Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, April 26, 2004

1925 Ballot

Two more join the club this year . . . who will they be?

Thanks to DanG for the death list . . . Frank Chance is the only person that received votes last year to have left us. No HoMers died. Active player Jake Daubert died in the offseason, he’ll be eligible in 1930.

Age Eligible
75 1898 Candy Cummings-P
73 1898 John Peters-SS
70 1898 Pop Snyder-C
67 1898 Fleet Walker-C
65 1898 Ed Swartwood-RF
65 1898 George Wood-LF
48 1918 Pat Moran-C/Mgr
47 1917 Frank Chance-1B
44 1917 Doc Gessler-RF
Upcoming Candidate
40 1930 Jake Daubert-1B

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 26, 2004 at 10:06 AM | 266 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 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. DavidFoss Posted: May 03, 2004 at 10:16 PM (#616131)
Same as the first jimd.

Yeah... some major kinks in the webserver. Hopefully, this is just temporary. I can't believe migrating to a registration system alone is causing all this extra slowness.
   102. jimd Posted: May 03, 2004 at 10:18 PM (#616134)
<formation.

<b>12) N. Williamson</b> -- Deserves some reconsideration.
   103. jimd Posted: May 03, 2004 at 10:25 PM (#616136)
7) Rube Foster -- Legendary peak for a short time in the oughts. Very good pitcher for some time afterwards. Those who vote peak should re-examine him.

1902; 51-3
1903; 59-1 (I also saw 54 wins and 55 wins) rumored to have won 44 in a row
1904; 51-4
1905; 50-4

From yest. Taking 56 W for 1903, that's 208-12 for four years. My questions about him are: what was the team record, i.e. what were the records of the other pitchers of his team? What was the quality of the competition?

I calculated the Pythagorean ratio expected to produce such a record and did some figuring of MLE's, modifying the runs by percentages. 20% (high minors) reduces it to 193-27; 33% (worse than UA) reduces it to 170-50 .773; 50% (average dead-ball MLB player expected to post Bondsian 1.300 OPS) 114-106. Essentially, if the competition was so bad that his pitching W/L should be considered only MLB average, then his teammates also need Ruthian batting stats to be considered MLB average.

Still a lot of questions, but he has the potential to get a #1 vote, depending on the answers.

8) G. Johnson -- The concensus seems to be that he was better than Frank Grant. Bumping him ahead of the OF glut until I can get a better handle on him.

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. The pool of applicants has quite a few marginal guys, but no no-brainers.

9) J. Ryan -- Here comes the glut. Much better peak when compared with his contemporaries, but not up to Sheckard's level either.

10) S. King -- Not likely to go anywhere, but this is where he rates.

11) F. Grant -- Stalled and waiting for new information.
   104. jimd Posted: May 03, 2004 at 10:30 PM (#616140)
12) N. Williamson -- Deserves some reconsideration.

13) S. Thompson -- He's back, for longer than I thought.

14) F. Jones -- Reached the top of the OF heap before he walked away. Not enough peak for the peak voters to really get excited about and not enough career for the career voters. Some of each works for my ballot.

15) George Van Haltren -- What's the excitement about Sherry Magee? I don't think he rates as highly as this guy for career value. Magee's got a little extra in peak, but its not like he's Joe Jackson or anything (and I'm not that excited about Joe either).

Just missing the cut are:
Jim Whitney, Fred Dunlap, Joe McGinnity, Herman Long, Mordecai Brown,
Sherry Magee, Cupid Childs, Jim McCormick, Hugh Duffy, Lave Cross,
Rube Waddell, Lip Pike, Charlie Buffinton, Jake Beckley, Roy Thomas

Why aren't McGinnity or Brown higher?
I'm not sure why I should go crazy over these guys just because they pitched for some pennant winners with great defenses (amplifying their WS) while ignoring pitchers like Bond or King that were more dominant in their day and closer to being the best.
   105. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 03, 2004 at 10:35 PM (#616141)
Hey, I'm back!

I had a lot of fun trying to register here until I used Internet Explorer instead of AOL. That worked right away.

Sean Gilman:

I'm keeping track of the ballots, though I agree with many here that we should definitely have an extension.
   106. jimd Posted: May 03, 2004 at 10:40 PM (#616143)
It took half-an-hour and it's in 3 pieces, but it's posted. I won't be posting much more until the thru-put problems are solved.
   107. Michael Bass Posted: May 03, 2004 at 11:45 PM (#616172)
First ever ballot submission from me...

I am mainly using WARP3, Win Shares, OPS+, ERA+. I am more a career voter than anything, but that's hardly an exclusive description.

1. Frank Grant - A lot has been written on him here, and I've read most of it (I think). The weight of the evidence seems to be that he was the best player of the 19th century Negro Leagues, and while measures the quality of the leagues at this time are speculative at best, my gut is that the best Negro Leaguer from any significant period of time would almost certainly have been a sure-fire HOMer if not banned.

2. Grant Johnson - The stats we have are interesting on him, but they are so amazingly incomplete that I hesitate to give them much weight. What we do know is that he was considered an excellent defensive player for a very long time at a key position, and he appears to have had a very strong bat. I have to believe that would have been at worst a better Bobby Wallace (see: next entry).

3. Bobby Wallace - Amazing career longetivity (at least as compared to most of the others eligible for this ballot). Had an above average bat, and carried it at shortstop. Was by all the measures I can find a really strong fielder.

4. Bob Caruthers - Wonder if you'll find any other ballots with these two back to back. Seemingly an odd placement for Caruthers on a career ballot, but I've discounted for the AA as much as I can, and I still think he packed more value into his few productive years than any other pitcher on the ballot did in more seasons.

5. Jimmy Sheckard - His bat was rarely outstanding, but consistently very good over a long career. I hesitate to give too much credit to even the best defensive corner outfielders, but every measure of his defense is awesome. James even has him as an "A" mixed in with center fielders.

6. George Van Haltren - Like Sheckard, rarely a great hitter, but very good so many seasons that his value adds up very nicely over time. Not as outstanding of a defensive player as Sheckhard, but at a more important position in center. I understand why peak/prime voters don't like him, but I'm a career guy, and I do.

7. Jimmy Ryan - Hey, another OF with a long career! Little more inconsistant than the above two. Slightly more top 10 OPS+ seasons, but also more mediocre seasons. Defense is mixed; seems to be rated well, but that he was moved off center at age 31 worries me. Further investigation seems to indicate he was moved not because of his deficiencies, but because the new CF was amazing, so I'm inclined to give him strong credit for his D.

8. Mordecai Brown - Though a relatively late start, a very good career, with a number of outstanding seasons. Would be higher, but like everyone else I feel ERA+ overstates his contributions a bit because of the defense behind him. It boggles the mind a little that we have not yet elected anyone from the great mid-1900s Cubs teams, but they simply lacked surefire HOMers. I think, though, that Sheckard and Brown will finally give them some representation over the next few elections.

9. Fielder Jones - Not a great hitter. Comparable to Wallace with the bat, but a little better. OPS+ does understate him a bit, as he is OBP heavy. What gets him on my ballot this high is his fielding. All the measures I look at have him as one of baseball's greatest centerfielders. I'm less confident on him than I am on those above him, so I'd listen to arguments why I should be moving him down on future ballots.

10. Sam Thompson - Defense seems a mixed bag of reputation vs. stats. I'm going with stats here. Will listen to reasons why he was a better defender than I'm rating him. Seems as though he had a nice arm, something that nearly always ends up in an OF being overrated defensively. Bat's not in question, though, he was a better pure hitter than any of the OFs above him. Career shorter than theirs, though, and that combined with his defense drops him to 10th.

11. Sherry Magee - Offense like Thompson, though a little less. Defense is in question, but probably okay-ish. Being cautious on him for now, hope to read more in future years to get a better grip on him.

12. Lip Pike - No one on this ballot am I less comfortable with. For the recorded stats we have, he hit the living crap out of the ball as long as he played. Pre-1871 ball was so disorganized that I discount it in a major way, but seems as though he was good there, so he gets a minor plus. I don't have the first clue what to make of his defense, though it was seemingly bad. Voted Player Most Likely to Fluctuate On My Future Ballots

13. Clark Griffith - Very good pitcher for a quality innings number. Helps in my mind (though I'm guessing in very few others) that he was useful as a reliever/spot starter after his prime days were over. For the record, this is a pretty big dropoff point on the ballot, any of the next 10 guys could be placed here, as Griffith is ahead by very little.

14. Cupid Childs - Pretty strong hitter, and OPS+ again understates him because he was OBP heavy. Didn't have an exceedingly long career, but it wasn't short, either. Very good defensive player at second, though I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that second was considered an offensive position at the time along the lines of third base today. I could see moving him up in future years.

15. Tommy Leach - YAO (yet another outfielder). Worse hitter than Jones even. Lotta career. Great defender by most measures. Can't rate him higher, even as a big career guy, though, with that bat in the outfield. At least Jones had his OBP working for him.

Next 5 (and comments for Top 10 players)

16. Jake Beckley - You'd think I'd like him as a career guy, but I don't much. His hitting is un-special for a first baseman, and I'm not giving extra credit for the dearth of HOM 1Bs in this era, unless someone can point to a reason that 1B was considered an important position or a hard position to play at the time. This just seems to be a period where most of the great players were atheltic enough to play elsewhere.

17. Bill Monroe
18. Vic Willis
19. Rube Foster - Initially did not have him nearly this high. Some late reading has convinced me that there may be an overcorrection here for his non-player work, to the degree that we're underrating him as a pitcher. Will read up more, may very well make my next ballot.

20. Rube Waddell

Dickey Pearce - Stat record unimpressive to me. Yes, he was past his prime, but this wasn't exactly the height of competition in the early 1870s, so I feel that a HOMer would have been better. As I said in the Pike comment above, pre-1871 ball was so loosely organized and the level of play so low, that anecdotoal evidence from that era doesn't so much for me. If he'd been good in the NA, I might take the anecdotal evidence more seriously, but he wasn't, so I'm not.

Joe McGinnity - I simply don't see it. His ERA+'s are good, but hardly great. WARP3 hates him, Win Shares is ambivalent. Someone show me what I'm missing here. I'm open to moving him into my top 20 at least on future ballots, but with what I've got now, I don't see it.
   108. dan b Posted: May 04, 2004 at 12:22 AM (#616181)
Win shares are my metric of choice. I start with a composite ranking = 4 x Career + (3 best years)/3 + (5 best consecutive years)/5 + (8 best years)/8 + WS per 162. I then make adjustments justified by individual components with a touch of subjectivity thrown in. I use the same system for hitters and for 60’ 6” era pitchers. I also look at WS w/o defense for a hitting only ranking. (Number in parenthesis shows composite rank.)


1.McGinnity (1) Elected to my HoM in 1916.
2.Magee (1) Cooperstown missed one. My system has him as Fred Clarke’s equal.
3.Brown (2) 1st in WS/IP
4.Jennings (6) – elected to my HoM in 1908. 1st in 3-year and 5-year peak. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar.
5.Duffy (2). 2nd in 8-year peak, 3rd in 5-year, elected to my HoM in 1912.
6.Sheckard (3) 2nd in career, 3rd in 3-year peak, 3rd in 8-yr peak, 2nd best hitter on ballot. Personal HoM in 1921.
7.Griffith (5) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, elected to my HoM in 1913.
8.Chance (11) – ranks 2nd in WS hitting alone (really). 5 times one of the top 12 players in the NL, 4 times one of the top 5 hitters. Best 1B of the era. NHBA rank of 25 puts him in the James HoM. My HoM in 1921. Although I am not giving him a boost for his success as a player-manager, my interpretation of our Constitution would be that it is permissible. Why aren’t the Cubs fans among us clamoring for the leader of their last championship team? The Peerless Leader merits more attention here.
9.Waddell (6) I like his peak and K’s. Hall worthy.
10.Leach (5) 4th in 8-yr peak and career.
11.Browning (15) – 1st in WS/162, elected to my HoM in1906. 3 for the AA.
12.Caruthers –Use NHBA rankings to build Bill James HoM and Parisian Bob was inducted in 1898. 4 for the AA.
13.Bresnahan (20) 1st catcher to appear on my ballot since Ewing elected.
14.Wallace (16) – 7th in career.
15.Joss (12) 2nd in WS/IP. Great pitcher belongs on more ballots.
16.Grant Johnson I will be advocating election of ~25 Negro Leaguers. Johnson is not one of them
   109. Zapatero Posted: May 04, 2004 at 12:32 AM (#616186)
Hi -- I'm new (I'm the new guy who posted on the yahoo group today saying he couldn't get the thing to work). I hope I'm not too late. Here's my ballot.

No “inner circle” guys here. I’m convinced that all of these guys are relatively close together. My bias tends to go toward unique or interesting players when we’re talking about a similar range of quality, so if it looks like I’m giving that too much importance, it’s only because there’s no Honus Wagner or Walter Johnson this year.

1. Addie Joss: At the risk of invalidating my ballot, I think this idea of not letting guys like Joss in because they had the misfortune to die young (or get hurt or whatever) is ludicrous. It’s letting win shares and WARP3 blind you to who he was. When you ask what kind of pitcher Addie Joss was, the answer has to be “a great one.” 8.5 years is more than enough time to measure a guy. There’s no reason to believe that he wouldn’t have continued to be great, so I don’t see how people can leave him so low in the voting. Joss proved that he was great by having a tremendous peak (go back and look at 1908! The guy has 4 of the top 100 ERA seasons of all time. And he would have had a more, because that’s the kind of player he was). Based on his rate stats, he belongs, even if he didn’t make it to high numbers in the counting stats. It’s not a question of “giving him credit for what he didn’t do.” It’s a question of looking at how good he was. With a short career, shocking peak guy like this, you need enough phenomenal years to prove it wasn’t a fluke. Joss has that: 1903-1908 (with 1905 as an “off” year).
You can’t tell the story of the fabulous 1908 pennant races without telling about Joss’s perfect game. I think the Hall of Merit is about more than just dry statistics – it’s about people and it’s about stories. Joss has a wonderfully compelling story, and his death is the least part of it.
When someone like Joss dies after only 2/3 of a regular career, I think it’s fair to look at contemporaries. Joss’s stats look a lot like Mathewson’s and Eddie Plank’s. He pitched less each year (forgive me my ignorance, but I’m not sure how much of that was his doing and how much was luck, manager, etc.) but otherwise he’s comparable. I think that’s the kind of great pitcher he was. I think that’s the kind of great pitcher he was during his peak, I think that’s the kind of great pitcher he was a the time he got sick, and I think that’s the kind of great pitcher he would have been if he’d had better luck and had survived. He belongs.
When the all-time all-stars get together in heaven for a game (or in that Iowa cornfield), Addie Joss is there with them.

2. Mordecai Brown: You can’t tell the story of those great Cubs teams without Brown, and it’s a story that deserves to be told. Brown was Mathewson’s counterpart, and they belong in the Hall together. I also give him credit for his mystique. People were convinced (possibly with some merit) that his broken hand made his pitches move in a different way than the normal pitcher’s. Whether this is true or not, it’s a “personality” factor that helped his team win because he got into batters’ heads. (I also like the fact that he was a switch-hitter despite the bad paw, even though it didn’t help him much at the plate but I’m not giving him any credit for it).
Most importantly, he was a great pitcher. Great Cubs defense or not, he was very DIPS friendly. He sure helped himself a lot with loads of K’s and low walk rates.

3. Roger Bresnahan: A very good hitter who played behind the plate is extremely valuable. And he invented cool equipment (which helped his team win games, see Pearce below).

4. Dickey Pearce: Not only one of the best of his era, but a pioneer. I’m giving him HOM credit for being a pioneer because his pioneering ways (a “personality” factor) really helped his teams. When he started doing his thing, only one team had a “modern” defensive shortstop: his. That was a huge advantage. Maybe it didn’t take all that long for the others to follow suit, but that ought to give him enough of a boost to put him in the HoM, given what we know about him as a hitter and fielder generally (it’s not like he was a zero at the plate, after all).

**My PHoM line, I think**

5. Bob Caruthers: An excellent ballplayer who both pitched and hit well. What can I say, I’m a sucker for guys who do more than one thing really well.

6. Joe McGinnity My goodness, look at the number of innings. Joss was the better pitcher, but McGinnity might have been more valuable depending on who else was on the team (by which I mean whose innings he was taking by pitching so much). I will point out, though, that “Iron Man” pitched only a season and a half more than Joss. He also pitched 1000+ more innings, which is a lot more. Still anyone putting McGinnity above Joss ought to think about whether they’re punishing Joss for dying. They were contemporaries and their careers were almost the same length, but Joss’s rate stats are far superior.

7. Rube Waddell: Huge K rate. Put a guy with his tools in front of a great defense, and he’d be lights-out.

8. Lip Pike: Lower than Pearce because he played mostly outfield. He gets a bonus above the pack of outfielders below because he could also play other positions, and because he came from the 1870s.

9. Home Run Johnson: These early Negro Leaguers are really difficult to judge. I’m going on gut and the various ballot discussions more than anything. Johnson seems to have done it all very well.

10. Frank Grant: Good hitter and great defense, but I haven’t been convinced from the sparse evidence that Grant belongs. 2B was not the toughest position (although by all accounts he was great defensively) and his hitting wasn’t great enough to put him over the top. I’m not giving him any bonus at all for being “the greatest Negro Leaguer of the 19th century.” The only question to me is whether he was a great enough ballplayer.

11. Bobby Wallace: Best defensive SS and a good (intermittently great) hitter for a very long career. Kind of reminds me of Ripken in terms of the combination of defense, hitting, and longevity.

12. Pete Browning I have a bias against three IMO over-represented groups: the 1890s, OFs, and guys known pretty much only for their hitting. That said, damn this guy could hit.

13. Sam Thompson See Browning.

14. Sherry Magee See Browning (except for the 1890s part, of course). I also will probably tend to bias myself against new candidates, since there’s such a natural tendency to elect the new guy over the guys you’ve been knocking around constantly for weeks.

15. Jimmy Sheckard See Browning (except for the 1890s part, of course, since he was more “aughts”). Jack Chesboro as a hitter, in terms of inconsistency.
   110. KJOK Posted: May 04, 2004 at 04:30 AM (#616250)
Looks like my ballot up above from #2 on down got lost in the move, so reposting here:

Using OWP, playing time, and defense (Win Shares/BP) for position players, applied to .500 baseline. Using Runs Saved Above Average and Support Neutral Fibonacci Wins for Pitchers.

1. JOHN McGRAW, 3B. .727 OWP. 459 RCAP. 4,909 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Was CAREER ALL-TIME OBP% leader until Ruth qualifies in 1923, and is STILL #3 behind Williams and Ruth. Similar to Lajoie except only 60% of RCAP, but 60% of Lajoie is still excellent. He didn’t have a long career, but he’s being discounted for low playing time way too much as he provided more value in those few appearances than all of his contemporary 3rd baseman. When he retired, he ranked 12TH all-time in Plate Appearances by 3rd basemen:
PLAYERS 1876-1906 PA OWP
1 Lave Cross 9546 .480
2 Arlie Latham 7512 .498
3 Billy Nash 6722 .522
4 Jimmy Collins 6403 .565
5 Billy Shindle 6343 .436
6 Deacon White 5668 .600
7 Tom Burns 5198 .469
8 George Pinckney 5188 .529
9 Jerry Denny 5140 .462
10 Ned Williamson 5082 .551
11 Denny Lyons 5021 .658
12 John McGraw 4939 .727
13 Hick Carpenter 4777 .431
14 Ezra Sutton 4453 .592
15 Bill Kuehne 4431 .386
16 Harry Steinfeldt 4252 .510
17 Joe Mulvey 4213 .410
18 Doc Casey 4209 .422
19 Bill Joyce 4154 .697
20 Charlie Irwin 4098 .402
21 Barry McCormick 4029 .338
22 Art Whitney 4001 .316

2. MORDACAI BROWN, P. 295 RSAA, 282 Neut. Fib. Wins, 138 ERA+. Certainly benefited from good defense behind him, but '06-'10 Cubs were the BEST EVER at preventing runs, and I think some people are forgetting that fielding measures are MUCH LESS ACCURATE than batting ones, so pitchers probably deserve SOME of that credit too! Better pitcher than Walsh, Radbourn, & Galvin.

3. PETE BROWNING, CF/LF. .745 OWP. 478 RCAP. 5,315 PAs. Def: POOR. Baseball’s premier hitter in the 1880’s.

4. HUGHIE JENNINGS, SS. .607 OWP. 263 RCAP. 5,650 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Best SS of the 1890’s.

5. ROGER BRESNAHAN, C. .651 OWP. 282 RCAP, 5,373 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Best hitting Catcher between Ewing and Cochrane/Dickey.

6. HOME RUN JOHNSON, 2B/SS. Great hitter and played important middle infield defensive positions. By my method his neutral MLE’s are .390 OBP, .501 SLG, 1460 Runs Created in around 8,500 PA’s. That may be a little high, but still signals that he was a special player.

7. RUBE WADDELL, P. 254 RSAA, 222 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 134 ERA+.

8. JOE McGINNITY, P. 238 RSAA, 208 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 121 ERA+.

9. FRANK CHANCE, 1B. .720 OWP. 308 RCAP. 5,099 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Excellent hitter and good fielder back when 1st base was more important defensively.

10. CUPID CHILDS, 2B. .609 OWP. 354 RCAP. 6,762 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Best 2nd baseman of the 1890’s.

11. BOBBY WALLACE, SS. .522 OWP (.546 thru 1910). 195 RCAP (211 thru 1910). 9,612 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Hung around ala Pete Rose after 1910. Also outstanding defensive 3B in the 2 years he played there.

12.BOB CARUTHERS, P/RF. 179 RSAA. 177 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, 123 ERA+. .668 OWP. 243 RCAP. 2,906 PAs. Only shortness of career keeps Caruthers from being an “inner circle” superstar.

13.TONY MULLANE, P. 241 RSAA, 240 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 118 ERA+. AA discount puts him low on the ballot until I finish my AA vs. NL study.

14. TOMMY LEACH, CF/3B. .552 OWP, 121 RCAP, 9,051 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT – 3B, VERY GOOD – CF. Just slightly below Collins defensively, and he played longer. Basically did everything well, but doesn’t have the one outstanding area to get noticed.

15. SHERRY MAGEE, LF . .676 OWP, 337 RCAP, 8,547 PA’s. Def: VERY GOOD. Longevity puts him above Sam Thompson in the outfield glut area.

LEFT OFF THE BALLOT:
FRANK GRANT, 2B. There’s evidence he was a very good minor league player for a long time, but hard to put him in top 15 ahead of these guys based on that evidence.
SAM THOMPSON, RF. .684 OWP. 387 RCAP. 6,510 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Best of the off-ballot outfield glut.
JIMMY SHECKARD, LF. .626 OWP. 135 RCAP. 9,117 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Another player who was good but not great offensively, played a long time, AND had great defense, although it was in LF. Similar to Hugh Duffy.
JAKE BECKLEY, 1B. .596 OWP. 245 RCAP. 10,492 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Another good for a long time player who is just below elite status.
HUGH DUFFY, CF/LF. .623 OWP. 154 RCAP. 7,838 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Just not in the elite OF class offensively.
DICKEY PEARCE, SS. He WAS basically, along with Harry Wright, the old guy in the league 1871-1877, and his fielding was still league average, but didn’t hit nearly as well as Harry (who played CF). May have been Ozzie Smith, but hard to tell.
LIP PIKE, CF. Perhaps best hitting CF of the 1870’s, but short career puts him off ballot.
RUBE FOSTER Still need to look more closely at Negro League pitchers, so may be on the ballot soon.
DENNY LYONS, 3B. .658 OWP. 326 RCAP. 5,021 PAs. Def: FAIR. Lyons really distances himself offensively from his 3B contemporaries (except McGraw, of course.) and really deserves a lot more support.

CLARK GRIFFITH, P. 255 RSAA, 199 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 121 ERA+.
BILL MONROE, 2B. Very similar to Grant in that the Negro Leagues were not yet established so we have very little to make comparisons with.

GEORGE VAN HALTREN, CF. .620 OWP. 167 RCAP. 8,992 PAs. Def: FAIR. A notch below the elite OF’ers both offensively and defensively.
JIMMY RYAN, CF/RF. .609 OWP. 205 RCAP. 9,114 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Not quite up to top OF hitters, and only average defense won’t move him up.
   111. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 04, 2004 at 05:37 AM (#616264)
IF TABULATING, DON'T REDO THIS BALLOT!!!

I had the same problem that KJOK had with his ballot.

Looking forward to seeing everyone's Dickey Pearce comment! :-)

I use a combination of peak and career for the rankings. Therefore, career guys will mix with peak guys on my ballot. I also view each position on an equal basis. This doesn't mean that I have a quota to fill each position for my top ten. Sometimes a position will not have a viable candidate for a certain "year."

I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

I made a somewhat minor adjustment for the outfielders (though it helped Charley Jones to a great extent). I have also adjusted the ranking of pitchers using the DERA numbers (though I feel I overdid it with Willis a few weeks ago, so he actually moves a few spots up even though I adjusted his numbers via DERA this week).



1) Dickey Pearce-SS/C (2): All-around player at the position and arguably the best player of his time. Considered the best before George Wright (1856-1866). 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.

According to our Constitution, he definitely falls within the scope of this project.

2) Home Run Johnson-SS/2B (3): Frank Baker-like power, great batting eye (plus patience), fine defense and lengthy career pushes him up here. Great, great player. Batted cleanup behind Pop Lloyd in 1913.

3) Cupid Childs-2B (5): Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896 and 1897.

Childs has the most seasons as the best player at his position who is not in the HoM and compares favorably in that regard with the majority of HoMers, IMO. That doesn't mean he belongs as high as I have him, but he should be hitting everyone's ballot somewhere. Please take another look at him.

4) Charley Jones-LF/CF (9): I like him even more. Like York below, he was playing a more difficult position than the one that it evolved into. I gave him a little more credit for his (unfairly) blacklisted years. Best major league leftfielder for 1877, 1879 and 1884. Best AA centerfielder for 1883. Best AA leftfielder for 1885 (close to being the best in the majors).

5) Vic Willis-P (8): Why does this man receive such little respect? Willis, Brown and McGinnity are very close, IMO. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

6) Joe McGinnity-P (7): Durability, in the defense of your team, is no vice! :-) Best major league pitcher for 1900 and 1903. Best NL pitcher for 1904.

7) Roger Bresnahan-C-CF (10): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop or Petway. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.

8) Three Finger Brown-P (6): Great defense behind him hurts his place on my ballot, but not severely. He's good Best major league pitcher for 1906. Best NL pitcher for 1910.

9) Bill Monroe-2B/3B (11): I think he's worthy. Long career and nice peak. Many considered him a better hitter and fielder than Jimmy Collins as a third baseman. McGraw said (I'm assuming somewhat hyperbolically) that Monroe was the greatest of all-time. This may be too low for him.

10) Frank Grant-2B (12): Stellar hitter, baserunner and fielder at a top defensive position (and a lengthy career): what's not to love?

11) Frank Chance-IB-C (13): Best first baseman for the first decade of the 20th century. Even more so than Beckley, the Peerless Leader shouldn't be compared with the ABC boys ore the post-1920 crop of first baseman. The cream-of the-crop from Franklin Adam's famous trio. Best major league first baseman for 1903, 1904. 1905, 1906, and 1907 (close in 1908). Best NL first baseman for 1908.

12) Hugh Duffy-CF/LF/RF (14): "Only" the third best centerfielder of the '90s, but that position was very strong for that decade. Best major league rightfielder for 1890 and 1891. Best major league centerfielder for 1892, 1893 and 1894.

13) Tom York-LF (n/a): Back from the dead. A more significant player at his position than Magee or Sheckard were during their time, IMO. Long enough career and many times as the best at his position (when left field was more like centerfield today) deserves a ballot spot.Best leftfielder of the 1870s. Best major league leftfielder for 1873, 1875, 1877 and 1878 (extremely close in 1872 and 1881).

14) Rube Waddell-P (15): Back on my ballot after a "year's" absence. If he had been a little more serious and quit the horse playing... Best AL pitcher for 1905.

15) Lip Pike-CF/RF/2B (n/a): Makes it back on to my ballot after a few "years." Considered the fastest man of his time. Major star prior to the NA. Two things hold him back: durability and how good of a player he was at his position compared to his competition pre-NA (Pearce is not affected as much by the latter in my analysis, obviously). Best major league rightfielder for 1871 and 1873. Best major league centerfielder for 1874-1876.

Wallace, Sheckard, and Thompson are close. Caruthers, after further consideration, moves closer to this bunch.
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 04, 2004 at 05:44 AM (#616266)
Zapatero:

Your ballot looks fine to me. I disagree with you about Joss, but I strongly agree with you on Pearce (and I understand and agree with what you meant by "pioneer" in the context of your ballot).
   113. Philip Posted: May 04, 2004 at 06:45 AM (#616271)
Finally able to register here, as the virus hit us at work yesterday. Hope it's not too late!

Time for a little reshuffling again although my top 8 remain unchanged and are all greatly deserving!

1. Pike (3-2-3-3-2) – I hope Pike’s support is finally gaining momentum and that newcomers value his merit as one of the premium players of the early years. He should appeal to both peak and career voters. Especially his peak is one of the highest of this group. And his 13 year career should not be considered short for the early days (longer than Thompson and effectively just as long as Duffy and Stovey). Also, he shouldn’t be considered part of the outfield glut since half his value comes at second base. Pike has been sitting in my HOM since 1908 and is now the only player left who is been on all my ballots since 1898.
2. Johnson (3-4-5-4) – All evidence completely supports a high placement of Home Run.
3. Pearce (5-4-5-6-5) – MVP of the 1860’s. Highest placement on my ballot to date. Makes my personal HoM this year!
4. Grant (6-5-6-7-6) – The evidence shows he was a very good player. At least as good as Cupid and he played longer. There is also a very good chance he was a true star. All in all a good risk that he is a clear HoMer. Also makes my HoM this year. My personal HoM now includes Pearce and Grant and excludes Keeler (to be inducted in 2 or 3 years) and Flick (unlikely ever to be inducted).
5. Wallace (7-7-7-8-7) – Exceptional career value. Maybe a little overrated by WARP, so I’m being cautious here.
6. Sheckard (10-9-11-9-8) – Good in all categories without excelling in one. Best of the Cubs’ position players .
7. Brown (8-10-9) – Very close to McGinnity in all categories. Slight edge in prime pushes him ahead.
8. McGinnity (8-6-9-11-10) – Great, albeit short, peak and compiling many win shares along the way.

Not to be overlooked:
9. C Jones (13-15-15-15-15) – Making the proper adjustments and giving little credit for the years he missed, Jones comes out at the top of the outfield pack. Greatest beneficiary of my reshuffling as I made some adjustments to pitchers and infielders.
10. Magee (new) – I’m having trouble with some of the new outfielders coming onto the ballot. Win shares likes him, while WARP sees nothing special whatsoever. I give win shares the benefit of the doubt.
11. Van Haltren (19-16-18-16-16) – Benefits as I lean a little more toward Win Shares rather than WARP. Keeps swinging between 10 and 20. Now back on my ballot as he is at the top end of his swing.
12. Ryan (15-14-17-18-18) – So close to Van Haltren. A bit higher, but shorter peak.
13. Griffith (12-11-10-12-13) – I think he is underrated by this group. Maybe he is too all-round, not really excelling in either career or peak. Rating just as high in peak, prime and career in my system, mr. Consistent has never ranked higher than 10th or lower than 14th on my ballot.
14. Williamson (14-21-14-17-17) – Consistently made my ballot the first 15 years, then dropped out for six years and now will consistently be at the back-end or just off my ballot. Career may be a little short but his peak was great.
15. Jennings (9-10-12-14-14) – Collected enough career value in his short peak, though he is slowly losing some ground on my ballot.

16. Monroe – May finally make my ballot in the coming years.
17. Caruthers (17-18-16-19-12) – Swings off my ballot, but should be back soon. Like Jennings, he collected a lot of career value in his short peak.
18. Long (18-12-13-13-11) – Drops off my ballot after making some adjustments. Still think he is underrated, although I no longer think he will make my personal HoM. Both WARP and win shares like him. Maybe his lack of a great peak hurts him but most of his value came from playing defense, which is generally more constant from year to year. I don’t believe it’s wrong to have a high percentage of shortstops in the hall, after all it’s the toughest and most important defensive position to play (just like there are more QB’s, centers and strikers considered the best players in their respective sports)

The pack:
19. Duffy
20. York
21. Waddell
22. Childs
23. Leach
24. Beckley
25. Foster
26. Joss
27. Bresnahan
28. Browning
29. Welch
30. Thompson – Top 10 not making my ballot. Good peak but career is too short. Very similar to Browning.

31. Cross
32. F Jones
33. Nash
34. Griffin
35. Tinker
36. McCormick
37. Chance
38. Evers
39. Tiernan
40. Willis
   114. DanG Posted: May 04, 2004 at 04:39 PM (#616359)
Finally clawed my way into the site. Here’s my ballot in case it doesn’t all post: 1-Wallace, 2-Pearce, 3-Pike, 4-Grant, 5-McGinnity, 6-Sheckard, 7-Magee, 8-Duffy, 9-Van Haltren, 10-Brown, 11-Leach, 12-Ryan, 13-Griffith, 14-Thompson, 15-Bresnahan. In 1925, pitchers and Negro Leaguers battle for honors while Sherry Magee takes on the OF glut. Then, Black Sox Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte debut with Larry Doyle in 1926. In 1927, Pete Hill and Ed Konetchy keep things interesting.

1)Wallace (3,4,3) - Like McPhee, he was a regular for 18 years. Bid leads in “raw” career OPS+ 106-105, but once you account for Bid’s AA play and Bobby’s pitching and six decline years, Wallace consistently leads in OPS+ by 7-8 points during their prime years. As fielders it’s a wash, comparing an A+ 19th century 2B to an A- deadball SS. The list below shows him surrounded by HoMers, plus he had more defensive value than most of those players. Players leading in Total Bases 1897-1908:
1—3060 H. Wagner
2—2897 N. Lajoie
3—2525 W. Keeler
4—2504 F. Clarke
5—2498 J. Collins

6—2434 B. Wallace
7—2390 E. Flick
8—2238 S. Crawford

8—2238 F. Tenney
10-2165 J. Burkett

2)Pearce (4,5,4)– If the HoM is about respect for all eras, then Pearce is a “n-b”. Our Hall has only two players who played much before 1868 (Start and Wright). Unlike Grant, we know that Pearce was a star of the first rank while playing at the highest level. The more I learn about him the more he seems like the Ozzie Smith of his time, a historically great defender, productive offensively, smart. Also similar to Bobby Wallace. If HoM voting had begun ten years earlier, electing one player per year, both he and Pike would already be in: 1888-Barnes, 1889-Wright, 1890-Spalding, 1891-McVey, 1892-Start (1st-ballot), 1893-Pike, 1894-Sutton (1st-ballot), 1895-Pearce, 1896-White (1st-ballot), 1897-Hines (1st-ballot), 1898-Gore (1st-ballot), 1899-O’Rourke (1st-ballot), 1900-Clarkson (1st-ballot).

3) Pike (5,6,5)– If the HoM is about respect for all eras, then Pike is a “n-b”. Our Hall has only two 1870’s outfielders (Or none; Hines and O’Rourke had careers that actually centered in the 80’s). Charley Jones and Tom York are in a bit lower class, as well as a bit later era, having no pre-NA play. Extremely fast and perhaps the game’s top power-hitter for a decade. He had a higher OPS+ than McVey, 155 to 152. Also had a longer career at the highest level (1866-78) than McVey (1869-79). I don’t see any big difference that makes one a HoMer and the other bottom/off-ballot.

4) Grant (6,7,6) – If the HoM is about respect for all eras, then we need a player or two from among the Negro league pioneers. There has been admission that it is proper for us to apply a double standard regarding evidence (aka Affirmative Action); that we have a responsibility to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. Also, this comment from Joe hit home: “I think at least a couple from the very early years is reasonable if we want any credibility on this front.” How can I rationalize supporting him now? In a word: Dominance. Here we are in 1925 and we still haven’t seen a candidate who dominated the black ball scene as Frank did in his time. We may not see similar dominance until the 1934 election.

The rest of these guys wouldn’t be bad HoMers, but I can’t justify ranking any of them among the top four, above my personal “Clearly deserving” line.

5) McGinnity (7,8,7) – A poor man’s Rusie, but that’s still enough to be a HoMer. I like guys who play, and while the Iron Man lacked longevity, few pitchers were more durable. Most Wins 1899-1907:
1—235-135 J. McGinnity
2—216-136 C. Young
3—184-107 J. Chesbro
4—174-95 C. Mathewson
5—170-158 V. Willis
6—167-104 D. Phillippe
7—165-87 S. Leever
8—160-113 R. Waddell
9—159-89 J. Tannehill

6) Sheckard (8,9,8) – Discussion moves him to the top of the glut. Players with 300 Stolen Bases 1898-1912:
1—622 H. Wagner
2—449 J. Sheckard
3—400 F. Chance
4—398 T. Cobb
5—377 S. Mertes
6—350 F. Clarke
7—339 S. Magee
8—330 E. Flick
9—304 J. Tinker
10-302 T. Leach

7) Magee – The recently released Deadball Stars of the National League by SABR has a really good bio of him. A genuine 5-tool player, he was signed off the fields of Carlisle, PA at age 19 and went straight to the majors. A notorious hothead, this may have contributed to a premature career end. Excelled in the minors, primarily the American Assoc., 1920-23. Retired in 1926.

8) Duffy (9,10,9)– Players with BA .320 or higher, 1888-97, minimum 4000 PA:
1—.353 J. Burkett
2—.350 B. Hamilton
3—.339 E. Delahanty
4—.339 D. Brouthers

5—.334 H. Duffy
6—.330 S. Thompson
7—.324 C. Childs
8—.324 G. Van Haltren

9) Van Haltren (10,11,10)—As to why he is opening a gap from Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he has much higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan actually played more corner outfield. Players with 2500 times on base 1889-1901:
1—3392 B. Hamilton
2—3134 G. Van Haltren
3—3046 J. Burkett
4—3043 E. Delahanty

5—2840 H. Duffy
6—2837 D. Hoy
7—2774 C. Childs
8—2688 J. Beckley
9—2581 H. Long
10—2504 J. Ryan

10) T.F. Brown (11,12,11) – Discussion leads to conclusion that history overrates Mordecai, that the Cubs’ great defense and lesser quality of his league inflate his ratings. Also, Federal League pads his totals. He seems to be closer to Waddell then McGinnity. Most wins 1903-11:
1—255-97 C. Mathewson
2—190-89 T.F. Brown
3—188-111 E. Plank
4—182-140 G. Mullin
5—160-125 C. Young
6—155-101 E. Walsh

7—149-109 D. White
8—143-80 J. McGinnity
9—143-84 A. Joss

11) Leach (12,13,12) – With 3B and CF lagging in HoM members, you’d think he’d get more attention. If you’re a FOBW, I don’t think you can ignore this guy. Question of league quality knocks him back a couple pegs, otherwise really close to Wallace. Had a better peak than Bobby, but his career was a couple years shorter and he had just a little less defensive value. Players with 1250 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1902-11:
1—1883 H. Wagner
2—1726 S. Crawford

3—1429 T. Leach
4—1408 N. Lajoie
5—1392 H. Davis
6—1343 F. Clarke
7—1286 D. Murphy
8—1278 S. Magee
9—1266 J. Sheckard

12) J. Ryan (13,14,13)—Most outfielder Assists, 1876-1917
1—375 J. Ryan
2—348 G. VanHaltren
3—348 Tom Brown
4—307 J. Sheckard
5—289 O. Shaffer
6—285 K. Kelly
7—283 S. Thompson
8—273 D. Hoy
9—270 J. Burkett
10- 268 T. McCarthy
10- 268 S. Crawford

13) Griffith (14,15,15) – The #4 pitcher of his era, behind three first-balloters, but firmly ahead of #5. Gets extra credit for excelling in the contraction years 1892-1900, an era lagging in number of HoMers. Highest Complete Game Percentage 1893-1903, minimum 185 GS:
1—94.1% K. Nichols
2—93.4% C. Young

3—93.3% C. Griffith
4—92.4% A. Rusie
5—92.4% R. Donahue
6—90.4% J. McGinnity
7—90.2% C. Fraser
8—89.5% J. Powell
9—89.5% B. Dinneen

14) Thompson (15,--,--)– Sure, a lot was context, but nobody put more runs on the board than Sam over a 14-year period (see below). He averaged 28 OF assists (among the best) and 25 steals (below average, actually) over eight prime years, so he also contributed in ways other than batting. Players with 2100 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1885-98:
1—2548 S. Thompson
2—2481 H. Duffy
3—2446 C. Anson
4—2339 R. Connor

5—2227 J. Ryan
6—2217 E. McKean
7—2202 D. Brouthers
8—2147 E. Delahanty

9—2140 M. Tiernan

15)Bresnahan (--,--,14) – He’s back after a couple years off. Catcher is the most poorly represented position in the HOM, a condition that may prove to be chronic. Could move higher, but I really like guys who play. Played half his teams’ games in only 11 seasons, averaging 71% of team games in those years. Still, his offensive production towers over other catchers of his era, so he deserves a vote. Lacking Bennett’s durability and longevity. Defense only C+. Catchers with highest OPS+, 1876-1930 (minimum 3500 PA):
1—130 B. Ewing
2—126 R. Bresnahan
3—118 C. Bennett
4—117 J. Clements
4—117 W. Schang
6—101 D. McGuire
7—100 J. Kling
8—99 D. Farrell

Bob Caruthers – With exactly one-fourth of the HoM being pitchers (11 of 44) and two more on the doorstep, I don’t see our Hall as being short on pitchers. I echo Joe’s case against him; he may crack my ballot in the dead zone of the early ‘30’s. Among the factors working against BC: Team support was great; pitching career was shorter than any current HoMer; not a workhorse; weaker league quality; the era 1881-93 already well-represented in the HoM. Not one of the big winners of his era. Pitchers with 200 wins, 1883-93:
1—319 J. Clarkson
2—300 T. Keefe
3—251 H. Radbourn
4—247 P. Galvin

5—246 T. Mullane
6—240 M. Welch
7—231 C. Buffinton
8—218 B. Caruthers
9—200 G. Weyhing

Grant Johnson – I may be close to the point of supporting him. Outstanding player in his time and place, but there’s not quite the evidence yet to set him above many other NLers. His numbers are continuing to be contextualized and I’d like to be more sure. At this point, there just seems to be a lot stronger evidence for Frank Grant being a dominant player.
   115. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 04, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#616407)
Did anyone here have a problem seeing all of the previous posts for all of the threads today?
   116. DavidFoss Posted: May 04, 2004 at 09:04 PM (#616423)
Looked like they tried briefly to partition each thread into pages of 50 posts each. There was a navigation tool at the bottom. The site has been so slow that I didn't want to try that.

Hope this gets better soon. I do like the new color scheme.
   117. sunnyday2 Posted: May 04, 2004 at 09:20 PM (#616435)
Well, I made it. After trying to activate about, oh, 25 times, and getting an error message each time, I just received another error message and then it morphed into a validation message right before my eyes without another key stroke.

Now, is it just me or does the screen load (ok, I know, slowly, but that's not the problem, the problem is that the screen loads) and then it refreshes after about 2 seconds and loads again (slowly)?

PS. I may have a new user name because after the first 15-18 failed attempts to reg and activate, I tried registering again on a different computer and had to use a different user name. I couldn't register twice under the same user name.

So you'll just have to guess who I am. Except I'm not really sure what user name I'm going to get. Bye for now.
   118. Daryn Posted: May 04, 2004 at 09:24 PM (#616438)
When will the ballots close this week?
   119. sunnyday2 Posted: May 04, 2004 at 09:39 PM (#616445)
OK Sunnyday2 it is. I used to use that for several years and some of you may know it (OK, DanG and Paul Wendt may know it) from sabrforums.

Hey, is it just me or does the screen keep refreshing for you? And I also just got a dialogue box but could not click into it.

Joe D. has not posted yet so I guess he's still not in. On the Yahoo HoM email group, he said that you should assume that everything is moved back a week.

We should have a moment of silence for those like Joe and Chris Cobb and I'm sure there are others who are not yet back.Ï
   120. stephen Posted: May 04, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#616460)
Given that I’m not too confident of the new site yet. (please don’t eat this post). I’ll keep it brief, or try to.

1 THREE FINGERS BROWN – Honestly, I do not understand why he does not garner more support. He was the best pitcher, heck, the best player on one of the greatest teams in baseball history. If it’s the defense that’s responsible for his success, then we should be putting Tinkers-Evers-Chance in.

2 HOME RUN JOHNSON- Hopefully, he’ll be the first Negro Leaguer enshrined. I can think of no reason to rank him lower unless…

3 LIP PIKE- As promised, a high ranking for Pike. I was swayed by the arguments in the last ballot discussion thread, so his supporters can take my ballot as a victory for their persuasive case.

4 FRANK GRANT- The Negro Leaguers are tough to rate, but I find the cases of Johnson/Grant/Monroe to be too strong to ignore. They deserve enshrinement.

5 BILL MONROE- I still wrestle with how to order the Negro Leaguers, but Home Run Johnson’s reputation has endured the best. I’m probably underrating Monroe, as this is about the 10th incarnation of my ballot.

6 DICKEY PEARCE- The great re-evaluation continues. I’m trying to sort through the early players and the Negro Leaguers, who have a sketchy statistical record, but I find them easier to support than some of the more recent eligibles.

7 JOE MCGINNITY- Good peak, not as good as Caruthers of course, but he had the rest of a career to go with that peak.

8 BOB CARUTHERS- I’m still troubled by his incredibly short career, but he was undeniably great in his peak years.

9 SHERRY MAGEE- 354 career Win Shares coupled with 151 in his peak. Rated purely on Win Shares, he’s the career leader among those eligible, and his peak ranks fourth.

10 HUGHIE JENNINGS- Terrific defensive player, a strong peak player.

11 JIMMY SHECKARD- I definitely rate him behind the outfielders already enshrined.

12 HUGH DUFFY- A very similar rating to Sheckard, I’m having trouble seperating the two.

13 RUBE WADDELL- A poor man’s Parisian Bob.

14 TOMMY LEACH- Why no love for a third baseman back when the defensive spectrum hadn’t shifted yet. Leach’s defense rates him slightly higher on my list.

15 ROGER BRESNAHAN- Would rate higher if he spent his entire career as a catcher, but he didn’t, so he drops accordingly.
   121. jimd Posted: May 04, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#616461)
Response is definitely better now. Before I logged in it seemed normal; now it's sluggish but not totally snailish (if you know what I mean). :cheese:

'Preview' is also working now (when I tried it yesterday, it wasn't). :roll:

Bring back the HOM archives and the old, well-organized, HOM front page with all the good links, and things will be back close to normal. :bug:

(Yes, I'm done playing with the Smileys for now; sorry, but I couldn't resist.) :coolsmirk:
   122. favre Posted: May 04, 2004 at 10:02 PM (#616466)
It took me two days to access this server…I hope I’m not too late.


1.Lip Pike

Pike averaged about 34 aWS per season during an eight-year stretch (275 aWS in 10-year documented career; -5 WS for two token appearances; 270/8=33.85). While I concede the difficulties of adjusted win shares for the NA era, that’s still quite a prime. His OPS+ of 155 is higher than anyone on the ballot except Browning. He had speed, hit for doubles power, and led the league in home runs four times—OK, he led with four home runs each time, but let’s face it: even if you’re inclined to give a big NA discount, the guy could flat-out hit. He did this all while playing CF/2B. His documented record is outstanding, and he played for five years before the creation of the NA.

Since claiming ballot omissions as evidence of irrational dislike has apparently become a valid form of argument, I will say that not placing Pike on your ballot is irrational: it either indicates anti-Semitism or a strong dislike of fish.
2.Dickey Pearce
3.Frank Grant

No one on the ballot had a bigger impact on his time than Pearce. He must have had tremendous defensive value and was still playing shortstop in his ‘40s. Baseball was enormously popular by the late 1850s, and already had a national organization to establish rules and conduct, so I have no difficulty placing him this high on the ballot.

Not placing Pearce on your ballot is irrational; I can only assume the name brings back memories of decorating particularly sensitive areas of your body with metal studs.

See post #38 in the 1917 ballot discussion for my defense of Frank Grant. Basically, there’s too much circumstantial evidence of his ability for me to ignore, and little or no circumstantial evidence that suggests he wasn’t a great player.
Not voting for Frank Grant or Grant Johnson is irrational: it can only be due to racism or strong animosity towards Ed Asner.

4.Joe McGinnity
5.Mordechai Brown

Like most others, I have Brown and McGinnity close together in career value. Iron Joe did it in less time and worse defenses than 3F, so he gets the edge for now.

Not voting for McGinnity or Brown is irrational; it shows either a) prejudice against the Irish b) prejudice against the differently abled c) an inordinate preference for primary colors.

6.Sherry Magee
7.Sam Thompson

Magee was almost as good a hitter as Thompson, but had a better career, was a better fielder, and played in an era with less offense. Not voting for Magee is irrational; it shows a dislike for either liqueur or Janis Joplin.

Thompson was the best power hitter of his generation in his prime, could get on base, and had decent speed. Not voting for Thompson is irrational because…well, maybe it isn’t.

8.Grant Johnson

. Based on the available evidence from Chris Cobb (great post), John Holway, and William NcNeil, I feel comfortable saying that Johnson was better than Wallace. Still, I’m not as sold on his credentials as I am with his contemporaries Santop and Hill.

9. Bobby Wallace
10.Jake Beckley
11. Clark Griffith

The players with very good careers but little or no peak. Wallace’s value as a fielder and pitcher gives him the edge over Beckley. I am struck by the fact that, in 1925, we’ve since few quality first basemen in the past thirty years; Beckley’s career simply surpasses other 1B from that time period.

Between 1895-1901, Griffith never had a season ERA+ lower than 119. In those seven seasons, Griffith was 154-87, .639 WP; his team’s WP was .449 without him. He did this in a hitters’ era. Only fairly low IP, relative to his league, keeps him this far down the ballot.

12.Rube Foster
13.Rube Waddell
14.Jimmy Sheckard
15.Tommy Leach

Waddell earned 3 ERA+ titles and threw huge amounts of strikeouts. Obviously it is difficult to compare him to Foster, a player whose statistical record is sketchy at best. That said, I’m pretty sure that Foster was the best pitcher in black baseball from 1903-8, and likely again in 1912. It seems he could hit. While I don’t want to give him HoM credit for his managerial/entrepreneurial success, he was clearly very intelligent, a useful trait for a pitcher (or any other position). It’s a tough call, but with the evidence I see, I think I would rather have Foster on my team than Waddell

Sheckard finally makes my ballot. Truthfully, I’m not overjoyed with this pick. Still, he was part of a tremendous fielding team (which makes me trust his fielding stats a little more) and walked a ton. Leach was an excellent fielder at both 3B/CF and could hit.

Not agreeing with my picks is irrational; it shows an intense dislike of either the Catholic Church or the Green Bay Packers.

Bob Caruthers I embrace my irrationality. Also, his argument rests a great deal on his performance from 1885-7, a period in which I think the AA is overrated. Still, he is a lot higher on my list than before—I now have Caruthers somewhere between #18-20 on my ballot. Rube Foster had made me strongly reconsider Caruthers. While I can justify having Foster higher—he had a better career—I can’t see Foster at #12 and Caruthers in the low 20s. Foster also played in a questionable league with some great stars and probably didn’t have the peak that Caruthers did.
   123. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 04, 2004 at 10:19 PM (#616490)
So you'll just have to guess who I am. Except I'm not really sure what user name I'm going to get. Bye for now.

I use to patrol SABR for a while as jtmatbat, "sunnyday2." BTW, how do you like your Mac?
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 04, 2004 at 10:29 PM (#616502)
BTW, anyone who had their ballot mangled by the site upgrade should repost their picks again. Just make sure to point out that you had posted the original ballot prior to May 1 so us humble tabulators don't add your ballots in again.
   125. sunnyday2 Posted: May 04, 2004 at 11:38 PM (#616568)
John, my Mac is fine, it's just this slightly older Netscape browser that doesn't quite cut it. But good point, jimd, where are the not-so-hot topics?

PS. I'm sure everybody has figured it out from the smart-ass tone, but sunnyday2 is...

(signed)
A primate formerly known as marcÿ
   126. ronw Posted: May 05, 2004 at 12:50 AM (#616607)
Through now, I have ballots from 39 people:

Rusty Priske
karlmagnus
Marc (sunnyday2)
RobC
Andrew Siegel
John Murphy
daryn
KJOK
Rob Wood
Jim Sp
Ron Wargo
EricC
Chris J
David Foss
Dan Rosenheck (the accepted ballot)
PhillyBooster (MattB)
Al Peterson
Rick A
Chris Cobb
Martin
ed
Sean Gilman
OCF
Tom H
yest
Jeff M
Don F
Devin McCullen
Esteban Rivera
Ken Fischer
Carl Goetz
jimd
Michael Bass
dan b
Zapatero
Philip
Dan G
stephen
favre
   127. ronw Posted: May 05, 2004 at 12:59 AM (#616617)
Hey! When you change your Screen Name, it updates all of your previous posts. That is how I just switched from Ron Wargo to Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro.

If I switch back, I can't say "Did I win?"

(Pre-site revision, I was sometimes, but by no means always, posting as Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro. For example, the beginning of this site was not me.)
   128. Jim Sp Posted: May 05, 2004 at 02:13 AM (#616631)
This is a repost of my ballot, no need to count it twice...

1)<formation I’ve seen hasn’t been so convincing. I have him ahead of Grant but I could be wrong…
14)<b>Welch</b>— Better than Galvin. His 1885 season (44-11, 1.66 ERA, 492 IP) is a great peak year, he had 3 other great years (1884, 1888, 1889) plus another 6 good seasons. Welch played every year in the toughest league. He could hit a little (68 OPS+). Career 307-210…he deserves some of the credit for that.
15)Leach Great fielder at both 3B and CF. Historically a unique player, if only he hit a little better. Or had stayed at 3B.
   129. Jim Sp Posted: May 05, 2004 at 02:18 AM (#616638)
This is a repost of a repost, no need to count my ballot three times...

Aargh. Looks like embedding the bold tags doesn't work any more.

1)Brown--Brown went 127-44 with an ERA of 1.42 in 1461 IP from 1906-1910. Although I appreciate the quality of the Cubs' defense, and the low run context of the era, that's quite a run.

2)Home Run Johnson--A shortstop with a long career that can hit…sounds good to me. Moved to 2B late in his career because of Lloyd, that sounds like a pretty good excuse.

3)Magee--HoF oversight.

4)Beckley—Apparently I am Beckley’s best friend. Keeler’s election convinced me to stop downgrading Beckley. Beckley is the better fielder, about the same as a hitter for his career, and at an underrepresented position that with more defensive value. Behind the big 3, much better than any other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production.

5)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, striking out people at rate that is extremely high for the era. Each year allowing at least 20% fewer runs than an average pitcher, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. 134 ERA+ in 3000 IP is worthy, his W/L record isn’t impressive because his run support wasn’t impressive. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.

6)Wallace—long career, good hitter, played shortstop well, and gets a boost for his pitching. A shortstop with a long career who can hit belongs in the HoM.

7)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so that hurts him a bit.

8)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.

9)McGinnity—Win Shares NL best pitcher in 1900, 1903, and 1904. Terrible hitter.

10)Lave Cross—great fielder. Caught some too. Only hit well in weak leagues, but still that’s a lot of career value…2645 career hits with a lot of defensive value. All time leader in Win Shares / 1000 innings at 3B.

11)Joss—Comp is Koufax…a terrible hitter.

12)Pearce—placement is quite subjective, putting him above Childs and McGraw feels right.

13)Bill Monroe—the Biographical Encylopedia makes him sound like a great player, but the other information I’ve seen hasn’t been so convincing. I have him ahead of Grant but I could be wrong…

14)Welch— Better than Galvin. His 1885 season (44-11, 1.66 ERA, 492 IP) is a great peak year, he had 3 other great years (1884, 1888, 1889) plus another 6 good seasons. Welch played every year in the toughest league. He could hit a little (68 OPS+). Career 307-210…he deserves some of the credit for that.

15)Leach Great fielder at both 3B and CF. Historically a unique player, if only he hit a little better. Or had stayed at 3B.
   130. Chris Cobb Posted: May 05, 2004 at 02:25 AM (#616650)
Posting for the sheer fun of it . . .

Actually, I wanted to say welcome to the new folks. You've arrived in the midst of interesting times. Hope the fun will soon revolve more around the discussions and less around the satisfaction of finding that the sight actually works :-)

Also, I hope all the old folks who are trying on new personalities are enjoying the freedom of their new identities.

And finally, jimd's work on Rube Foster in his (sadly dismembered) ballot is great! I have some additional data on those seasons that might be useful; once it's clear that the site really is running normally again (and maybe the missing threads have reappeared), I'll get it up on the site.
   131. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: May 05, 2004 at 02:37 AM (#616664)
BTW, anyone who had their ballot mangled by the site upgrade should repost their picks again.

This of course only works if we wrote down what our picks were. I could guess & get it fairly well accurate, but I don't want to really confuse any counters or anyone by posting a 2nd ballot that's at all different from the first/lost one. Ain't helping that my 1925 discussion thread provisional ballot & my 1924 ballot got gutted, too.
   132. Old Cardinal Fan Posted: May 05, 2004 at 03:19 AM (#616700)
Hi there. I screwed up an attempt to log in as OCF and seem to be stuck with the long version of my handle. Where's the Hall of Merit front page? I can't figure out where that is. I don't see any working sidebars, which is what I always used to navigate around. I hope the navigation improves. (That, and this doesn't seem to be friendly to Netscape.)

But I do have records of everyone's ballots from 1920 through 1924 (also 1916 and 1917). And I have the first 24 ballots for 1925, up through yest's ballot in post #102. This is the first I've seen of the thread since then, so I'm going to try to catch up.
   133. Old Cardinal Fan Posted: May 05, 2004 at 04:21 AM (#616754)
OK, caught up now. I've gone through the list posted by Happy Jack, and I realize that I'm missing one ballot: Martin (post #53). Unless Martin reposts that or someone else posts what was in it, I'm missing that one completely.

The following regular voters are still missing:

Brad G
Brian H
Howie Menckel
Joe Dimino
(I assume the ballots are open at least until Joe votes.)
Mark McKinniss
Max Parkinson
Michael D
Patrick W
Yardape

Also missing (not quite regulars):
Brad Harris
Casey Elston
Clint
Craig B
Lennox HC
RMc
Sean M

We have three new voters:
Dan Rosenheck
Michael Bass
zapatero
   134. OCF Posted: May 05, 2004 at 04:39 AM (#616764)
Just checking to see who I am.
   135. PhillyBooster Posted: May 05, 2004 at 04:40 AM (#616765)
The following regular voters are still missing:

Dammit. Now, they were specifically told that if they were separated from the group to stand still and we would find them. So we're going to have to send out search parties. We'll travel in groups of three, and remain in cellphone contact with another group at all times.

And which one of you was Mark McKinnis's buddy? You know you were supposed to hold his hand so he didn't wander off.
   136. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 05, 2004 at 05:21 AM (#616774)
Let's see if I can post here now . . .
   137. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 05, 2004 at 05:24 AM (#616777)
Okay, looks like we are back in business.

I think I should post a new 1925 ballot thread, we can start from scratch since some of the ballots here were truncated. Does that make sense?

I'm going to send an email to the Yahoo list to see if there are still major issues. Feel free to post them here too.

I'm on a high-speed connection at work, so it's possible that home users and AOL people are still having trouble.
   138. Zapatero Posted: May 05, 2004 at 10:33 AM (#616878)
For anyone looking for the old HoM webpage, I've been using the Google cache for that. Here's how you do that.

1) Go to google.com

2) search for the following term: www.baseballprimer.com/hom/

3) click the link that reads "Show Google's cache of www.baseballprimer.com/hom/"

4) once the page loads, and you choose the next link you want to follow (the Plaque Room, for instance), you have to copy the URL of the new link. This can usually be done by right-clicking the link you want to follow and selecting "Copy Shortcut" or "Copy Link Location"

5) go back to google.com and paste the new link location as a search (for example, http://www.baseballprimer.com/hom/archives/00000061.shtml is the plaque room)

6) again, click the link that reads "Show Google's cache..."

Hope that helps. Google's cache won't last forever, but it should give Jim a little while where we can still see the work that's gone before until there's a new HoM page.
   139. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: May 05, 2004 at 12:36 PM (#616902)
Thank you, Zapatero! I wanted to start working on 1926 and had the “final-year” info from BB-Ref, but didn’t know if any other players might have had post-regular-career “cups of coffee” (maybe that should be “nightcaps”) that would advance the eligibility date. Thanks to you, I found the eligibles lists. Here’s 1926 for anybody else who needs it:

***1926 (May 16)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
294 80.3 1910 Joe Jackson-LF/RF (1951)
247 73.1 1908 Eddie Cicotte-P (1969)
289 59.0 1907 Larry Doyle-2b (1974)
202 51.8 1908 Gavvy Cravath-RF (1963)
174 43.1 1911 Claude Hendrix-P (1944)
171 43.1 1908 Buck Herzog-2b/3b/SS (1953)
148 51.6 1912 Ray Chapman-SS (1920)
191 35.7 1908 Fred Merkle-1b (1956)
127 46.5 1905 George McBride-SS (1973)
175 36.6 1914 Benny Kauff-CF (1961)
160 34.4 1910 Fred Luderus-1b (1961)
152 33.4 1912 Buck Weaver-SS/3b (1956)
123 36.4 1915 Happy Felsch-CF (1964)
129 35.8 1913 Dick Rudolph-P (1949)
089 19.5 1910 Bill Rariden-C (1942)
   140. Howie Menckel Posted: May 05, 2004 at 02:03 PM (#616994)
Is this thing on??
   141. Howie Menckel Posted: May 05, 2004 at 02:05 PM (#616998)
Wow. I made it!

This reminds me of a classic "Far Side."
A dorky-looking boy is struggling against a glass door, pushing as hard as he can just below the word "PULL."
Engraved in the glass is the phrase, "Midvale School for the Gifted."

Anyway, it's impossible to post a message via AOL. At least I can do this at work.
P.S. I'm one who would need until the weekend to finally post my 1925 ballot...
   142. ronw Posted: May 05, 2004 at 03:13 PM (#617075)
After my brief test last night, I've freed Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro for public use in favor of my actual name.

I suppose I could double register as the 40-game winner, but I'd rather keep my own name, and since I'm not a media celebrity like "Howie" I can do so without too much fear of negative publicity.

I still don't see that "karlmagnus" has gotten back in. Someone might want to point that out to him.
   143. Brad G. Posted: May 05, 2004 at 03:25 PM (#617089)
Thanks for waiting!

1925 Ballot:

1.Mordecai Brown- As with McGinnity, I’m very impressed by the Win Share production over his career. 296 Career Win Shares- more than any currently eligible pitcher. A key part of a fantastic team.

2.Joe McGinnity- Very close to Brown in my estimation. Another Win Share star, with a ton of Black Ink (more than any other currently eligible pitcher)… not too shabby on the Gray either.

3.Sam Thompson- A perennial favorite of mine; long-time member of my personal HoM. Perhaps the most feared hitter of his day. By far the best eligible RF at this time.

4.Jimmy Sheckard- Career Win Shares = 339, WS3 = 96, Career WARP1 = 130.7, Career WARP3 = 93.5, Career Runs Created = 1067, Black Ink = 19, Gray Ink = 124. Earns a Defensive “A” in WS. Long, steady career; very good all-around player.

5.Hugh Duffy- Career Win Shares = 295, Win Share 5-year Peak = 144 (!), Career WARP3 = 81, Career Runs Created = 1229, Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 147. A+ Centerfielder with 5 WS Gold Gloves, according to James, who ranks him #20 Centerfielder of all time.

6.Sherry Magee- My personal tendency is to be conservative to first time ballotees. Magee makes my personal HoM this year, but starts a bit lower here (all those above him are already in).

7.Bobby Wallace- Career WS = 345, Career WARP1 = 155.5, Career WARP3 = 108. These are great numbers, SS or not. He’s still my pick for top eligible SS… gets a boost this year.

8.Bob Caruthers- 119 Wins over .500 in his career. His career has been meticulously dissected on these pages. This is where I’ve consistently placed him.

9.Jimmy Ryan- Career WS = 316, Career WARP1 = 119, Career WARP3 = 84.5, Career Runs Created = 1338, B+ WS Defender.

10.Rube Waddell- Another pitcher who ended up very high in the Ink stats. Career Win Shares = 240; WS5 = 145.

11.Jake Beckley- Career WS = 318, Career WARP1 = 116. Career Runs Created = 1461, which exceeds Dan Brouthers’ 1445.

12.Rube Foster- My reasoning goes something like this: Foster was clearly the best black pitcher through the first decade of the 20th century. If (hypothetically) the 19th century had lasted until 1910, surely he would have been considered “the best black pitcher (possibly player) of the 19th century,” and we would be lauding his accomplishments here as much as we do Frank Grant’s. The difference is: Rube actually has documented stats to back up his career. And whoppng stats at that- how about a 5-year winning percentage of well over .900? I’ve toyed with placing him as high as #4, but given the overall length of his playing career, I’m staying a bit conservative with him.

From what I’ve read on Foster, his pitching ability/accomplishments have (unfortunately) been overshadowed by his later accomplishments as a manager/ organizer/mogul/all-around “character”. But accounts given by his contemporaries (most notably Honus Wagner and John McGraw amongst the white contingent) clearly illustrate his amazing pitching ability.

13.Frank Grant- May or may not have been the greatest black player of the 19th century. As good as he was, though, I can’t see him being better at his position than Foster was at his.

14.Grant Johnson- These three are not grouped together by design. This is the first time Johnson has made my list, and that is almost entirely based on his endorsements here. Most of the “expert” lists choose to ignore the earlier Negro stars. Without this project, I would never have given this great player a second look.

15.George Van Haltren- Career WS = 344, WARP1 = 121, Career Runs Created = 1286.
__________________________________________________________

16.Pete Browning- Career OPS+ = 162, which is outrageous. I have him ranked close to (just above) George Gore, a long-time HoMer.

17.Roger Bresnahan- Here only because I tacked on a 15% Catcher bonus. Leading candidate at that position as of now.

18.Bill Monroe- Comes out farely close to Grant Johnson, according to most “experts.”

19.Tommy Leach- Career Win Shares = 329, WARP1 = 113.7, an “A+” third basemen.

20.Clark Griffith- Great peak; falls below Rube Foster in my final analysis

Where’s Dickey? Due to the perserverence of a number of the voters here, I’ve given in and put Dickey Pearce back on the consideration list. While I will continue to dig for information on he, the supposed “inventor of the bunt,” I currently have him in the Hughie Jennings/Joe Tinker range, which isn’t near enough to pop onto the top 15 yet.


16-20Browning, Bresnahan, Monroe, Leach, Seymour
   144. OCF Posted: May 05, 2004 at 04:23 PM (#617170)
Guys, I'm having some serious trouble here. In Netscape, I can see what I think the site is supposed to look like, including that I can see the sidebars. But when I click on a long thread, like this one, it just doesn't load. The old site worked just fine in Netscape.

In IE, the sidebars don't appear, and I find navigation nearly impossible. The only way I found this thread was to look under Joe Dimino in "Authors." On top of that, I can't select text from someone else's comment. Without that, how can one make a focused reply to another comment? If this doesn't get better, I might just give up.

Trials: boldface italic OK.
   145. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 05, 2004 at 05:23 PM (#617226)
OCF:

I'm forced to use IE due to the upgrade, yet I don't have any of the problems that you are experiencing right now. Do you have an older version of IE?
   146. Max Parkinson Posted: May 05, 2004 at 05:36 PM (#617242)
I'm hoping that this is still open for voting. I couldn't get on before this morning...

1925 Ballot, (with congratulations going to Jimmy Sheckard and Jim O'Rourke for their inductions to the MP HoM)

1. Hughie Jennings
As long as Craig B isn't around, I look like quite the outlier with my continued pushing of Ee-yah. I don't mind - there is no one else who can say that they were the best player in the game, let alone the best player for a 5 year stretch.

2. Bob Caruthers
I had a long comment on Bob to respond to the conversation that Joe D. and jimd were having. Alas, it's gone. A monster peak, with an argument for multiple MVP awards...

3. Grant Johnson
The more that I read about him, the more I'm convinced that he would have been a terrific big leaguer, had he been allowed to play.

4. Sam Thompson
Haven't had the time to do the extensive study on his defense, but that's really all that's left to explain why some people vote him so low, or not at all. There is precious little doubt that the man could mash.

5. Jimmy Sheckard
His peak was great, if it wasn't normally shaped. A good bat, great glove left fielder, and a big part of one of the greatest teams of all time.

6. Dickey Pearce
He'll make the MP HoM next year. John Murphy, your invitation to the induction is in the mail...

7. Bobby Wallace
As I said last week, he would have been considered one of the best shortstops in the game for more than a decade, if the Pirates had just let their Right Fielder stay in the outfield.

8. Lip Pike
We've elected everyone better than him from the NA (and some worse than him). Is this where we draw the line on the early '70s stars?

9. Fielder Jones
This is quite a bit higher than he's been previously on my ballot, due to the re-valuation of fielding in my system in response to a middle infielder-heavy ballot. The best centre fielder of the 00's.

10. Jim McCormick
Was the dominant pitcher from a time when we don't seem to be valuing pitching very much, not having given anyone a sniff between Spalding and Keefe/Galvin/Radbourne.

11. George Van Haltren
Another outfielder jumps 5 or 6 spots on a very tight ballot. This is my first vote for George, after spending more than a decade just off.

12. Frank Grant
I waver more each vote; How can I have him here if Childs, who could easily be better, is 33rd?

13. Clark Griffith
The fourth best pitcher of the 1890s. That might not be enough for some voters, but when the other 3 are "no-brainers" like Young, Rusie and Nichols, I'm swayed.

14. Tommy Bond
Another eligible who has been in my 16-20 range for a while, climbs up onto the ballot. Some here might question the ordering of him and McGinnity, but there is little question that Bond was the best pitcher in the game for a 3 year stretch (1877-79), something that McGinnity can't compete with, and on a very tight ballot, that's enough.

15. Joe McGinnity

16-20. Monroe, Beckley, Brown, Ryan, Whitney
21-25. Foster, Nash, Buffinton, Williamson, Cross
26-30. McGraw, King, Waddell, Seymour, Long

Sherry Magee is 43rd on my list.
   147. Chris Cobb Posted: May 05, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#617248)
John,

It may be a Mac vs. Windows thing. I have the latest version of IE for the Mac, and, when I use IE, I have exactly the problem OCF describes. I switched from IE to Safari a while ago, however, and the site works fine with it. Any Mac Users out there who have OS X may find it expedient to switch to Safari.
   148. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 05, 2004 at 07:33 PM (#617400)
6. Dickey Pearce
He'll make the MP HoM next year. John Murphy, your invitation to the induction is in the mail...


I have his induction speech already written up to read in place of the late Mr. Pearce!
:-)
   149. DavidFoss Posted: May 05, 2004 at 09:40 PM (#617545)
I did a search and found some ballots here back to 1917 at least... but the New Eligibles thread can't be found by a search.

Makes sense that any "links" pages would be have to be redone though. Appears that all the discussion URL's have been renumbered.
   150. karlmagnus Posted: May 05, 2004 at 10:30 PM (#617608)
I've just got around to attempting to post through IE, so if this works I'm at least not wholly out of communication. Posts will be rare, however if I have to go through this hassle every time. It will be VERY frustrating when I want to boost my favorites, Caruthers, Welch, Beckley and (looking forward to it) Jackson/Cicotte, the Laundered Sox.
   151. OCF Posted: May 05, 2004 at 10:58 PM (#617630)
Yeah, it's a Mac thing. I'm now in Safari, and I can navigate (as I couldn't navigate in IE). I wasn't getting a cursor in the comment box, but I tried pasting some text into the box, and when I did that, a cursor appeared.

I hate to sound cranky, but over the last year where I work, three different software systems have been upgraded. Each one was something that worked - a little "old-fashioned", maybe, but something that worked well. In each case the replacement system was much slower than the previous system, and in each case features that I was accustomed to and used every day disappeared.

Those are things I need to do. I don't need to do this. I'll give it a little while, but if some day I just disappear, you'll know why.

I am still running a tally, and calculating consensus scores. I have 40 ballots. I know there have been 41, but all I have of Martin's is that he has Magee #1. What did the rest of Martin's ballot say? I also assume that voting is still open, and will be until Joe says otherwise (which includes Joe posting his own ballot.)
   152. Jeff M Posted: May 05, 2004 at 11:29 PM (#617660)
Those are things I need to do. I don't need to do this. I'll give it a little while, but if some day I just disappear, you'll know why.

Well don't give up too soon and disappear on us. It's only been a couple of days, and think of all the work you've put into the project.
   153. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 05, 2004 at 11:37 PM (#617671)
Well don't give up too soon and disappear on us. It's only been a couple of days, and think of all the work you've put into the project.

Definitely don't give up on it, OCF. Everyday has seen more progress with the upgrade.
   154. sunnyday2 Posted: May 06, 2004 at 02:19 AM (#617791)
Yes, I have 41 ballots as well. Here is what I have from Martin.

1. Magee--ties for Sherry's best friend
2. Van Haltren--Van's best friend, too
3. Brown
4. Grant
5. Johnson
6. Pike
7. Sheckard
8. McGinnity
9. Ryan
10. Thompson
11. Caruthers
12. Duffy
13. Wallace
14. Willis--tied for second best buddy
15. Tiernan--Mike's onliest voteP
   155. Adam Schafer Posted: May 06, 2004 at 05:46 AM (#617859)
Hey guys, I finally made it. I hope my ballot isn't too late. Between problems with the new site, a hectic week running my business getting the new radio ads done, new signs for the building ,etc. I've just been really far behind. If I'm too late, just disregard my ballot. If it counts, all the better! I did like the old site better, but I love this project and have voted every "year" so far, so you guys can count me in until the end. I know I don't participate in the conversation much, I'm more of a listener than a talker, but I do read every post and I'm happy to be part of the HOM family

1. Mickey Welch (3) - He wasn't quite as good as Keefe, but really wasn't much worse at all. I like to think of it as something like Glavine was to Maddux. Not quite as good, but would've been the #1 starter on most any other team. They pitched in the same park in the same era for too long for their extremely similiar stats to be coincidental. Welch pitched much too long for his career to be considered all luck.

2. Joe McGinnity (4) - I'm looking forward to seeing him inducted soon.

3. Three Finger Brown (5) - Some reevaluation of Welch and McGinnity leads to Brown's bump down my list. I still believe he is a HOM worthy player, but needs to be ranked a bit lower than I had him.

4. Sam Thompson (6) - 10 great years. Excellant peak. I'm more of a career type of person than I am peak, but Sam has a great mix of both.

5. Sherry Magee (n/a) - Not the typical player that I'd place this high on the ballot, BUT lack of better options, a batting title, 4 RBI titles, and a great mix of speed and power are impossible to ignore.

6. Bobby Wallace (7) - Career, career, Career. That's what I keep saying I like. I like Bobby's, I really do. I would really like to see SOME peak.

7. Home Run Johnson (15) - Ok, I'm convinced now

8. Jake Beckley (8) - Again, I'm a career lover

9. Rube Waddell (9) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive years. 107 years after he pitched his first MLB game, he's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

10. Roger Bresnahan (10) - It's no secret that I love catchers. I would've ranked Roger higher had he caught more and played the OF less during his peak years.

11. Lip Pike (11) - I can see him finally getting in one of these days.

12. Hughie Jennings (12) - Nothing new to add to Jennings, except that he moves up above my OF glut

13. George Van Haltren (13) - I've been a moderate supporter of Van Haltren, unfortunately he'll never make the HOM, but he's still the 13th best player eligible in my opinion. Good career, very modest peak.

14. Jimmy Ryan (14) - See Van Haltren

15. Bobby Carruthers (18) - Leap frogs over Griffith as I take a longer look at Bobby

Not enough time to cover the final few spots that I normally list, but my take on Grant has been documented time and time again. I just don't feel comfortable with him. Sheckard would be ranking 17th or 18th. I like him, there's just no room for him on my ballot. Dickey Pearce would be ranking 23rd-25th for me.
   156. Jeff M Posted: May 06, 2004 at 11:27 AM (#617887)
Sherry Magee is 43rd on my list

Huh??????

Max, Since you like Sheckard (#5 and in your PHOM), it's hard to see Magee 38(!!!) places below him (or 16 places below Silver King, for that matter).

Magee's WS peaks are all better than Sheckard's and they are about the same on career. WARP sees Sheckard as better, but not THAT much better. And Sheckard never came close to deserving an MVP. Sheckard was better defensively, but who cares? They were corner outfielders, so their defense doesn't really have much effect.

There seems to be some debate over whether Magee or Sheckard was better (I think Magee), but most see them as at least reasonably comparable.

Could it be a typo in an Excel file, or maybe no adjustments made for the low run scoring environment? What's up?
   157. Daryn Posted: May 06, 2004 at 02:42 PM (#618028)
My ballot isn't showing anymore. I hope the tallyers got it before it disappeared. The order was:

1. Joe Mcginnity (p)
2. Mordecai Brown (p)
3. Grant Johnson (mif) -
4. Frank Grant (2b.
5. Andrew Foster (p)
6. Mickey Welch (p) –
7. Sherry Magee (of) .
8. Jake Beckley (1b)
9. Sam Thompson (of)
10. Bob Caruthers (p/of) –
11. Dickey Pearce (ss)
12. Roger Bresnahan (c)
13. Bobby Wallace (ss)
14. Jimmy Sheckard (of)
15. Tommy Leach (of/3b
   158. Max Parkinson Posted: May 06, 2004 at 02:50 PM (#618036)
Jeff,

Without going into painful detail, my model for ranking players has 46 categories. Sheckard beats Magee in 29 of them, Magee wins in 8. They obviously tie in all of the pitching categories.

In almost all of the career categories, Sheckard is just a little bit better, but a little bit better 20-odd times adds up. Magee was a little bit better with the bat, and Sheckard was a lot better with the glove. All up, that makes Sheckard just a little bit more valuable.

Where Sheckard really pulls away is the categories for awards. I have Sheckard finishing 3rd in the 1903 MVP race, his only Top 5 showing. Magee never gets in the top 5. Sheckard finishes 3rd once and 4th once for the Dickey Pearce Award (Best Fielder). Again, Sheckard never sees the ballot. I have Sheckard winning 5 Gold Gloves (LF in '02,'03,'06 and '11, and RF in '99). He also finished Top 3 three other times. Magee never finishes Top 3, so again, no points awarded.

Magee does outpoint Sheckard on the Silver Slugger Award. He wins for LF in 1910, and finishes Top 3 as well in '05-'09. Sheckard actually wins 2 awards, in '03 and '11, but only makes the ballot one other time, so Magee gets him.

All in all, the gap between them is 500 points. In context, through 1927, that's the gap between 2 (Ty Cobb) and 5 (Eddie Collins). It is also the gap between 6 (Tris Speaker) and 10 (christy Mathewson). It's only lower on the ballot, where there is a lot of clustering, that 500 points means 38 spots on the ballot.

I hope that explains my reasoning well enough; to be perfectly honest, I had done these rankings a couple of weeks ago, and when I saw people ranking Magee 1 or 2 or 3, I had the same reaction that you did to my ballot.

MP
   159. OCF Posted: May 06, 2004 at 04:09 PM (#618108)
Thanks, Sunnyday2. (Who did you used to be, anyway?) For the record, ed also gave Tiernan a 15th place vote.

I did already have Daryn in my records.

Magee never gets in the top 5

Max - you seem to be assigning "MVP" votes for years which had no actual voted awards. As long as you're doing that, don't you think Magee would have been the NL MVP for 1910? Playing 154 games, he led the league in BA, OBP, SLG (by .046), OPS (by .081), Runs, RBI (by 35), Total Bases, XBH, and OPS+ (by 20). With no single dominant pitcher (although Mathewson did go 27-9), that looks like an MVP to me.
   160. Chris Cobb Posted: May 06, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#618135)
Max may want to say more, but one factor here is the _big_ difference between WARP and WS in their assessment of Magee in general and 1910 in particular.

By WS, Magee is the clear MVP: 36 WS leads the league, with the next-best players -- Hofman, Mathewson, Wagner, and Brown -- checking in at 31, 30, 30, 29.

By WARP, Magee not at the top. He has 10.4 WARP1, trailing Wagner (12.5), Mathewson (11.7), Konetchy (10.5), and presumably at least two others. WARP sees him as a butcher in the outfield that season, and it costs him.

Given how much better a hitter Magee was than anybody else in 1910, I have a hard time seeing how his defense in left field could have been so poor as to drop him out of the top 5 players in the league. But that's how WARP sees it.
   161. Max Parkinson Posted: May 06, 2004 at 05:39 PM (#618185)
I could have been more clear about my "award voting". I put everyone together when voting for MVP, or Jim Creighton, or Gold Glove and the like. I do not do separate votes by league. So Magee is not just compared to Wagner and Konetchy, but also Lajoie, Cobb and Collins (all of whom were at least as good offensively and far superior defensively) and Speaker, who was less than 10 runs worse with the bat, and without a doubt far better with the glove. Magee also finishes behind Ed Walsh, the runaway winner, Walter Johnson and Jack Coombs. Magee is definitely penalised by the league adjustment for the 1910 NL, but even in WARP1, he does not finish top 5.

As Chris just put it so well, he is very much hurt by BP's very poor assessment of his glove, especially when compared to Sheckard.

I am curious as to WS interpretation of his defense...
   162. sunnyday2 Posted: May 06, 2004 at 05:51 PM (#618201)
O, I used to be Marc but no more.

Fun with computers.
1. Bookmark to HoM, screen downloads in about 15-20 seconds.
2. Hit 1925 ballot (15-20 seconds)
3. Scoll down to new content but by then screen automatically refreshes (15-20 seconds=X)
4. Read content, decide to respond, hit login (X)
5. Login and back to 1925 ballot (X) with dialogue box and I start a response
6. Screen refreshes (X) and now the partial message is gone and the dialogue box is dead, no cursor
7. Go to Jeter thread (X)
8. Back (before the Jeter screen refresh can start, ah, I saved 15-20 seconds!) (but X on the Back maneuver)
9. Still no cursor, hit Login (X)
10. Hit Forward, to 1925 ballot (X) and dialogue box now working but!
11. Screen refreshes (X) and now dialogue box dead again
12-13-14. Repeat steps 7 and 8 and 9 (with 2 more Xs)

So here I am and I now have no interest whatsoever in talking about baseball. I don't know why!

But I will say that Max' method is taking whatever quirks there are in WARP and multiplying them by 40. I mean, if you have 40 data points on which you rank the players, but they're all derived from WARP, what's the point?
   163. jimd Posted: May 06, 2004 at 05:59 PM (#618210)
WARP-1 has Sheckard as the best player in the NL in both 1903 (17.1 to Wagner 16.3) and 1911 (12.9 to Rucker 12.6, Mathewson 12.2, Wagner 11.7). (Caveat: when dealing with WARP-1, there's always the chance of missing somebody.)

In 1910, Magee underperformed the overall league OF Range Factor by the largest margin of his career, .19 per game. (He was usually over by a small amount, sometimes under.) This was despite playing 15% of the time in CF. The team OF RF was 2.08 compared to the league 2.10 so it doesn't look like it's a GB/FB illusion. This represents 29 hits, or .100 OPS points (if all singles), or 29 OPS+ points, to make up for, not a small thing. An interesting question is why Win Shares does not appear to reflect this; anybody know?
   164. Chris Cobb Posted: May 06, 2004 at 06:00 PM (#618211)
sunnyday2,

I can't fix problems 1-4, but have you considered typing your response in a different window, say a word-processor, and then pasting it into a dialogue box when you can get a working one? There's a bit of hassle there, but it might be less than looping through steps 6-14 a bunch of times.
   165. DavidFoss Posted: May 06, 2004 at 06:01 PM (#618212)
Win Shares does like Sheckard's defense better than Magee's, but not to the same degree as WARP.

The Batting/Fielding split for Magee, I believe, is 88/12 and for Sheckard it is 80/20. Despite this, Magee has more WS in one fewer season.

So, yes WS & WARP do appear to have disparate views on the weight of defensive contibutions here.
   166. OCF Posted: May 06, 2004 at 07:26 PM (#618310)
A thought on Magee's 1910 range factor:

3B Eddie Grant and SS Mickey Doolan both had sharply lower range factors in 1910 than in 1909 or 1911. 2B Otto Knabe had a sharply higher range factor in 1910 than in 1909 or 1911. The Phillie pitching staff was heavily right-handed in all three of those years, but that it perhaps more true of 1910 than of the other two years. It does look like Magee's low RF in 1910 has more to do with a team L-R hit distribution than with Magee being suddenly a much worse fielder. Magee was no Gold Glover, but it seems unlikely that he was a butcher, either. Win Shares is probably doing a better job of compensating for that than WARP is.

Max has a deeper point. The years 1900-1910 saw the primes of Wagner, Lajoie, Mathewson, W. Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, Alexander, and J.H. Lloyd, along with a big chunk of Cy Young's career and the start of Ruth's. There were also some players with high peaks but short careers (Walsh, Baker, Jackson.) That's a large representation of players that most consider to be amond the top 30 or 40 of all time. Is it because all of those guys were really that good? Or was their competition (hence, second-line candidates for the HoM like Sheckard and Magee) weak?
   167. OCF Posted: May 06, 2004 at 08:43 PM (#618405)
The years 1900-1910 saw the primes of...

I meant 1900-1920.

Also, for Sunnyday's benefit: I've found that if I paste text - the tiniest scrap of text will do - into the response box, then a cursor appears, and I can erase what I just copied and start typing.
   168. OCF Posted: May 06, 2004 at 10:47 PM (#618527)
Chris J. in #157, above says he could re-post his ballot except that he didn't record it. I can tell you that his ballot was: (1) Johnson (2) Magee (3) Sheckard (4) McGinnity (5) Grant (6) Beckley (7) Wallace (8) Pearce (9) Welch (10) Thompson (11) Caruthers (12) Leach (13) Brown (14) Griffith (15) Van Haltren. If balloting were to close now, he'd have the second highest agreement with consensus score (behind only David Foss), although many are close and new ballots could shift that around a little.

I could perform the same service for anyone else, if needed - but your comments are gone.

Am I the only one here?
   169. jimd Posted: May 06, 2004 at 11:03 PM (#618533)
I have an html copy of the 1925 ballot page from the google cache. We can retrieve any ballot comments that are not eventually recovered here, if need be.
   170. jimd Posted: May 06, 2004 at 11:21 PM (#618540)
3B Eddie Grant and SS Mickey Doolan both had sharply lower range factors in 1910 than in 1909 or 1911.

There appears to be a league-wide effect going on here, perhaps due to the new livelier ball. But it also appears to affect the Phillies more than other teams. About half their Range-Factor-delta is reflected in the league-wide averages. I would expect the league-wide portion to be accounted for in Magee's WARP rating.

Is it because all of those guys were really that good?

I brought up a similar point earlier. 7 of the top 11 Win Share career totals are from this era (1900-1920). I think these players benefited from a lack of overall quality, making it easier to dominate, just like the 19th century players did. But they also benefited from a health/training ethic that produced longer careers than the 19th-C guys. The result was long, high primes that produced career value totals only approached in the 1950's, when 5 of the top 13 were active. (Bonds is the true outlier.) There seems to be too many of them at once for it to be a coincidence.

Or was their competition (hence, second-line candidates for the HoM like Sheckard and Magee) weak?

I think it's some of both.

I rate Sheckard over Magee due to an accumulation of small factors, mostly having to do with their playing context. At his peak, Sheckard has a claim to being the best OF in baseball (between Delahanty and Cobb), though he does have rivals. Magee does not come close. Sheckard's career value stacks up fairly well next to his immediate peers and predecessors; Magee has to deal with Cobb and Speaker as his direct peers. I use both WARP and Win Shares; WARP is more emphaticly for Sheckard than Win Shares is for Magee. Sheckard was a regular on more winning teams. The small differences add up on a very competitive ballot.
   171. Yardape Posted: May 07, 2004 at 01:30 AM (#618580)
Okay, I'm here, don't leave without me! I was here yesterday, too, but decided to give it a day to see how everything is working. Right now, it's all working fine, basically as well as the old system. Hopefully that continues for me.

On to my ballot:

1. Bill Monroe I see him and HR Johnson as very close. Both should be inducted, IMO, but since Monroe ranks higher on most expert's lists, I've got him at the top.

2. Bob Caruthers One of the best players in the game for a healthy stretch of time. Was it enough? It was for me.

3. Frank Grant He doesn't have the same expert rankings as Johnson and Monroe, but I believe that's due to 19th-Century myopia. I think Grant belongs on their level.

4. Home Run Johnson Three Negro-Leaguers in the top four, mostly because I think our pool of major-leaguers is getting thin, and these guys need to go in.

5. Dickey Pearce Most likely the best player in the game for awhile. I'm a little unsure about the amateur game, but he's probably a better choice than anyone below him.

6. Jimmy Sheckard He looks like the best of the Cubs to me. Oddly-shaped peak, but it's for real.

7. Sherry Magee I thought about having him higher, but I see him very close to Sheckard, so he starts out just below. Both are probably solid choices, though clearly not slam-dunks.

8. Lip Pike I've been high on Lip, but I've dropped him below Sheckard and Magee for now. I see Pike as sort of on their level in his time.

9. Joe McGinnity The best non-Caruthers pitcher available. Not as good as legendary contemporaries like Mathewson, but wouldn't disgrace the hall.

10. Mordecai Brown He probably deserves to go in, but lingering questions about the defense/pitching split on those Cubs keeps him from the top of my ballot. I hope to figure him out better sometime soon.

11. Hughie Jennings All peak, but what a peak! Easily enough to make this ballot.

12. Bobby Wallace I must apologize to Mr. Wallace and his family. When he first came on the ballot, I looked at him, decided he was an all-career, no-peak candidate that I was going to ignore. Well, he's mostly career, but it's a great career, and the peak is actually pretty solid. Another look this last week gets him onto my ballot.

13. Tommy Leach If he had stayed at third, he'd be well up this ballot. As it is, he lands here.

14. Jimmy Ryan The best of the outfield glut gets you...the bottom of the ballot.

15. Ned Williamson He can thank Marc (sunnyday2?) for this. I took another look, and while I'm not overwhelmed, he's worth keeping in mind.

I don't know what top-10ers I'm missing. Probably Sam Thompson, I usually do. I just don't see how his numbers, peak or career, are any better than any of the rest of the OF glut.

If I'm missing anyone else, I'll come back and fill it out later.
   172. DavidFoss Posted: May 07, 2004 at 01:49 AM (#618583)
OCF: #194 "If balloting were to close now, he'd have the second highest agreement with consensus score (behind only David Foss), although many are close and new ballots could shift that around a little."

Gosh, it is a wide open ballot! There are only ten names in common between my ballot and his... and my #1 is his #13 (Brown). Most agreement agreement with consensus, huh? I'll have to check my reasoning and make sure I'm not just being a yes-man. :)
   173. OCF Posted: May 07, 2004 at 02:46 AM (#618601)
Just wait until next year! It is already pretty hard to find a consensus to agree with.

I have 43 ballots now, and we're still waiting for Joe Godot. My suggestion to Joe is not to redo the thread, since the votes already cast have been properly recorded. In my "missing regulars" post #159, I inadvertently omitted Adam Schafer (first alphabetically), so there should have been 10 missing regulars. 4 of those have now checked in, but there are 6 more out there.

For next year, I think Joe Jackson is going to be too widely boycotted to have that much of a chance of immediate election, so those elected will come from our current pool. Without revealing too much about the current vote ... let's just say that it's going to be VERY close next year.
   174. PhillyBooster Posted: May 07, 2004 at 03:06 AM (#618605)
If I knew how to post as someone other than myself, I would post as Gavvy Cravath and say "ahem".

Looking at his full career, I can't see leaving him out of the top 5. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but as a voter who has voted for everyone from George Wright to Dickey Pearce to Frank Grant, I think that voters who put credit in non-"official major league" stats will have a hard time ignoring Gavvy's 5 years in the PCL and 3 years in Minnesota.
   175. Chris Cobb Posted: May 07, 2004 at 03:51 AM (#618611)
PhillyBooster:

Do you have stats for Cravath in the PCL and the AA?

Here's the problem I have with your argument that Cravath deserves to be a top 5 player.

In 1908, he looks like pretty much a major-league average player at best, if you project his win shares to a full season.

In 1912, when he gets back to the majors, he looks like pretty much a major-league average player at best, if you project his win shares to a full season.

In 1913-1917, he has a great five-year run.

Given that he was no better than average in 1908 and in 1912, I'm not sure what the grounds would be for projecting him as better than average for those years (I'm willing to give him credit for 1909, 1910, and 1911) or for projecting him as being at major league average at all during the first phase of his career in the PCL.

If there are numbers that show he was likely a much better hitter than an average major leaguer during these years, I'm willing to give him credit for it, but his major-league numbers don't support such a projection for his minor-league performance. And he needs at least a couple more well above average seasons to get onto my ballot, let alone make the top five.
   176. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: May 07, 2004 at 04:16 AM (#618616)
David Foss - don't think of yourself as being a yes-man to the rest. Think that the rest are just yes-ing you.

I'm 2nd? I barely got Brown on my ballot, got Magee higher than most. I think I'm aided by the fact that I'm not anyone's biggest support (except Joe Tinker, but he's just off my ballot) & I got most/all of the favorites on. And that's all it takes in this wide open ballot.
   177. Jeff M Posted: May 07, 2004 at 04:34 AM (#618626)
I am curious as to WS interpretation of [Magee's] defense...

I don't think any system is going to show Magee as an outstanding defender. WS basically rates him a "B-", with two gold gloves.

But in the context of this discussion (ranking Magee #43 and Sheckard #5), who cares? These guys are corner outfielders. How much defensive impact do they have in the first place? I'd be shocked if a leftfielder's value was even as much as 15% fielding. I can't see that the difference between a very good leftfielder and an average leftfielder creates much separation.

Where Sheckard really pulls away is the categories for awards.

This really surprises me, since Magee blows Sheckard away on Black Ink (35 vs. 19) and Gray Ink (210 vs. 124). Average HOFer has 27 and 144, so Magee clearly meets both standards and Sheckard misses both. I modify the "ink" categories to eliminate the stupid ones and give more credit for things like Power/Speed number, but it doesn't change the analysis.
   178. Michael Bass Posted: May 07, 2004 at 04:38 AM (#618627)
For the curious, how is my consensus score so far on my first ballot?

Felt like my calculations (and weight of the anecdotal evidence) had me largely in line with the rest of the group in most places, but that I had parts of the OF glut (notably F. Jones) higher, and some of the pitchers (notably McGinnity) lower.
   179. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2004 at 04:42 AM (#618629)
Re: Gavy Cravath

The other thing to take into account is the unique configuration of Baker Bowl. While I feel that he shouldn't be penalized for this because he helped win many a ballgame via the short right field fence, his minor league career may not stand out to if he had been playing in neutral parks.

With that said, any stats or anecdotes pre-1912 would definitely be helpful.
   180. OCF Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:01 AM (#618632)
Michael: Consensus scores aren't final until the vote is final, and I don't think it is, yet. Current estimates suggest that your score is slightly above average - in fact, not too far from mine. Your four biggest sources of disagreement are Grant, F. Jones, McGinnity and Pearce.

Once the voting is final, I'll post a table of everyone's scores over the last five year. Can anyone tell me how to post a table and get the columns to line up?
   181. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:24 AM (#618641)
OCF:

Use the <pre> tag. That should work.
   182. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 07, 2004 at 06:18 AM (#618647)
Hey guys, I've been sorta swamped.

From what I understand, our archives will be back up in a week or two, once the site is 'fully transitioned'. Please try to be patient here, I'm sure the bugs will be worked out.

I'm still catching up on this thread, anything I need to deal with, in case I don't read it all right away? I'm going to be out of town this weekend too.

I kind of think we should wait until the archive is up before we move any further - does that make sense?
   183. sunnyday2 Posted: May 07, 2004 at 01:23 PM (#618701)
Joe, let's get a 1926 discussion thread up on Sunday, May 9, at least.

But in addition, I'm not sure about letting matters lie. There's been some loss of mo already. So either go ahead with a '26 ballot on May 16, or is there some other discussion we could have? I think Chris is almost ready to post a list of Negro Leaguers (Chris, I'll try to respond to you in the next couple days.) I would suggest, perhaps, a NEW Negro League thread, since the old one is awfully long and slow. If in addition to that we could at least get the old NL thread on our sidebar, then a week with a focus on the Negro Leagues would be a productive use of an extra week.

What if the archives AREN'T available in a week or two? We need some mo.

So in sum how about a 1926 discussion thread on Sunday, and then a list of Negro Leaguers and a new NL discussion thread as soon as it's ready to go? Then maybe delay the '26 ballot for one week at most.
   184. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: May 07, 2004 at 02:29 PM (#618751)
I'd support an extra week for the 1926 ballot discussion while waiting for the archives to return, but I wouldn't want to wait much longer than that. The plan may be to get all the archives back, but that doesn't mean that something will snag it up along the way & there's no sense in waiting indefinately. There's a little loss of momementum with having a 2-week ballot followed by a 2-week discussion ballot, but I really don't see it as being a big deal if that's all it is.

& thanx to OCF for doing a better job keeping track of my ballot than I did.
   185. Chris Cobb Posted: May 07, 2004 at 02:34 PM (#618759)
I'd concur with sunnday2/Marc.

Three things that would keep things moving until the site is fully restored:

1) a 1926 ballot discussion thread on Sunday or Monday

2) a Negro-League discussion thread around the same time

3) closing the 1925 balloting on Monday and posting election results, if it's agreed that wrapping up the balloting then would be fair.

It looks to me like we have a ballot-count pretty close to that of recent years, and hopefully most of the missing regulars will get ballots in by next Monday.
   186. Brad G. Posted: May 07, 2004 at 02:54 PM (#618773)
For what it's worth, I'm with Chris Cobb on the three points above. I'm anxious to vote for the Shoeless One.
   187. PhillyBooster Posted: May 07, 2004 at 03:02 PM (#618781)
Gavvy Cravath's Minor League Numbers

First, PCL stats. Remember that the PCL was a major "pitchers league." I have at my disposal currently team offensive stats (batting average) from every PCL team in 1905, which should give a taste for what 'league average' was. (Cravath played in L.A. from 1903-1907)

Seattle: .238
Los Angeles: .236
Portland: .232
San Francisco: .228
Tacoma: .226
Oakland: .215

1903 (age 22): Rookie 22 year old Cravath hits .274 in 209 games, with a team leading 7 home runs. Los Angeles wins the PCL pennant.

Other major leaguers on the team included Frank Dillon, who played in the majors (Brooklyn) in 1904 and the PCL again in 1905. His batting averages were 1903 (L.A): .364; 1904 (Brooklyn) .258; 1905 (L.A.) .272. Dummy Hoy was also on the team. He had hit .290 in 1902 for the Cincinnati Reds and .257 for the Angels in 1903. Doc Newton had gone 15-14, 2.42 for Brooklyn in 1902 and went 34-12, 2.43 for L.A. in 1903. Joe Corbett was 23-16, 2.36 for the Angels in 1903 and 5-8, 4.39 for the St. Louis Cardinals in 1904. Dolly Gray went 23-20, 3.55 for the Angels in 1903. He played the whole decade in L.A. and then went 15-51, 3.52 years later for the Washington Senators (1909-1911).

1904: No stats available (to me at least)

1905 (age 24): Cravath hits .259 (the team average in .236, see above). He had 33 doubles, 9 triples and 9 homers and 44 stolen bases. He was third on his team in BA after Dillon (see 1903) and Roy Brashear, who hit .303 after hitting a career .268 in 130 major league games. Just below him in BA is George van Haltren, who hit .255, two years removed from hitting .257 with the Giants. Angels win the pennant.

1906 (age 25): Cravath hits .270.

1907 (age 26): Cravath hits .303 with 10 homers and 50 stolen bases. Angels win the pennant. He is purchased by the Red Sox.

1908 (age 27): Cravath has a 136 OPS+ for the Red Sox. (Chis wrote above “he looks like pretty much a major-league average player at best”, but he is tied for 6th best OPS+ in the league! (6th in SLG, and 9th in OBP) ).

1909 (age 28): Bizarrely sent to Chicago after a successful 1908. He drops off to a 108 OPS+, but in a very small sample size (70 plate appearances) and then is shipped off to Washington for 7 games and is released. He goes to play for the Minneapolis Miners in the AA. He hit .290 – second best on the team -- with 4 homers. This was significantly better than player/manager and HoMer Jimmy Collins (.273), who had just retired from Philadelphia.

1910 (age 29) – Cravath hits .326 with 14 homers for Minneapolis. Both of these numbers lead the league. Miners win the pennant.

1911 (age 30) – Cravath hits .363 with 29 homers for Minneapolis. Both of these numbers lead the league. Miners win the pennant.

1912 – 1920 (age 31-39) – the stats are readily available. He earned about 200 win shares in those 9 years, which included being the best hitter in the game from 1913-1915. There can be no doubt that his 3 year peak, or 5 or 7 year prime in these years is HoM-worthy. His 150 OPS+ is surpassed only by Connor, Brouthers, and Delahanty among current HoMers and eligible (Browning also, but he has AA discounts and the major league portion of his career was only a little longer).

The only issue is whether the preceding nine years is sufficient to provide the “career bulk” to this peak. I think it clearly does.
   188. Evan Posted: May 07, 2004 at 03:10 PM (#618786)
As far as closing the balloting goes, why not run it like the elections? If 90-something percent of the ballots are in, and there are 2 clear frontrunners (are there 2 clear frontrunners here?) then why not "call the election". That way, Happy Jack can make his conciliation speech and gear up for next year...

Of course, if there aren't 2 people significantly out in front, this whole post is pretty much pointless. Any tallyers care to enlighten the masses?
   189. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2004 at 03:47 PM (#618850)
I'm anxious to vote for the Shoeless One.

Funny, I'm anxious not to vote for him in 1926. :-)
   190. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2004 at 03:55 PM (#618867)
Of course, if there aren't 2 people significantly out in front, this whole post is pretty much pointless. Any tallyers care to enlighten the masses?

There are two clear front-runners, but I think we should hold off calling the election until the end of the week.

Joe:

Is there anything we can do to help you out? I volunteer to help you if I can so we can get this show back on the road.

Matt/PhillyBooster:

Excellent stuff there! I'm not sure if he will still make my ballot yet, but he certainly will move up the list.
   191. Brad G. Posted: May 07, 2004 at 04:52 PM (#618958)
<There are two clear front-runners>

Can we take it for GRANTed that you won't be putting the FINGER on who the two are?
   192. Michael Bass Posted: May 07, 2004 at 04:56 PM (#618964)
As a newbie, my opinion shouldn't hold too much weight, but I agree with Chris's 3 points.

We're pretty much all discussed out on 1925 and I think everyone should have an opportunity to get their votes in by Monday.
   193. OCF Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:09 PM (#618983)
There are two clear front-runners, but I think we should hold off calling the election until the end of the week.

I assume I'm looking at the same numbers at John, and I share his unwillingness to "call" the election. But there should be only 3 to 8 ballots not yet cast. As Chris suggested, we should wrap this one up pretty soon.
   194. OCF Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:17 PM (#618993)
Long Name Jonathan  297.3 24- 9 2.45
Bob                 103.7  8-11 3.87


Just trying out the "pre" tag with nonsense data. Monospaced font. No tabs - everything done with spaces. Hey - it looks OK on my machine, except for the part about time travel (the date Preview is January 1, 3000).
   195. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:18 PM (#618999)
As Chris suggested, we should wrap this one up pretty soon.

I agree, too.
   196. sunnyday2 Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:22 PM (#619002)
Howie sent this to me via email and asked me to post it for him. (IT ONLY TOOK 6 TRIES TO GET A LIVE DIALOGUE BOX, OH, AND WITH A TOTALLY USELESS AND ANNOYING SCREEN REFRESH EVERY TIME, SO MAKE THAT 12 TRIES!!! Can we get rid of the screen refreshes please and can we have live dialogue boxes. This is really getting annoying.)

HOWIE MENCKEL's
much-delayed 1925 ballot

1. FRANK GRANT - I know a lot of us love numbers, and the ones here are sketchy. But it ain't Grant's fault. We know he
was a promising player in the mid-1880s; we know he played about two decades; we know he impressed the hell out of a
lot of contemporaries, black and white. I'm comfortable now seeing him enter the pantheon.
2. JOE MCGINNITY - Obviously very close to Brown, but didn't quite get the fielding help, near as I can see.

3. MORDECAI BROWN - I always thought he was even better, but that's what this exercise is all about. Clearly a worthy
HOMer.
4. GRANT JOHNSON - We have more sense of his career than Grant's, but still a lot in the shadows. Don't so much see him
as clearly inferior to Grant as I do seeing that we need more time to digest his impact. Gets in someday, I suspect.
5. JAKE BECKLEY - A move up for Beckley; once you move out the slam-dunk HOMers, the counting stats achievements
stand out more. Very good for a very long time, a bit lonely below hitting all-timers and above everyone else.
6. DICKEY PEARCE - Have 'rethunk' a bit, to where I'm seriously debating who I'd want in the HOM, and not just filling
lower ballot slots. I could live with Pearce, a pioneer who took a different river to get to a similarly clouded path of the
NLers.
7. LIP PIKE - One more 1870s star before the rest of this pack; it bugs me that he didn't get to play much with 'the big boys'
at a time when they seemed to seek each other out, but the hitting numbers are dazzling.
8. JIMMY SHECKARD - Left startlingly few fingerprints in terms of baseball's collective memory, but you have to love the
all-around skills and imprint on pennant winners.
9. CLARK GRIFFITH - A personal favorite, I suppose: It's remarkable how much better he was than the teams he pitched for.
I think he was a brilliant strategist long before he became a manager, and it showed in his pitching.
10. RUBE FOSTER - Getting tough to compare the NLers now, but he impressed too many people for me to doubt him
totally. It's not just that he fared well in head to head games with Three-Finger Brown, it's that everyone EXPECTED him
to.
11. BOB CARUTHERS - Not sure I'll ever have enough time to be completely comfortable with the relative quality of the
AA, but he's got results that jump out at you. Also tough to encapsulate what it means when a special hitter and special
hitter share the same body/same season.
12. MICKEY WELCH - Still convinced we got a little off-track in the Keefe-Welch-Clarkson discussion; ok if we rate Welch
third, but not sure how he got THIS far behind.
13. ED WILLIAMSON - Yes, a shocker. Goes back to my revised thinking; he COULD be a HOMer, whereas most also-rans
now don't merit that statement. Have applied a big discount to the silly-HR season, yet he still looks fairly good.
14. HUGHIE JENNINGS - This career annoys me. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies little
else and even plays those games at 1B for a further discount. Tough call.
15. SHERRY MAGEE - Willing to move him up, but I'm awfully sick of OFs like this by now, so he starts modestly.

JUST MISSED
ADDIE JOSS - I had dismissed him, but when the field narrows like this, he starts looking better. Maybe in next few years.
BOBBY WALLACE - At least this time around, I'd rather reward briefer glory than longterm goodness (Beckley so extreme
that he dodges that bullet).
SAM THOMPSON - Still have a hunch that we'll wind up with dozens of OFs in the Thompson range; if I'm wrong he'll get
in many yrs from now.
RUBE WADDELL - Strikeouts are cool, but cooler if you know what to do with them. Refuse to believe that this scatterbrain
failed to win games just by bad luck, but I'll stay open to alternative views (not like I can look them up "this year" or
anything..
   197. Chris Cobb Posted: May 07, 2004 at 05:27 PM (#619010)
PhillyBooster,

Thanks for the numbers on Cravath and his PCL teams. I'll work on them!

As to Cravath's OPS+ and his value in 1908: he earned 12.4 win shares in 94 games. That projects to 21.4 win shares in 162, which is slightly above average, if he were to play every day. His defensive value isn't very high.

In 1912, he earned 15.4 ws in 130 games, which projects to 19.2 over 162, about average.

His 1908 EQA at BP is .303; 1912, .289 .

His WARP1 projected to 162 games are 6.4 and 7.1 .
   198. DavidFoss Posted: May 07, 2004 at 06:19 PM (#619092)
"Can we take it for GRANTed that you won't be putting the FINGER on who the two are?"

Hmmmm... normally I can figure out these little hints, but I sense a bit of ambiguity. I'm not exactly sure what I am taking for GRANTed. :)

Stranger things have happened in the last handful of ballots. Unless its a runaway for the top two slots, it might not yet be over.

Of course, as long as there is no 1926 discussion, I can wait.
   199. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2004 at 08:05 PM (#619230)
"Can we take it for GRANTed that you won't be putting the FINGER on who the two are?"

Without getting any more specific, your hints are not exactly correct.
   200. Daryn Posted: May 07, 2004 at 09:12 PM (#619290)
Stupid question -- but why was it that Cravath was not playing in the majors those 5 years in the PCL and the 3 years in Minny?
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2338 seconds
49 querie(s) executed