Oops, never mind on Danny Murphy, I forgot he was playing OF half the time.

Well, I have a list of military vets, from a military database at the SABR web site. Here is what who served among new eligibles, for anyone who might want to give additional credit.

1. Benny Kauff - Only played 67 games in 1918, doesn't say what branch.

2. Ray Chapman - Played in all of Cleveland's games in 1917 and 1918, probably served part time at home.

3. Buck Herzog - Says he served in WWII, but not WWI.

4. Lefty Williams - Only pitched in 15 games in 1918.

5. Happy Felsch - Only played in 53 games in 1918.

6. Joe Jackson - Only played in 17 games in 1918. Claims he served in the Army.

7. Swede Risberg - Only played in 82 games in 1918.

1926 ballot. I'm keeping the Black Sox off the ballot this year. Shoeless Joe and Knuckles can watch "Field of Dreams" in the meantime.

1. Sam Thompson (1). Patiently waiting his turn. During 10 year period (1886-1895) was top 10 in league in total bases 9 times. .308 EQA, .684 OWP, man could hit a little.

2. Joe McGinnity (2). Quanity of work for the 1900s impressive to say the least. Helped the team by taking the ball often which led to high value for those years. Top 5 in IP for six straight years (1899-1904). Nine year span (1899-1907) of 123 ERA+ over 3235 IP.

3. Jimmy Ryan (3). Giving credit of CF being more valuable than LF in terms of defensive spectrum. Being very good for long periods of time gets some points from me. I am probably Jimmy's biggest fan right now which makes me wonder. Then again these ballots aren't easy to sort through...

4. George Van Haltren (4). Similar arguments to Ryan, just a little less to them.

5. Sherry Magee (5). Better hitter than Sheckard, not as good a fielder. The batting numbers are good enough to nudge him over his fellow leftfielder.

6. Frank Grant (7). Still convinced we dealing with a quality player who deserves recognition. Was described as great ballplayer in the IL when the talent dispersion was down to the minor leagues more heavily than later eras.

7. Rube Waddell (10). His strikeout numbers were well ahead of his time. Suffered from inconsistent offensive support. Tragic end for a larger-than-life figure.

8. Pete Browning (8). Don't know why I soured on him to such an extreme. Even with league discounts he swung some mean lumber. Career OPS+ = 162 which puts him in company with names like Foxx, McGwire, Frank Thomas. Discount it because of AA play? At the OPS+ = 147 level you're talking Heilmann, McCovey, and Schmidt. That's some pretty lofty company. Batting Average Placement within league 1882-1891: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, -, 1, 3. Had a career .341 average in a league environment of .257 . Offensive Winning Percentage - .745. His guy was a WOW when hitting. He might not be the ideal multi-dimensional player but when you are this much an outlier at part of the game its going to get a bonus from me.

9. Jimmy Sheckard (9). Another well-rounded player, successful for the great Cub teams. The comparisons to Magee show them on the same plane - I have a harder time believing Sheckard was so awesome defensively, Magee so wretched.

10. John McGraw (11). Limited playing time but what he did with it is nonetheless outstanding. Positional bump as well. Cons include just not playing enough but was on base all the time when participating.

11. Bob Caruthers (13). My tug-of-war with his value continues. I'm more sure now that if push came to shove Freedom Bob deserves in before the rest below him. Affected pennant hopes greatly per individual year with his play yet due to short career couldn't affect a large number of pennants.

12. Jake Beckley (14). Tougher and tougher to ignore with dearth of 1B for a number of years; career totals eventually add up to quite the player despite lack of peak.

13. Hugh Duffy (15). Couple of great spikes to go with other uneven performances. Gets bump based on contemporary opinion as being one heck of a ballplayer.

14. Dickey Pearce (16). Impressed by the fact he was a regular in the NA at an age that was very old compared to most players. Still unsure as to career arc - was he a Cal Ripken, Alan Trammell, Dave Concepcion? The reviews from early baseball are glowing - the issue of competition level at an unorganized, evolving time is frustrating.

15. Gavvy Cravath (-). Get's a lift from noteworthy performance in minors between stints in the majors to go along with peak achievement at the major league level at an advanced age. Ten years too early to reap benefits of the lively ball.

Fighting for position:

16. Tommy Leach.
17. Cupid Childs.
18. Bobby Wallace. Career is long, not enough peak to make the top candidate. We've have plenty of SS to consider (and elect) and I don't like him as much as some of the others above.
19. Tony Mullane.
20. Roger Bresnahan.

Larry Doyle enters at #23 so there is hope for him.

Also regarding the 1918 season and WWI... the season ended a month early near Labor Day (did we have Labor Day yet in 1918?). Most teams played between 125-130 games... a few less if you don't count the ties.

Those who scale numbers by season length should take this into account. (Does WARP do this already?)

Joe Jackson knew that the World Series was being thrown around him. He was in on the conspiracy and, at the very least, did not tell the authorities what was going on or take any other steps to stop it (even if he didn't advance it by playing poorly himself). Regardless of his own play, the fact that he took money along with the others and then remained silent while they proceeded to intentionally lose makes him guilty in my book. His behavior was not that of a man who wanted to win the World Series.

Those who scale numbers by season length should take this into account. (Does WARP do this already?)

Win Shares does not. WARP-1 does not. WARP-3 does take this into account but in a way that is less than linear.

For the record, since I rely on WS and WARP rather than rates (OPS, ERA) for my rankings:

My adjWS adjusts 1918 and 1919 to 154 games. My adjWARP1 adjusts season length to the WARP adjustment of ^1/2.

I do the same for short seasons pre-1904, so obviously my adjustments do a lot more for the earlier guys than for guys who have a mere two short seasons and even then not as short as most 19th century seasons. But adjusted nevertheless.?

How bad a fielder was Larry Doyle, anyway? The way I've been looking at offense (RC above average, scaled to the environment, with extra bonuses for big seasons), Doyle looks very similar in value to Jimmy Sheckard. Even the advantage Sheckard should have for playing about 350 more games barely shows. But both WS and WARP put Sheckard a long way ahead of Doyle, and the difference is defense. Is a good-fielding left fielder worth that much more than a bad-fielding second baseman? I know, one's expectation of what it's possible for a second baseman to hit has to acknowledge Lajoie, Collins, and Hornsby - but it's still an infield position. And if Doyle was really that bad (but could really hit), why didn't his team move him to LF or RF or 1B? (I know, see example of Jeter 2004.) Or maybe he wasn't so bad after all.

I'm asking because I don't know where to land, and I am someone who has had Sheckard very high on my ballot.

I don't have a sample ballot yet, but I'll be with Chris J. for the top spot: Magee.

Doyle played 1728 games, every single one of them at 2B. Not once in 14 years did they have him play anywhere else.

I find that pretty compelling evidence that he played 2B well enough.

Fred Dunlap played 963 games at 2B, 3 in RF, 2 at P and 1 at 3B for a total of 965 games. IOW, of those 6 games at other positions, 4 of them came in games where he also played 2B. That includes a year where he and HoMer Hardy Richardson were teammates. I find that pretty compelling evidence that he played 2B well enough. Besides which James rates him an A- and Doyle a C+.

Fred Pfeffer played 1538 games at 2B and 121 at SS, plus 8 at P, 13 at 1B, 1 at 3B and 3 in the OF. I find that...well never mind. Besides which James rates him an A-.

So, what exactly is "well enough"? Better than replacement? Better than average? Like a HoMer?

I guess I prefer not to go on inferences when we have actual data that describes how well he fielded. (And I'm a fan of Larry Doyle, though he won't be among my top 15.)

Also regarding the 1918 season and WWI... the season ended a month early near Labor Day (did we have Labor Day yet in 1918?).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was a national holiday by that time. I know it was celebrated as a holiday by most states. The Gilded Age & Progressive Era were the golden era of creating holidays, building historical monuments, etc.

Provisional Ballot:

1. Lip Pike
2. Frank Grant
3. Sam Thompson
4. Joe Jackson
5. Joe McGinnity
6. Sherry Magee
7. Jimmy Sheckard
8. Richard J. "Don't Call Me Dickey" Pearce
9. Rube Foster
10. John McGraw
11. Gavvy Cravath
12. Charley Jones
13. Bobby Wallace
14. Hughie Jennings
15. Larry Doyle

I'm not counting the Jackson's 1919 season.

I was getting a little uncomfortable when I realized that Pike was my top returning vote-getter, but when I saw that I was one of the top consensus voters, I figured I'd stick to my guns rather than cave in to peer pressure. :)

Gets tougher every year as we dig deeper down into the backlog.

The entire Bill James comment of Chuck Knoblauch (#21 on his all-time second basemen), which immediately follows Larry Doyle at #20. Bizarrely (or, not really, for James), the entire comment is about Doyle, not Knoblauch:

"A similar player to Larry Doyle, actually. Doyle was a short, stocky player who could drive the ball and hustled. Oddly enough, Doyle also went through several spans in his career when he lost confidence in his ability to throw to first. In 1910, Doyle made 53 errors, many of them Knoblauch-type errors on throws to first."

Preliminary ballot based, in part, on best 10-consecutive years of WARP3 value.

1. Joe Jackson - He is the best player eligible this year; thus, the top spot. Bottom line is that Jackson's value from 1908-1920 far outweighs his lack of value in the 1919 World Series. The sooner we get this out of the way, the sooner we can move on to more interesting discussions.

2. Sherry Magee - Would otherwise be the top man on this ballot. The more I see about him, the more unbelievable it is that Cooperstown never came knocking on his door.

3. Jimmy Sheckard - Sort of a Magee Jr.

4. Bob Caruthers - It's time to put the best available pitcher into the HoM. Short careers don't give me any reason to pause so long as they were brilliant ones. Caruthers is another overlooked star who deserves recognition.

5. Larry Doyle - I really want to rate him higher; I'd love to see him elected. I think he's got a strong argument as the best second baseman on the ballot. Doyle was the best player at his position many times and one of the very best players in the league a few times as well. I don't believe Childs and Dunlap can quite match that.

6. Sam Thompson - 73.5 WARP3 in his best 10-season run, second only to Jackson. Thompson certainly rates higher than most of the candidates and there isn't a stronger outfielder this far down the ballot.

7. George Van Haltren - Just a little behind Thompson, but might be the other way around given Van Haltren played in center.

8. Eddie Cicotte - The man could flat-out bring it. Only Caruthers has more career value, only Caruthers and Griffith have a higher peak.

9. Clark Griffith - The Old Fox gets extra consideration for having his best years in the 1890s. Had really never considered Griffith a great pitcher before now.

10. Bobby Wallace - According to my numbers, Wallace had both an excellent peak and career, where I had previously thought of him as a "career only" player.

11. Cupid Childs - Best second baseman of the 1890s needs to be honored.

12. Hughie Jennings - Just below Wallace due to shorter career, but was best shortstop of the 1890s.

13. Addie Joss - Given the choice - at the time - between him and Waddell, I'd have wanted Joss on the mound. I'm unashamed to not my preference for high peaks so Joss gets full credit here.

14. Jimmy Ryan - Again, any of the bottom 5-7 guys could be interchangeable at this point. Ryan just wasn't quite as good as Van Haltren, in my opinion.

15. Billy Nash - I've long been considering McGraw, Nash and Denny as the premier 3Bman of the 19th century. While I'm not sure Nash deserves that title, he has the best peak and best career of any of the third sackers on this list.

Honorable Mentions (16-25) - Bill Monroe, Addie Joss, Jake Beckley, Herman Long, Joe McGinnity, Mike Griffin, Gavvy Cravath, Hugh Duffy, Roy Thomas and Lip Pike.

Doyle was the best player at his position many times and one of the very best players in the league a few times as well. I don't believe Childs and Dunlap can quite match that.

Childs was the best at his position in the majors many more times than Doyle (doing this in a one-league environment for almost his whole career). Cupid was a comparable hitter and a better fielder (to be fair, Doyle looks like the better base stealer). I don't think Doyle can match that, IMO.

"I guess I prefer not to go on inferences when we have actual data that describes how well he fielded. "

Whatever.

For those who really didn't get the point, the games played at 2B are a sanity check on whether the defensive anaysis by Warp and WS are reasonable. If he was much worse than a C+ fielder we'd see him playing some 1B and OF. Doyle was ok at 2B, nothing special but not terrible.

If Doyle was anything like Knoblauch, he was a terrible fielder. The Steve Blass', Chuck Knoblauch's and Rick Ankiel's of the world may have incredible talent, but if a mental block prevents it from being demonstrated, it'll keep them out of the Hall -- sometimes way out.

I have Doyle in the 20s, near Evers and Childs.

Given the choice - at the time - between him and Waddell, I'd have wanted Joss on the mound.

Speaking of Joss and Waddell, found this on one of those "this day in history" websites:

Oct. 20, 1901 -Two future Hall of Fame pitchers, Addie Joss and Rube Waddell, face each other in Racine to determine the unofficial state baseball championship. Both pitchers allow five hits, but Joss gets the win as Racine beats Kenosha, 4-2. (Joss and Waddell were both pitching professionally at the time and were imported to settle a turf war between the two cities.)

Yeah, nothing like those Racine/Kenosha turf wars!

Knoblauch & Doyle are very high on each others list of similar hitters. I believe that's where James got the idea to compare these two. Considering the difference offensive contexts, this is a compliment to Doyle. Knoblauch was an MVP candidate a couple years in Minnesota in the high-offense '90s. He even won a gold glove in 1997.

How long did Knoblauch suffer the "disease" before he was shifted to DH/LF? If Doyle had a similar problem in 1910, he must have recovered from it (or it wasn't anywhere near severe), because he continued to play 2B for many years afterwards. The 1911-13 Giants were great teams, too.

Your comparison to Childs/Evers does seem reasonable, though.

Anyhow, this Larry Doyle discussion has given me a chance to look at the position players on the 1911-13 Giants. Similar to the Cubs of a few years earlier, these were great teams who could score a lot of runs but didn't boast many HOM-candidates.

I really am a fan of Larry Doyle's, obviously not his biggest fan. I'm with John--Childs was better. Even Dunlap is comparable, and I really like Dunlap. Putting Doyle in Dunlap-Grant-Monroe territory is meant to be a complement, not a knock.

I'd like to know more about Doyle's "mental block," too. The comparison to Knoblauch is interesting. For many of you (for whom the known universe extends from A to B--i.e. New York to Boston), Knoblauch's problems in New York define the Knobber's fielding.

The fact is, he was the best fielding 2B that the Twins have ever had, and the Twins won a World Championship with him at 2B and leading off as a rookie no less. The guy could really dig it, he had real guts, if not much style, on the pivot play, and for, I don't know, 7-8 years there he could even throw the ball to 1B.

In fact, he won a legit. Gold Glove in '97, interrupting a run from '91-'00 in which Robby Alomar won all the rest. Granted Alomar only played in 112 games that year, otherwise he wins it again. But the irony is that the new Baseball Encyclopedia rates Knobber a 95 (slightly below average) thrower. Well, it rates Alomar a 97.

Anyway, the point is Doyle, not Knoblauch. And get this. The Encyclopedia rates Doyle as an above average thrower (109) who led the league in throwing five times. Of course, the trouble is that the index really isn't about throwing at all, it's based on DP per inning. Go figure. His range is a lowly 92.

Sticking with the theme, however, Dunlap is a 136 thrower and 105 range. Childs only 105 and 94, Evers 119 and 101.

I don't think there's another position that is as hard to sort out. There are some obvious no-brainer great 2Bs, to be sure, but where else are there as many "I coulda been a contenders" to sort out? As Bill James #20, you could argue that Knobber deserves some consideration some day, but then there's Whitaker, Grich, Randolph, Frank White, Alomar, Biggio and more, just from the past 25 years.

I'm a big fan of Knoblauch -- he was one of my favourites, but he is no-Hall of Meriter. My favourite stat about Knoblauch is that of all players who played 10 years or more, he has the best worst stolen base season (15 steals). That probably could have been more artfully stated, but I am quite tired.

That doesn't count Billy Hamilton -- I can't remember if it is just a 20th Century stat or if some of Hamilton's steals weren't modern day steals.

Doyle is like Chuck Knoblauch, except he hit more like Jeff Kent.

Doyle: 126 OPS+, 7382 PA, C+ fielder, 14 seasons
Kent: 125 OPS+, 6784 PA, D+ fielder, 12 seasons
Chuck: 106 OPS+, 7385 PA, C+ fielder, 12 seasons

Hey, what happened to comparing pre-1920 2B to post-1920 3B?

I think Doyle (126 OPS+) hit like Ron Santo (125 OPS+), although they probably weren't on the same fielding level.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't Doyle also the Giants' team captain? Under McGraw's stewardship, that was no task for a lesser player.

Looking at win shares, I see the following for Doyle/Childs/Dunlap:

Career Win Shares
289ws Doyle
238ws Childs
165ws Dunlap

Avg. Win Shares per Season
21 Doyle
18 Childs
14 Dunlap

Times Top 2Bman in League
7 Doyle/Childs
5 Dunlap

Times in Top 3
13 Doyle
9 Childs
8 Dunlap

MVP-Caliber Seasons (30+ win shares)
2 Childs
1 Doyle/Dunlap

All-Star Caliber Seasons (20+ win shares)
8 Doyle
6 Childs
1 Dunlap

Starting Player Quality Seasons (10+ win shares
13 Doyle
11 Childs
10 Dunlap

Dunlap seems to have had some stiff competition from Fred Pfeffer and his one "MVP-caliber" season was in 1884 in the Union Association.

Although Childs had 2 seasons of 30+ win shares to Doyle's 1, Doyle had 3 seasons of 28+ win shares to Childs' 2.


At least by win shares, I don't see how Childs is any better, particularly when considering that he played in the 1890s and Doyle played in the 1910s; Doyle had stiffer competition in my opinion.

Furthermore, Doyle was the best player on the best team in the league for much of his career. That's a distinction that certainly must give him some bonus points.

Does anyone have a similar breakdown of these players using WARP3?

Curiosity: Is there a Win Shares database or something from which you're getting those rankings? I have the book, but it's not particuarly useful for things like "Top 2Bman in the league" or "Top 3", other than 1) doing some guesswork from bbref to get the top few 2B, then 2) looking it up.


Also, are those totals adjusted for season length? If not, that's a pretty major leg up Doyle's getting just because there were more games in a season when he played.

Prelim ballot. Jackson comes in at #31. As I mentioned on some thread that hasnt made it back from the dead yet, I count everything but penalize the 7 (Buck Weaver gets a pass from me) for the World Series. My theory is they destroyed the 1919 season (and almost baseball) so I penalize them 154/7 games from their career warp3 totals. Instead of 22 games, Marc (I think) convinced me to make the replacement adjustment so each player gets penalized between 18 and 19 wins above replacement. As my primary numbers are career warp3 and peak (best 5 non consec), this knocks Cicotte to near the bottom of my consideration set and Shoeless just out of my top 30.

As far as evidence goes, I think his grand jury testimony is damning enough for me. I fortunately dont have to make the decision on whether to vote for him at all yet.

1. Wallace
2. Sheckard
3. Thompson
4. VanHaltren
5. Cross
6. Ryan
7. Beckley
8. Magee
9. Grant
10. Childs
11. Jennings
12. Long
13. Caruthers
14. McGinnity
15. Jones, F

16. Williams
17. Nash
18. Tiernan
19. McCormick
20. Griffin
21. McGraw
22. Waddell
23. Mullane
24. Pearce
25. Pike
26. Tenney
27. Griffith
28. Bresnahan
29. Willis
30. Leach

I did it the hard way. I went through the annual totals that are broken by by team and looked at the starting second baseman for each team in each year that Dunlap/Childs/Doyle played.

The figures are unadjusted. I would concede that win shares seems to be biased towards a longer season schedule. But in a way isn't that already accounted for? I mean...deadball era players had the advantage of a dozen games or so per season on the players of the 1890s, but that works both ways doesn't it? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that players in a shorter season had fewer games in which they had to perform to keep their rate stats high and, thus, their value for the season would remain higher in most cases than if they had played another dozen games?

Dunlap played in seasons of 85-140 games. Childs 135-140 and Doyle 154 generally. So Doyle had more 20+ and 30+ WS seasons? Doh!

Dunlap earend 17 in 85 games in 1880, playing on one of only 8 ML teams in the only ML. One WS every 5 games.

Doyle's hest was 33 WS in 155 games, one every 4.7, in 1915 (oh, and the Giants finished dead last).

Post #126 proves beyond a doubt that the more games a HoM candidate-caliber player plays, the more WS he gets. Beyond that I'm not sure.

I mean...deadball era players had the advantage of a dozen games or so per season on the players of the 1890s, but that works both ways doesn't it? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that players in a shorter season had fewer games in which they had to perform to keep their rate stats high and, thus, their value for the season would remain higher in most cases than if they had played another dozen games?

Except Childs had the disadvantage of playing in a one-league environment. He unquestionably would have gained more WS if the AA had not folded up its tents.

Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman. IMO, there's no way that the Laughing One goes above the Little Fat Man.

First half of my prelim ballot document:

1926 Prelim Ballot

More work on pitchers leads to substantial moves upward for Rube Foster and Tony Mullane. Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte sit this one out. Larry Doyle and Gavvy Cravath place respectably, but neither makes my ballot.

Right now my rankings fall into three closely bunched groups.

Leading Candidates This is the group that I'm clear should be elected. They all stand out one way or another, and they will all make my personal HoM, if they have not already.

1. Dickey Pearce (2) Reaches the number one spot on my 23rd year of voting. My formula for ranking him is to place him below any candidate who ranks in the top 10 players for his decade, but above anyone else.
2. Jimmy Sheckard (3) Difference between Sheckard and Magee very small, but my numbers see Sheckard as slightly better. 382 CWS. Total peak 84. Peak rate, 99-03, 33.63.
3. Joe McGinnity (4) His combination of durability and quality gives him really outstanding peak value. 301 CWS, tp 157, pr, 99-04 = 34.95/365 IP.
4. Bobby Wallace (5) 403 CWS. Total Peak 48. Peak rate 01-05 = 28.04 Low peak places him just below McGinnity and Sheckard. Best player from the aughts who didn't win a pennant?
5. Sherry Magee (6) 382 CWS, tp 73. Peak rate, 05-10 = 33.75. I see Magee as clearly deserving of eventual election. Solid career value, excellent peak. Very close in value to Sheckard, McGinnity, and Wallace, but lands slightly below them.
6. Frank Grant (7) fifth-best infielder of 1890s.

Good Candidates. This group of players, ranked 7-16, all seem to me good enough to merit election but not good enough to demand it. The players from 1890-1910 have almost exactly the same value as I calculate it. The 1880s players have higher win share totals, but are ranked lower because of easier competition and heavy representation from that period in the HoM already.

7. Lip Pike (8) great player; 1870s underrepresented. 334 CWS. Total peak 74. Peak rate, 71-78 = 34.85WS/162.
8. Clark Griffith (9) Fourth-best pitcher of the 1890s. Being underrated by the electorate. His record is as good as the now-elected Mordecai Brown's and was achieved for lesser teams under more difficult conditions for pitchers, but his rate stats aren't as gaudy. 294 cws; 114 total peak; peak rate, 94-01 = 29.23 ws/365 ip
9. Hughie Jennings (10) sixth-best 1890s infielder. 272 CWS. Total peak 81. Peak rate, 94-98 = 41.19WS/162.
10. Hugh Duffy (11) Seventh-best 1890s outfielder. Very similar to Van Haltren, but at his peak he was among the best players in the game for a couple of years, and that nudges him ahead of Van Haltren. 352 CWS. Total Peak 73. Peak rate, 90-95 = 33.74WS/162.
11. George Van Haltren (12) 393 CWS. Total peak 57. Peak Rate, 93-98 = 29.40WS/162.
12. Tommy Leach (13). Fine defensive third baseman and centerfielder, good hitter. 374 CWS. Total peak 57. Peak rate, 01-09 = 29.96 WS/162
13. Mickey Welch (14) With no competition discount, he'd rank between Pearce and Sheckard. 389 CWS. Total Peak 143. Peak rate, 84-89 = 25.51 WS/365 IP
14. Rube Foster (22) I've tried this year to estimate closely Foster's major-league equivalent value. Looking at his record more closely, I now see him as being an ML-avg. pitcher in 1902, having a six-year peak, 1903-08, being excellent in 1909 before breaking his leg, being a slightly above avg. ML pitcher in 1910-11, and being a somewhat below-avg. ML pitcher in 1912-14. It's possible, given that pitchers didn't tend to get long decline phases at this time, that he would not have pitched three years at this level. For now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that. So his estimated career totals are 300 cws, 105 total peak, peak rate, 03-08 36.00 ws/365 ip. Those estimates place him onto my ballot, about where Ed Walsh and Mordecai Brown would have been if they hadn't been elected. I didn't advocate the election of either of those two, but it would be consistent with the group's valuing of early twentieth-century pitchers to elect Foster also.
15. Bob Caruthers (16) Back on my ballot this year. Second-best 1880s candidate remaining. 316 cws; total peak 134. Peak rates, 85-89: 28.63 WS/365 IP; 28.87 WS/162 g in the field.

16. Roger Bresnahan (17). Also back on the ballot this year. 313 CWS (catcher-adjusted). total peak 68 (catcher adjusted). Peak rate, 03-08 = 34.95

Second half of my ballot post:

17. Bill Monroe (18) At the top of the middle-infield glut. Probably would have been a career .255-.265 hitter in the majors during the deadball era. Excellent defense, long career for an infielder. Slightly behind contemporary Tommy Leach (.269, excellent defense, longer career); slightly ahead of contemporary Joe Tinker (.262, better-than-excellent defense, shorter career).
18. Larry Doyle (n/e) Very similar to Cupid Childs and Ned Williamson, but ever so slightly better due to sustaining a high level of play just a bit longer. 319 cws; 46 total peak; peak rate, 09-15 = 30.15
19. Cupid Childs (19) Not quite enough career to be a good candidate, but a very fine peak. 293 cws; 52 total peak; peak rate, 90-96 = 32.04
20. Ned Williamson (20) Very similar career shape to Childs. Small competition discount for 1880s places him below Childs. 305 cws; 59 total peak, peak rate, 79-85 = 31.99
21. Charlie Jones (21) Not quite enough career for an outfielder to make my ballot. 1880s discount places him here. 346 cws; 68 total peak; peak rate, 76-80, 83-85 = 31.38
22. Herman Long (22) Possibly better than Doyle/Childs/Williamson, but his peak was short and his hitting really poor late in his career. Career value may also have been enhanced by expansion. 336 cws; 40 total peak; peak rate, 89-93 = 30.54
23. Fielder Jones. (24) A solid, solid player. Peak not high enough to overcome fairly short career. 338 cws; 56 total peak; peak rate, 04-08 = 30.93
24. Gavvy Cravath (n/e) A very fine player, but not quite enough peak or career value to merit election according to current standards. I give him major-league equivalent credit for his last three years of PCL play and his nearly three years of AA play, but that doesn't add enough value to bring him onto the ballot. Will rank ahead of Harry Hooper, though. 331 cws; total peak 50; peak rate, 13-17 = 32.49
25. Tony Mullane (41) Jumps upward into fair candidate territory. Falls between Bob Caruthers and Jim McCormick among1880s pitchers. Could be ranked higher, but I'm being conservative in ranking pre-1893 pitchers at present. 346 cws; 117 total peak; peak rate 83-84, 86-88 = 26.55 ws/365 ip.
26. Jim McCormick. (25) 346 cws; 134 tp, peak rate 79-84 = 18.88 ws/365 ip.
27. Joe Tinker. (26) My adjustment to fielding win shares underrates Tinker, so he ranks a good bit higher than his numbers indicate he should, but even with the possible bonuses, I don't see him passing the infielder cluster at 18-20, 22. 301 cws; 28 total peak; peak rate, 08-12 = 29.29
28. Johnny Evers (27) Same ranking issues as Tinker. 297 cws; 31 total peak; peak rate, 08-14 = 30.82
29. Rube Waddell (28) Very strong three-year peak; not quite enough career. Because of poor run-support, he's better than his W/L record shows, but he's not as good as his ERA+ suggests. 258 ws; 93 total peak; peak rate, 02-06 = 36.50 ws/365 ip
30. Jake Beckley (29) Total lack of peak hurts him in my rankings; even with significant defensive bonus he doesn't look like a HoMer to me. 384 cws; 9 total peak; peak rate, 89-93 = 23.82 ws/162 g
31. Frank Chance (30) Truly great when he played; didn't play enough. 268 cws; 46 total peak; peak rate, 03-07 = 38.85
32. Addie Joss (31) If you like peak rates, Joss is the candidate for you. Hasw the highest rate of win shares/365 ip of any eligible pitcher, by a comfortable margin. But he just didn't pitch enough. 219 cws; 77 total peak; peak rate, 05-09 = 38.94 ws/365 ip
33. John McGraw (32) Same durability problems as Chance. 250 cws; 48 total peak; peak rate, 93-00 = 35.89
34. Harry Wright (33) An impressive early player, but I don't see enough evidence of consistent greatness in playing baseball to bring him close to the ballot.
35. Jimmy Ryan. (34) 384 cws; 50 total peak; peak rate 88-92 = 31.59. Should rank considerably higher by the numbers, but his peak was short and during a period of weak competition, and he had a lot of below-average years. I like Beckley better.
36. Lave Cross. (35) 360 cws; 19 total peak; peak rate 00-04 = 25.69. Like Ryan, these numbers should place him higher in my rankings, but many below-average seasons also hurts him.
37. Pete Browning (36) A bit better than Thompson, but far from my ballot. 293 cws; 59 total peak; peak rate, 82-87 = 33.66
38. Roy Thomas. (37) 294 cws; 62 total peak; peak rate, 99-06 = 31.99
39. Sam Thompson. (38) At number 12 among eligible outfielders (trailing Sheckard, Magee, Pike, Duffy, Van Haltren, C. Jones, F. Jones, H. Wright, Ryan, Browning, Thomas,), he’s a long way from my ballot. 304 cws; 49 total peak; peak rate, 91-5 = 29.71
40. Billy Nash (39) 297 cws; 36 total peak; peak rate 87-93 = 29.00

FWIW, since the 1921 discussion thread is again accessible, I post here my thoughts on baseball's gambling scandals, since they're especially relevant this "year."

I've just been reading David Pietrusza's "Rothstein" which suggests that the reason the scandal blew after 1919 was that there were no fewer than 3 gangs trying to bribe the Black Sox, two controlled by Rothstein and a Midwestern mob he knew about, but that previous Series, in particular 1914, 1917 and 1918 had been the subjects of attempted or successful "fixes" without it coming out. If true, that surely changes the picture considerably, since the only distinction between Jackson/Cicotte and a number of their contemporaries was not criminal conviction, but only that Landis decided to make an example of them.

Working backwards:

1918: Boston was the home of "Sport" Sullivan, Rothstein's main coadjutor in the Black Sox scandal. Apparently there was a lot of talk of the '18 Series being fixed but baseball decicded to do nothing because everybody was broke after the low wartime attendance. If there was a successful fix, we don't have to worry much, as I see nobody obvious on the 1918 Cubs whom we're likely to enshrine. However, Sullivan, in planning for 1919, made it clear that a large percentage of the team needed to be bribed, which suggests to me that he may have tried working with just a few Boston stars in 1918, and seen it backfire when Boston won anyway. There are of course some big names on that team; Babe Ruth pitched well but batted poorly in the Series, Carl Mays pitched well, Harry Hooper had a poor series, and Wally Schang (of whom more below) had a superb one. If Sullivan was looking for Bostonians to bribe, Mays and Schang would be obvious candidates, I think.

1917: Lots of rumors about that one apparently, and New York was Rothstein's hometown -- did the Giants throw the Series? (lost 4-2 to the White, mostly later Black Sox.) Buck Herzog was apparently thrown off the team by McGraw after the Series for unspecified corruptions, as was Zimmerman after 1919 (also Hal Chase, but he wasn't on the team in '17.) There are however no other HOM-worthy names on the '17 Giants that I can spot.

No rumors in the Rothstein book aout '16 or '15.

In 1914 the Miracle Braves very unexpectedly beat the Philadelphia As, after which Connie Mack abruptly broke up the team, more thoroughly than he was to do after '31 (no Great Depression in 1914-15, but there was the Federal League, a problem for the underfunded Mack.) Again, Sport Sullivan may have been involved, presumably betting on the Braves and subverting the As since you'd have got lousy odds betting on the As. Apart from Collins (if innocent in 1919, presumably also in 1914) this team had Schang (poor series 2 for 12 and 4 strikeouts), Baker (mediocre series) Eddie Plank (quite a good series) and the most obvious culprit, Chief Bender, who blew the first game wide open and had an ERA of 10.8, having been the As best pitcher during the season.

This group should be able to come to quite a good consensus on what's real and what isn't in '10s Series-fixing; if it can, that will impact our discussions helpfully.

It's not fair though just e.g. to eliminate Jackson's 1919 and 1920 (which in my book would remove him from the Inner Circle, though it may not for others) and we also need to look at Cicotte very seriously, since without the scandal, as a knuckleballer, he had an excllent chance to go on and win 300 after which, this not being the 1880s, he'd presumably be in the HOF and HOM (interesting to think that if the HOF had been in full swing in 1919, Cicotte might have been looking towards his chances of eventual induction, and so wouldn't have thrown the Series -- without Cicotte's two losses, the White Sox win.)

Karl:

I'm not buying the argument. If 90% of the players back then were on the "fix," then there would be 90% of the players from that time I wouldn't even look at their first year of eligibility (as Jackson and Cicotte will have to deal with this "year"). If there is proof that other players took money like Jackson and Cicotte did, then they deserve the ultimate penalty for this project. The "everybody was doing it" defense is not going to cut it. You're better off with the "Chewbacca" defense as far as I'm concerned.

Excellent... the Chewbacca Defense. John, you just made my day!

Excellent... the Chewbacca Defense. John, you just made my day!

:-D

I give up, what the hell is the Chewbacca defense? You gotta understand, I'm also the guy who had never heard of William the Hung.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

Its a South Park reference. Though before today, I did not know that the term has been generalized as a reference to absurdist logical fallacies where the debater tries to confuse the issue with irrevelant information.

Anyhow, the link does better justice than I just did... and also contains a hilarious transcript of South Park's Chewbacca Defense in action.

I never watched South Park. I know a little about the South Park Diet though.¨

Flick vs Jackson

As Michael Bass noted, Flick accumulated a not insignificant edge in WARP3, but the Win Shares are about equal. I'll just add that Flick's WARP-3 edge is one quality season (11.0 WARP), and he's ahead in season-adjusted WS by a fairly trivial amount (7 WS).

On peak (at least the way I measure it), Jackson has a small edge by Win Shares (36 to 35), and they are tied by WARP-3 (10.2).

Superficially then, they are pretty even by the "raw" numbers as produced by the two primary integrated rating systems, Flick having the edge of one extra peak-level WARP-3 season.

However, I see Flick as the better player due to how they ranked against their peers during their primes.

Flick   Year  Jackson
-----   ----  -------
 10  1901/1913  12
  5  1902/1914   7
  4  1903/1915   5
  4  1904/1916   6
  5  1905/1917   6
  4  1906/1918  18/10
  3  1907/1919  20/11
  5  1908/1920  20/13

This shows the relative ranking of their standing in MLB using rolling 5-year peaks (ending in the year indicated) of WARP-3. After 1918, there are two ratings for Jackson, depending on whether one gives him credit for his war work in 1918 (credit based on additional 1919 season in place of actual 1918 season). It is evident that Flick was consistently higher in relative status than Jackson, particularly in the period after Jackson's very short three-year peak. Also, Flick was the best outfielder in MLB during his peak (Sheckard was his closest challenger), the better players being the dynamic infield duo of Wagner and Lajoie and a pitcher (Young early, Mathewson late). Jackson was at best the #3 outfielder behind Cobb and Speaker and also was ranked behind Collins, Johnson, Alexander, and sometimes others.

Some other players with similar WARP-3 career and peak numbers:
Career Peak Name
------ ---- ----
91.2 10.2 Flick
86.5 10.1 Terry
80.7 10.6 Klein
80.3 10.2 Jackson

Terry and Klein do not have rates as good as Jackson's rate (it took them 12 full-time seasons instead of 9 to accumulate similar short career value) but their peaks rate about as highly, and they fall into the same group of short career, high peak hitters.

Dickey Pearce – It seems pretty clear that there need to be significant discounts for Pearce’s era due to inferior competition. An electee from this era would need to demonstrate a clear superiority over the competition to merit ranking with those from more recent times. In my opinion, Pearce is not clearly better than the competition he played against in the pre-professional era (i.e. ’67-’68).

How about the ten seasons prior when he was unquestionably the best shortstop in the game (plus its best catcher in '61) and arguably its best player for that era?

And I will not support someone on fame alone.

I won't either.

His numbers in the professional era don’t show me any reason to support him either.

As I have pointed numerous times, point to a shortstop who played with better numbers than Pearce during the 19th century after age 35. You can't.

It is entirely possible (probable?) that his career extends as long as it does based on fame as much as anything.

Since his numbers after 35 compare favorably to other shortstops from pre-1900, I would say no.

From Chris Cobb's ballot

14. Rube Foster (22) A big move up. I now see him as an ML-avg. pitcher in 1902, an outstanding pitcher 1903-08, excellent in 1909 before breaking his leg, a slightly above avg. ML pitcher in 1910-11, and a somewhat below-avg. ML pitcher in 1912-14. i]

Could someone do a similar breakdown of Monroe's career? I know it's always an estimate, but stuff like this really helps me get a vision of a player, and Monroe I feel like I still don't have a great grasp on at this point.