as I've gotten. To keep reasonable parity between the AL and NL, whenever there are fewer than 9 players (a number that I arbitrarily chose) switching from one league to the other between one year and the next, I assign the remaining spots to ficticious average players who switch from one league to the other with no change in performance.

In any case, here are my current numbers. To convert OPS+ in the following leagues
   160. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2003 at 03:03 AM (#520066)
Well, I was planning on recommending a major Harry Stovey study in January if he doesn't get elected this 'year,' but you guys already have an impressive leg up. Good AA stuff.

Sneak preview: I'd love to hear detailed reasoning from those who have Stovey very high or quite low on their ballots. Then those voters can 'see the other side,' and decide if they want to hold their ground or modify it. If Harry doesn't get in in 1916, I'd just as soon see him either inducted or 'demoted' in 1918.
   161. Jeff M Posted: December 18, 2003 at 03:15 AM (#520067)
I think where Stovey is ranked on a particular ballot is correlated directly with the size of the AA discount applied. My discounts are lower, so Stovey is consistently higher. I suspect Eric C, for example, ranks him quite differently because of his steep AA discount.
   162. EricC Posted: December 18, 2003 at 03:25 AM (#520068)
I saw someone say they had a glut of catchers hanging just off the ballot. To me, that means the person's system doesn't value catchers sufficiently to get any of them elected.

This comment (1916 ballot thread #47) applies to me. I decided to respond in the ballot discussion thread.

1. Charlie Bennett was not the best catcher of the 19th century. Buck Ewing was.

2. If you consider Cal McVey and Deacon White to be half a catcher each, then Bennett was not the 2nd best catcher of the 19th century either.

3. If you do an "eyeball judgement" of career statistics, or analyze Win Shares, Bennett comes out only a little ahead of Deacon McGuire, Duke Farrell, Chief Zimmer, and Jack Clements among catchers. The others get no support here.

4. WARP gives an outstanding rating to Bennett. I perceive WARP as having two biases that cause it to overrate Bennett: a bias toward giving too much credit to defense and a bias toward 1880s players (many teams = lower replacement level).

5. 19th century 3B, LF and RF are at least as underrepresented in the HoM as 19th century C.

6. I had McVey high on my ballot, and would have voted for Ewing and White if I had been participating then. Bresnahan might appear on my ballot. My system does value catchers enough to get some of them elected.

Conclusion: I just wanted to explain why I have Bennett rated so low, not to discourage others from voting for him. I do have Bennett rated highest among eligible catchers. Give him extra credit for the defensive burden of catchers in the 1880s and he is a reasonable choice. I won't complain if he gets elected.
   163. EricC Posted: December 18, 2003 at 03:39 AM (#520069)
I think where Stovey is ranked on a particular ballot is correlated directly with the size of the AA discount applied.

And also to undocumented baserunning ability. I've noticed that the basic runs created formula fails miserably for the 1880s (it greatly underpredicts the number of runs scored). Unfortunately, I've never seen exactly what RC formula Bill James uses for the 1880s. Also, what does the formula do for years when stolen base statistics are incomplete or missing? Does it somehow determine which players are the good runners and give them credit for this, or not? In particular, is it fairly attributing runs created to Harry Stovey?
   164. Marc Posted: December 18, 2003 at 03:56 AM (#520070)
I don't presume to speak for Eric, but maybe he would agree with the following "correction" to #211? McVey and White may have been more valuable "players" than Charlie Bennett, but they were not "better catchers." And they may have had more career value, but White (at least) was never as valuable as a player or a catcher as Bennett at his peak.
   165. EricC Posted: December 18, 2003 at 04:19 AM (#520071)
Yes, I agree with Marc (#213), although I'd say that White's peak vs. Bennett's peak is arguable. This group definitely keeps me on my toes.
   166. jimd Posted: December 18, 2003 at 04:19 AM (#520072)
I perceive WARP as having ... a bias toward giving too much credit to defense

You mention Win Shares. Do you accept 1880's pitcher's Win Shares at face value? Or do you adjust them downward? When you take them away from the pitcher you have to give them to the fielders so everything will still add up. Many more of them will go to the Catcher and the Shortstop than to the 1b-man or corner-fielders, particularly if they're very good. If you make the pitching adjustment but don't make the corresponding fielding adjustment, then WARP will seem to be giving too much weight to the fielders.
   167. Jeff M Posted: December 18, 2003 at 05:05 AM (#520073)
Unfortunately, I've never seen exactly what RC formula Bill James uses for the 1880s.

Here you go Eric C:

NL 1876-1885:

A Factor = (H+BB)
   168. MattB Posted: December 18, 2003 at 05:07 PM (#520076)
EricC wrote:

"1891 AA: 1.036 x - 31
   169. Paul Wendt Posted: December 18, 2003 at 05:17 PM (#520077)
EricC #208
   170. Marc Posted: December 18, 2003 at 05:47 PM (#520078)
I don't have the time to do the kinds of studies you guys are doing, and the work that is being done around the fringes of the actual HoM voting is really great work, and very interesting to those of us who but sit and read.

But a constructive observation, hopefully you will see it as constructive. Some of the discussion is directed to issues that are declining in importance--i.e. AA discounts. While issues that are only increasing in importance and on which perspectives will be more and more necessary over time are not getting the same amount of attention. For eg., how to equalize pitchers from different eras--not just the one-man era before 1880 or so, but the 3 or 4 man era vs. the 5, and so on. This issue will never go away, while the AA will. Not to say there hasn't been some discussion in the pitcher questions thread.

Just a thought. Can we anticipate problems rather than catch up? Please forgive this from someone who has not contributed any original research but rather is a consumer.
   171. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2003 at 06:14 PM (#520079)
Good post, Marc, and suitably humble ;)

Actually, I think the AA analysis is VERY valuable now, because we need it to try to gain closure on Stovey, Caruthers, and Browning. It's true that McGinnity vs. McCormick is a vexing issue, but it's not the only one.
   172. Marc Posted: December 18, 2003 at 07:03 PM (#520080)
Howie, so many issues, so little time. I'd also encourage anybody with the energy to do so to take a look at WARP discounts of the '10s NL which seem very excessive to me. They're along the lines of the AA. I don't know if Sherry Magee (probably, yes) or Larry Doyle (probably, no) are HoMers, but we need to be able to give them a fair shake too.

Re. the AA guys, which one is taking a major tumble and which one is enjoying a major renaissance this year? And why?

The thread re. WARP is another one that needs all the debate we can get, BTW. Are we slaves???!!! Or are we men? (Or are we devo?)
   173. jimd Posted: December 18, 2003 at 07:49 PM (#520081)
WARP discounts of the '10s NL which seem very excessive to me. They're along the lines of the AA.

It's always been my understanding that the AL of the 10's and 20's was much superior to the NL of the same time. Basically the reverse of the NL superiority of the 50's and 60's.

And my guess now is that it's for a similar reason: incorporating a neglected portion of the talent pool. It's widely discussed how the NL got the jump over the AL in signing Negro League players during the early 50's (particulary the great young ones like Mays, Aaron, F.Robinson, etc.) Well, it seems like the AL may have done the same in the mid 00's with the white South (particularly the great young ones like Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, etc.). There has already been some discussion here about the scarcity of southern talent in 19th century baseball; once the South started playing baseball, at some point they had to "catch up" and start generating players at a per capita rate similar to the North, and it looks like the AL got in on the ground floor on signing it.
   174. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2003 at 08:51 PM (#520083)
Geesh, some voters must be WARPed.
   175. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2003 at 09:25 PM (#520085)
It's always been my understanding that the AL of the 10's and 20's was much superior to the NL of the same time. Basically the reverse of the NL superiority of the 50's and 60's.

Is this true? I think they had more stars in the AL during that span of time, but the Dick Cramer study from the seventies didn't spot any junior league superiority over the NL.
   176. jimd Posted: December 18, 2003 at 10:22 PM (#520086)
the Dick Cramer study from the seventies didn't spot any junior league superiority over the NL.

I know. I was surprised when I first saw those charts in Palmer's "Hidden Game of Baseball" (or is that a different study?). Much of what I had read about that era before then (and since) indicated that the prevailing public opinion of the time was that the AL was much the superior. (Compare the records of the 1919 Reds and Sox and try to figure out why Comiskey's lads are heavy favorites without this factor.)

Davenport's quality adjustments (which I believe are calculated in a Cramer-like manner but use EQA and who knows what other differences) support the alleged AL superiority (as Marc already noted), as well as the later NL superiority during the 50's and 60's.
   177. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2003 at 10:56 PM (#520087)
I know. I was surprised when I first saw those charts in Palmer's "Hidden Game of Baseball" (or is that a different study?).

That's the right one.

Davenport's quality adjustments (which I believe are calculated in a Cramer-like manner but use EQA and who knows what other differences) support the alleged AL superiority (as Marc already noted), as well as the later NL superiority during the 50's and 60's.

The Cramer study supports the NL dominance theory, too. I have no idea what they're doing with the teens, however.
   178. EricC Posted: December 19, 2003 at 02:23 AM (#520088)
Do you accept 1880's pitcher's Win Shares at face value?

jim- I don't know. My educated guess would be that defense was more important in the 1880s than it is today, because there were relatively few pitchers and a large proportion of runs then were unearned.

Jeff- Thanks for the RC formaula for the 1880s. That's just what I was looking for. In the AA 1886-1888/1890 formula, is that really a 0.05 factor for SB? All of the other formulas have SB around multiplied by about 0.7.

Is it possible you could sum up the overall differences you found between your method and the BP cards?

Tom- I don't know the inner workings of BP, so I can't compare. Here are the year-by-year OPS+ for Stovey translated into NL performance in the same year for comparison, using my league factors (actual OPS+ first, then translated)

80 NL 138 138
   179. MattB Posted: December 19, 2003 at 04:00 AM (#520089)
I certainly was not criticizing your formula, Eric. And I hadn't notice (but I should have) that it does, moderately, correct for this variation.

I guess that my frustration is that it seems clear to me, at least, that even though the AA was a lesser league for much of its history, there is no reason to believe that it did not have top stars that were just as good as the NL stars. But because everyone is deeply into League Adjustments (which can be valuable), we are losing sight of the fact that both leagues did have worthy players.

I try to take it both ways. A good League Adjustment is useful, but you have to look at results. And if the results tell me that Bid McPhee was the only AA regular who is HoM-worthy, then I have to start with the premise that the stat is faulty.

For students of John Rawls, call it statistical reflective equilibrium.
   180. Marc Posted: December 19, 2003 at 04:10 AM (#520090)
EricC, inquiring minds want to know what your numbers say for Pete Browning!

MattB, your theory is intriguing. One way to visualize it is to remember that even Babe Ruth playing in Class D could not hit a five-bagger or a five-run HR. But that Rawls guy, I knew he could sing but I never heard him do "Statistical Reflective Equilibrium." Can you hum a few bars?
   181. Jeff M Posted: December 19, 2003 at 04:15 AM (#520091)
Jeff- Thanks for the RC formaula for the 1880s. That's just what I was looking for. In the AA 1886-1888/1890 formula, is that really a 0.05 factor for SB? All of the other formulas have SB around multiplied by about 0.7.

I have no way of knowing if the .05 SB factor is intrinsically correct, but it was not a typo in my post. That's the way the formula is listed in the Stats All-Time Handbook. There may be some compensation in the AB factor, since many of the other formulas use AB-K and apply a much lower factor. Dunno.
   182. KJOK Posted: December 19, 2003 at 05:09 AM (#520092)
The "B" calculation is for the advancement factor.

Since the AA 1886-1888/1890 formula does not have strikeouts, making it impossible to calculate "non-strikeout" outs that have some advancement value, James is estimating by multiplying (AB*.158) and then adding (SB*.05) The SB portion will be smaller than some of the other years, but it's compensated with the AB portion being larger.
   183. KJOK Posted: December 19, 2003 at 05:27 AM (#520093)
or just compare AA1886-1888/189 to AA 1882-1883 & UA 1884, where strikouts are also mising, and you'll the SB is actually multiplied by ZERO, which is closer to .05 than 0.7.
   184. EricC Posted: December 20, 2003 at 06:35 PM (#520094)
inquiring minds want to know what your numbers say for Pete Browning!

Sure. Actual OPS+ first, followed by my translation to equivalent OPS+ in NL for the same year. 1894 ignored (only 10 plate apperances).

By the way, I'm glad to see that nobody is taking these numbers too seriously.

82 AA 222 163
   185. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2003 at 06:07 PM (#520095)
Does anyone know why Fielder Jones is listed as a rightfielder in the Bill James NBHA?
   186. KJOK Posted: December 23, 2003 at 12:13 AM (#520096)
Probably an editing mistake - there are quite a few of them in NBHA.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5513 seconds
49 querie(s) executed