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, May 17, 2004

1926 Ballot

The 1926 Ballot. Top Newbies:

***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)

Does anyone have the list of newly eligible Negro Leaguers?

Don’t forget you can impose a one-year protest based on character issues, by not including players you otherwise would have voted for.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 17, 2004 at 09:23 AM | 209 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. sunnyday2 Posted: May 22, 2004 at 07:36 PM (#640502)
Dolf wrote:

>Dickey Pearce: As tempting as it is to vote for a guy who posted a 36 OPS+ at age 36, I'm going to pass this time around.

Dolf also has "disdain for bio-only candidates," in violation of our constitution but never mind that.

So for those who don't want to read the rest of this post, here is a summary in Q & A form. Q: What is Dickey Pearce's OPS+ at age 36? A: An excuse in search of a bias.

So just who did Dolf vote for:

1. Thompson--OPS+ 78 at age 37, not a GG SS
2. Joe Jackson--I think Pearce had more value at age 36
3. Wallace--66 at age 37
4. Caruthers--see Jackson
5. Sheckard--76 at age 34
6. Cicotte--threw a WS at age 35
7. Jennings--60 at age 34
8. Magee--84 at 35, zippo at 36
9. McGinnity--ERA+ 78 at 36
10. Waddell--70 at 33, zippo after that
11. Ryan--Jimmy should be a HoMer by now--102 at 36
12. Long--70 at 36, with 51 and 52 on either side
13. VanHaltren--72 at 37
14. Childs--see Jackson
15. McCormick--see Jackson

And how many of these guys came back to have more productive seasons after this? Well, Pearce...I think that's it. The rest were in permanent decline.

So, you can prove anything with numbers, but you choose your numbers based on your preconceptions, not the other way around.
   102. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 22, 2004 at 09:19 PM (#640622)
2. Joe Jackson--I think Pearce had more value at age 36

LOL

I believe he was a great player, but how great is hard to tell.

I agree that is not an easy question and one that I had to grapple with.

11-Pearce

I'm more than happy to have the Big Kahuna of this project on the Pearce bandwagon now! That makes up for you being wrong about Childs. :-D
   103. Zapatero Posted: May 22, 2004 at 09:37 PM (#640647)
Method Note: So far I've use ERA+ and OPS+ because they’re easy to find and because they’re park and year adjusted. I can’t find annual win shares rather than career – if anyone knows a source I’d love to hear it – or I’d use those. I don’t yet understand WARP3 because I haven’t read anything about the method (I wish Prospectus would get around to posting their stats glossary) and I won’t use a stat I don’t understand. When Hardball Times gets their historical Win Shares database up or when Prospectus gets their WARP3 explanation back up, these ratings may change.

I don’t see any truly great players here. No inner circle guys. For that reason, I’ve tended to go with guys whose contributions are not as well represented by career statistics, for whatever reason (with exceptions, like Wallace). After all, when this is over, are you really going to be proud that you elected another 140 OPS+ corner outfielder/1B type? Or are you going to be proud that the guy who invented how to play shortstop (and happened to be the best of his generation as well) or a great forgotten Negro Leaguer is recognized? Anyone can tabulate career win shares (well, anyone will be able to once the data is as freely available as career batting average). I think the hard (and interesting) part of this project is to find the hidden guys. Sorry for the preaching – this is my second ballot, and I’m really starting to get into it.
   104. Zapatero Posted: May 22, 2004 at 09:37 PM (#640648)
1. Addie Joss (rank on my previous ballot1)
#2 all time in ERA; #12 all time in ERA+
8.5 years is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that Joss actually was that much better than the league. He was consistently among the best at preventing hitters from reaching base (#1 twice, #2 twice, and never lower than #5). Was top 3 in ERA four times in his career and top 3 in ERA+ five times. Was never lower than #7 in either category in any full season. Not bad for a contemporary of Young, Johnson, Walsh, Plank, McGinnity, Waddell and, of course, Chesbro.
What really sells me on Joss is consistency. He never had a bad year. Even in his worst year, the 1909 half season, he was above average while pitching through what I presume was the initial stages of the malady that killed him. I just wish I could find out some more information about him – his seems like a fascinating story.
Dying from tubercular meningitis in 1910 could happen to anyone. It's more like a plane crash than a propensity to illness. It's not part of his skill set -- it's just bad luck.

2. Bobby Wallace (11)
Wallace strikes me as similar to Cal Ripken, Jr. without the streak and without the two MVP years. Long career, lots of 120 OPS+ years, a few better years, a few average years, and a great defensive reputation at short. Sounds like a HoMer to me.

3. Dickey Pearce (4)
The published NA stats don’t do him justice. Great ballplayer, innovator, all in all a great story. I’m convinced.

4. Lip Pike (8)
Great hitter and center fielder from an underrepresented era.

5. Roger Bresnahan (3)
I hear (well, read) people say “he was a great hitter and a solid catcher, but he wasn’t both in the same season.” I think somebody capable of doing both deserves recognition, even if it wasn’t at the same time. Probably the best eligible catcher to play after Buck Ewing.

6. Larry Doyle (not listed)
A good hitter and good middle infielder.

7. Frank Grant (10)
I’m not voting for him here because he’s the “best Negro Leaguer of the 19th Century.” I’m voting for him here because he was, by all accounts, one of the best second basemen of his time. Haven’t been convinced yet on Monroe

8. Cupid Childs (not listed)
See Doyle.

9. Hughie Jennings (not listed)
See Doyle

10. Rube Foster
Best African American pitcher we’ve seen so far. I’m convinced he would have been great anywhere.

11. Sherry Magee
12. Pete Browning
13. Sam Thompson
14. George Van Haltren
15. Jake Beckley (not listed)
The best pure hitters still out there. I’m sure the order will change as I adjust my method.


Off my ballot:
McGinnity
Pitched 1.5 more years than Joss and 50% more innings than Joss. Gave up more than twice as many earned runs. Joss was a much better pitcher. I have to disagree with the conventional wisdom here – McGinnity’s huge number of pretty good innings is not nearly as valuable as Joss’s smaller number of great ones.

Caruthers (5)
I gave him too much credit earlier for him both pitching and hitting well.

Waddell
An enigma to me. Great K rates indicate great talent, but the less than fabulous results in terms of runs and losses make me wonder what was going on there.

Jimmy Sheckard
Too inconsistent. Had some great years, but also had some lousy ones, and there’s no pattern to it. OPS+ of 114, 113, 102, and 110 respectively during the usual peak ages of 27-28-29-30.

Boycott:
Joe Jackson. As promised, I will hold my nose and put him #1 next year.
Eddie Cicotte. Cicotte probably will come in after McGinnity and Waddell. Inconsistent -- it took him until 29 to “figure it out” and start pitching like a star, and then had a pair of merely average seasons in the middle of his peak.
   105. TheGoodSamaritan Posted: May 22, 2004 at 09:53 PM (#640667)
Marc (or sunnyday2), I think Dolf (Mark) was trying to use some humor in his remarks for Dickey Pearce, since rejecting somebody from the HoM based purely on their OPS+ at age 36 is obviously totally wrong. On the same vein, somebody having an OPS+ of 106 and 98 at the age of 38 and 39 doesn't really support his candidacy. Doc Cramer had OPS+ of 94, 97, 99, 94, 91 from ages 37 to 41, so does that make him a HoMer? Also I doubt that Pearce was a GG SS at age 36.

BTW John Murphy I'm not Jeff, I'm ed. And Kauff was not Native American: [from Craig Burley's article] "Although Kauff was of German origin, it was widely believed during his playing days that he was Jewish. Why this was so (aside from his ambiguous name) is not clear; perhaps the sterotypes of the time saw his flashy style of play and even flashier lifestyle as somehow indicative."
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 22, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#640673)
BTW John Murphy I'm not Jeff,

I know. If I posted otherwise, I apologize.
   107. karlmagnus Posted: May 23, 2004 at 12:54 AM (#640915)
Zapatero, Cicotte got going at 29 because he was a knuckleballer -- it's the standard knuckleballer career pattern to be better late in their careers, and not very good in their 20s.

Incidentally, if a player like Parisian Bob is good at both pitching and hitting, you're supposed to give extra credit, not penalise him as you seem to be doing.

On Kauff, the Rothstein book is very convincing that Arnold had already fixed more than 1 World Series before '19. As I discussed earlier, '14 and especially '17 appear particulalry fragrant, and easy for Arnold to fix (he was close to the Giants.)

Given Kauff's "flashy style" and overall approach to life he would have been an obvious person forArnold's guys to approach -- they presumably had firends and "business partners" in common. Kauff batted .160 in the '17 WS, with his only significant hits being 2HR in the fourth game, in which Chicago was shut out (presumably the "let's win one to make it look good" game.)

The evidence is overwhelming that Landis knew about this, and banned Kauff not for his attempts at auto theft, but for fixing the WS, which Landis wouldn't have told the public, since they didn't need to know that 2 out of the last 3 WS had been fixed. No doubt he didn't have proof, but he didn't have proof on Jackson and Cicotte, either. "Regardless of the verdict of juries...."

To be consistent, you should knock out Kauff's 1919 and 1920, so that his career ends about a year after throwing a WS, as Jackson and Cicotte 's did. Either way, in terms of "extra credit" he appears a VERY undeserving case.

This site is now the PITS to post on!
   108. karlmagnus Posted: May 23, 2004 at 01:00 AM (#640931)
In penultimate para "The CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is thus overwhelming..." It posted before I could correct it. Grrh!
   109. EricC Posted: May 23, 2004 at 01:46 AM (#641038)
1926 ballot.

Season-by-season ratings for each player determined by rate of performance relative to peers in the same season, based on win shares per plate appearance (for batters) or ERA+ (for pitchers), corrected for league strength. The best string of consecutive seasons (the "prime") is then determined for each player. Final ratings are based on a combination of the strength and length of the prime.

1. Joe Jackson Top 5 in OPS+ every year as a regular, while in a league with Cobb, Speaker, and (then) Ruth puts him in the top half of my HoM and well ahead of the pack.

2. Eddie Cicotte Overshadowed both by scandal and Joe Jackson, actually an outstanding pitcher. One ERA+ title, 2nd in ERA+ three times, once to Babe Ruth, and twice to Walter Johnson, so arguably second only to Walter Johnson at his peak. Year-to-year inconsistency keeps him from being a shoo-in, but did accumulate more career WARP3 as a pitcher than any other eligible candidate.

3. George "Rube" Waddell Multiple ERA+ and strikeout titles against strong competition. 5th highest strikeouts above league of any pitcher ever, while pitching in the deadball era. A legitimately great, though hard-luck, pitcher.

4. Roger Bresnahan His Win Shares rate (per game or per plate appearance) is among the highest that we've seen to date among players at any position. High rating due in part to positional balance, but I believe that catchers who dominated their position over a period of years deserve the HoM.

5. Sherry Magee Batting black ink is 43rd highest all-time, and 3rd highest among eligible players not in either Hall (Fame or Merit). Gray ink is 32nd highest all-time, and highest among all eligible players not in the Halls. Relative weakness of NL knocks him down a little, but I still say he's a definite HoMer.

Sheckard, on the other hand, is only 109th career in black ink, and 143rd in gray ink. All metrics I've seen agree that Magee was the better hitter. The big unknown is defense. Here, I believe it's prudent to be conservative in defensive ratings, a la Win Shares, rather than taking the more variable defensive ratings of WARP at face value. Why? Because the actual distribution of balls put into play for historic games is unknown, making it difficult to accurately determine the part of a fielder's range which is due to skill from the part which is due to luck.

6. Bobby Wallace The only eligible player on my ballot who doesn't appear on baseballreality.com's MLB Timeline, showing how impressive his career was. This kind of player (good every year for 15 straight) adds a hugh number of pennants over a career.

7. Jake Beckley Average to very good for 17 straight years of regular play. Similar to Eddie Murray, though not quite as great. Would easily have cleared 3000 hits except for the shorter schedules in his day.

8. Lip Pike In documented years, almost always best at position, with lots of black ink. Evidence that he was the fastest player in the game suggests that he was a defensive asset.

9. Dickey Pearce Anecdotal and statistical evidence suggest that he was the greatest pre-NA player.

10. Frank Grant Would probably not have been a hitting superstar in the majors, but, like McPhee, Richardson, or Glasscock, might have quietly accumulated enough batting and defensive value to have a HoM career.

11. Hughie Jennings Among the highest prime WS/162 rates of any eligible player, but was only good for 5 years.

12. Addie Joss Career WHIP of 0.968 lowest ever; 142 ERA+ tied for 12th best ever. 8.5 years at this level is no fluke.

13. John McGraw Best 3B of 1890s. Highest career OBP before Ruth. Due to several factors, both fair and unfair, has fared worse in voting history than he otherwise might have.

14. Gavvy Cravath Tough to get a handle on. Highest Black Ink score of any player not in either Hall, so I could be underrating him, but on the other hand, his stats were heavily influenced by his home park. Almost certainly a shoo-in if he had been in the majors for his entire career, but it's the "almost" that bothers me. After all, Sam Thompson was good in his 30s too, but his late start and injuries help to keep him off my ballot. Can I be certain that Cravath's career would have gone differently? Not quite.

15. Frank Chance Best 1B of the 1900s.

16-20: Ryan,Duffy,Van Haltren, Childs, Sheckard
21-25: Tiernan, Griffith, Willis, L. Doyle, Leach
26-30: S. White, Powell, Cross, Thompson, C. Jones
   110. EricC Posted: May 23, 2004 at 01:50 AM (#641045)
(5000 character limit has got to be abolished)

Left off ballot:

George Van Haltren. Bresnahan, infielders and high-peak pitchers keep Ryan, Duffy, and Van Haltren off for now.

Jimmy Sheckard. See Magee comment.

Sam Thompson. So many good outfielders in the 1890s; but I would elect Ryan, Duffy, Van Haltren, and Tiernan before Thompson, not to mention the top unelected OF from other decades. I hope that Win Shares is not making a mistake here.

Joe McGinnity. I'm not a big fan. I care about performance rates and not single-season totals, so his black ink doesn't sway me; he followed around the weaker league and played for good teams, inflating his W/L record; he had too many seasons with mediocre ERA+.

Bob Caruthers: I've said enough about his stats. Beyond the stats, to understand the weirdness of his career record, you should note that: (1) Caruthers had a "put the ball in play and let the fielders handle it" pitching philosophy. (2) Caruthers was a good high-pitch hitter, but couldn't hit low pitches as well. The elimination of the rule where a batter could call for a high or a low pitch helps to explain why his hitting took the big plunge that it did.
   111. karlmagnus Posted: May 23, 2004 at 02:43 AM (#641114)
More Soviet-style agitprop from the EO Parisian Bob. The high pitch/low pitch rule was abolished before the 1887 season (I bet it had been widely ignored before then). 1887 was Caruthers' best batting year, with a 1010 OPS and a 168 OPS+.

Spiking these things is a lot more tiresome now I have to log into IE and fight mega-popups to do it.
   112. EricC Posted: May 23, 2004 at 03:16 AM (#641126)
1887 was Caruthers' best batting year, with a 1010 OPS and a 168 OPS+.

No. Caruthers dropped from an 186 OPS+ in 1886 to an 168 OPS+ in 1887, while aging from 22 to 23, a time when batters should normally improve , because pitchers were catching up to him under the rules change. Then he plunged in 1888 to a 0.230 BA and a 111 OPS+ at age 24, never to recover to anywhere near his earlier level.
   113. dan b Posted: May 23, 2004 at 03:43 AM (#641135)
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 (2) Cooperstown missed one. My system has him as Fred Clarke’s equal. 1st in career.
3.Jackson (1) I admit to being of 2 minds on this one. The moralist sitting on my right shoulder agrees with James in his original HBA where he writes, “Of course he should (be in the HOF), it is only a question of priorities.” He then proceeds to provide a long list of players more deserving of the honor including Vic Wertz, Omar Moreno, Duane Kuiper, and “every honest ballplayer who has ever played the game, at any level from Babe Ruth ball through the majors”. But then the sentimentalist on my left shoulder starts listening to voices in cornfields. Since the rules won’t let me keep Jackson off my ballot until we run out of worthy honest ballplayers, I will forego my right to a one-time protest “no” vote, and do what I can to “ease his pain.” First in WS/162 and 3-year and 8-year peak.
4.Jennings (7) – elected to my HoM in 1908. 1st in 5-year peak. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar.
5.Duffy (3). 2nd in 5-year peak, 3rd in 8-year, elected to my HoM in 1912.
6.Sheckard (4) 2nd in career, 4th in 3-year peak, 4th in 8-yr peak, 4th best hitter on ballot. Personal HoM in 1921.
7.Griffith (3) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, elected to my HoM in 1913.
8.Chance (13) – ranks 3rd on hitting alone behind Jackson and Magee. 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 BJHoM. 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. The Peerless Leader merits more attention here.
9.Waddell (4) I like his peak and K’s. Hall worthy.
10.Leach (6) 5th in 8-yr peak, 4th career.
11.Browning (17) – Jackson drops him to 2nd in WS/162, elected to my HoM in1906.
12.Caruthers –Use NHBA rankings to build BJHoM and Parisian Bob was inducted in 1898.
13.Doyle (11) NHBA rank of 20 puts him in BJHoM this year.
14.Bresnahan (22) 1st catcher to appear on my ballot since Ewing elected.
15 (tie)Wallace (18) – 7th in career.
15 (tie)Joss (11) 1st in WS/IP. Great pitcher belongs on more ballots.
17.Ryan (5) – 5th in career.
18.Tiernan (10) 6th best on hitting alone.
19.Thompson (15) 12th in 8-year peak
20.Willis (4) – 1st in career, 2nd in 3-year peak.
21.Tip O’Neill (14) – Great 3 year peak and WS/162. I never did like him as much as John Murphy did back in 1914.
22.Fielder Jones (8)
23.Van Haltren (9)
24.Long (10)
25.Childs (19) – Best 2B of 90’s.
26.McGraw (20) – Best 3B of 90’s.
27.Williamson (29) Named greatest player of all time in 1894 poll.
   114. Jeff M Posted: May 23, 2004 at 04:56 AM (#641155)
(5000 character limit has got to be abolished)

That's funny, I think I would like the limitation if it didn't result in multiple posts to avoid the limitation.

If everyone edited their work to limit it to 5,000 characters, I suspect we would all have an easier time reading the discussions here and be better off. I don't believe anyone is reading past the required ballot information anyway (if even that). I bet the ballot counters would like it too.

Hell, most of our ballot comments (including mine) are rehashed from previous ballots just to prove that we've thought about the candidates. There's rarely anything new about the old candidates. And with all due respect to the various posters here, I don't care who is ranked 20th, or 30th or 38th, particularly when I have to scroll past multiple posts from one voter that are used to "squeeze" those extra players in. If I want to know why you've got Cupid at #35, I can read about it on the ballot discussion thread.

(I know, I won't let this efficiency argument go. It's become my pet peeve with this project, because it has caused me to essentially stop reading what everyone else is posting. And that's not a good thing).
   115. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 23, 2004 at 02:30 PM (#641216)
21.Tip O’Neill (14) – Great 3 year peak and WS/162. I never did like him as much as John Murphy did back in 1914.

It was these damn mushrooms that somebody gave to me as a gift! :-)

No. Caruthers dropped from an 186 OPS+ in 1886 to an 168 OPS+ in 1887, while aging from 22 to 23, a time when batters should normally improve , because pitchers were catching up to him under the rules change. Then he plunged in 1888 to a 0.230 BA and a 111 OPS+ at age 24, never to recover to anywhere near his earlier level.

Does anyone know what the dimensions of Sportsman Park I were? It appears his offensive numbers were never the same after he left that park. Just asking.
   116. Jeff M Posted: May 23, 2004 at 09:57 PM (#641796)
Does anyone know what the dimensions of Sportsman Park I were? It appears his offensive numbers were never the same after he left that park.

360 (L), 430 (C), 335 (R) according to www.ballparksofbaseball.com

Also, the STATS All-Time Sourcebook shows a park run index of 111 and a home run park index of 201 (the latter figure being the highest home run index in history for parks in which at least 10 seasons were played).

One other note: Caruthers was a much better hitter in the AA than when he switched to the NL.
   117. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 23, 2004 at 10:13 PM (#641806)
"oc Cramer had OPS+ of 94, 97, 99, 94, 91 from ages 37 to 41, so does that make him a HoMer? Also I doubt that Pearce was a GG SS at age 36."

If Cramer were a shortstop and had any kind of a normal career trajectory, it'd be damn strong evidence that he was a HoMer.

Karl - are you just making this stuff up on Kauff? Did you read Craig's article on THT? Kauff was approached and turned in those involved. Kauff ratted them out to Matthewson, who in turn told McGraw, as Kauff expected. How could you possibly accuse him of throwing the series?

Dave Winfield was 1-for-21 in the 1981 World Series. Did he throw it?
   118. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 23, 2004 at 10:38 PM (#641818)
Thanks, Jeff!
   119. Howie Menckel Posted: May 23, 2004 at 11:48 PM (#641845)
1926 ballot

1. SHOELESS JOE JACKSON - Ah, 'tis romantic to picture a misty time when ballplayers were utterly honest men, with only the Black Sox ruining our idyll. Or to picture a guy hitting .375 in the series having hit .650 if only he tried. Sadly, it really was a messy time with tough, often nasty men both playing and owning teams. There were numerous proven and unproven scandals in the previous 20 years, and Comiskey's cheapness only added fuel to the fire. Jackson gets no sentiment from me for having his career cut short; if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. But he wasn't the central figure in the scandal, either. Even without any sentiment, he kicks the crap out of Flick as a hitter:
Jackson OPS+s (only 400+ AB seasons) 193 192 192 172 166 160 155 146 143
Flick's OPS+s (only in 400+ AB seasons) 172 166 159 157 156 155 153 136 136 120
2. 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.
3. JOE MCGINNITY - Obviously very close to Brown, but didn't quite get the fielding help, near as I can see. Winning games was all they cared about, and he did it quite well, majors and minors.
4. 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 lonely perch in ranking below hitting's all-timers and above everyone else. Can someone finally explain what Keeler has that Beckley doesn't?
5. SHERRY MAGEE - Big move up, I like the Joe Kelley comparison a lot. Not positive he belongs in HOM, but leaning that way.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. RUBE FOSTER - Getting tough to compare the Negro Leaguers 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.
10. DICKEY PEARCE - Have 'rethunk' a bit, again to where I'm seriously debating who I'd want in the HOM. I could live with Pearce, a pioneer who took a different river to get to a similarly clouded path of the NLers.
11. BOBBY WALLACE - I've probably been underrating him a bit; looking for a post that gets me excited about him.
12. 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. Damn good hitter.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. PETE BROWNING - Great hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time.

JUST MISSED
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.
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.
ADDIE JOSS - I had dismissed him, but when the field narrows like this, he starts looking better. Maybe in next few years.
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..
CUPID CHILDS - May return next year.
LARRY DOYLE - Battling Childs for ballot spot.
   120. karlmagnus Posted: May 24, 2004 at 01:09 AM (#641893)
There's obviously a Benny Kauff rehabilitation industry at present; I've just read Craig Burley's 3-parter. I don't buy it.

No Joe, I don't make it up, but I do read things carefully. The incident where Kauff turned in Zimmermann to Matty was at the end of the 1919 season, not the 1917WS -- it doesn't prove he didn't throw the 1917WS, but makes it more likely that he did, and was trying to regain respectability later.

The guy was dealing used stolen cars, whether or not he knew they were stolen, and was using title transfers where at least the date was forged. He was later banned for conduct unbecoming to a dodgy racetrack.

Kauff was in general VERY CLEARLY a far less upstanding citizen than Jackson or Cicotte -- whatever his precise misdeeds, there were obviously plenty of them. As I said, NOT a good candidate for extra credit, a process which I am increasingly coming to think totally spurious.
   121. Seaver1969 Posted: May 24, 2004 at 02:55 AM (#641953)
I apologize in advance for the spacing, I copied and pasted and can't figure out how to fix it. Won't happen next time.

I’ve been lurking in the HoM boards, but this is my first time posting or submitting a
ballot. I was recommended to check out this site by someone who has been here since the
beginning through WhatIfSports.com (a great site, by the way), and I think this is a great
way to fix some of the greatest injustices in baseball. If anything is wrong with my ballot
or the forum in which I post it or anything else, please let me know. Anyway, after I put
together my ballot I noticed that it is very different from the majority of the ballots posted
here, which I think is a good thing. Still, I think I should explain my voting strategy
alongside my individual player rankings.
I quickly realized that I would not be able to get an accurate portrayal of my opinions by
ranking the top eligible players against each other because there are way too many of
them. So, I developed a system to rate each individual player so I could then compare
their scores and create my Top 15 (or 25, or 30, or 500 eventually) of the current available
players. I value the longevity of a career more than anything, I would much rather see a
player who was good for 18 years than a player who was great for 6 in the HoM. I rate
each individual season A-F (A’s getting 10, B’s 7, C’s 4, D’s 2 and F’s 1) on many
categories (OPS, total bases/100 PA, avg, at bats and 8 other offensive categories; OAV,
WHIP, BB/9, HR/9 and 6 other pitching categories). I (relatively) ignore stats such as
runs, RBIs, wins and ERA because there are too many variables that affect them, although
ERA can help when no information on extra base hits given up is available. After tallying
them up, I add bonuses for position played, how well they were defensively throughout
their career, post season performance, and, for pitchers, innings pitched bonuses for A and
B years (as many as 4 points a year, the pitchers seemed to be scoring lower than position
players so I added this bonus, which I may be forced to adjust as the game changes and
pitchers careers are extended) and a +/- if I feel that it is needed (so far, I’ve mainly done
this only for dead ball pitchers who would’ve extended their careers if they played in any
other era). For players that I don’t have stats on (negro leagues, played in an era without
reliable stats, etc), I manually rank them based on research. I rated every played that
received a vote on last year’s ballot as well as all the incoming guys. I double checked
player by player to make sure that my rankings made sense (the only guy that changed was
Lave Cross, who I decided to drop a few places). The whole process took about 12 hours,
but I’m hoping it will only take another 1-2 hours per week now that I’m caught
up...although I think that I’ll go back to where everyone started so I can make my PHoM.
Anyway, I’ll post my ballot below, and please let me know if I’m doing this right. Also,
what are some good sources for Negro Leaguers? I read through the Negro League thread
and discovered blackbaseball.com and nlbpa.com...any other good sites or books??
Thanks in advance...
   122. Seaver1969 Posted: May 24, 2004 at 02:57 AM (#641956)
1926 Ballot (Points in parenthesis)
1: Jake Beckley (136) I appear to be the only one ranking this guy 1st, but he truly
deserves it. He fell just short of the 3,000 hit plateau in his 20 year career, 16 years of
which he collected over 400 PAs. He hit over .300 12 times out of 16 full seasons, and
over .320 10 times. He didn’t draw many walks, but he still recorded a respectable career
OPS of .796. He was one of the games early sluggers (which it lacked), finishing on the
top 10 extra base hits10 times. He was never great, but he was good longer than most
even play, which puts him at the top of my list. He shouldn’t lose too many points for
playing first.
2: George Van Haltren (134): Another good but never outstanding (except for 1 year)
player, Van Haltren was consistently able to hit for both average (batted over .330 7
times) and draw walks (70 or more 6 years). Van Haltren also had a fairly long career,
with 12 full years and a total of 17. I don’t give him any credit for his pitching career.
3: Jimmy Ryan (126): OPS over .800 in 15 full seasons. An early slugger, he was
consistently on the leaderboard in slugging, total bases, home runs and OPS. Had one
amazing year, but yet again, his consistency (a word I’m using a lot, because I think it is
one of the most important things in baseball) in producing solid seasons got him on my
ballot.
4: Sam Thompson (113): Amazing career stats for only 10 full seasons. He had 4 amazing
years, with an OPS over .900 (including two over 1.000). He loses points for his lack of
patience at the plate, but he is one of the great few that can hit doubles, triples and homers
at a pace greater than the rest of the league.
5: Joe Jackson (112): Amazing. No argument can be made against his on field stats, and if
he finished his career, I think he may have been one of the game’s best 5 hitters. I do not
count the Black Sox scandal against him (how could he have thrown the WS when he hit
.375 for the series anyway?), but he falls from the top of my ballot because of his
shortened career.
6: Hugh Duffy (107): Not many pitchers yet, huh? Oh well, no one can touch the hitters of
the era just yet anyway. Duffy is another amazing hitter who boasts possible baseball’s
best single season performance (.440/.502/.694) pre-Ruth, as well as one of the best 3
year stretches ever (1893-95). However, I am a career voter, and he had a pretty good one
as well--an .833 OPS over 17 seasons (11 full).
7: Addie Joss (104): Finally, a pitcher. I definitely think that Joss is the best pitcher on the
ballot. He was able to keep his WHIP below 1 for 6 seasons (something McGinnity did
just once). I guess the argument against this guy is that his career was too short for
someone in this era who didn’t pitch 400-600 innings every year. By today’s standards, he
was a workhorse and a damn good one at that.
8: Sherry Magee (101): Back to the outfielders...Another solid player for a long time.
Never had a great peak, but he was fairly reliable.
9: Frank Grant (No score): From what I’ve heard, he would have done well in the majors
and he dominated for a few years when he played in a mixed race league. His shortened
career troubles me, but given the competition of the negro leagues of the time, I don’t
count it against him too much.
10: Rube Waddell (98): One of the first great strikeout artists, he had a great stretch
where he kept his WHIP fairly low and managed to keep on racking up the Ks without
walking too many people. He had 3 amazing years, and 6 good years.
11: Eddie Cicotte (96): Cicotte stayed in the game for 14 years, and possessed some of
the best control ever seen, keeping his BB/9 under 2 four times. He had just two amazing
years, but he had 9 solid years with a WHIP below 1.10.
12: Jimmy Sheckard (95): 12th place was very close, Sheckard and Doyle tied for points,
A’s and B’s, but Sheckard has more B’s. Sheckard is another guy that had a good career
(17 seasons, 14 full seasons) but no real peak. The amazing thing about Sheckard is his
ability to draw walks, his career OBP is more than 100 points higher than his career Avg.
Might as well throw another OF on this list.
13: Larry Doyle (95): One of the best early second basemen, it is a shame that his career
was so short. He had the whole package, he could hit for contact and power, and take
some walks every now and then. All at 2B.
14: Bobby Wallace (94): An amazing 25 year career for this SS never had more than 2
great seasons, but he was consistent. Never was a great hitter (except for those 2
anomalies...), but he was an above average SS...for 15 full seasons.
15: Cupid Childs (90): 6 great hitting seasons for this second basemen (whose batting
average and OPS is among the position’s highest) made Childs seem like a lock for the
HoM, but he only lasted 11 full seasons in the bigs. I really wish some of these guys could
play in this era.
   123. Seaver1969 Posted: May 24, 2004 at 02:58 AM (#641957)
16-25: Herman Long (87), Vic Willis, Pete Browning, Lave Cross, Joe McGinnity,
Tommy Leach, Hughie Jennings, Fielder Jones, John McGraw, Bob Caruthers (77)
Players in Top 10 last year not on my ballot:
Joe McGinnity: One outstanding year, but players always seemed to be able to hit him. He
was a good pitcher, but not a great one, and he wasn’t good long enough to be on my
ballot. He didn’t walk many, but he didn’t strike out many either, which leads me to the
conclusion that he was never a pitcher that would be feared. Yeah, he got a ton of IP each
year. Doesn’t do it for me.
Bob Caruthers: I consider him a better pitcher than McGinnity, and he was also worked as
much as the other pitchers of the time. He only had more than 200 IP for 7 years, which is
not a HoM career for me. He was a great pitcher, and a guy with such a short career
cracking into my Top 25 demonstrates this.


Wow, the spacing looks really ugly. Sorry again, but hey, I'm new here.
   124. Daryn Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:17 AM (#641962)
Seaver, please take a look at Rube Foster again -- I eyeballed your system and he seems to score well over a hundred even with conservative translations. And if you want to no score him, he still should be close to Grant, in my view, anyway.

And John Murphy would like you to take another look at Pearce, who should get credit for the 1860s.
   125. Jeff M Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:56 AM (#641971)
The fact is, we don't know whether Kauff was guilty or not. The jury acquitted him. Landis did not.

But Landis was not all sweetness and light. He didn't like the Federal League and he didn't like Germans. So Kauff started with two strikes.
   126. Yardape Posted: May 24, 2004 at 04:16 AM (#641975)
I hear ya, Jeff M. 15 only.

1. Bill Monroe He looks so close to HR Johnson, that makes him next in line with my book.

2. Bob Caruthers We've been over this before, I know. Great hitter, great pitcher, at the AA peak.

3. Frank Grant Being the greatest black player of the 19th Century seems like a better argument than those below.

4. Tommy Bond I took another look at him, and I think his great peak overcomes his short career, especially as an early pitcher.

5. Lip Pike Should rank with the greats of the 1870s.

6. Tommy Leach I've waffled on him, but I think his greatness is obscured by the position change.

7. Jimmy Ryan Ryan has always topped the outfield glut for me.

8. Jimmy Sheckard Whew, it starts to get crowded here. I'm not bothered by Sheckard's oddly-shaped career; it looks good to me.

9. Roger Bresnahan Top catcher by a ways; I'm not totally convinced yet, but he's growing on me.

10. Frank Chance Limited playing time holds him back, but he was good enough in what he did play to land here.

11. Cupid Childs Looked at him again in comparison to Larry Doyle. Childs comes out ahead, and as the best 2bman on the ballot.

12. Dickey Pearce I haven't quite decided where he goes, but I think the best player of his time has to make this ballot.

13. Joe McGinnity He may need to move up, ugh this ballot is tough.

14. Sherry Magee I don't see a lot separating him from Sheckard, and yet they're six spots apart.

15. Jim McCormick He's being forgotten, but he sneaks back on my ballot here.
   127. MichaelD Posted: May 24, 2004 at 04:54 AM (#641977)
Here's my ballot. I've made adjustments in my method which have changed a few positions slightly. The primary adjustment was in determining a replacement value for win shares. It is still a work in progress.


1. Sherry Magee - Very similar to Sheckard. According to Win Shares he should rank number 1. Type of player I rank highly relative to group.

2. Bobby Wallace - Great long career.

3. Jimmy Sheckard - In defense of his defense Win Shares for defense for years when he was not with the Cubs and with a bunch of different teams. That seems to suggest that he was a strong defender, not just lucky in my opinion.

4. Jimmy Ryan - I'm not sure what else to say. I've been the biggest FOJR for a while now.

5. Hugh Duffy - Every time I do a re-analysis, Duffy or Ryan turns out to be slightly in front of the other and it flip-flops each time. Now Ryan has the slight edge.

6. Tommy Leach - I guess he is my type of player, lots of career Win Shares. 3b was still a key defensive position while he was playing there, so the defensive Win Shares make sense.

7. George Van Haltren - It is kind of funny. When I relooked at the numbers Van Haltren was a player who should have moved up a lot. Before I was discounting his Win Shares too much for his pitching. Then after I made this realization, I looked at the ballot results from last time and he was one of the big movers. He doesn't move up that much so far but he could easily pass the next three.

8. Frank Grant - Moves up thanks to a discounting of pitchers and the lack of many good candidates.

9. Jake Beckley - Hard to ignore his entire career. Even though the peak is not very high, he was still often the best first baseman. Moved up slightly this year.

10. Joe McGinnity - He has fallen due to a downward revision of all pitchers. I might have overdone it and he could bounce back up next time.

11. Gavvy Cravath - I'm usually not as conservative as some with new guys, but in order to have Cravath pretty high requires some extrapolation which I want to start with being conservative on. I'm right now giving him only a slight bump up for his missed years, but could give him more.

12. Sam Thompson - I'm going to re-evaluate trying to be fair to the early players versus the later ones next.

13. Ed Williamson - There is now a chance Williamson could re-work him into my PHOM situation again. A couple of years ago, I would have thought that highly unlikely.

14. Clark Griffith - Also drops downward because of the pitcher re-adjustment.

15. Larry Doyle - Catches the tail end of the ballot.
   128. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:00 AM (#641978)
I'm not boycotting the Black Sox, if I voted for Cap Anson, I can vote for these guys. Joe Jackson and Joe Kelley make my PHoM this year.

1. Lip Pike (1) A pretty clear #1 to me. He was one of the five or six best players of the '71-'77 era, combined power and speed, and we're pretty certain he was among the leading players in the 5 years before the forming of the NA. Made my PHoM in 1919.

2. Dickey Pearce (2) He very likely was THE best player in baseball for a decade. Yes, baseball wasn't really organized in that era, but his NA record is a strong indicator that he was a very good player in his prime. Made my PHoM in 1920.

3. Bobby Wallace (4) I don't buy the Beckley comparisons; he was never great but consistently very good. An excellent fielder and a servicable hitter who played for a very long time. Not the best SS of his era, but he had a pretty darn good peer group. Made my PHoM last year.

4. Joe Jackson (new) Has a great peak early in his career, but didn't quite maintain that level. The Flick comparison makes sense and this is a bit below where I had Elmer; I'm comfortable with that.

(4A Joe Kelley, 4B Willie Keeler)

5. Frank Grant (5) The best black ballplayer of the 19th century, and there's enough evidence that he was comparable to good white players to make him worthy of recognition.

6. Bob Caruthers (9) Had one of those "Doh!" moments today. One of the things I look at is years that players were #1 in their league in batting or fielding Win Shares. Suddenly it occured to me that I had never checked if Bob was tops in Combined Win Shares, and sure enough he was in 1887 and 1889. Since I hadn't been including that in my analysis, he moves up away from McGinnity (and Brown, for the PHoM), out of the borderline and into the "vote for". We'll see if he stays there...

7. Sherry Magee (6) Add me to the list of people who find him difficult to separate from Sheckard; nudges ahead because we can be a little more certain of his strength (batting).

8. Jimmy Sheckard (7) Had an odd career path and much of his value is hidden, but he was a quality player.

(8A. Miner Brown)

9. Joe McGinnity (10) He still doesn't have a strong career argument in this group, but there's no measurement where he does particularly bad.

10. Bill Monroe (11) A good player, but I haven't seen any good argument to have him as high as Johnson or Grant.

11. Hughie Jennings (14) Back up a bit. Still a more impressive peak than anyone else on the ballot.

12. Jimmy Ryan (12) He and Van Haltren need a nickname. How about the "Pyrite Dust Twins"?

13. George Van Haltren (13) Ryan Version 1.1. Both guys were very good players for a respectable career, but don't rise to the level of greatness to make the Hall.

14. Cupid Childs (15) He could hit the ball pretty good for a 2B and his defense was decent, but he's another one who I don't quite see as great.

15. Clark Griffith (21) If we're going to elect 7 pitchers from the 1900s, why only 3 from the 1890s? Closer to the guys below him than McGinnity and Freedom Bob.

Off ballot:
16. (20) Sam Thompson. Short career, hitter's parks, lousy fielder. I don't find his numbers that convincing. They look nice, though.
17. (17) Jim McCormick. Upon further review, his numbers are good, but not truly comparable with McGinnity.
18. (16) Tommy Leach. Great fielder, OK hitter. Not a huge peak.
19. (new) Eddie Cicotte. Did better than I expected. WARP really likes him.
20. (19) Mickey Welch. The 300 wins are a selling point, but the peripherals are weak.
21. (18) Mike Griffin. Great defensive player, where would he rank if he hadn't quit in a snit?
22. (24) Jake Beckley. A good player who was occasionally very good, but never great. I'm not worried about position scarcity in this case.
23. (new) Larry Doyle. Sure, an excellent hitter for a 2Bman, but the defensive numbers are bad, and his career wasn't as long as some people are trying to argue.
24. (new) Gavvy Cravath. I'm willing to give him some credit for his minor league play, but that only gets him to the Jones-Browning tier.
25. (23) Rube Waddell. Strikeouts look nice, but they don't mean as much as keeping runs from scoring.
26. (22) Charley Jones. A hell of a hitter, and I could see that I may have him too low.
27. (25) Rube Foster. I'm sure he was a good pitcher, but with his career length, to get high on the ballot he had to be a really great one at his peak, and I'm just not convinced that he was.
28. (30) Pete Browning. See Charley Jones.
29. (29) Hugh Duffy
30. (28) Lave Cross. Just hung around for a long time without any remarkable acheivements.
   129. MichaelD Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:01 AM (#641979)
Missing ballot explanations:

Lip Pike - Now that the ballot has gotten less crowded, he has a real chance to get on in the next few years.

Dickey Pearce - Other than the early Negro Leaguers, probably the hardest player to judge. Two complicating factors. I'm still trying to make sure that he is the best player from his time and whether there was enough baseball to determine whether that makes a difference.

Bob Caruthers - Still not convinced.

Jackson/Cicotte - I'll talk about my views on them next "year".
   130. DanG Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:07 AM (#641983)
New exhibits for Wallace, McGinnity, Magee. The Candidate Gap now plunges us deeper into the murkiness of the Gray Area. Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte debut with Larry Doyle and Gavvy Cravath in 1926. In 1927, Pete Hill and Ed Konetchy keep things interesting. Frank Baker sweeps into the HoM in 1928.

1)Wallace (1,3,4) - Like McPhee, he was a regular for 18 years. Wallace consistently leads Bid 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. A leading run producer in his prime, the list below shows him surrounded by HoMers, plus he had more defensive value than most of those players. Players leading in RBI plus Runs Scored 1897-1908:
1—2250 H. Wagner
2—2110 N. Lajoie
3—1813 J. Collins
4—1772 F. Clarke

5—1769 B. Wallace
6—1682 F. Jones
7—1666 W. Keeler
8—1648 E. Flick
9—1610 B. Dahlen

10-1592 F. Tenney
11-1569 G. Davis
12-1542 J. Kelley


2)Pearce (2,4,5)– 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 the Negro League Grants, 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 (3,5,6)– 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 (4,6,7) – 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 1926 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 (5,7,8) – 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 Games Started 1899-1908:
1—381 J. McGinnity
2—375 V. Willis
3—374 C. Young
4—350 J. Powell
5—327 J. Chesbro
6—312 B. Dinneen
7—311 C. Mathewson
8—309 R. Waddell
9—298 A. Orth

6) Sheckard (6,8,9) – The recently released Deadball Stars of the National League by SABR isn’t terribly supportive of him…lotsa nice words about Cravath, though. Disregarding that for now. 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 (7,ne,ne) – The Deadball Stars of the National League book 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. Leaders in OPS, 1905-14, minimum 3300 PA:
1—.940 T. Cobb
2—.907 T. Speaker
3—.863 H. Wagner
4—.858 E. Collins
5—.845 H. Baker
6—.829 S. Crawford
7—.825 S. Magee
8—.809 N. Lajoie
9—.783 L. Doyle
10—.767 F. Clarke
   131. Esteban Rivera Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:07 AM (#641984)
All banned players are skipped this year. Larry Doyle and Gavvy Cravath are added to my consideration set but don't have enough juice to reach the ballot yet. Oh, what might have been in regards to Chapman.

1. Sam Thompson - A heck of an offensive machine. Reputed to have the best arm of his time. Doesn't the 1890's Philadelphia outfield kind of resemble the mid 1990's Cleveland outfield?

2. Joe McGinnity - Compiled an awesome record in only a decade and began past the usual starting age for a ballplayer in the majors. The best pitcher or runner up for half his career

3. Frank Grant - I am finally comfortable ranking Grant higher. The experts that chose Grant in their list gave me the added confidence of boosting him higher. Was a great ballplayer acording to all accounts. Would be a an honor to have him grace our hall.

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

5. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress. I buy the "greatness can't take full advantage off lower competition" idea. Proved he could hold his own in the player's league.

6. Sherry Magee - Has a very good record for such an "unknown" player.

7. Rube Waddell - Was a special picher. I buy the run support analysis and also believe in the higher value of being a phenomenal K artist in his time and place. His career record isn't that impressive but you have to remember that there were some stretches where he was jettisoned because his managers did not know how to deal with his unique personality.

8. Bill Monroe - Keep gaining confidence in him. Seems to be one of the best second basemen of his time.

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

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

11. Clark Griffith - The more that I look at him the more I realize I have been underestimating his accomplishments.

12. Mickey Welch - Climbs this week as I begin to feel that I may have overreacted earlier in his downgrading.

13. Jake Beckley - The career man makes it back on my ballot. There is a definite dearth of long career's at first.

14. Bob Caruthers - Head for the hills! It's Parisian Bob! The combo man finally reappears on my ballot. Let's see if its to stay.

15. Roger Bresnahan - Hanging by a thread. He has his favorable points such as his offense and being versatile. However, playing time and defensive issues make me a bit wary of going higher with him. Will most likely wait until he can be properly placed alongside Santop and Petway.

Jimmy Scheckard is next in line and almost made it this time as I have lowered my esteem of Bresnahan somewhat. After him are Wallace, Williamson, and Van Haltren. Dickey Pearce,well, I still need to decide how much confidence I can muster in competition levels of the 50's and early 60's. With my current level of confidence, he's 20th.
   132. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:08 AM (#641987)
And John Murphy would like you to take another look at Pearce, who should get credit for the 1860s.

Am I that predictable? :-)

Thanks, Daryn.
   133. DanG Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:09 AM (#641988)
8) Van Haltren (9,10,11)—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

9) Leach (11,12,13) – 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

10) J. Ryan (12,13,14)—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

11) Griffith (13,14,15) – 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

12) Duffy (8,9,10)– Not a long career (12.4 yrs) for a corner OF, I’m coming around to the consensus view of him. Hit 82 of his 106 career HRs at home. 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

13) Thompson (14,15,--)– 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

14)Bresnahan (15,--,--) – 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

15) Williamson – Back after a LONG lapse. Too similar to HoMer Collins to be too far off the radar. I think anyone who gives a bump for underrepresented positions needs to give (N)Ed a serious look.

Bob Caruthers – With more than one-fourth of the HoM being pitchers (12 of 46) and another 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

Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte – For this election I’ll pretend it really is 1926 – no way do they get any support. Next year when they’re judged solely on their playing merit, Shoeless get a “clearly deserving” position while Knuckles doesn’t figure to make the ballot.
   134. DanG Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:11 AM (#641989)
Note that #130 and #133 comprise my 1926 ballot. Guess I gotta be faster next time.
   135. Philip Posted: May 24, 2004 at 06:24 AM (#642003)
1. Pike (2-3-3-2-1) – I hope Pike’s support is finally gaining momentum and that newcomers value him 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. Pearce (4-5-6-5-3) – MVP of the 1860’s. Highest placement on my ballot to date.
3. Grant (5-6-7-6-4) – 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).
4. Wallace (7-7-8-7-5) – Exceptional career value. Maybe a little overrated by WARP, so I’m being cautious here.
5. Sheckard (9-11-9-8-6) – Good in all categories without excelling in one. Best of the Cubs’ position players .
6. McGinnity (6-9-11-10-8) – Great, albeit short, peak and compiling many win shares along the way.

Not to be overlooked:
7. C Jones (15-15-15-15-9) – 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.
8. Magee (10) – 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.
9. Van Haltren (16-18-16-16-11) – 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.
10. Ryan (14-17-18-18-12) – So close to Van Haltren. A bit higher, but shorter peak.
11. Griffith (11-10-12-13-11) – 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.
12. Williamson (21-14-17-17-14) – 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.
13. Jennings (10-12-14-14-15) – Collected enough career value in his short peak, though he is slowly losing some ground on my ballot.
14. Jackson (new) – Like Jennings he had a great peak, but also an awfully short career for a corner outfielder. To be at the top of my ballot he should have been the best player in baseball for a while. He wasn’t.
15. Monroe (22-21-20-24-16) – Finally make my ballot this year.

16. Caruthers (18-16-19-12-17) – Swings off my ballot, but should be back soon. Like Jennings, he collected a lot of career value in his short peak.
17. Long (12-13-13-11-18) – 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)
18. Duffy
19. York
20. Waddell
   136. Zapatero Posted: May 24, 2004 at 11:51 AM (#642018)
"Zapatero, Cicotte got going at 29 because he was a knuckleballer -- it's the standard knuckleballer career pattern to be better late in their careers, and not very good in their 20s.

Incidentally, if a player like Parisian Bob is good at both pitching and hitting, you're supposed to give extra credit, not penalise him as you seem to be doing."

Karlmagnus,

Looks like in trying to meet the 5000 character limit I cut too much of my analysis. I meant to say that I had previously been giving Caruthers too much extra credit for being able to do both. I'm not penalizing him this year -- I'm bringing him back down to where I should have rated him initially (which would be even lower without the flexibility bonus).

It's true that knuckleballers are late starters, but they don't usually have short careers -- they tend to last forever. Cicotte ended his own career through dishonesty, leaving him only eight seasons after he "figured it out." Those eight seasons were very inconsistent -- his inconsistency is what hurts him the most with me because it makes me wonder which was the "real" Cicotte. I realize now I cut out a line that would have made it clear that I was focusing on his post-1912 career, so I see why my analysis looked funny.
   137. Ken Fischer Posted: May 24, 2004 at 12:03 PM (#642021)
1926 Ballot (Ken Fischer)

Moved everyone up. I’m invoking the one year rule on J. Jackson. He’ll be on the ballot next time. I finally put Lip Pike in my top 15. Like Pearce, we have to trust the narratives on his pre-1871 play. Most of my top 15 matches up with other ballots...the main exception...Rube Foster...besides being a pioneer executive...he was an outstanding player.

1-Bob Caruthers 337 WS

2-Frank Grant

3-Dickey Pearce

4-Rube Foster

5-Sherry Magee 354 WS

6-Bobby Wallace 345 WS

7-Jimmy Sheckard 339 WS

8-Joe McGinnity 269 WS

9-George Van Haltren 344 WS

10-Jimmy Ryan 316 WS

11-Sam Thompson 236 WS

12-Jake Beckley 318 WS

13-Hugh Duffy 295 WS

14-Lip Pike

15-Rube Waddell 240 WS
   138. Jeff M Posted: May 24, 2004 at 12:21 PM (#642022)
Thanks Yardape! :)
   139. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 01:44 PM (#642036)
Note that #130 and #133 comprise my 1926 ballot. Guess I gotta be faster next time.

DanG gives new mean to "candidate gap" this year.
   140. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 01:45 PM (#642037)
er, "meaning".
   141. DavidFoss Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:09 PM (#642141)
How many ballots are in so far? How many ballots did JJ show up on? How close is the election.

This is the first year in quite a while where I really have no idea who is going to win.
   142. ronw Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:24 PM (#642167)
Let's not jump the gun. Voting doesn't end until 5:00 EDT today, and since the election is so close, we wouldn't want a repeat of 2000 Presidential Florida (just ask Andrew Siegel about that one).

Of course, anyone can just go back and tally themselves, but I'll warn everyone (courtesy of Howie, who warned me a few elections ago) not to spill the beans until voting is ended.
   143. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:25 PM (#642169)
That's why I asked.

I didn't want to cut off Dan Rosenheck's final opportunity to amend his ballot.
   144. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:27 PM (#642176)
Until 5:00, I'll just be sitting over here twiddling my thumbs on the corner of CHESBRO and McCARTHY, if you know what I mean (wink, wink).
   145. DavidFoss Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:35 PM (#642188)
I think Happy Jack already has a newspaper with the headline "McCARTHY DEFEATS CHESBRO" that he plans to hoist over his head when he gives his victory speech.
   146. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 24, 2004 at 03:49 PM (#642205)
I didn't want to cut off Dan Rosenheck's final opportunity to amend his ballot.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL
   147. Carl Goetz Posted: May 24, 2004 at 04:00 PM (#642222)
After careful consideration, I've decided to invoke the 1-year protest no-vote for the BlackSox players. As a result, no newly eligible players enter my ballot. Please welcome Sam Thompson and Harry Stovey into my own personal HoM.

1)Lip Pike- Great Peak. He's been in my PHoM since 1918.
2)Frank Grant-Best Negro Leaguer of the 1800s. He's been in my PHoM since 1919.
3)Dickey Pearce-Not alot of objective evidenc eon Pearce, but he played a long time and was considered a top ballplayer at the time. He also went in my PHoM in 1919.
4)Bob Caruthers-Had an amazing peak and carried several of his teams. Made it into my PHoM in 1920.
5)Sam Thompson-Best Hitter whose eligible and not already in. He'll be in my HoM soon.
6)Sherry Magee- I know alot of you have him higher, but this is where I'm comfortable with him at this point. I do think he belongs eventually, but not yet. His WS peak and career look too similar to the rest of the 'glut'(he's a little better than the others, but not by any statistically significant amount).
7)Rube Foster-Another with not alot of objective evidence. My gut tells me he should be elected eventually though.
8)Roger Bresnahan-Best Catcher for a pretty extensive time period. He's vastly bette rin career and peak than any of the others at his position at this point.
9)Jimmy Ryan-Edges out Hugh Duffy and Jimmy Sheckard for this spot. Their 3 career and peak totals are remarkably similar. I doubt the differences are very meaningful.
10)Ned Williamson-Still the best 3B-man on the ballot. Remember when some thought he was better than Sutton? I wasn't one of them, but he's still fallen of the radar when he most certainly should not have.
11)Jimmy Sheckard-Edges Hugh Duffy for my last OF slot. Duffy's career value was slightly below the other 2 while their peaks were almost identical.
12)Bill Monroe-Can any fans of Monroe give me a good reason to move him higher? This is where I'm comfortable now, but I admit, I don't know alot about him.
13)Bobby Wallace-Career-peak, Career-peak? I guess I'll go 'career' this time and go with Wallace; sorry Hughie. Seriously, these 2 are the defining argument of the career peak debate. I keep going back and forth trying to come up with and objective way to compare them without overweighing either peak or career.
14)Hughie Jennings-See Wallace
15)Vic Willis-I like Vic. He's got pretty strong career numbers and a decent peak. I don't consider him HoM worthy, but he deserves to be mentioned on ballots every now and then in weak years.

I think I've got all the top 10 in here, already.
   148. stephen Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:52 PM (#642343)
Just under the wire...

1 FRANK GRANT- The Negro Leagues a re still sorely under-represented in the HoM. He seems to be the best of a neglected class.

3 DICKEY PEARCE – He was the best pre-ML player. That is within the scope of our Constitution and he should therefore deserve full consideration.

3 BILL MONROE – A long career and a good peak. We stil undervalue the Negro Leagues.

4 JOE MCGINNITY- Easily the best pitcher eligible who is not enshrined. OK, Caruthers has a case, but his career was just so short.

5 LIP PIKE – I swear, this is the last pre-MLB player. I am concerned that his play slipped so early.

6 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. (I just cut and pasted my same reasoning from last time)

7 BOB CARUTHERS- That peak is really impressive, but I still have two concerns. He had an extraordinarily short career, and I’m still not convinced of the quality of the AA.

8 GAVVY CARVATH- I’m still working on how to rate him due to missed time. This seems like a fair rating, but I am giving extra credit.

9 HUGHIE JENNINGS- Good peak, terrific defense at a prime position.

10 JIMMY SHECKARD- Yes, there’s an outfield glut, but none of the outfielders looking in are as good as those enshrined. I’m not losing any sleep if no currently eligible OF never makes it.

11 HUGH DUFFY- Still pairing him with Sheckard. I can’t separate the two.

12 RUBE WADDELL- A longer career than Caruthers, but a weaker peak. Sill a peak player, but Caruthers definitely gets in first.

13 TOMMY LEACH- Leach’s defense rates him slightly higher on my list than most others. The defensive spectrum had not yet jumped.

14 JAKE BECKLEY- Beckley finally debuts on my ballot. I’m in no hurry to elect him, as the arguments for him are still unconvincing.

15 ROGER BRESNAHAN- Once again, if he was a full-time catcher, he’d be in. But he wasn’t, so he’s not.

-Invoking the ban on the Black Sox. Sorry, Joe.
   149. stephen Posted: May 24, 2004 at 05:53 PM (#642345)
Oops, Pearce is #2. Typo.
   150. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 06:35 PM (#642404)
By my count, stephen's makes 50 BALLOTS in so far. And still 2.5 hours to go . . .
   151. jimd Posted: May 24, 2004 at 06:45 PM (#642414)
360 (L), 430 (C), 335 (R) according to www.ballparksofbaseball.com

Unfortunately, those are the dimensions of the park that Bobby Wallace moved into in 1909, though for all I know, the older editions of the St. Louis parks may have been the same.
   152. Jeff M Posted: May 24, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#642440)
Unfortunately, those are the dimensions of the park that Bobby Wallace moved into in 1909, though for all I know, the older editions of the St. Louis parks may have been the same.

I don't know if the site is accurate or not, but it says "original" after those dimensions and has a long discussion about Sportsmans Park I and the AA. So it at least purports to be the older edition of the park.

The park factors I posted from the All-Time Sourcebook are definitely the NL/AA version of the park from 1882-1892, though.
   153. Michael Bass Posted: May 24, 2004 at 07:18 PM (#642466)
How many different players have received first place votes this year? Willing to bet we have a record in that department as well.
   154. Seaver1969 Posted: May 24, 2004 at 08:25 PM (#642558)
I'm updating my ballot thanks to daryn. When I was typing up my ballot, I used the score from my original pitching scoring method for Foster. Foster scored much higher when I added IP bonuses. I don't buy the Dickey Pearce argument (I agree with the person who spoke about dominating a church softball league, a line needs to be drawn somewhere) so my ballot is only changed by one person. Cupid Childs falls off. Read my comments from my first ballot for info.

1: Jake Beckley (136)
2: George Van Haltren (134)
3: Jimmy Ryan (126)
4: Sam Thompson (113)
5: Joe Jackson (112)
6: Hugh Duffy (107)
7: Addie Joss (104)
8: Sherry Magee (101)
9: Frank Grant (Not rated)
10: Rube Waddell (98)
11: Eddie Cicotte (96)
12: Jimmy Sheckard (95)
13: Rube Foster (95)
14: Larry Doyle (95)
15: Bobby Wallace (94)

Final ballot.
   155. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 24, 2004 at 08:35 PM (#642569)
I don't buy the Dickey Pearce argument (I agree with the person who spoke about dominating a church softball league, a line needs to be drawn somewhere)

Hopefully, a couple hundred years from now, a petition to drive out 20th century players from the Hall because they would be no better than church softball league players from the 23rd century players is defeated.
   156. Rick A. Posted: May 24, 2004 at 08:43 PM (#642578)
Michael,

Not sure if this is a record, but we have fifteen different players who have received a first place vote, by my count.
   157. sunnyday2 Posted: May 24, 2004 at 08:50 PM (#642588)
Seaver '69 doesn't buy dickey Pearce and Cupid Childs falls off his ballot. Oh, and we have 50 ballots now. If our little club keeps growing with voters who are really charged up to honor their 20th century faves, the 19th century will cease to exist.

And of course we will be elected 2-3 per year from now on versus 1 through many of our earlier ballots.

Q: How many 19th century players have we now elected? A: As many as we ever will (after this year).
   158. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:04 PM (#642607)
Not sure if this is a record, but we have fifteen different players who have received a first place vote, by my count.

Had 16 last year.

With all the changing ballots this year I'm really glad I'm not a ballot counter.
   159. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:08 PM (#642611)
Hey! It's 5:08. The balloting's closed. I want the results NOW! :)
   160. Michael Bass Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:10 PM (#642614)
Marc - It seems to me the top 4 people on Seaver's ballot are 19th century players (or I should say players who spent most of their careers in the 19th century in Beckley's case), so I'm not sure his is the example you want to use there.
   161. ronw Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:15 PM (#642620)
As an unofficial tallier, I can report the following (subject to change)

1. Grant - 736
2. Magee - 722
3. Wallace - 653
4. McGinnity - 651
5. Sheckard - 581
6. Thompson - 522
7. Caruthers - 497
8. Pearce - 488
9. Pike - 414
10. Jackson - 410
   162. Michael Bass Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:17 PM (#642626)
Wow...if that's an accurate tally, major fall for McGinnity, as he looked like a massive favorite coming in for one of the two slots.
   163. DavidFoss Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:18 PM (#642629)
Wow... I thought it would be a lot closer (at least in-vs-out closer).
   164. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:24 PM (#642635)
My tally matches Ron Wargo's to the point.
   165. PhillyBooster Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:31 PM (#642648)
Which most likely means that we both made the same tallying mistakes . . .
   166. Seaver1969 Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:37 PM (#642658)
From what I know about the game of baseball in the era in which Dickey played (which is not just the 19th century, but baseball before the late 1880s where the game as we know it today truly began to be formed), it was a very different game (I think bunt-fouls recorded as base hits, which Dickey made famous, is a perfect example).

Dickey was a good ballplayer compared to his competition, and the analogy of a church softball league isn't accurate. But I still wouldn't elect the best player on the best softball team ever.

For the Dickey supporters, where would you draw the line as to what is baseball and what isn't?
   167. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:37 PM (#642659)
1. Grant - 736
2. Magee - 722
3. Wallace - 653
4. McGinnity - 651
5. Sheckard - 581
6. Thompson - 522
7. Caruthers - 497
8. Pearce - 488
9. Pike - 414
10. Jackson - 410


You guys must have screwed up because I have the exact same numbers. :-)

Wow...if that's an accurate tally, major fall for McGinnity, as he looked like a massive favorite coming in for one of the two slots.

I don't understand how McGinnity fell back either. Doesn't make any sense at all.
   168. Michael Bass Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:50 PM (#642680)
I'm not sure how many boycotts Jackson had this year, but I'm thinking he's a near lock for one of the two 1927 slots looking at these point totals, and going off a vague memory of how many were planning to boycott him.

The second slot is completely wide open. Will McGinnity get his votes back? Will Pete Hill make a huge debut? Can Wallace hang on to such a slim lead (judging by Marc's early ballot, I'm thinking no).
   169. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:52 PM (#642681)
For the Dickey supporters, where would you draw the line as to what is baseball and what isn't?

I draw the line between professional and amateur players. Pearce was one of the very first players to be paid for his services.

As for the game then compared to now, the game of the 1860s is just as legitimate as our game is today, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "the real game of baseball" because it's totally subjective (I personally prefer the 1980s game, BTW).
   170. Jeff M Posted: May 24, 2004 at 09:53 PM (#642684)
I can't figure how Wallace is #3. Must be really riding that WARP defensive rating.

I also can't figure out how Grant is #1 and Monroe isn't top 10. Both were top 10 for me, but Monroe was slightly ahead. I can understand people seeing it differently, but not that differently.
   171. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 24, 2004 at 10:03 PM (#642700)
I can't figure how Wallace is #3. Must be really riding that WARP defensive rating.

Not to mention his high number of WS.
   172. Patrick W Posted: May 24, 2004 at 10:44 PM (#642739)
Apparently the multiple ballot changes that occurred this year didn't affect the top 10 results - the listed totals in #161 are quadruple-checked as correct.

Jackson - appears on 23/50 Ballots, including 10 1st or 2nd votes. If half of the electorate were boycotting this year, he is the clear favorite in '27.

Player---Year-1st-2nd-3rd-4th-Tot
McGinn-1925---2---5---1---5--13
--------1926---2---5---6---4--17

Wallac-1925---5---4---2---5--16
--------1926---5---5---4---5--19

FGrant-1925---3---3---6---8--20
--------1926---5--11---6---2--24

Magee--1925---2---5---3---1--11
--------1926---8---1---3---2--14

The four leaders each gained 3-4 more Top-4 votes than the previous year, but notice how both McGinnity and Wallace didn't noticably improve in 'elect me' votes (#1&2)? McGinnity didn't lose votes, he just didn't pick up the votes given to Brown or Johnson last year.

The suprising result of this election to me is how many votes Magee picks up from the previous election. Reading the '25 thread it wasn't obvious to me that Miners' friends were also high on Sherry, but that is the story that i read from these numbers. It's also possible that many of Three-Finger's 1st & 2nd votes went to Jackson this year.
   173. Jeff M Posted: May 25, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#642802)
Wow, Frank Grant went from six 1st or 2nd place votes to sixteen!!! He clearly benefited from Jackson's omission on a number of ballots (including mine).
   174. sunnyday2 Posted: May 25, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#642839)
To Seaver1969, can I call you Seav? I mean anybody who takes his handle from a year that I'll never remember.... My apologies for the snarky tone.

To Michael, your point is well taken at least in the sense that I did not express myself very clearly, though I will defend my "point." There is nobody on Seav's ballot whose career is centered before 1893, and nobody (I don't think) who did not play into the 20th century. To me the 20th century is a euphemism for "modern era," which began in about 1893. Sorta like the '60s started when Kennedy was killed and the Beatles went on Ed Sullivan (not in 1960).

Back to Seav, why draw a line? I'm with John Murphy. Once you start drawing lines, why not draw it in 1871? How about 1876? Maybe '82? Or '93? Or '01? Or 1920? Maybe when relief pitchers became a part of the landscape? Heck, I'm an AL fan and I love the DH. Why would I want to see a pitcher hit (or Jose Canseco pitch)? As John says, in 100 years, maybe they'll draw the line in 1993 when the real men stepped up and started hitting home runs again without striking out 100 times. Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson--bums. They struck out too much.

I dunno. It comes down to three things (the case for Dickey Pearce).

1. Could he play today? Who cares. His value was then, not now. Besides, if ARod had been born in 1835 and never saw a game of baseball until he was 15-16 years old, never had a coach, invented the techniques and strategies for himself, didn't have a glove, didn't have modern nutritional and conditioning know-how, would he still be ARod? Would he even be Dickey Pearce? Doesn't matter. It's all speculation, kinda like the kind of year Benny Kauff "had" in 1923.

2. And rather than penalize Pearce, if anybody should get extra credit, it's the guys who not only mastered the game, but also thought it up. Isn't that a lot harder thing to do than just to step on the field at 4-5-6 years of age with coaches and great equipment, and just put your feet into Cal Ripken's footsteps? We don't have a pioneer wing, and Pearce and Harry Wright and these guys are not just pioneers. They were players and it is as players that they should go into the HoM. But the fact that they had to pioneer it first so that they could then be players, boy, that is something more, not less.

3. The church softball league is about ten levels below "the best" "ball" in the world. Even if the Knickerbockers couldn't beat that church softball team (they would, BTW, but even if they couldn't) they were the best team in the world. Then the Atlantics, the Nationals, the Red Stockings. They were the best in the world, with all the limitations they were born to, they were the best in their day. The appropriate comparison of the best players in the world in 1865 is the best players in the world at any other time. That is the class of "things" they belong to.

And finally as John says, how we judge baseball 140 years ago, so shall our baseball today be judged 140 years from now. What makes us so great?
   175. Jeff M Posted: May 25, 2004 at 01:03 AM (#642876)
What makes us so great?

Also a pertinent question for countries run by white men who use size and money to bully other people around the world, even when most of the rest of the world thinks it's a really bad idea. :)
   176. DavidFoss Posted: May 25, 2004 at 01:46 AM (#642930)
What makes us so great?

Well, for one, we play a lot more games outside the NY city limits!

I treat this as a science project, I don't like being labeled friends or enemies of certain contestants, but some of this Dickey Pearce lobbying goes a bit too far. I'll post more details soon.
   177. Jeff M Posted: May 25, 2004 at 01:52 AM (#642940)
David, are you quoting me? :) :) :)
   178. EricC Posted: May 25, 2004 at 02:29 AM (#642983)
I don't like being labeled friends or enemies of certain contestants

Yeah, but "those who judge a candidate to be in the 97th percentile" vs "those who judge a candidate to be in the 95th percentile" doesn't have the same dramatic flair, does it? :-)
   179. DavidFoss Posted: May 25, 2004 at 03:07 AM (#643000)
I don't know how to do Italics... I was responding to marc/sunnyday2 as you were... :-)

OK... I have a bunch of Dickey Pearce stuff to post... discussion thread I suppose.
   180. Chris Cobb Posted: May 25, 2004 at 03:09 AM (#643003)
For the Dickey supporters, where would you draw the line as to what is baseball and what isn't?

This line is not ours to draw. Any game that was called baseball (or base ball) was baseball: there is no platonic form of the game that it has somehow been approaching: it has changed over time in ways that favor different sorts of skills, and it will continue to change, though much more slowly than it once did. It's our task to identify and honor the players who excelled at whatever version of baseball was played at a particular time.

The purview of the Hall of Merit includes all major-league players and pre-major league players, so the question to be asked is not "when does baseball become baseball" but "when do players start accumulating sufficient merit for their accomplishments to be recognized"? I think John Murphy has the right of it: when players become professionals who can devote themselves primarily to the game during the season and can have careers that last as long as their skills and their desire, that is when we should start giving them full consideration.
   181. Jeff M Posted: May 25, 2004 at 03:22 AM (#643012)
It's our task to identify and honor the players who excelled at whatever version of baseball was played at a particular time.

In a sense, yes. But in another sense, no. The HoM has a quota, which means we can't necessarily honor everyone who excelled at whatever version of baseball was played at a particular time. Our system differs from the HoF, and we are forced to rank players relative to each other, even though they play in different eras.

So I agree that there should be no line drawn, but I also believe that Pearce's level of competition is relevant to the issue of ranking him versus other players on the ballot. I have Pearce #16, and he's my highest ranked shortstop. The fact he was a pioneer and invented the position doesn't necessarily mean he ought to be in the HoM when I also have to consider numerous other top talent.

So in the HoM, the question isn't whether he deserves to be honored. It's whether he deserves to be honored above other eligible players, and that's what makes his situation more difficult.
   182. Jeff M Posted: May 25, 2004 at 03:35 AM (#643019)
David:

For italics, put < i > before the text you want to italicize and < / i > after it, but eliminate the spaces between the characters in the brackets (for example <x> and </x>.

To do bold, substitute a "b" for the "i".
   183. DavidFoss Posted: May 25, 2004 at 04:56 AM (#643056)
italic bold bold italic normal
   184. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 25, 2004 at 05:20 PM (#643465)
The HoM has a quota, which means we can't necessarily honor everyone who excelled at whatever version of baseball was played at a particular time.

Sure we can. What quota do we have? I assume we will keep the HoM going once we catch up with the HoF, so I'm confused by your statement. This project is not a zero sum game. If Pearce is elected by us, that doesn't mean that Lou Boudreau or Tim Raines can never be inducted. The worst thing a Pearce election can do is delay someone else's election.

The fact he was a pioneer and invented the position doesn't necessarily mean he ought to be in the HoM when I also have to consider numerous other top talent.

He shouldn't go in becaus ehe was a pioneer and invented the position, but (like Ruth and the home run) his innovation helped him to dominate for a quite a few years.
   185. Daryn Posted: May 25, 2004 at 06:33 PM (#643607)
Seaver -- glad to see you moved up Foster and 95 points in your system seems about right (I had him at 105 using your system, but I think I see his career with rosier coloured glasses than most). If he gets into the top 10, some people who have been ignoring him wil at least have to turn their minds to where he ranks on their ballot.
   186. PhillyBooster Posted: May 25, 2004 at 07:15 PM (#643674)
Marc made a gloomy prediction that we are likely done with electing pre-1893 peaked players. I don't think that's completely accurate, and while I have 3 pre-1893 players in my top 15 (Pike, Pearce, and Caruthers), I don't see it as necessarily a problem that there three are only 8, 9, and 10 on the last ballot. I have been tracking how many HoMers have been at least half-time regulars during each year 1871-present. Each year between 1881 and 1894 has at least 20 HoMers active and playing regularly. No year after 1894 does.

Now, I can certainly see electing about half as many people back in the pre-AA days when there was only one league, and in some years as few as 6 teams. There are 9 HoMers currently for the 1877 season. That's 1.5 per team, which seems about right. If anything, the 26 for 1892 (about 2 per team, plus Frank Grant) seems on the high side.

In any event, I wouldn't be too concerned about early players getting ignored until they are actually underrepresented compared to any of the other eras.
   187. sunnyday2 Posted: May 25, 2004 at 07:34 PM (#643715)
Matt, part of my concern--relative to the "quota" discussion also above on this thread--is that we will be electing 2-3-4 players per year from now on. And if we wait to think about it until after 19th century players have become underrepresented, well, I think that will be too late. They need a breath of life now. If 1892 is already overrepresented, what will 1932 be like? It will be like Cooperstown.

The quota comment scares the hell out of me because, if indeed we have a quota system, it is built into the number of players that we elect each year. That is, there ought to be 1/4 as many players whose career was centered on 1885 as there are 1985. Now I don't mean to say there was a conspiracy to do this. But if 19th century players are not going to be considered by our new voters generally, that is the effect that we will have.

Pearce certainly will be an acid test because he has been progressing like he's going to make it long about 1930-32 or so, depending on how we treat the new Negro Leaguers (I say that because the few MLers who are coming eligible and will get elected are pretty obvious). We elect 11 between now and '32 IOW, and 7-9 of them will be our backlog. Pearce is not even borderline. If he fails to make it, it will be a dark day for the 19th century indeed.

Then there's Pike, who is losing ground now to Van and Beckley. Pike may very well not make it the way it is going now. And if he doesn't make it, well, Welch and Williamson and Childs are toast.

I hope that indeed in 1985 Mickey Welch and Ed Williamson are still pushing to stay in the top 10-15 or to get elected someday. But I don't see it. The 19th century guys, at least the ones who didn't play in the '90s and into the early '00s, will disappear based on current trends. And like I say, I think that's unfortuante.
   188. PhillyBooster Posted: May 25, 2004 at 07:46 PM (#643734)
I'm not sure how you are defining "current trends." In 1900, Pike was 17th, and now he's 9th. Pearce was 22nd in 1900, and now he's 8th. Welch has dipped from 19th in 1900 to 21st today. These guys are all making the climb up the ladder, gaining new converts every few years.

I don't see the 1933-34 avalanche on great talent representing an end to the earlier eras, just a blip. We haven't seen the eligibility info for years after 1935, but there simply aren't THAT many great players to get to 2000 while ignoring the pre-1893 era completely.
   189. DavidFoss Posted: May 25, 2004 at 08:01 PM (#643761)
sunnyday2, you're a bit under the curve for Pike's support. You slate him as 12th, and the total vote is 9th so you are partly to blame for that. :-)

As new candidates are eligible, they get inserted into the ballot. Legacy candidates will naturally shift down from time to time.

The top 10% of the backlog is a higher ballot position than the top 10% of the backlog will be in 1985. That's just math.

We've got a lot of smart people here who every few years make interesting charts showing which years are most represented, which teams, which positions. If it turns out that we are about to induce the 6th best AL right fielder of the 30's, than someone will point that out and tell us that Sam Thompson would be a better pick for that slot.

I trust we aren't going to blindly induct Heinie Manush without realizin that he's better (if at all) from Ryan, Van Haltren, etc.
   190. DavidFoss Posted: May 25, 2004 at 08:03 PM (#643766)
Sorry... I meant "no better".

When I slip up and forget a 'the' its no big deal, when I slip up and forget a 'no'... well thats a big deal! :-)
   191. jimd Posted: May 25, 2004 at 10:35 PM (#644002)
We're electing 228 HOMers by 2006. Currently, the average number of years as a starter is just under 15 seasons. The core period of the HOM is probably the 110 years 1880-1990, with trail-off into the 1870's (due to "timelining" or "quality considerations") and 1990's (due to lack of eligibility by 2006). Count those decades at half-weight; that yields 20/2 + 110 = 120 seasons.

Rough guesstimate: 228 x 15 / 120 = 28.5

If you distribute them equally through time, there is room for 28 HOMers playing at any given time. We should not be done with the 1880's and earlier quite yet, unless the "time-liners" predominate in the electorate. There is room for another half-dozen or so before it reaches par, never mind becoming over-saturated.
   192. EricC Posted: May 25, 2004 at 10:40 PM (#644009)
The quota comment scares the hell out of me because, if indeed we have a quota system, it is built into the number of players that we elect each year. That is, there ought to be 1/4 as many players whose career was centered on 1885 as there are 1985.

Why shouldn't it be that way? The North American population in 1985 was more than 4 times larger than it was in 1885.
   193. Patrick W Posted: May 25, 2004 at 11:22 PM (#644067)
Rough guesstimate: 228 x 15 / 120 = 28.5

If you distribute them equally through time, there is room for 28 HOMers playing at any given time. We should not be done with the 1880's and earlier quite yet, unless the "time-liners" predominate in the electorate. There is room for another half-dozen or so before it reaches par, never mind becoming over-saturated.


Don't forget the reason that we'll be electing more players in future elections than the current 1-2 per year: this system was not set up so that there would be 28 HOMers at any time, it is set up so that there is 1 HOMer for every x # of players. Put another way (i hope this is the same), in any given year x percent of the players will be HOMers.

So if there is 1 HOMer at 3B in a 8-team league, there should be 3 HOMers at 3B in a 24-team league -- we're still honoring the top 12.5% of thirdbaseman at a given time.
   194. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 25, 2004 at 11:22 PM (#644071)
Why shouldn't it be that way? The North American population in 1985 was more than 4 times larger than it was in 1885.

I have no problem with later generations picking up more inductees than the 19th century. That makes sense to me. I just want the dominating players from the 19th century be elected before the Goose Goslins or Paul Waners do (not that they don't belong, but they weren't truly dominating players)
   195. Jeff M Posted: May 26, 2004 at 06:22 AM (#644947)
Sure we can. What quota do we have?

John, did you black out? :)

Our HoM has limited space. Through 2003 it was scheduled to have 220 members (or something like that). Our system doesn't permit us to elect everyone who might get, say, 75% of the vote. We can only elect a specified number each year. By definition that's a quota.

It only stops being a quota if they stop playing baseball and we keep electing, but I suspect we will be very very old men. :)

I didn't know the "quota" word would scare people.

The worst thing a Pearce election can do is delay someone else's election.

Yes, indefinitely. I'm not arguing against Pearce, but if you elect Pearce (or Wallace, or some other guy), there's a player whose chance to be elected is simultaneously substantially reduced. That's the nature of limiting the membership in the HoM. That someone may be Raines, or Santo, or Rice, or Blyleven, or some guy who is currently in single A. Of course, no one is going to forego voting for Pearce because of those future players (I hope).

However, I think several players currently on the ballot deserve a spot before Pearce, and there's a real good chance that if Pearce goes in, my higher rated candidates won't (depending on the strength of the upcoming crop of new candidates).

So it isn't as simple as asking me whether Pearce deserves to go in. Maybe he does, but IMO, not as much as a few other guys.
   196. Jeff M Posted: May 26, 2004 at 06:25 AM (#644950)
The quota comment scares the hell out of me because, if indeed we have a quota system, it is built into the number of players that we elect each year.

Eric, you probably weren't around for the early discussions, but the quota system was decided upon before the Constitution was passed, and there was quite a bit of debate. I happened to be anti-quota at the time, but the majority of the group wanted a limited HoM, so that's the system we have.

There was a scientific basis for determining election slots for each year, which Joe Dimino is best suited to explain. We made a slight tweak a few years in.

There may be flaws in the voting, but the system seems to work pretty well.
   197. jimd Posted: May 26, 2004 at 04:59 PM (#645408)
Rough guesstimate: 228 x 15 / 120 = 28.5

Taking Patrick's note into consideration (with a back-of-the-envelope calculation) ... The 1890's and 1960's cancel out; the 1970's/1980's get 50% more weight, that's one "bonus" decade; the 1990's get double weight (of the half-weight used).

New rough guesstimate: 228 x 15 / 135 = 25.3

Still room for more 1880's guys (about 4 or 5 or so), and with the 1870's at half-weight, another couple from then, too.
   198. Chris Cobb Posted: May 26, 2004 at 05:17 PM (#645435)
jimd, how have you accounted for the Negro Leagues in you guestimating?
   199. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 26, 2004 at 05:46 PM (#645488)
John, did you black out? :)

Not in a while, but you never know. :-)

Our HoM has limited space. Through 2003 it was scheduled to have 220 members (or something like that). Our system doesn't permit us to elect everyone who might get, say, 75% of the vote. We can only elect a specified number each year. By definition that's a quota.

Are we closing shop once we get to 2003?!? First time I heard about this. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Help, Joe!

I knew we were trying to be a mirror image for the HoF, but since Cooperstown has no intention of not voting in any more players, we shouldn't either. This is going to suck if you're correct, Jeff.
   200. DavidFoss Posted: May 26, 2004 at 05:55 PM (#645504)
<i>jimd, how have you accounted for the Negro Leagues in you guestimating?<\i>

This is an interesting question. How much "bigger" is MLB baseball effectively from 1910-1946 due to the presence of the Negro Leagues. Twice as big? 50% larger (effectively a 3rd Major League?)
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
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2722 seconds
43 querie(s) executed