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

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

1927 Ballot

Sorry it’s late . . . unexpectedly out of town for a few days - pesky holidays getting in the way of important Hall of Merit business . . .

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 01, 2004 at 03:05 PM | 205 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 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 01, 2004 at 03:09 PM (#653004)
moving this over the hot topics bar . . .
   2. Patrick W Posted: June 01, 2004 at 03:15 PM (#653010)
The 15-man ballot is fine & shouldn’t be changed.

1. Bobby Wallace (1), StL. (A), SS (‘94-‘14) (1920) – Peak/Prime is not MVP-quality, but it’s just below that echelon and not a detriment to his worthiness.
2. Pete Hill (n/a), Phila. – Chic. (--), LF (’04-’25) (1927) – Pretty clearly worthy, as the bios & MLE’s show him to be superior to Johnson. But if he is the #4 LF, my HOM might be close to ¼ - Negro Leagues. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it just seems kinda high.
3. Sam Thompson (3), Phila.(N), RF (‘85-‘98) (1902) – I can understand those who place Jackson above Thompson, but I hope those who might place Joe in the top 3 don’t leave Sam off the ballot. Joe is likely the better player of the two, but because Jackson misses the decline phase of his career I see Sam as having more value – even when I give double credit to their top 5 seasons.
4. Jimmy Ryan (5), Chic.(N), CF / RF (‘85-‘03) (1926)
5. Jimmy Sheckard (4), Bkn.–Chic. (N), LF / RF (‘97-‘13) (1919)
6. George Van Haltren (6), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – Decided that offense should be the tiebreaker for these three. They’re all in my HOM, so the order doesn’t mean that much to me.
7. Joe Jackson (7), Clev. – Chic. (A), LF / RF (’08-’20) (1927) – His career numbers get a small wartime bump for 1918; the peak voters obviously don’t need this to have him higher than this, as a career voter he’d be down about 5 spots without it. I’m not sure if I can separate Sheckard, Ryan & VH and because Joe’s career was cut short, he has too much ground to make up on those three. Most adj. BRAR on the ballot, even with the short career. Of the people who think Jackson should be in the HoF, what percentage do you think realize that he’d wear a Cleveland hat if he made it?
--. Harry Stovey, Phila. (AA), 1B / LF (’80-’93) – Next year.
8. Bill Monroe (8), Phila. – Bkn. (--), 2B / 1B (‘96-‘14) – The HOM can handle 3 barred players from the 1900s.
9. Eddie Cicotte (9), Chic. (A), SP (’08-’20) – The equal or better of Brown in most metrics I consider. 2 games don’t mean more than 13 years.
--. Mordecai Brown, Chic. (N), SP (’03-’16) –
--. Joe Start, Atlantic-Bkn (NABBP)-N.Y.Mut.(NL), 1B (‘60-’86) –
10. Jake Beckley (10), Pitt. – Cinc.(N), 1B (’88-’07) – No. 2 on this ballot for adj.BRAR and No. 1 for Translated AB’s. Possibly underrated, or just the victim of my rewarding peak.
11. Fielder Jones (11), Chic.(A), CF / RF (’96-’08) – Almost single-handedly ruining my consensus score (Caruthers & McGinnity help also). The worst part is that I’m not even his biggest fan here, so I don’t even get recognition for dropping my score. Will never be elected & will drop from my ballot in under 10 years but I think he is one of the top 15 eligible, so I continue to throw my vote away.
--. Ezra Sutton, Bost. (N), 3B (‘71-’88) –
12. Clark Griffith (12), Chic. (N) - NY (A), SP (’91-’14) – As so often happens with my ballot, my reexamination of one player helps a different player much more than the player under consideration. Looking at McGinnity, I see Griffith as the better of the two. Lesser 3-yr peak than Waddell or Joe, all 3 equal at the 5-yr peak, Griffith on top at 10-yr prime. Net result: peak equals out for these three pitchers. I was overlooking the hitting stats; Griffith wasn’t killing his team at the plate like the other two, so he becomes the 2nd best pitcher on the ballot.
--. Sherry Magee, Phila. (N), LF (’04-’19) – He was elected too early, and not as good as Ryan, Sheckard, or VH (I can’t see how Magee has 30-50 more hitting WS than the others; both systems agree he was the 4th best fielder). But he also wasn’t as bad as I had him.
13. Cupid Childs (14), Clev. (N), 2B (’90-’01) – Looks good under peak, even with fielding discount.
14. Joe McGinnity (15), NY(N), SP (‘99-‘08) – Among the elected pitchers (not incl. Spalding or Ward) Iron Joe would rank last on my rankings comparing runs prevented. My ballot & the electorate consensus are radically off in our feelings toward these pitchers, but even among pitchers I don’t see why McGinnity would have more votes than Cicotte or Griffith.
15. Rube Waddell (13), Bost. (N), SP (’97-’09) – In my opinion, Rube was the best pitcher among the eligible in terms of preventing runs, but because he didn’t last as long as the others Cicotte, Griffith & McGinnity pass him in overall value.

Bob Caruthers – He’s half the pitcher compared to the rest of this group, and less than half the hitter of those on this ballot. I see Caruthers as 50 RAR below what he needs to sniff the ballot, 100 before election becomes a possibility. I cannot see how he will be looked at as anything other than a mistake election. Look to Browning for your third AA HoMer.

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 does not distinguish himself from his own competition. The one thing we can be certain of is he is more famous than his contemporaries. And I will not support someone on fame alone. I cannot support his candidacy for election.

Lip Pike – FWIW, I’d vote for him before Pearce. Double his recorded career value to account for ’66-’70, adjust for season lengths and reduce timeline penalties, he is still short of the top 20. Not unworthy.

Caruthers, Pike & Pearce are in last year’s top ten, but not in my top 15.
   3. PhillyBooster Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:07 PM (#653092)
1. Bob Caruthers (2) -- No good reason. Just picked his name out of a hat.

2. Joe Jackson (3) – He hit as well and Caruthers pitched. But he did not pitch as well and Caruthers hit. Elmer Flick without the backstory.

3. Pete Hill (n/e) – a great early slugger. I would take him above Magee or Sheckard, but not above Burkett, Clarke, or Crawford.

4. Jake Beckley (5) -- great hitter at an important position. Best in his league for years, second best to HoMers for more years. I don't discount his "peak" because it was somewhat flattened into a lengthy "prime." He was great for the whole period.

5. Roger Bresnahan (6) -- Catchers are "different". Compare Bresnahan to the other catchers eligible and see how he stands out. If he weren't ballot-worthy, there'd be a dozen guys who were somewhat similar. There aren't. I can only assume that the stats we have miss his greatness somehow.

6. Joe McGinnity (7) -- Best pitcher on the ballot, even if Addie Joss gets to bring a friend.

7. Gavvy Cravath (4) – Better than Thompson, overall but Thompson has the better ML numbers. They are close, but Cravath was better.

8. Lip Pike (8) -- Best NA player available. Compares well to McVey, Wright, etc. Also, best centerfielder at an underrepresented position.

9. Rube Foster (9) -- Not a demotion, but an artificially low placement of Magee last year as I gave him no benefits of any doubt. Foster is above my personal In/Out Line.

10. Ed Williamson (11) -- Is simply not that much worse than Ezra Sutton.

11. Sam Thompson (12) -- On the one hand, rightfield was not an important defensive position. On the other, it's not like you could replace them with defensive specialists and suddenly have a lot of defensive production in right field, so the replacement level for RF is probably lower than CF and LF. That gives Sam a distinct disadvantage in Win Shares, and probably underrates him in other stats that set the replacement level too high.

12. Dickey Pearce (13) -- Most valuable shortstop available, but there's certainly no shortage of SS in the HoM.

13. Cupid Childs (14) -- He may be head and shoulders above the White Dunlap, but give me the Black one for my rotisserie team.

14. George van Haltren (15) -- He and Williamson are part of my "reconsideration brigade" of players who fell too low through neglect. Looks like he got reconsidered by a bunch of people last week. Best centerfielder if you don't like Pike.

15. Mickey Welch (16) – Welch or Wallace, Wallace of Welch? If I chose Wallace, I don’t have to explain why he’s out of the top 15. But I can’t get the list of Top Comps out of my head. When in doubt, go for the guy with 300 wins over Dave Concepcion.

16-20: Wallace, Chance, Konetchy, Sheckard, Clements
21-25: Griffith, Evers, Jennings, S. White, Browning
26-30: Doyle, McGraw, Duffy, Tinker, McGuire
   4. Carl Goetz Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:24 PM (#653118)
Please welcome Joe Jackson and Sherry Magee to my personal HoM in 1927.

1)Joe Jackson-Best hitter on the ballot. Wasn't Cobb or Speaker, but that's not the Hom standard we've set. He was dominant for about 8 years.
2)Lip Pike- He's been #1 on my ballot for 2 straight years. This is no reflection on his quality. He's been in my HoM for over a decade.
3)Dickey Pearce- Not alot of objective evidence, but I wholly believe he was the 1st dominant SS ever.
4)Bob Caruthers- Dominant pitchers for a few years and a pretty solid hitter to boot.
5)Sam Thompson-Was the best hitter on my ballot until Jackson came along. He's still close.
6)Pete Hill- The consensus seems to be somewhere between Magee and Sheckard. I've chosen Magee's spot from last year.
7)Rube Foster- Strong pitcher at the dawn of the century. I'd rate him higher, but my gut tells me his pitching was overrated due to his post-playing success.
8)Bobby Wallace- I feel I've underrated him before. The more I see of Wallace, the more I like him. Great long career, with low(but not terrible peak).
9)Bill Monroe- 3rd and final Negro leaguer on this ballot. Some say he was better than Grant who I had in my top 5 prior to his election. I may move Monroe up in the future.
10)Jimmy Ryan- Solid, but he starts my group that I don't think should be in.
11)Ned Williamson-Pretty solid peak and career and great defender. He got lost in the shuffle after he lost his battle with Ezra Sutton.
12)Roger Bresnahan-Best catcher between Bennett and the 30s glut. I'm not sure that's enough though.
13)Hughie Jennings- I need something beyond the 5 great years. He's really not that far from Wallace, but nobody on the bottom of my ballot is that far from each other.
14)Jimmy Sheckard- Great defense; his overall numbers are just below Ryan.
15)Vic Willis- This was between Willis and McGinnity. I chose Willis because his peak was slightly better. Willis' career numbers were slightly better as well, but he took 3 more seasons to do it, which is a slight advantage to McGinnity. I go back and forth on these 2, but my gut says Willis.

Left Off
Joe McGinnity-See Vic Willis Comments
Jake Beckley-He was a consistently average player for a long period of time(pretty much his entire career) That doesn't scream 'enshrinement' to me.
   5. ronw Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#653143)
1927 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. I'll gladly incorporate WARP when they finally complete their fix.)

1. Dickey Pearce Until 1925, I had been considering the project to run from 1871, with pre-1871 contributions only available to those players who made significant post-1871 contributions. However, John Murphy pointed out that the literal language of the constitution requires us to consider pre-1871 players. Pearce was at least an all-star from 1857-1870.

2. Pete Hill The best and most consistent Negro League outfielder until Charleston. True, he had a decline phase, followed by a Sheckard-like resurgence, but he was spectacular enough in the aughts to receive my vote.

3. Joe Jackson Simply an outstanding player, who made one huge mistake. MVP Candidate 1911-13, 1916-17, 1919-20, All-Star candidate 1914-15, War credit 1918 (10 HOM seasons).

4. Joe McGinnity I think very comparable to electee Walsh, and has been on the ballot long enough. Last week I had him ahead of Shoeless Joe. After looking at the two, I think Jackson is a better candidate. MVP Candidate 1899-1900, 1903-1904. All-Star candidate 1901-1902, 1905-1907. (9 HOM seasons)

5. Jake Beckley Every year, as fewer 1B come along to challenge him, Beckley looks more and more unique. In his 16 All-Star seasons, he only averaged about 60% of MVP value, so that hurts him with peak voters, but I’m a career/prime man. Next year, Baker will be just ahead of Beckley on my ballot. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1895, 1897, 1899-1905. (16 HOM seasons)

6. Jimmy Sheckard I think his defense makes him the equivalent of recent electee Magee. MVP Candidate 1901, 1903, 1911. All-Star candidate 1899-1900, 1902, 1905-1907, 1909-1910, 1912. (12 HOM seasons)

7. George Van Haltren Stands ahead of the CF glut in my career/prime system. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1901. That is 14 consecutive solid years, the majority in a tough consolidated league. (14 HOM seasons)

8. Jimmy Ryan My system likes Jimmy almost as much as Van Haltren. MVP candidate 1888. All-Star candidate 1886-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1899, 1902. (14 HOM seasons)

9. Rube Foster A closer examination of the eligible Negro Leaguers and a review of pitchers we have elected puts Rube here. The value he brought to his teams seems to surpass that of short-career contemporaries like McGinnity, Waddell and Joss.

10. Bobby Wallace To make my ballot, a long career player still needs a decent amount of solid play. Wallace had that solid play. Never an MVP candidate, but All-Star candidate 1897-1899, 1901-1908, 1910. (12 HOM seasons)

11. Hugh Duffy Part of the now underrepresented CF block. We have Hamilton from the 1890's, and no 1900's CF representatives. MVP candidate 1893-1894, All-Star candidate 1889-1892, 1895-1899. (11 HOM seasons)

12. Bill Monroe A reexamination of Negro League candidates puts Monroe here. There aren’t too many “best” black players we have considered at this point, but Monroe is consistently mentioned as among the top players, and has enough of a career case to warrant ballot placement.

13. Fielder Jones Doesn't seem too much different from Kelley or Duffy, when you factor in his fielding. MVP candidate 1908 (his last real year). All-Star candidate 1896-1898, 1900-1907. (12 HOM seasons)

14. Roger Bresnahan Not as high as I once had him, but I think this unique talent belongs on the ballot, and should eventually be enshrined. MVP candidate 1906, 1908 All-Star candidate 1903-1905, 1907, 1911, 1914. (8 HOM seasons)

15. Vic Willis He keeps showing up on my list. Barely ahead of the pitcher glut (Caruthers, Mullane, Welch, Waddell, Griffith). MVP Candidate 1899, 1901-1902. All-Star Candidate 1898, 1903-1904, 1906-1909. (10 HOM seasons)

MISSING OUT

Lip Pike – Due to reconsiderations of Negro League players, Number 18 on my ballot now. Who’s ahead? Doyle and Leach, in that order.

Bob Caruthers – With all the reconsiderations, poor Bob just misses again (he’s at #20), but I don’t have an irrational bias against him. He just doesn’t measure up on my career-weighted system. Tinker pulled barely ahead of Bob this year for my #19. MVP candidate 1885-1889, All-Star candidate 1890-1892. (8 HOM seasons)

Sam Thompson – Some of the top returnees are just missing my ballot, and may make it later in the 20’s. Thompson is probably not one of them. I see Thompson as below Pike, Thomas, Griffin, Tiernan, Charley Jones, and the OF on my ballot, so he may not quite get there. MVP candidate 1887, 1895, All-Star candidate 1886, 1889-1894. (9 HOM seasons)
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#653144)
First part:

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

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


1) Dickey Pearce-SS/C (1): All-around player at the position and arguably the best player of his time. Considered the best before George Wright (1856-1866). Caught many games as a catcher (even was an All-Star at the position one year). Even with my conservative evaluation, he has to rank near the top. He played for over twenty years in the best leagues or on the best teams of the 1850s and '60s. Even though his NA and NL was meager (he was 35 in '71), he still had the most value after 35 until Dahlen and Davis, FWIW.              

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

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

Childs 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.

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

3) Pete Hill-CF/LF (n/a): I think he's the best OF choice available (including Jackson). Potent bat + excellent defense + fine base running + long career = HoMer.

4) Lip Pike-CF/RF/2B (3): Considered the fastest man of his time. Major star prior to the NA. Two things hold him back somewhat: durability and how good of a player he was at his position compared to his competition pre-NA (Pearce is not affected as much by the latter in my analysis, obviously). Best major league rightfielder for 1871 and 1873. Best major league centerfielder for 1874-1876.

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

6) Tom York-LF (5): I know some here looking at his OPS+ must be saying to themselves "Murph has him over guys like Sheckard?!?" Fair question, but, IMO, York was a more dominating player at his position than Sheckard was during his time. Long enough career and many times as the best at his position (when left field was more like centerfield today) deserves a ballot spot.Best leftfielder of the 1870s. Best major league leftfielder for 1873, 1875, 1877 and 1878 (extremely close in 1872 and 1881).

7) Joe Jackson-RF/LF (n/a): Le Pew! He was unquestionably great at his peak, but to be an inner circle HoMer for me, I need more career. It was his own avarice that ended his career abruptly, not mine. Yeah, his OPS+ is higher than the outfielders above on my ballot, but I'm skeptical of many of these Deadball Era numbers. Best major league rightfielder for 1911, 1912 and 1913. Best major league leftfielder for 1916 and 1920. Best AL leftfielder for 1917.

8) Vic Willis-P (6): Why does this man receive such little respect? Willis and McGinnity are very close, IMO. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:37 PM (#653146)
Second part:

9) Ed Konetchy-1B (n/a): Best first baseman of the Deadball Era , IMO. Best major league first baseman for 1910, 1911 and 1916 (very close in 1909 and 1911). Best NL first baseman for 1909, 1911 and 1919.

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

11) Roger Bresnahan-C/CF (8): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop or Petway. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.

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

13) Hugh Duffy-CF/LF/RF (11): "Only" the third best centerfielder of the '90s, but that position was very strong for that decade. Best major league rightfielder for 1890 and 1891. Best major league centerfielder for 1892, 1893 and 1894.

14) Frank Chance-1B/C (12): Best first baseman for the first decade of the 20th century. Even more so than Beckley, the Peerless Leader shouldn't be compared with the ABC boys ore the post-1920 crop of first baseman. The cream-of the-crop from Franklin Adam's famous trio. Best major league first baseman for 1903, 1904. 1905, 1906, and 1907 (close in 1908). Best NL first baseman for 1908.

15) Rube Waddell-P (14): If he had been a little more serious and quit the horse playing... Best AL pitcher for 1905.





Van Haltren gets knocked off. Beckley, Wallace, Sheckard, and Thompson are close. Caruthers, after further consideration, moves closer to this bunch.
   8. Daryn Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:52 PM (#653157)
4087 characters.

1. Joe Mcginnity (p) – Led league in wins 5 times, averaged 25 wins a year, led league in IP 4 straight years.

2. Joe Jackson (of) – really only had 9 years, but 9 years in the top five of OPS and OPS+. That’s good. I like the .356 batting average too. 170 OPS+ outrageously good even considering he missed his decline phase.

3. Andrew Foster (p) – While his legend is a bit enhanced by his managerial and executive accomplishments, he was a truly great pitcher. Wagner said he might have been the best. McGraw and Chance said similar things. Career spanned 1897-1912. Undeniably great from 1902 to 1907 – four 50 win seasons, at least. Likely also great but without opportunity to prove it 1899 to 1901 and great but in a self-imposed reduced role from 1908 onwards.

4. Mickey Welch (p) – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data is helping Welch, not hurting – those wins are real.

5. Preston Hill – Magee, Sheckard and Beckley seem to be good comps.

6. Jake Beckley (1b) -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. Baseballreality.com has him as the best first baseman in baseball for a long time.

7. Sam Thompson (of) – 8 dominating years, great ops+, lots of black ink in multiple categories. Only poor defence keeps him this low.

8. Bob Caruthers (p/of) – nice Winning percentage, great peak, short career, surprisingly low era+, 130 ops+ as a hitter.

9. Dickey Pearce (ss) – likely the best or second best player in the 1860s and played well for an old shortstop for about 5 of his 7 years post-1870. Nothing in the Constitution seems to suggest we should only consider players who had significant post-1870 careers.

10. Roger Bresnahan (c) – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor.

11. Bobby Wallace (ss) – like Sheckard, too many Win Shares to ignore, but unless he was a great defender (and people seem to think he was, .34ws/1000 from an A) he doesn’t belong close to this high.

12. Jimmy Sheckard (of) – I can’t ignore 339 win shares and he did walk a lot – throw in above average defense, a home run title and strong seasons 8 years apart and I guess I wouldn’t be embarrassed if he got in.

13. Tommy Leach (of/3b)– slightly inferior to Sheckard, better fielder, worse hitter. 300+ WS.

14. Lip Pike (of) – 4 monster seasons, career too short.

15. Bill Munroe – I think he was pretty good. Any blackball player that is even talked about as among the best 70 years later is pretty good. I’ll take McGraw’s word for it.

The rest

16. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity.

17. Chief Bender

18. Gavvy Cravath – I’m not sure how to treat his non-ML time, but I do think one of the purposes of the HoM is to take into account great achievers outside the majors.

19. Tinker – Perhaps spectacular defense – someone has to be responsible for the 06-08 Cubs.

20. Hughie Jennings – To those who say he was the best player in baseball for a time – I ask was he better than Delahanty?.

21. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

22. Pete Browning – Joe Jackson’s most similar player, and they are pretty close – I have him as about 4/5ths of Jackson.

23. Konetchy – 287 WinShares, but nothing really impressive on his resume, particularly for a firstbaseman. Belongs in the Hall of the Very Good.

24. Larry Doyle – not a bad hitter for a second baseman and it wasn’t a particularly strong decade for NL second sackers.

25. Johnny Evers – not bad, better than Chance, worse than Tinker. Only here for his defence.

26. George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated.

27. Hugh Duffy – 10 strong seasons, good black ink.

28. Jimmy Ryan – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs.

29. Rube Waddell

30. Ed Cicotte — 5 good years mixed in with a few more not so good years. Best pitcher in baseball in 1917 (and that was his third best season)?

31. Jim McCormick
32. Addie Joss
33 through 41 in no order -- Ed Williamson, Levi Meyerle, Tony Mullane, Vic Willis, Sol White, Roy Thomas, Lave Cross, George Mullin and Frank Chance.
   9. Jim Sp Posted: June 01, 2004 at 04:58 PM (#653162)
1)Jackson—1911-3 are all top 100 seasons by OPS+. .356 average with power and walks, if he’s eligible then he’s got the peak to get in. Really should have to wait for his contemporaries to be eligible, but in a weak field I don’t see anyone else to compete for the #1 spot.
2)Pete Hill—Enters my HoM this year. Could belong anywhere between #2 and #8, this is where he is today based on the incredible park factors during his “decline”.
3)Doyle—Compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. Doyle’s 126 OPS+ at 2B is only exceeded by Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, Morgan, Robinson, Richardson, and Dunlap. #19 all time in innings at 2B, how bad a fielder could he have been? Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
4)Beckley—I’m no longer Beckley’s best friend, but close. Keeler’s election convinced me to stop downgrading Beckley. Beckley is the better fielder, about the same as a hitter for his career, and at an underrepresented position that with more defensive value. Behind the big 3, much better than any other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production.
5)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, striking out people at rate that is extremely high for the era. Each year allowing at least 20% fewer runs than an average pitcher, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. 134 ERA+ in 3000 IP is worthy, his W/L record isn’t impressive because his run support wasn’t impressive. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
6)Wallace—long career, good hitter, played shortstop well, and gets a boost for his pitching. A shortstop with a long career who can hit belongs in the HoM.
7)Cravath—I’m tempted to put him above Beckley, even. Great peak, great minor league play.
8)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
9)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so that hurts him a bit.
10)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.
11)McGinnity—Win Shares NL best pitcher in 1900, 1903, and 1904. Terrible hitter.
12)Lave Cross—great fielder. Caught some too. Only hit well in weak leagues, but still that’s a lot of career value…2645 career hits with a lot of defensive value. All time leader in Win Shares / 1000 innings at 3B.
13)Joss—Comp is Koufax…a terrible hitter.
14)Pearce—placement is quite subjective, putting him above Childs and McGraw feels right.
15)Welch— Better than Galvin. His 1885 season (44-11, 1.66 ERA, 492 IP) is a great peak year, he had 3 other great years (1884, 1888, 1889) plus another 6 good seasons. Welch played every year in the toughest league. He could hit a little (68 OPS+). Career 307-210…he deserves some of the credit for that.


Sam Thompson—short career hurts him, but the man could hit.
Bob Caruthers— Short career, and AA discount hurts him. See also Tony Mullane, Silver King, Guy Hecker, Jack Stivetts, Dave Foutz, and Will White.
Sheckard--Not quite. On the top of the outfield glut, just off the ballot.
Lip Pike-- The quality of competition was not good. I think we’ve taken enough of the 1870’s crowd.
Van HaltrenGood player, part of the OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
   10. Rusty Priske Posted: June 01, 2004 at 05:39 PM (#653233)
My PHoM inductees are Dickey Pearce and Pete Hill.


1. Bobby Wallace (2,2,3) I inducted him way back in 1920. He sqeaks ahead of the others but it is a pretty tight field.

2. Jimmy Sheckard (3,3,4) Inducted into my PHoM in 1919. Oft overlooked player.

3. George Van Haltren (4,7,9) PHoM 1912. It is good to see a resurgence of sorts for GVH. The most underrated player ont he ballot, imo.

4. Bob Caruthers (5,5,6) PHoM 1919

5. Mickey Welch (9,9,12) I have him higher than guys I am inducting into my own HoM. It is funny how a different set of choices leads to different conclusions.

6. Jake Beckley (7,10,10) PHoM 1913

7. Dickey Pearce (8,12,14) PHoM 1927

8. Pete Hill (n/e) PHoM 1927

These three have to get in eventually, no?


9. Rube Foster (11,13,11)


10. Jimmy Ryan (10,11,13) PHoM 1914

11. Joe Jackson (n/r) His career wasn't long enough.

12. Joe McGinnity (12,14,15) Most overrated on the ballot, imo.

13. Bill Monroe (14,x,x)

14. Hugh Duffy (15,x,x)

15. Tommy Leach (13,15,x) PHoM 1921. Jumped the gun, but he is hanging around.

16-20. Powell, Childs, Griffith, Mullane, McCormick

21-25. Doyle, Konetchy, Willis, Thompson, F.Jones

26-30. White, Waddell, Gleason, Cross, Bresnahan
   11. karlmagnus Posted: June 01, 2004 at 06:01 PM (#653282)
My computer's gione utterly cuckoo and won't cut/paste, so for nearly all comments I refer you to my very full (too full, said soem) 1926 ballot. Hopefully by next "year" I'll have got it sorted out.

1. Bob Caruthers
2. Joe Jackson
3. Mickey Welch
4. Jake Beckley
5. Joe McGinnity
6. Hugh Duffy
7. Sam Thompson
8. Eddie Cicotte
9. Pete Hill. I'm convinced he's not as good as Beckley and those above him, and that he's somewhat better than Sheckard and Magee, who are/would be just off my top 15. So, rounding slightly in his favor, he's about where Grant was.
10. Clark Griffith
11. Dickey Pearce
12. Lip Pike
13. Levi Meyerle
14. Harry Wright I'm convinced these 4 are close to inseparable, and in approximately this order. My ballot has been adjusted accordingly. I'm sure they should be a block, but not sure whether it should be 11-14 or 14-17; current 15/16/17 may slip above them in future years.
15. Jimmy Ryan.

OFF BALLOT

16. George van Haltren
17. Bobby Wallace. I get less enthusiastic about his rate stats as other contemporaries come on the ballot and put up better ones.
18. Cupid Childs
19. Deacon McGuire
20. Larry Doyle
21. Jimmy Sheckard
22. Tony Mullane
23. Pete Browning. Possibly a few places higher.
24. Roger Bresnahan
25. Jack Clements
26. Rube Foster
27. Sam leever
28. Chief Bender
29. Bill Monroe
30. Ed Konetchy
31. Vic Willis
32. MIke Tiernan
33. Hugh Jennings
34. Jesse Tannehill
35. Rube Waddell
36. Tommy Leach
37. Lave Cross
38. Tom York.
   12. jhwinfrey Posted: June 01, 2004 at 06:20 PM (#653333)
Dickey Pearce and Jake Beckley are my PHoM inductees for 1927. Thanks to the many well-researched posts on the ballot discussion thread, which gave me a lot to think about. As a result, I've dropped a few pitchers down on my ballott and bumped up a few hitters.

1.Mickey Welch (1)
2.Joe McGinnity(3)--The McGinnity vs. Joss debate boils down to one question for me--who would you rather have spend his career on your team?
3.Jake Beckley (6)
4.Dickey Pearce (7)--I'm convinced that he was a dominant player in the early days.
5.Bob Caruthers (4)--I've dropped him down a bit from last year.
6.Sam Thompson (8)--founding member of 20/20 club moves up on my ballot.
7.Pete Hill(ne)
8.Rube Waddell(5)
9.Addie Joss (10)
10.Joe Jackson (boycott)--His career was too short for me to rank him higher.
11.Roger Breshnahan (9)--I'd really like to rank him higher, but this is where he goes. I'm hoping he'll get some more support over the next few ballots.
12.Pete Browning (11)
13.Tony Mullane (12)--deserves credit for the parts of 3 seasons he missed due to contract disputes.
14.Lip Pike (13)
15.George Van Haltren (14)

Bobby Wallace--I just can't bring myself to give him enough credit for his pitching to bump him up onto the ballot. I don't think Wallace on the mound was better than the average pitcher of his era.
Jimmy Sheckard--Compare him to Joe Jackson--he's definitely a step below. Van Haltren's longevity puts him ahead of Sheckard in my book.
As always, I'll pay close attention to what is said in the discussion thread--and I'll be reshuffling things for 1928.
   13. andrew siegel Posted: June 01, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#653456)
(1) Joe Jackson (boycotted)-- Very, very similar to Elmer Flick, who would rank ahead of all the other players on the ballot. As I see it, the AL of the 1910s was the easiest league in the history of the game in which to identify the HoM-level position player: the top guys year in and year out were Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Baker, and Jackson. As a prime-oriented voter who has chosen to apply no further penalties for the 1919 fix, I think Jackson is an easy number one.

2) Pete Hill (new)-- Ranks number 2 based on my promise not to use confidence intervals to knock down excluded players from where my assessment of their skills would put them. My problem with Hill is that I think there's a 50% chance he was Sam Crawford, a 40% chance he was Jimmy Ryan, and a 10% chance he was Dummy Hoy. Will my strategy of treating every excluded player fairly end up overvaluing them as a group? A fair and troubling question.

(3) Jimmy Sheckard (1st)-- I remain uncomfortable ranking him this high, but my numbers put him here and every time I put him head to head against someone else on the ballot he fights them at least to a draw.

(4) Cupid Childs (4th)-- Like a broken record, I will continue to ask how an offensive stud who was an above-average defensive 2B and dominated his position for a decade during the hardest era ever for middle infielders doesn't register on 2/3 of the ballots? Players on ballot who were among top 5 position players in their (post-1870)league 4 or more times: Jackson, Childs, Jennings, Jones, Williamson, Dunlap.

(5) George Van Haltren (3rd)-- Among the very best career-value candidates we will ever have on the ballot; never a top handful player but a second handful player for a full 14 year career.


(6) Hughie Jennings (7th)-- Returning to my roots as a voter who values peak and prime, I've got to give props to the best player of the mid-1890s.

(7) Bobby Wallace (8th)-- Hard to peg how much WS underrates his defense; this is my best guess, but if the correct answer is higher he belongs in the "elect-me" spots.

(8) Charley Jones (9th)-- I encourage all other prime voters to take a look at his run.

(9) Jimmy Ryan (10th)-- Similar stats to VH but earned a percentage of them while bumping along at league-average or below.

(10) Lip Pike (13th)-- Pre-1871 stats give him a bump; certainly a better player than Pearce from 1868-1870.

(11) Bob Caruthers (unranked)-- Welcome back, Bob. My every-evolving calculations now tell me that his seven-year pitching run (including the contributions of his bat but only on the days he pitched) puts his seven-year pitching prime on par with Galvin, Radbourn, and McGinnity; his little bit of additional pitching and his OF play slot him onto my all-time list of pitchers behind all the guys we've elected so far but ever so slightly ahead of the other top pitchers on this ballot.

12) Joe McGinnity (6th)-- I feel like I was bumping him up simply as the best pitcher on the ballot; on further review, he remains effectively my co-top rated pitcher but the fall-off if you replaced him with Joss, Griffith, Waddell, Willis, or Cicotte just wouldn't have been that high.

(13) Hugh Duffy (12th)-- Love that prime; however, the prime is the career.

(14) (N)ed Williamson (11th)-- Career remains a bit short even for my tastes.

(15) Bill Monroe (14th)-- Could be Monroe, Bresnahan, Dunlap, Beckley, Griffith, Griffin, Thompson, Browning, Waddell, or Joss. Monroe ranked above them all last time and stays there until I can sort them out better.

Ommitted players:

Sam Thompson-- When non-hitting aspects of the game are factored in, probably but not definitely better than the Van Haltren-Duffy-Ryan group on a day-to-day basis but career was shorter, more erratic, and punctuated by too many injuries. On a tight ballot, lack of consistency and short career can drop you an awful lot of notches. If he's in the top 5 (which I concede is plausible), then Browning, Tiernan, and Cravath should be on the ballot.

Dickey Pearce-- I've said it before, giving him credit for only 1866 on, he only accumulates enough points for the Hall of Very Good.

Jake Beckley-- I like him more and more each year and now have him in the 15-20 range, but I still can't figure out if 1B was actually a demanding defensive position or if we just had a random drought in 1B offense during his career.
   14. DanG Posted: June 01, 2004 at 07:33 PM (#653465)
1927 Ballot Part 1

New exhibit for Beckley. In 1927, Pete Hill and Ed Konetchy keep things interesting. Frank Baker sweeps into the HoM in 1928. Bruce Petway and Spot Poles add to the “Negro Leaguer glut” in 1929.

1)J. Jackson – Most every ranking I find sees him as a top 80 player. No other candidate here gets near those sorts of props.

2)Wallace (1,1,3) - 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


3)Pearce (2,2,4)– If the HoM is about respect for all eras, then Pearce is a “n-b”. Our Hall has only two players who played much before 1868 (Start and Wright). Unlike 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).

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

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 (5,5,7) – A poor man’s Rusie, but that’s still enough to be a HoMer. I like guys who play, and while the Iron Man lacked longevity, few pitchers were more durable. Most 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 (6,6,8) – 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) Van Haltren (8,9,10)—As to why he is opening a gap from Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he has much higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan actually played more corner outfield. Players with 2500 times on base 1889-1901:
1—3392 B. Hamilton
2—3134 G. Van Haltren
3—3046 J. Burkett
4—3043 E. Delahanty

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

8) Leach (9,11,12) – With 3B and CF lagging in HoM members, you’d think he’d get more attention. If you’re a FOBW, I don’t think you can ignore this guy. Question of league quality knocks him back a couple pegs, otherwise really close to Wallace. Had a better peak than Bobby, but his career was a couple years shorter and he had just a little less defensive value. Players with 1250 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1902-11:
1—1883 H. Wagner
2—1726 S. Crawford

3—1429 T. Leach
4—1408 N. Lajoie
5—1392 H. Davis
6—1343 F. Clarke
7—1286 D. Murphy
8—1278 S. Magee
9—1266 J. Sheckard
   15. DanG Posted: June 01, 2004 at 07:33 PM (#653466)
1927 Ballot Part 2

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

10) Griffith (11,13,14) – 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

11) Duffy (12,8,9)– 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

12) Thompson (13,14,15)– 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

13)Bresnahan (14,15,--) – 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


14)Beckley (--,--,--) – Back after six years off. He’s Joe Start, but without a peak and retired four years sooner. Grade B fielder, won four WS GG. The many triples may be a product of a strange park in Pittsburgh, as his other stats do not suggest good foot speed. Firstbasemen with 950+ RBI through 1926:

2076 Anson
1575 Beckley
1322 Connor
1296 Brouthers

1060 McInnis
992 Konetchy
968 J. Doyle
952 H. Davis

Beckley's total is still the 8th best all-time among firstbasemen. Besides Anson (#1 all-time) there's Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Palmeiro, Perez and Killebrew ahead of Beckley. McCovey and McGriff round out the top ten. Bagwell and Thomas figure to join this group next season.

15) Williamson (15,--,--) – 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 exactly one-fourth of the HoM being pitchers (12 of 48) 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
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 01, 2004 at 07:39 PM (#653475)
11. Dickey Pearce

#11? karlmagnus, I might have to look at Caruthers again to see if I can get him on my ballot for you. :-D
   17. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 01, 2004 at 07:39 PM (#653476)
1. Jimmy Sheckard (2). Those Cubs remind me of the Beatles. A bunch of tremendous talents all in their primes together - but when those glory years were done, the decline phases of the different members wasn't nearly as strong as one would've guessed. Sheckard's the only exception. He's the only guy to not only have a strong prime, but also a heckuva career. Strong offense & great defense.

2. Joe Jackson (new to me). Could freakin' hit! Normally more of a career guy, but I do put some emphasis on prime & this guy has the best prime on the ballot. Another year or two & he'd be over Sheckard, as is Sheckard's 50% advantage in seasons as a starter keeps him above the shoeless one.

3. Joe McGinnity (3). More quantity than quality, but he rates high with both. No one here could dominate a league like Iron Joe. Once ranked 3rd in the leauge in ERA+ while pitching 20% more innings than anyone else. Not bad. Only pitched ten years, but backed enough into those ten years to end up this high.

4. Bobby Wallace (6). The things who learn in the HoM. . . . This guy wasn't even on my radar, but his defensive value - though hidden because he split time between SS & 3B was very high both in terms of peak & career value. He was to SS offense what Beckley was to 1Bman offense. And he could pitch a little. I keep going back & forth between if he or Jake was better. Today, I'm leaning toward Bobby.

5. Jake Beckley (5). Began as the best non-ABC first basemen in the league & remained the best of the very good for almost two full decades as a starter. Even with his non-peak he was the best 1Bman in baseball at the turn of the century for a few years. 1 OPS+ under 100 in his first 18 seasons.

6. Dickey Pearce (7). Best player of his day, a defensive whiz, & he lasted forever. All good signs to me & I think the HoM can house another 1860s player.

7. Mickey Welch (8). Thank you retrosheet. Turns out he earned those 300 wins. Offensive support only gave him 3-4 wins. Defensive support, though a little above average, was actually worse the defensive support of all major non-Galvin pitchers in the 1880s. Usually matched up against tougher opposing pitchers when he & Keefe were on the same team. In 1885, against the Cubs, he faced off against John Clarkson 7 times & won every game.

8. Pete Hill (new). Did my year-by-year listing of his stats transfer in the Negro Leagues thread? If not, he was a great great hitter in his 20s, then sucked for 4 years in his early 30's, then recovered & was a solid hitter for a few more years. Cum Posey, who was around all blackball from 1912 onward, said Pete Hill was the most consistent hitter he ever saw. Cum musta missed those four years. Good player who has a very good chance of making future ballots. He's risen dramaticly from the provisional ballot as I realized I was only looking at the numbers, & not factoring in the reputation he had (see the Cum Posey comment). Great hitter for a decade, weak for four, strong for five. Given his length & how good he reputedly was in his peak, I'll take him over Sam Thompson.

9 Sam Thompson (9). Could hit a little. And Fred Astaire could dance a little.

10Tommy Leach (10). Mutlitalented player. Terrific defense at two positions & he was a good hitter. Fine player for a long time.

11 Bob Caruthers (11). In his favor: His great W/L percentage, the fact that even adjusting for his run support leaves him with a great W/L record, & his bat. He could dominate. Downside: an innings problem - both in seasons (where he rarely ranked that high) & career IP; his opponents had a low median winning percentage, & he pitched in the AA. Pluses get him on the list, but negatives keep him low on it.

12 Clark Griffith (12). Personal favorite 1880s pitcher. Nice career, nice prime. The median winning percentage of his opponent is the highest of the four pitchers I've got on the ballot.

13 George Van Haltren (13). Very good player for an extended period of time who could do numerous things well. Nice career. Nice peak. Could pitch.

14 Jimmy Ryan (14). GVH without the ability to pitch.

15 Cupid Childs (17). Looking at him again & I think he's better than the infielders I was putting just above him. Good fielder who had a great run & is very impressive (for a 2Ber) OPS+ undervalues his offense because he's so OBP-centric. The D & OBP keep him above Larry Doyle.

Other Top 10ers:
39. Lip Pike (36). I prefer longer careers from my semi-documented. What happened to him at age 33?
   18. DanG Posted: June 01, 2004 at 08:13 PM (#653534)
Lip Pike (36). I prefer longer careers from my semi-documented. What happened to him at age 33?

In 1878 there were only three guys in the league older than Lip; only Joe Start and Bob Ferguson were regulars older than him.

Thirteen years of regular play was a really long career for the era.
   19. andrew siegel Posted: June 01, 2004 at 08:26 PM (#653555)
Btw, my list of guys who were in the top 5 position players in their league at least 4 times (in my Childs comment above) should have included Pete Browning, in addition to Jackson, Childs, Jennings, Jones, Williamson, and Dunlap.
   20. robc Posted: June 01, 2004 at 09:00 PM (#653610)
1. Bobby Wallace - Clearly the best career on the ballot now.
2. Jimmy Sheckard - Sheckard and Thompson are effectively tied.
3. Sam Thompson - Hopefully Sam makes it in soon, just not this year.
4. George Vanhaltren - Strong career value, dont understand why he isnt doing better.
5. Lave Cross - I understand the peak guys not voting for him, but best 3rd base career on the ballot, by far.
6. Jimmy Ryan - The lack of voting in any of the CF glut has neared the point of underrepresentation.
7. Jake Beckley - The anti-jennings.
8. Cupid Childs - Moves up with the election of Magee and Grant who were directly above him last year.
9. Hughie Jennings - I started as a pure career voter, slower shifted towards peak, and have backed off a little.
10. Bob Caruthers - His pitching alone wouldnt have him near my ballot.
11. Pete Hill - Somewhere from top 5 to just off the ballot, splitting the difference...
12. Herman Long - Here begins the guys that probably dont belong in the HoM.
13. Fielder Jones - More from the land of filler.
14. Joe McGinnity - I think the pitchers are overrepresented in the HoM. However, I wouldnt kick any out, except maybe Spalding.
15. Jimmy Williams - More filler.

Others:
17. Joe Jackson - Without my deduction for the series, he would be 6th or 7th on my ballot. A longer career would have helped too.
23. Dickey Pearce - At the rate new players are not making the ballot, he could actually make it on to mine some day. Actually, no, it seems unlikely. Some say I timeline, but I dont, I "quality of opposition line", and his was poor for the peak of his career.
25. Lip Pike - See #23. Unlike Joe Start, Pearce and Pike just arent Homers to me. Levi Meyerle once made my ballot. Pearce and Pike didnt, and probably should have at that time. But they arent top 15 now.
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: June 01, 2004 at 09:21 PM (#653637)
I am revising my system. When we started I was using a system designed more for the 20th century and I didn't like how it evaluated the 19th. Now that we're into the 20th, my new system probably overrates the old-timers. So back to a hybrid of my old system. Anyway, still a heavy peak-side emphasis.

1. Dickey Pearce (4-4-2-1-1 last year)--thanks to DavidFoss for the great info about pre-1871 which show that Dickey very clearly had the most accumulated career value (with the possible exception of Joe Start--David, can you post Joe's numbers!?) as of 1871. No other available player was clearly the #1 or #2 player for a 10-15 year period. (Made my PHoM in 1913.)

2. Bob Caruthers (3-3-3-3-2)--=players who do well on both my new and my old system are more solidly entrenched than ever and that includes Parisian Bob. Unique talent with uniquely large impact on pennant races. (1905)

3. Joe Jackson (x-b)--overrated by history because he makes a better tragedy that way. But still the best pure hitter available. (Goes into PHoM right now, 1927.)

4. Sam Thompson (6-8-5-4-4)--second best hitter available. Short career compared to the no-brainers but compared to the rest, long enough and a very high level. (1905)

5. Hughie Jennings (12-10-11-13-10)--highest peak available among position players. (Goes in now, 1927.)

6. Lip Pike (14-14-x-12-12)--replaces Harry Wright thanks to new info from DavidFoss.

7. Tommy Bond (returns to ballot for first time since 1917)--I've re-eval. pitchers and Bond is back as the next best pitcher, pre-'93 or not.

8. Joe McGinnity (15-13-x-x-x)--fares better under new/old system, which especially gives 20th century pitchers a fairer shake.

9. Charley Jones (7-9-7-5-6)--another awesome hitter. (1921)

10. Larry Doyle (new to me)--the first 20th century position player to benefit from my re-eval. Moves to the head of what is still a serious logjam of HoM caliber 2Bs.

11. Pete Browning (x-15-x)--yet another awesome hitter who actually looks better through my 20th century looking glass.

12. Bill Monroe (x-x-12-14-14)--still looks as good as Grant.

13. Cupid Childs (13-15-18-9-8)--drops behind Doyle and Monroe but still a HoMer (PHoMer, that is, as of 1925.)

14. Ed Williamson (11-11-6-6-7)--see Childs. (1924)

15. Pete Hill (n)--not a n-b, so let's be conservative and have some conversation.

Drops off--H. Wright, thanks to DavidFoss; J. McCormick, Wallace, Dunlap, Sheckard.

Wallace (was 5 last year)--already in my PHoM but drops down in new eval.
Sheckard (was 9)--new system not kind to Jimmy.
Beckley and Van Haltren--never on my ballot, not enough peak.

16. Duffy, 17. Wallace, 18. McCormick, 19. H. Wright, 20. Waddell, 21. R. Foster, 22. Sheckard, 23. Dunlap, 24. H. Davis, 25. H. Zimmerman, 26. Leach, 27. O'Neill, 27. Joss, 28. Mullane, 29. Whitney, 30. Van Haltren
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 01, 2004 at 09:41 PM (#653657)
Drops off--H. Wright

Don't feel bad, Marc. Wright is going to have many friends (if not unanimous support) when the Pioneer wing is set up.
   23. favre Posted: June 01, 2004 at 10:25 PM (#653694)
1.Lip Pike

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

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

3.Pete Hill
4.Joe Jackson
5.Joe McGinnity

I buy the argument that Hill was somewhere in between Magee and Crawford as a hitter. He is highly regarded by John Holway, William McNeil (Baseball’s Other All-Stars), Bill James, Integrated 9’s, and the experts in Cool Papas and Double Duties. That’s a strong consensus.

I think it’s a little silly to honor a man who confessed that he conspired to throw the World Series. That said, Shoeless Joe has the numbers, even with a shortened career. His career trajectory resembles Crawford’s—never dominant, but always one of the best players in the league—except he was a better hitter than Crawford. Too bad he threw it all away.

Like most others, I have Brown and McGinnity close together in career value. Iron Joe did it in less time and worse defenses than 3F.

6.Bobby Wallace
7.Jake Beckley
8. Clark Griffith

The players with very good careers but little or no peak. Wallace’s value as a fielder and pitcher gives him the edge over Beckley. I am struck by the fact that, in 1927, we’ve since few quality first basemen in the past thirty years (although we're about to hit a bumper crop). Ed Konetchy has similar value to Beckley from age 22-25; probably more value, given run production during the '00s and Konetchy’s defense. Yet Beckley also had a good season at age 21 and a very good season at age 36; he also had 300 PA at age 20 with 152 OPS+ and 900 PA in his late thirties where he hit for league average. Beckley’s career simply surpasses other first basemen from the 1890s until the 1920s.

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

9.Sam Thompson
10.Rube Foster
11.Rube Waddell.
12.Jimmy Sheckard
13.Mike Tiernan

DanG’s argument “if Thompson, then why not Tiernan?” has been bothering me for days. Thompson did have a higher peak, but other than that it’s difficult to see the difference between the two. Therefore, for now I feel compelled to move Thompson down on the ballot, and Tiernan onto it. I’m going to give this more thought in the coming weeks.

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

Sheckard was part of a tremendous fielding team (which makes me trust his fielding stats a little more) and walked a ton.

14.Tommy Leach
15.Ned Williamson
16.Cupid Childs

Leach was an excellent fielder at both 3B/CF and could hit. I think Williamson and Childs are fairly comparable hitters, but Williamson had more defensive value. Doyle is also a similar hitter to these guys, but his fielding value is debatable.

17.Larry Doyle
18. Hugh Jennings
19.Bob Caruthers

Parisian Bob continues to inch toward my ballot. He and Foster have similar arguments for induction: they were the best pitcher in a weaker league that still had a few legitimate stars, and both could hit. Foster did have a better career, but I can’t see having him at #10 and Caruthers in the low ‘20s.

George Van Haltren was a good hitter in a great hitting era which already has plenty of representation in the HoM. His position is underrepresented, but in the next seven years we’re going to see Cobb, Speaker, Poles, and Torriente (and let’s not forget about Pike). Mike Griffin was almost as a good a hitter and a better fielder than Van Haltren.
   24. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 02:33 AM (#654317)
However, John Murphy pointed out that the literal language of the constitution requires us to consider pre-1871 players. Pearce was at least an all-star from 1857-1870.

This is certainly correct regarding the constitution.

I want to point out, however, that every player we've ever heard of from pre-1871 was an all-star during that era (Meyerle, Spalding, etc.), because there weren't very many players to choose from. So all-star status pre-1871 not necessarily, alone, a reason to elect them.

There are other reasons to elect them that have been articulated many times, so I'm not arguing about Pearce's ballot placement. I just don't think being a pre-1871 all-star means anything.
   25. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 02, 2004 at 02:57 AM (#654401)
Lip Pike (36). I prefer longer careers from my semi-documented. What happened to him at age 33?

In 1878 there were only three guys in the league older than Lip; only Joe Start and Bob Ferguson were regulars older than him.


To me, that doesn't read like a positive for Lip. It's a negative for the era. I'm a career guy who likes long careers. I can think of no good reason why playes didn't play longer. It's ain't like there was a giant leap in biomedicine or dieting in 1882 that caused people to have longer careers. As near as I can tell, Lip just stopped playing, despite the fact he was still good. That costs him.
   26. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:09 AM (#654426)
Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman.

Figured I'd read the ballots again.

John, what's your metric for the statement above?

For instance, the STATS retroactive all-stars make Doyle the best second baseman in the league eight (8) times and Childs six (6) times. That's based on RC/27, I think.

In WS, Childs was the best second baseman in the league seven (7) times -- two of those were ties. Childs was the best second baseman in baseball six (6) times, but for five (5) of those years there was only one league(!), so I think that only counts as one.

In WS, Doyle also was the best second baseman in the league seven (7) times -- two of those were ties. Although the numbers are the same as Childs, in my mind, this is a better accomplishment, because Doyle had lots of competition in Evers. Childs had no one of such significance to vie against for the top spot in his own league.

Doyle, who always played when there was at least one rival league, was never the best second baseman in baseball, probably because he played contemporaneously with Eddie Collins and Nap Lajoie, two of the best <u>players</u> ever, much less second basemen.

So I guess I disagree with your assertion. :-)
   27. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:16 AM (#654453)
Tom York-LF (5): ....IMO, York was a more dominating player at his position than Sheckard was during his time. Long enough career and many times as the best at his position (when left field was more like centerfield today) deserves a ballot spot. Best leftfielder of the 1870s. Best major league leftfielder for 1873, 1875, 1877 and 1878 (extremely close in 1872 and 1881).

I think he was an all-star maybe twice -- about the same as Sheckard -- though one York's seasons was probably an MVP season. Contrast with Joe Jackson.

Joe Jackson-RF/LF (n/a): ...He was unquestionably great at his peak, but to be an inner circle HoMer for me, I need more career.

Like two more half seasons, a la York? :)

Okay, I'll stop picking on you now. :) :) :)
   28. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:20 AM (#654469)
13. Tommy Leach (of/3b)– slightly inferior to Sheckard, better fielder, worse hitter. 300+ WS.


Daryn, have you considered Leach as a 3b? That might move him up in your rankings, since there aren't too many other third baseman on the ballots. I think he was a comparable hitter to Sheckard, but played a much tougher position -- both because half of his career was at 3b (when 3b was like 2b defensively), and the other half was in CF, which is tougher than LF where Sheckard played.

Just food for thought.
   29. DanG Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:31 AM (#654615)
A really good Pike biography can be found here.

http://63.247.98.183/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=31&pid=11267

To me, that doesn't read like a positive for Lip. It's a negative for the era. I'm a career guy who likes long careers. I can think of no good reason why playes didn't play longer. It's ain't like there was a giant leap in biomedicine or dieting in 1882 that caused people to have longer careers. As near as I can tell, Lip just stopped playing, despite the fact he was still good.

I believe the reasons why careers in Pike's day were shorter is well-covered ground on this site (economic pressures, primitive state of medical and training, rough style of play, probably other reasons I'm forgetting). The point to keep in mind is that we are to judge players against their peers, with those playing under the same conditons. Among players born before 1850 there were few careers longer than Pike's; relative to his contemporaries, Pike had a very long career playing to an advanced age for that era. If you dock players of that era for careers shorter than players of later eras, IMO you are not treating the era in a reasonable manner.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:43 AM (#654644)
John, what's your metric for the statement above?

A combination of WS and WS per 162 games.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:49 AM (#654655)
The point to keep in mind is that we are to judge players against their peers, with those playing under the same conditons.

IOW, many long career HoFers from the 20th century would have had careers closer to Lip Pike than Bobby Wallace during the 19th century. The players from the last century had an advantage that the 19th century guys didn't.

BTW, I'm not going to involve myself with any Pearce discussions this week (unless provoked!
:-). You can rest this week, but look out for next week! :-D
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:00 AM (#654666)
Jeff:

Re: York/Jackson

1) Post #31 explains my views on career length for 19th and 20th century players.

2) Again, I use WS and WS per 162 games (I use BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.)

3) I feel WS and WARP are not accurately describing how left field was during that era.

Since I'm the only one with York on a ballot, I know it's a questionable decision. However, I'm comfortable with it (something I never was the year or two I had Tip O'Neill on my ballot).

BTW wiseguy, I don't consider York remotely an inner circle HoMer either. :-)
   33. Sean Gilman Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:34 AM (#654722)
1927

1. Lip Pike (1)--Not quite as good in the NA as McVey, but better before; much better in the NA than Start, not as good before. Very underrated. I’ve never been able to understand the anti-1870s crowd. A pennant is a pennant. How one could rank, say, Sam Thompson ahead of Pike I have no idea. Played the infield, played the outfield. The greatest power/speed combination of his time. Great peak and a reasonably long career for his time (1866-1878).

2. Jimmy Sheckard (2)--Looks pretty much identical to Keeler to me.

3. Bobby Wallace (3)--I was a big fan of McPhee and Sutton too.

4. Joe McGinnity (4)--A lot like Browning: big peak, not so much career value. Makes My Personal HOM this year.

5. Pete Browning (5)--AA discount and short career keeps him from being at the top of the ballot. The man could hit. We know Win Shares likes him better than Sam Thompson, but did you now the BP stats show Browning to be the better hitter? Thompson’s edge in WARP is only in fielding and pitching (remember Browning’s -37 PRAR?) and Davenport’s AA discount. Considering the problems Davenport’s had with 19th century OF fielding and the admitted anomoly with Browning’s pitching and the unknown natue of his AA discount, I don’t know how one could rate Thompson ahead based on WARP. Finally makes My Personal HOM this year.

6. Joe Jackson (15)--I don’t see anything no-brainer about him. He had a good peak, but I still think people are overrating it. (Though I did underrate him last week).

7. Charley Jones (9)--Jones, Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me.

8. Dickey Pearce (6)--The best shortstop of his time. Maybe should rank ahead of the above outfielders. . .

9. Pete Hill (-)--Slotting him about halfway between where I had Magee and Sheckard.

10. Bob Caruthers (7)--His WARP1 and 3 Pennants Added are essentially the same as Pete Browning’s, which is interesting. . .

11. Hughie Jennings (8)--Like Sam Thompson, only a slightly better peak and he was a shortstop instead of a right-fielder. That’s how close numbers 8 and 17 are on my ballot.

12. Roger Bresnahan (11)--Great rate stats, but he just didn’t play enough to generate the value of the higher ups on the ballot. Ranks ahead of Childs and Grant only because of the bonus I give him for being a catcher.

13. Cupid Childs (12)--Nice to see Cupid getting some love. . .

14. Hugh Duffy (14)--I’ve been overrating Duffy, everytime I look at him vs. Ryan and Van Haltren, they all look the same. Duffy’s got small (very small) edges on them in pennants added and win shares peak numbers.

15. George Van Haltren (16)--Hasn’t been on my ballot since 1915.

16. Sam Thompson (17)
17. Larry Doyle (18)
18. Jimmy Ryan (19)
19. Ed Williamson (20)
20. Gavy Cravath (21)
21. Rube Waddell (22)
22. Jake Beckley (23)
23. Jim McCormick (24)
24. Mike Tiernan (25)
25. Clark Griffith (26)
   34. PhillyBooster Posted: June 02, 2004 at 01:31 PM (#654848)
DanG wrote:

In 1927, Pete Hill and Ed Konetchy keep things interesting.

Obviously not too interesting, since you didn't vote for either. In fact, a cursory scan down the dozen or two ballots show that you are, in fact, the only voter to not vote for Hill (Konetchy has only one vote so far).

As the only member (so far, of course, there are still dozens of ballots of come) of the loyal opposition, would you care to make the anti-Hill argument?
   35. DanG Posted: June 02, 2004 at 02:06 PM (#654899)
Let some of our voters make it for me.

Patrick W:
But if he is the #4 LF, my HOM might be close to ¼ - Negro Leagues. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it just seems kinda high.

Ya think?

andrew siegel:
My problem with Hill is that I think there's a 50% chance he was Sam Crawford, a 40% chance he was Jimmy Ryan, and a 10% chance he was Dummy Hoy.

So he cautiously ranks him #2.

sunnyday2:
not a n-b, so let's be conservative and have some conversation.

Sorry Marc, it doesn't seem likely you'll get to discuss his candidacy in the future.

I'm not ready to extend my imagination to the lengths commonly being employed by others here. We simply don't have reliable MLEs. In the absence of data, I favor a cautious approach.

I hope I'm wrong, but at times there seems to be an element of emotionalism with regard to Negro league candidates. This detracts from even-handed analysis.

We know that the Negro leaguers have quality of competition issues; they were not playing in the top leagues of the time. Still, the best of them deserve the HOM. But to scoop below the cream and induct Hill at this early point in the project is something I don't support.
   36. karlmagnus Posted: June 02, 2004 at 02:26 PM (#654936)
DanG, I agree, and find the drumbeat for each new NL candidate that comes along a little disquieting. However, I would like to elect more from these early days than from the 1930s.

Hill's rating as the #4LF is probably too low, since the 1930-47 NL benefited from a huge "affirmative action" boost in HOF and other ratings (it has far too many HOF members, IMHO) whereas earlier periods benefited less because there were fewer survivors saying how great they were. My tendency to lean towards NL players will flatten and then reverse in and after the 1934 HOM election, but Hill and Poles I have to say I'm tempted by, even though I want to aim at 12 NL players total (which is no more a quota than the overall numerical restrictions on the HOM.)

John, I share your preference for early ballplayers, in which I would include Parisian Bob, and am increasingly finding myself consciously or unconsciously operating a reverse timeline. This tendency will get stronger after 1934, as I increasingly find early players being swamped by 20s and 30s players I don't care about. If I get too bored with rating post 1920 players, I may retire from the project; since my strongest interest is history rather than sabermetrics, I won't be able to get excited about arguing the finer statistical points of well documented careers (who CARES what the park factor of Veterans Stadium was in 1978?)
   37. andrew siegel Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:14 PM (#655024)
Fair enough point about my #2 vote for Hill, Dan (though I was making the same point myself). However, I feel like I don't have an alternative.
If I deduct points from every Negro Leaguer for lack of information/confidence, I'll end up electing only Charleston, Gibson, Paige, Llyod, and one or two others. Under my current approach, I make my best guesstimate as to where a player slots and vote him there with no confidence interval penalty. That's why I had Frank Grant roughly where I'd have voted Hardy Richardson; Home Run Johnson roughly where I'd have voted George Davis; Bill Monroe roughly were I'm voting Fred Dunlap and Larry Doyle; and Pete Hill roughly where I'd vote Sam Crawford (although in his case I am going against my own rules and docking him a place for confidence concerns, as Crawford would rank ahead of Jackson). What I'm hoping is that for every Hill who I am voting in despite a good chance that he's actually worse, there will be someone who will come along who I feel has a 40% chance of having been Johnny Mize and a 60% chance of having been Dolph Camili or Hal Trotsky, who I will treat as a Camili and risk underrating. This far, my research has made me worry that the two groups won't even out and that I'll end up with too many Negro Leaguers. Any suggestion as to how I should proceed?
   38. Chris Cobb Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:20 PM (#655037)
To corroborate karlmagnus on Pete Hill:

Hill is the #4 left fielder in the Bill James rankings. Ahead of him are

1) Turkey Stearnes, the legit #1 at the position
2) Mule Suttles, who should be the #2 first baseman, but whom James counts as an outfielder for no good reason (one of three electable players at that position)
3) Monte Irvin, who ranks ahead of Hill, in my opinion, only because of the Jamesian timeline.

In short, it doesn't take much analysis to move Pete Hill to #2 among Negro-League left fielders (or to #3 among center-fielders, which is where I think he really belongs), so I see little likelihood that, if we elect Pete Hill (as we may or may not do this year), we would be setting the bar too low for Negro-League candidates.

If someone could make a carefully-reasoned argument that it's unlikely Pete Hill was as good as Jimmy Sheckard, that could affect my ranking of him, but concerns that Pete Hill was not as good as later negro-league candidates I find a) unpersuasive and b) irrelevant.

I hope I'm wrong, but at times there seems to be an element of emotionalism with regard to Negro league candidates. This detracts from even-handed analysis.

There was a lot of emotion over Frank Grant at certain points, but that was in the distant past by the time we elected him, and one could hardly argue that there's been more passion discussing Grant Johnson or Pete Hill as there has been in discussions of certain non-Negro-League candidates. People get passionate, but as long as at the end of the day all voters rank each player where they believe each deserves, we'll be all right.
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:14 PM (#655123)
Hill is the #4 left fielder in the Bill James rankings. Ahead of him are

Since Hill played more centerfield, why is he in the leftfield section?
   40. Michael Bass Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:25 PM (#655137)
I am mainly using WARP3, Win Shares, OPS+, ERA+. I am more a career voter than anything, but that's hardly an exclusive description.

Some slight changes in order made today; I was using a calculation in my consideration that overvalued walks a touch, so a couple guys flip-flop.

1. Bobby Wallace (3,2) - I think I get my "Career Voter" Merit Badge for this vote.

2. Bob Caruthers (4,3) - Though they may take away that badge for this one. I think he crammed a ton of value into his short career.

3. George Van Haltren (6,5) - Another big career guy.

4. Jimmy Sheckard (5,4) - Moves below Van Haltren due to the walks overvaluing correction.

5. Pete Hill (new) - Comparisons to Sheckard seem apt. More likely he was better than this than it is that he was worse than this, so I'm pretty confident I'm not overvaluing him.

6. Jimmy Ryan (7,6) - Yet another OF.

7. Sam Thompson (10,9) - Another one! Better hitter, worse defender than most of these guys.

8. Fielder Jones (9,8) - Like Sheckard, moves down a relative spot because of the walks correction. I'm still his best friend, I'm sure.

9. Joe Jackson (13) - I wasn't giving him war credit last year, his move up reflects me correcting that mistake. Still lacking in career compared to the OFs above him. And yes, I do have 7 OFs in a row.

10. Clark Griffith (13, 10) - Best of the more normal pitchers

11. Rube Foster (--, 11) - I generally like to tie the non-slam dunk NLers to a major leaguer I find similar. For Foster, it's Griffth.

12. Lip Pike (12, 12) - Same slot, feeling more comfortable with it now. I think we've elected the cream of his era, and he's the best of the rest, not unlike most of the other guys on this ballot.

13. Cupid Childs (14, 14) - I like him, but don't think he's better than the OF glut.

14. Bill Monroe (--, --) - Moves onto the ballot. See the Foster comment, but Childs is my benchmark for Monroe.

15. Tommy Leach (15, 15) - Like him better now than I did the last two ballots. Doesn't move him up, just means I'm not looking as hard for an excuse to drop him.

Top 10 Returners not on my ballot

19. Joe McGinnity - Don't think he's any better than the pitcher gut, really don't think he was better than Rube Waddell or Clark Griffith.

26. Dickey Pearce - Still not buying it. As with last election, he's where he is because I accept there's a possibility I'm wrong about his greatness, while those below him, I'm convinced were not great.

17. Jake Beckley - They're probably revoking my career credentials as we speak. Gotta be a better hitter than this for a 1B, even if 1B was a little more important then than now.


16-20: Beckley, Waddell, Willis, McGinnity, Jennings
21-25: McGraw, Bresnahan, Joss, Cicotte, Chance
26-30: Pearce, Browning, Konetchy, Cross, Dunlap
   41. DanG Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:30 PM (#655142)
If someone could make a carefully-reasoned argument that it's unlikely Pete Hill was as good as Jimmy Sheckard, that could affect my ranking of him,

Well, there's no smoking gun to prove the question either way. IMO, the points of intersection of their careers are too few to be convincing. You've decided the evidence points toward Hill/Sheckard comparability, so be it.

but concerns that Pete Hill was not as good as later negro-league candidates I find a) unpersuasive and b) irrelevant.

Again, I doubt persuasive evidence is forthcoming. As for comparing Hill to the general body of negro-league candidates being irrelevant, isn't that exactly what you're doing in citing James' rankings?

Pete Hill may very well turn out to be a player I support for election; I may decide he is among the top 20 or so negro-league players. But, as with HR Johnson, it looks like he will go in before I reach that point.
   42. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:30 PM (#655143)
John, I share your preference for early ballplayers,

I don't really have a preference for 19th century ballplayers, though (obviously) there are a few still that I feel deserve to be looked at.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:08 PM (#655192)
Doyle, who always played when there was at least one rival league, was never the best second baseman in baseball, probably because he played contemporaneously with Eddie Collins and Nap Lajoie, two of the best players ever, much less second basemen.

That's probably why I included this in my comments, Jeff...

Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman.

...so Doyle wouldn't be unfairly compared to Collins or Lajoie (though I do have some concerns about the outliers during the Deadball Era). My point was that Doyle couldn't use as an excuse Collins or Lajoie when he still didn't rank as the best as many times in the less star studded league as Childs did, IMO.
   44. Chris Cobb Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:11 PM (#655198)
Well, there's no smoking gun to prove the question either way. IMO, the points of intersection of their careers are too few to be convincing. You've decided the evidence points toward Hill/Sheckard comparability, so be it.

I think it possible that the methodology for working out major-league equivalents for Negro-League players could be improved in ways that I would find convincing and that would change my assessment of Hill, so I don't see the discussion as closed.

As for comparing Hill to the general body of negro-league candidates being irrelevant, isn't that exactly what you're doing in citing James' rankings?

It's irrelevant in my approach to ranking Hill, but others consider it relevant, since they have cited it. Therefore, I might as well address the fact that James's ranking of Hill among left-fielders is too low (from an all-time standpoint) because he sticks a first baseman in his left-field list and timelines heavily. I think the point Marc/Sunnyday2 made that the outfield positions do not seem especially strong in the Negro Leagues is a more pertinent argument for proceeding cautiously, if one wants to consider the Negro Leaguers from an all-time perspective.

Pete Hill may very well turn out to be a player I support for election; I may decide he is among the top 20 or so negro-league players

If you're planning to support 20, Hill might or might not make that group. I see Hill as significantly less strong a candidate than Grant Johnson, but he still stands out for me on the current ballot.
   45. TomH Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:31 PM (#655226)
1927 Ballot
review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 13 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 96 adjusted for defense and timeline and maybe speed. I don’t believe in much extra value for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

1-Clark Griffith (3)
He Won Lots of Games, Pitching for Lousy Teams, even often Facing the Toughest Opponents. Where Is The Love?
2-Sam Thompson (1)
Best full-career Hitter. Add a bit to his career totals for lost time before age 25, and make an educated guess at how he would hit in the live ball era, and he’s a monster
3-Joe Jackson (6)
I give Jackson little credit for his 1919 season. It is likely he would have been even better post-1920, given his power hitting style. Even with a short career (and I’m a career voter) and not much defensive value, he winds up here. I gave him back some credit for 1918 (lost time for WWI), moving him up 2 spots.
4-Bobby Wallace (4)
Huge amount of career value. Good hitter, good hands (8-10 fewer errors per year than most shortstops), good range. Think Dave Concepcion, except with more power, a longer career, oh plus he pitched well for 2 years also. Take that, Joe Morgan!
5-George Van Haltren (5)
Hit. Ran. Played defense. Pitched. Long career. Solidly on my ballot.
6-Lip Pike (7)
Even timelining like WARP does, his adjEqA is higher than Sherry Magee’s; not bad for a guy who could play 2B as well as CF. WS and OPS+ love him. The more “very good” OFers who come along, the more Mister Pike stands out.
7-Jim McGinnity (8)
Con: Same ERA+ as Griffith. Similar IP. Couldn’t hit quite as well, slightly lower WARP, possibly better defense behind him, W-L record adjusted for support not that great.
Pro: Great ’05 series, good minor league stats, and he allowed few unearned runs.
8-Pete Hill (new)
Biggest decision of the week – where to slot the newbie. Even though we haven’t discussed most Negro League guys yet, Hill right now comes out as my most “borderline” HoMer; I have 7 Negro League 1B/OFers ahead of him (and many more behind him!). Thus, he gets slotted right above my mythical HoM borderline, which is somewhere in the Sheckard/Caruthers territory.
9-Jimmy Sheckard (10)
A lot like Van Haltren. Almost.
Had an inglorious 0-for-21 in the 1906 World Series
10-Rube Waddell (9)
Same big years as McGinnity, less other stuff tossed in. Six time leader in KOs, 3 ERA+ titles help.
11-Bob Caruthers (11)
Great W-L record result of his fine pitching AND bat. But a short career, in a weaker league, and he had good taste in teammates, too.
12-Jim McCormick (12)
Awesome 56+ Wins Above Team. Lots of IP. Also pitched behind poorer defenses than most Ps on this list, so ERA+ doesn’t tell the whole story. Plus he could hit.
13-Addie Joss (13)
Bonus points for his great pennant exploits.
14-Ed Williamson (15)
Decent hitter. Great defense. Underrepresented position. And many of the guys he played with and against thought he was the best. I don’t penalize him for his below-average fielding at shortstop. If they had left him at 3rd, he’s be as good as Ezra Sutton.
15-Hughie Jennings (off)

Barely missing is Dickey Pearce. While I was a FO Frank Grant, and one could very well argue that they should be paired on basis of “best player in their league”, I believe “very likely the best black prior to 1900” is a better than “likely the best player of the 1860s”.

Next up might be MUGSY (17) John McGraw
…and I’m also chagrined to leave off Roger Bresnahan, Jake Beckley, and Cupid Childs

Also near the edge: R Foster, J Ryan, H Duffy, L Doyle, C Jones
   46. PhillyBooster Posted: June 02, 2004 at 06:04 PM (#655261)
Dan quotes Andrew:

My problem with Hill is that I think there's a 50% chance he was Sam Crawford, a 40% chance he was Jimmy Ryan, and a 10% chance he was Dummy Hoy.

Maybe it's a question of approach, but seeing this as reasonable analogy, I would agree with the #2 rating.

Some may reasonably look at this formula and discount Hill accordingly. My view is different. I would take a 50% chance of being Sam Crawford over a 100% chance of being Jimmy Ryan (or Jimmy Sheckard or Hugh Duffy or Mike Tiernan).

Better to vote for the unknown and have a 50% chance of electing someone unworthy than vote for the known and remove all doubt.
   47. DanG Posted: June 02, 2004 at 06:33 PM (#655306)
Better to vote for the unknown and have a 50% chance of electing someone unworthy than vote for the known and remove all doubt.

That's fine if we have a procedure for unelecting mistakes. But we don't; if we elect a mistake we're stuck with him.

Better to vote for someone whose value we're pretty certain about than take a stab on someone that future research may show as unworthy.
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:00 PM (#655353)
Add a bit to his career totals for lost time before age 25,

Tom, why are you giving credit to Thompson before age 25? He was a carpenter before 1884 and didn't start playing professional ball until the age of 24.
   49. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:10 PM (#655360)
I believe the reasons why careers in Pike's day were shorter is well-covered ground on this site

Must've been before I started voting.

(economic pressures, primitive state of medical and training, rough style of play, probably other reasons I'm forgetting).

The link you gave said the blacklist began in 1881, when Pike was already through. Medicine? I ain't aware of any big breakthroughs in sports medicine in 1883. His career was short & many career were short. Why was that? My guess - a combo of the weak level of competition & the fact that it was rapidly improving. The best players - Start, Pearce - they could keep on keeping on. And they were subject to the same conditions as Pike. If Pike didn't last anywhere near as long as they didn (& he didn't) he either didn't take care of himself (& gets no sympathy from me) or wasn't that good. Either way I stand by my ranking. Maybe he'll move up a couple spaces, but I can't see him ever making my ballot.
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:28 PM (#655396)
The best players - Start, Pearce - they could keep on keeping on.

True, but we shouldn't be lloking just at the outliers. The average player during that time didn't play as long (for whatever the reason). The average player today would have the same problems if they had played back then. Therefore, to be fair, some adjustment needs to be made, IMO.

That doesn't mean that we should extrapolate his numbers so that his career resembles Yaz in career length, though. Within his era, he still wasn't an iron man.
   51. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:35 PM (#655411)
lloking

looking
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:43 PM (#655435)
That doesn't mean that we should extrapolate his numbers so that his career resembles Yaz in career length, though. Within his era, he still wasn't an iron man.

I was referring to Pike.
   53. Rick A. Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:55 PM (#655466)
1927 Ballot

Joe Jackson and Sherry Magee enter my PHOM.

1.Dickey Pearce Best SS of 1850’s and 1860’s. 20+ year career, acknowledged the best by contemporaries, played on the best team (Brooklyn Atlantics) for much of that time. Elected PHOM in 1919.
2.Bobby Wallace – Not a very high prime, but a nice, long career. Seems more like Bid McPhee to me than Jake Beckley. Elected PHOM in 1926.
3.Charley Jones – 96% of value is above average. Truly great hitter who missed 2 years in his prime. Elected PHOM in 1926.
4.Joe Jackson – Very high peak, but not much career value. Discounting 1919 & 1920, but giving war credit for 1918.
5.Lip Pike – 95% of documented career is above average. Fresh look at Charley Jones, Pike, and Browning made me change my order of them. Elected PHOM in 1918.
6.Pete Browning – 61% of value is prime, 89% of value is above average.
7.Ed Williamson –I’m not giving him credit for playing being a thirdbaseman playing shortstop, as discussed in the PHOM thread. Just realized I was undervaluing him. We’re on track to elect 8 deadball pitchers, and I’m fine with that, but shouldn’t we elect the second best thirdbaseman from th 1880’s. Great defensive player and very good hitter.
8.Joe McGinnity - 83% of value is above-average. Good prime value. Moved up due to comparison w/Brown.
   54. Rick A. Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:56 PM (#655468)
9.Bob Caruthers – OK, the arguments for Caruthers have convinced me that he deserves a place on my ballot. Good-to-great pitchers who can hit the crap out of the ball are very rare indeed.
10.Cupid Childs – Good hitter. Not as good defensively as McPhee. 84% of career above average.
11.Rube Foster - Moved up due to re-evaluation and new info.
12.Pete Hill - Seems to slot between Magee and Sheckard. Erring on the side of caution until I feel more confident about him.
13.Jimmy Sheckard – Just a step behind Keeler. 84% of value is above average.
14.Hughie Jennings – 77% of value is prime alone. Unfortunately, that’s all he’s got. Still that’s enough to get him this high. Re-evaluated 1890’s infielders since they seemed to get beat up during their playing days.
15.Bill Monroe –Seems to fit between Grant and White.

Not on ballot
17.Sam Thompson –Great hitter. Just off the ballot
30.Jake Beckley- I really like long careers. However his lack of prime value has him ranked lower than Van Haltren.

16-20 Duffy, Thompson, Willis, Tiernan, Van Haltren
21-25 Welch, Waddell, Doyle, Leach, Griffin
26-30 Griffith, McGraw, Chance, Dunlap, Beckley
   55. DanG Posted: June 02, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#655505)
I urge Chris J and any other voters who joined in the past year to read through the early threads. Tons of good stuff there, despite my frequent posts.

As for the issue of "medical breakthroughs" that's not the idea at all. It has to do with staying healthy enough to show up for the next game. Players learning what they need to do to be ready and doctors learning how to help in that. Like much in the game, this area was evolving rapidly in the 1860's-1870's.

More problematical is this notion:
The best players - Start, Pearce - they could keep on keeping on. And they were subject to the same conditions as Pike. If Pike didn't last anywhere near as long as they didn (& he didn't) he either didn't take care of himself (& gets no sympathy from me) or wasn't that good.

Fast forward this 80-90 years later. Substitute a few names: "The best players - Appling, Williams - they could keep on keeping on. And they were subject to the same conditions as DiMaggio/Kiner/Rizzuto. If those 3 didn't last anywhere near as long as they did (& they didn't) they either didn't take care of themmselves (& gets no sympathy from me) or weren't that good."

Does that make sense? Just because some players lack extremem longevity doesn't ace them out of the HoM.
   56. Al Peterson Posted: June 02, 2004 at 08:18 PM (#655509)
1927 ballot. Joining the ballgame is the Shoeless One and other new eligibles.

1. Joe Jackson (-). No he isn't Cobb or Speaker. I don't think that is a problem since those guys are pretty fine players. Excelled in the short career he compiled before some integrity issues dragged him down.

2. 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.

3. Joe McGinnity (2).
Eight straight years 20+ Wins, 300+ Innings. Iron Joe is quite accurate.

4. 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. Interesting note: was tried at SS for Chicago in 1889 after Ed Williamson flamed out.

5. 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.

6. Rube Waddell (7). Won six straight strikeout titles - dominance you don't get everyday. His 1902 season: 12-8 out in LA to start season, brought back to Philly by Connie Mack in June and went 24-7. That's a lot of pitching...

7. Pete Hill (-). On the opinion side, most sources like Bill James and the Pittsburgh Courier poll place him as an upper echelon Negro League performer. Then the numbers estimated show a solid offense at a defensive position we're looking for candidates. Not much to dislike especially when the holdovers on the ballot are not the strongest.

8. George Van Haltren (4). Similar arguments to Ryan, just a little less to them.
9. Pete Browning (8). If we're looking for an 1880s ballplayer this could be your man. 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.

10. John McGraw (10).
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 (11).
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 (12).
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. Not being one of the ABC trio at 1st base doesn't mean you were bad.

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

14. Dickey Pearce (14). 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, none of the above? The reviews from early baseball are glowing - the issue of competition level at an unorganized, evolving time is frustrating. I consider the game before 1865 questionable to say the least.

15. Gavvy Cravath (15).
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.

1927 ballot also rans:
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.

28. Lip Pike. For the time of baseball before 1885 I'd prefer Pearce or Charley Jones over the Lipster. Maybe even Harry Wright if push came to shove.
   57. TomH Posted: June 02, 2004 at 08:34 PM (#655537)
Durn, computer ate the first post.....

John M asked: Tom, why are you giving credit to Thompson before age 25? He was a carpenter before 1884
Sam's choice of career was, I believe, a product of economic and social conditions. Had he been born 30 or 60 or 90 years later, surely he might have picked up a bat earlier, and shown what a fine player he was at ages 22-24. You could even argue that he would have been much better, since so much of hitting is practice practice practice, but I won't speculate quite that far.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2004 at 10:26 PM (#655790)
Sam's choice of career was, I believe, a product of economic and social conditions. Had he been born 30 or 60 or 90 years later, surely he might have picked up a bat earlier, and shown what a fine player he was at ages 22-24. You could even argue that he would have been much better, since so much of hitting is practice practice practice, but I won't speculate quite that far.

I think we might be going into cross era comparisons that even I'm a little wary of, but I can't say that you don't have a point, Tom.
   59. OCF Posted: June 02, 2004 at 11:32 PM (#655874)
1927 ballot.

1. Joe Jackson (boycotted) I didn't want to do this. He's way too young to be elected. If the constitution allowed it, I'd boycott him until 1934, and then let him swim in the shark tank of his true contemporaries. Some are comparing him to Flick. In my version of adjusted RCAA, Flick's best 5 years were 78, 76, 72, 61, 61. Jackson's were 94, 92, 87, 76, 74. That's hard to ignore.
2. Jimmy Sheckard (3, 4, 3, 3, 2) Who else has 320 Win Shares?
3. Larry Doyle (----, 3) Try as we might, it's hard not to undervalue hitters in low-offense times and overvalue hitters in high-offense times. Doyle was a hitter. His WARP rating is destroyed by his defense - and I'm not buying it, not completely. Was there ever a manager more obsessed with the "right way" to play baseball than John McGraw? And McGraw was satisfied with Doyle as his 2B. As long as I'm mentioning adjusted RCAA, Doyle's top 5: 68, 52, 47, 42, 37. In that, he's a pretty close offensive match for Sheckard, and quite a bit above Childs.
4. Bobby Wallace (8, 9, 5, 4, 4) He's got the long career that Jennings doesn't have, and his hitting is quite a bit better than Long. Not historically unique - we'll see plenty of other shortstops quite a bit like him.
5. Pete Hill (new) There's evidence he was a special player for some of his career. He also had a nasty flat spot in the early teens. Great players don't usually have stretches like that - but there are exceptions to "usually". We did elect both McVey and Start despite their own flat spots (experienced in rapidly changing times, as Hill's times were also rapidly changing). Someday, we'll have to explain Mark McGwire's 1991.
6. Joe McGinnity (5, 6, 7, 7, 6) RA+ PythPat of 227-155, equivalent to 206 FWP. Some great individual seasons.
7. Rube Waddell (13, 14, 10, 9, 9) RA+ PythPat of 200-129, equivalent to 191 FWP. Those of you who downrate him because he allowed a lot of unearned runs - take note that I've always used RA, not ERA, and he still ranks up here.
8. Jimmy Ryan (9, 10, 11, 10, 10)
9. Hugh Duffy (10, 11, 12, 11, 11)
10. George Van Haltren (11, 12, 13, 12, 12) No new comment.
11. Roger Bresnahan (7, 13, 14, 13, 13) Maybe he doesn't deserve a lot of special credit for being a catcher, but he's still a terrific ballplayer.
12. Gavy Cravath (----, 8) Cravath's top 5 adjusted RCAA years: 80, 62, 54, 51, 42. I'm still fishing for a place for him. All Sisler has on him is a little career bulk.
13. Vic Willis (12, 16, 15, 14, 14) Benefited from great Beaneater defenses, as Brown benefited from great Cub defenses. But adjust for that, and he's still adjusted RA+ PythPat 248-196, equivalent to 192 FWP.
14. Mickey Welch (---, 15, 15) Check Chris J.'s Retrosheet evidence.
15. Johnny Evers (-, 8, 16, 16, 16) Adjusted RCAA shows his overall offensive value closely resembling Bresnahan's.
16. Frank Chance (14, 15, 17, 17, 17) Too little playing time, but what there is is wonderfully effective. We've been arguing first basemen over on the discussion thread; here's my favorite.
17. Roy Thomas (17, 19, 18, 18, 18)
18. Clark Griffith (16, 18, 8, 5, 5) RA+ PythPat of 203-146, equivalent to 175 FWP. My previous high rankings were based on a computational mistake.
19. Joe Tinker (17, 18, 20, 19, 19)
20. Jake Beckley (19, 21, 20, 20, 20)
21. Mike Tiernan (revived)
22. Sam Thompson (20, 22, 21, 21, 21)
23. Andrew Foster (-, 23, 22, 22, 22) Strictly as a pitcher, best guess is somewhere on the McGinnity-Waddell-Chesbro scale. Effective career seems to be brief. As an owner/organizer, has great value.
24. Hughie Jennings (21, 24, 23, 23, 23) If I completely trusted his defensive stats, I'd have him higher.
25. Bob Caruthers (----, 24, 24)

I've never had Pearce or Pike; you've heard my reasons.
   60. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 03, 2004 at 01:03 AM (#656062)
Fast forward this 80-90 years later. Substitute a few names: "The best players - Appling, Williams - they could keep on keeping. And they were subject to the same conditions as DiMaggio/Kiner/Rizzuto.

DiMaggio & Rizzuto had shorter careers because they lost time to WWII. I don't see any reason why a healthy adult male would suddenly collapse as a player in his early 30s. I can see why a pitcher from that era would cr@p out early because of their workload, but I don't see any similar theory that I find convincing for the hitters.

Does that make sense? Just because some players lack extremem longevity doesn't ace them out of the HoM.

Since when does making it to age 34 mean a person has "extremem longevity?"
   61. Chris Cobb Posted: June 03, 2004 at 01:35 AM (#656215)
1927 Ballot

A tricky ballot. Top 10 players all have ambivalent profiles. If you look at them one way, they look great; if you look at them another way, their greatness is questionable. For half of them – Hill, Pearce, Welch, Pike, and Foster – interpretation of the statistical record requires considerable guesswork.

1. Pete Hill (n/e) The last big star of the aughts to become eligible. Among outfielders whose careers were approximately 1900-1920, Hill ranks behind his exact contemporary Sam Crawford and ahead of Sheckard and Magee. I see his MLE career as about 18 seasons, in which he hit .294 (to Magee's .291) with good power, excellent baserunning, and excellent outfield defense. His prime years were 1901-1913, during which he averaged about .316 MLE, with top seasons of .340-.350. Why #1? Since I see him as better than Sheckard, I had two spots to choose from . . .
2. Joe McGinnity (3) Best eligible pitcher. McGinnity's durability was both a talent and a skill: his submarine motion and varied arm angles helped to keep him from getting fatigued. Yes, inning for inning Joss and Waddell and probably Foster were better pitchers, but not enough to make for the difference in innings pitched per season. Analysis that zero point for defensive WS is .358, while zero point for offensive WS is .200 gives all post-1893 pitchers on my ballot a slight boost this year, so McGinnity moves past Sheckard.
3. Jimmy Sheckard (2) Fine career, fine peak. The sort of player I and my system like very well.
4. Dickey Pearce (1) Data provided by DavidFoss shows Pearce as a consistently above-average hitter during the 1860s while playing key defensive positions (which, by reputation and 1870s evidence, he played very well). He was surely among the best players on his teams every year for over a decade. Three factors cause me to lowerhis ranking, however. There’s no evidence of a great peak of the G. Wright or Barnes variety, which be a clear indicator of greatness against this level of competition. Pearce’s profile dropped throughout his career as competition improved. The very small number of truly competitive games during the first seven years of his career makes it impossible for me to give him full MLE credit for those seasons. All that noted, he still places highly on my ballot. His pro-rated numbers are very close to Bobby Wallace’s, and his impact in context was so much greater than Wallace’s, that I place him here.
5. Bobby Wallace (4).
6. Mickey Welch (7) Not electing Welch as a major oversight. He ranks third among 1880s pitchers, behind Galvin and Radbourn. Any spot between here and the top of the ballot would be justified by his numbers.
7. Lip Pike (8) Data provided by DavidFoss show that Pike was a great player in 1869 and 1870 against professional competition, and a good player before that. This info confirms his worthiness. Doesn’t move up in the rankings, but would have been passed by Griffith had he not also been reevaluated upward.
8. Clark Griffith (9) Fourth-best pitcher of the 1890s. Being underrated by the electorate.
9. Hughie Jennings (10) sixth-best 1890s infielder, with one of the best peaks on record. Among position players eligible through 1927, only Barnes, G. Wright, Wagner, and Lajoie have higher peak rates than Jennings. Peak rate, 94-98 = 41.19WS/162. Somebody asked if he was better than Delahanty during his peak. My fielding-adjusted peak rate for Delahanty, 1894-98 = 37.26 WS/162. Prefer unadjusted win shares, which is the least defense-friendly comprehensive metric out there? Jennings, 150. Delahanty 140. (Hamilton, btw, slides in at 150 also, with a 40.89 fielding-adjusted peak rate, so he’s just behind Jennings during these years). For his peak, he was the best player in baseball, and better than a number of first-ballot HoMers ever were.
10. Rube Foster (14) Foster's career: ML-avg. pitcher in 1902, six-year peak, 1903-08, excellent in 1909 before breaking his leg, slightly above avg. ML pitcher in 1910-11, and a somewhat below-avg. ML pitcher in 1912-14. He places on my ballot about where Walsh and Brown would be. Passes Duffy/Van Haltren/Leach trio.
11. Hugh Duffy (11) Edges VH on peak.
12. George Van Haltren (12)
13. Tommy Leach (13). Identical to VH in value, as I see it.
14. Bob Caruthers (15) Second-best 1880s candidate remaining.
15. Joe Jackson (n/r). Jackson enters my ballot at the bottom, with a discount to his 1919 and 1920 seasons of just enough win shares to ensure that his team wouldn't win it all. Still, the best hitter on the ballot. Without discounts his 318 CWS, 112 total peak, peak rate, 11-20, 37.10 would place him at #6. Will be ironic if we elect him earlier than he would have been had he played out his career, but it seems likely that we will. . .
   62. Chris Cobb Posted: June 03, 2004 at 01:37 AM (#656226)
1927 Off Ballot

16. Roger Bresnahan (16)
17. Bill Monroe (17)
18. Larry Doyle (18)
19. Cupid Childs (19)
20. Ned Williamson (20)
21 – 30. Charlie Jones, Herman Long, Fielder Jones, Gavvy Cravath, Tony Mullane, Jim McCormick, Rube Waddell, Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, Addie Joss.
31-40. Frank Chance, John McGraw, Jake Beckley, Jimmy Ryan, Lave Cross, Pete Browning, Roy Thomas, Sam Thompson, Billy Nash, Harry Wright.

Explanations of consensus top-10 players not making my ballot.

Sam Thompson – I trust the WS interpretation of his value over that of WARP, which is that, in context, his great batting numbers are less valuable than they appear, and his short career, missed time due to injuries, and indifferent defense leave him well behind the top players eligible.

Jake Beckley – utter lack of peak hurts him in my system, which treats career and peak about equally. I’m looking again at first-base defense 1890-1920, but at present I am unconvinced by arguments that it was a more demanding and valuable defensive position than were left field and center field. A massive change in defensive value would of course benefit Beckley greatly, since it would affect so many of his seasons.
   63. stephen Posted: June 03, 2004 at 02:39 AM (#656509)
I completely revamped my rating system, so my ranking have changed radically. I still use Win Shares as my baseline, though, but I'm trying to give equal weight to career and peak.

1 DICKEY PEARCE. The pre-MLB years are clearly within the scope of this project, and he was one of the best players of that era. He played fantastic defense at a premium position. Admittedly, a judgement call.

2 CLARK GRIFFITH. His peak isn't quite as good as McGinnity's, but he pitched for more seasons and posted a better ERA+. I think we're severely under-rating him.

3 PETE HILL. One of the stars of the Negro Leagues. I'm not sure I trust any of the Negro League translations, but by all reports he could do it all, and was a good power/speed combo.

4 JOE MCGINNITY. Yes, his career was short, but he packed a lot of innings in a very short period of time. He managed to accumulate 269 WS in just 10 seasons.

5 JOE JACKSON. I'm still bothered by the Black Sox scandal, but I'm not devaluing him for it, I'm just not giving him any bonuses or special consideration. A brilliant hitter.

6 HUGH DUFFY. I'm not sure I'm pleased with the reults, as I've always paired him in my mind with Van Hlatren, but I now have a large seperation between the two. Duffy was just the better player during the same time period.

7 BILL MONORE. I think I was overrating the Negro League stars, and it's better to err on the side of caution. I still think he's the best middle infielder on the ballot.

8 TOMMY LEACH. I find his lack of support curious, as I think I have him too low. He played a prime defensive position, accumulated 329 Win Shares, and had a pretty good peak. What am I missing?

9 JIMMY SHECKARD. Just suffers in comparison to Jackson. I really like Sheckard, but he only has 10 more WS than Leach and a slightly better prime, but since I'm not 100% on the defensive ratings, I bumped Leach up a slot over Sheckard.

10 LIP PIKE. His short career is bothersome. He was one of the best pre-MLB players, but that success didn't carry over into the more organized days. He was done at a young age.

11 RUBE WADDELL. A short, but brillaint career. i finally moved him ahead of Caruthers, who had s imilar career of short and brillaint, but did so against vastly inferior competition.

12 LARRY DOYLE. Comparing him head to head with Childs, I consistently rated Doyle ahead. I'm not sure either is HoM worthy, but Doyle is more worthy in my eyes.

13 ED KONETCHY. I see no reason to vote Beckley ahead of Konetchy. Beckley's very lsight career advantage is due to four extra years, and not four terribly good ones.

14 GEORGE VAN HALTREN. He hung around long enough to really help himself out in the career marks, and he has a pretty good peak to go with it.

15 FRANK CHANCE. Reviewing Konetchy and Beckley brought me back to Chance, who was a much better peak player than either of them, and was also considered for a long period as one of the best to play the position. A short career hurts him.
   64. stephen Posted: June 03, 2004 at 02:43 AM (#656519)
And filling in the blanks for players who fell.

16 CARUTHERS. A very short career coupled with the inferior play of the AA. He may reappear on my ballot, but I'm currently soured on him.

17 JENNINGS. I've been high on Hughie, but his career totals just don't merit inclusion.

18 Wallace, 19 Cicotte

20 BRESNAHAN. He's been hanging on in my ballot for some time, but he drops for the same reason he had low ratings in the first place. I don't rate him fully as a catcher.

21 BECKLEY. I've beaten this horse to death.

22 Childs, 23 Evers, 24 Tinker, 25 Thompson

26 CRAVATH. Another guy who tumbled huge in my re-evaluation as I placed some more weight on career values.

27 Joss, 28 McGraw, 29 Browning, 30 Cross
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: June 03, 2004 at 04:20 AM (#656773)
Can somebody provide some more info re. Pete Hill? Specifically, I had seen him referred to as a LF, and now suddenly in the 1927 ballot discussion he was a CF.

I remember somebody once telling me that Pete Browning was better than Cal McVey, because Browning was a CF and McVey a 1B. Well, OK, each played about 55 percent CF and 1B, respectively. But for the other 45 percent of the time, Browning moved right (LF) on the spectrum and McVey moved left (C). So the idea that Browning "IS" a CF is somewhat misleading. He was barely a CF.

So anyway, do we know about how many G Pete Hill played at CF and LF? Thx.
   66. sunnyday2 Posted: June 03, 2004 at 04:30 AM (#656800)
I would urge Chris J to re-read #49, 55 and 60. Your response to DanG's thoughtful #55 was, well, not thoughtful.

E.g., you are wrong on the facts. Williams *played* 19 years. But for WWII, he would have played 19. DiMaggio played 13. But for WWII, he would have played 16. Rizutto is comparable to DiMag.

And your comment about playing to age 34 representing "extreme longevity" is exactly what DanG did *not* say.

So his point remains unchallenged. That if a relatively short career, by itself, is reason enough to deny, oh, let's say, Lip Pike, election to the HoM, then consistency would demand the same analysis apply to other players. Start played longer than Pike, so Pike cannot be a HoMer. Well, Williams played substantially longer than DiMaggio, so....

Besides, on the basis of the facts, it remains that at 13 years, Pike's career was not short by the standards of his day. Two counter-examples do not necessarily negate that point. Meanwhile, DiMaggio's 13 (or even 16) years is a short career by the standards of his day. The only counter to this, I think, is that the differences between the eras are unimportant. But then the question becomes, why are some unimportant while others are important? Are the important ones the ones that suggest an edge for modern players, while the unimportant ones are those that support the old-timers? Well, then, that's a theory in search of a bias.
   67. Chris Cobb Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:01 AM (#656883)
Can somebody provide some more info re. Pete Hill? Specifically, I had seen him referred to as a LF, and now suddenly in the 1927 ballot discussion he was a CF.

So anyway, do we know about how many G Pete Hill played at CF and LF? Thx.


I don't have a source that provides game numbers. Here's what some generally reliable sources have to say on the matter.

Riley's entry for Hill's position looks like this:

"Positions: cf, lf,, rf, 1b, 2b, manager, business manager."

In the explanatory notes about the key, this is said: "The positions played by the individual are listed in order of frequency of appearances. Boldface type indicates teh position at which a player is most strongly identified. Normal print indicates positions that he played on a reasonably regular basis at some time in his career."

So Riley indicates that Hill played the most as a centerfielder, played a lot as a leftfielder, and had a fair amount of play in right, at second, and at first.

In the entry itself, Hill is described as follows: "the star center fielder was one of the fastest outfielders in the game."

Hill is referred to frequently in Robert Cottrell's biography of Rube Foster, and he is consistently termed a center fielder there.

Hill's bio in _Cool Papas and Double Duties_ describes him as "a center fielder with exceptional range and a strong, accurate throwing arm."

Holway does not specify outfield positions explicitly, but he lists rosters in vertical order

1b
2b
ss
3b
of
of
of
c

It seems likely that the centerfielder would be the middle of the three outfield slots, with left field top and right field bottom.

Pete Hill is listed in the middle outfield slot on his teams in 1904, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1921.

Pete Hill is listed in the top slot in 1905, 1906, 1908, 1915, 1916.

Pete Hill is listed in the bottom slot in 1909, 1920, 1923, 1924

Pete Hill is listed as a utility player in 1925.

For years not listed in which Hill was active, no roster is available in Holway.

If Holway's roster placements are meaningful, it looks like Hill spent around half his career in center, and about half in the two corners.

The only source I have that treats him simply as a left fielder is BJNHBA.
   68. Adam Schafer Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:56 AM (#656920)
I'm rushing my ballot a tad, I'm normally a late poster, but I'm going out of town for several days and if I don't post it now, it'll be too late when I get back. I never imagined that I would favor so many pitchers when this project started, but I see my ballot is starting to become pretty heavy on pitchers.


1. Joe Jackson (n/a) - No more Boycott. Clearly the best hitter on the ballot.

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

3. Joe McGinnity (2) - Hard pick between him and Welch, I'm not one to base a career on 3000 hits, or 300 wins, but in this case it was the deciding factor on putting Welch ahead of McGinnity

4. Sam Thompson (3) - 10 great years. Excellant peak. I'm more of a career type of person than I am peak, but Sam has a great mix of both.

5. Bobby Wallace (5) - Career, career, Career. That's what I keep saying I like. I like Bobby's, I really do. I would really like to see SOME peak.

6. Jake Beckley (6) - Again, I'm a career lover

7. Rube Waddell (7) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive years. he's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

8. Roger Bresnahan (8) - It's no secret that I love catchers. I would've ranked Roger higher had he caught more and played the OF less during his peak years.

9. Lip Pike (9) - I can see him finally getting in one of these days.

10. Hughie Jennings (10) - Nothing new to add

11. George Van Haltren (11) - I've been a moderate supporter of Van Haltren, unfortunately he'll never make the HOM, but he's still the 13th best player eligible in my opinion. Good career, very modest peak.

12. Jimmy Ryan (12) - See Van Haltren

13. Bobby Carruthers (13) - Leap frogs over Griffith as I take a longer look at Bobby

14. Clark Griffith (14) - He's still hanging around the bottom.

15. Eddie Cicotte (n/a) - Just like Joe, the ban is over. Cicotte bumps Sheckard from my ballot

Unlike Frank Grant, I feel like I've seen enough information to rank Pete Hill, but the 15 listed above are simply more deserving. No disrespect to Pete, there just isn't room for him on this ballot.
   69. Rob_Wood Posted: June 03, 2004 at 02:52 PM (#657121)
My 1927 ballot:

1. Joe Jackson -- great hitter
2. Sam Thompson -- a less great hitter
3. Bobby Wallace -- career value to burn
4. Larry Doyle -- a solid second sacker
5. Jake Beckley -- another career value guy
6. Jimmy Sheckard -- yo-yo career with high peak
7. Dickey Pearce -- a great early star
8. Pete Hill -- middle of the ballot seems right
9. Rube Waddell -- gotta luv those strikeouts
10. Addie Joss -- very few baserunners
11. Charley Jones -- solid ballplayer
12. Roger Bresnahan -- at times a great player
13. Lip Pike -- another early star
14. Ed Konetchy -- one of the best deadball 1b
15. Cupid Childs -- very good 2b

I did not vote for Joe McGinnity or Bob Caruthers, though they are both in 16-20 on my ranks.
   70. mbd1mbd1 Posted: June 03, 2004 at 02:59 PM (#657127)
1927 ballot: most everybody slides on up two spots; Pete Hill is the only newcomer.

1. George Van Haltren (2) - I don't feel entirely comfortable with GVH at the top of my ballot. I think this reflects the overall very-good-but-not-greatness of the current consideration set. GVH wouldn't be an embarassment to the HoM, but I'm just not excited about him. Lots of WS and W3.

2. Jimmy Sheckard (4) - Pretty much the same story.

3. Jake Beckley (5) - He continues his consistent move up my ballot, he should be in

4. Joe McGinnity (6) - Does he finally get in this year?

5. Jimmy Ryan (7) - GVH, minus about 30 WS and 700 IP.

6. Bob Caruthers (8) - I thought he had peaked on my ballot at about 10 or so, but he keeps sliding up as we work through the lean years. At first I loved him, then I didn't, now I'm warming back up, I guess.

7. Sam Thompson (9) - I'd really love Big Sam if he'd played another full season or two. He has the best Ink of those under consideration.

8. Bobby Wallace (10) - I'm getting warmer on him as well. Is this his year?

9. Pete Hill (NA) - Man, where to slot Pete? I can compare his hitting to Beckley or Sheckard based on the MLE's, but I'll err on the conservative side for now.

10. Hugh Duffy (11) - Meh. I'm pretty sure no one from here on down is HoM-worthy.

11. Vic Willis (12)

12. Rube Waddell (14) - I'd probably take Waddell if I needed to win one game, but I'd take Willis' career.

13. Joe Jackson (13) - OK, yeah, so Shoeless is probably HoM worthy, but his short career kills him on my ballot. I know he was a great hitter, but he only played at that level for 10 full years.

14. Mickey Welch (15) - Can't ignore 354 WS, he leads the consideration set in that category.

15. Eddie Cicotte (NA) - Slips onto the tail end of the ballot. Nothing about him really excites me; his inconsistency kinda turns me off, but all in all, he does just enough.

Next five: Foster, Leach, Doyle, Griffith, Konetchy. I said my piece on Pearce last year, and Pike's argument is the same. I'll probably go back and adjust for the shorter seasons in the 1870's, but I don't think that will be enough of a boost to get them into ballot range.
   71. Brad Harris Posted: June 03, 2004 at 03:25 PM (#657182)
1. Joe Jackson - should gain election this year
2. Dickey Pearce - makes my PHoM; I'm finally convinced
3. Pete Hill - superior resume than anyone below him
4. Jimmy Sheckard - drops with Hill's appearance
5. Bob Caruthers - elite hitters worth more than short-career pitcher
6. Sam Thompson - very similar to Jackson
7. Lip Pike - I'm sold
8. Gavvy Cravath - gets full credit for minors
9. Eddie Cicotte - knuckleballer lost some good seasons
10. Larry Doyle - best 2B of deadball era
11. Cupid Childs - best 2B of 1890s
12. Ed Konetchy - best 1B of deadball era
13. Jimmy Ryan - finally over Van Haltren to stay
14. Clark Griffith - close call here
15. Joe McGinnity - flip-flopped on him and Griffith a lot

Apologies to Bobby Wallace (who didn't make the ballot), Rube Waddell (who almost did) and Jesse Burkett (who just doesn't impress me much at all).

Hopefully, we can elect Pike and Pearce and then all the pre-1880 players will be out of the way for good.
   72. Brad G. Posted: June 03, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#657220)
1927 can only mean one thing, two words: Murderer's Row. Best team ever?

1927 Ballot:

1.Joe McGinnity- Still the strongest eligible pitcher, in my eyes. Manages to excel in both career and peak stats; one of top 3 eligibles in Career Win Shares, WS3, and WS5. While there are others who compare favorably in WARP1 and WARP3, few come close in Total Ink scores: Black Ink = 64, Gray Ink = 190.

2.Sam Thompson- Tough to match the impact Sam had in his day. I have him ranked as #1 eligible RF at this time. Black Ink = 42, Gray Ink = 200! WARP1 = 99.1, WARP3 = 84.4. Career OPS+ = 146, Runs Created = 1157.

3.Jimmy Sheckard- Career Win Shares = 339, WS3 = 96, Career WARP1 = 130.7, Career WARP3 = 93.5, Career Runs Created = 1067, Black Ink = 19, Gray Ink = 124. Earns a Defensive “A” in WS. Long, steady career; very good all-around player. Comes out close to Thompson, but slightly below inferior in Ink, Runs Created, and OPS+.

4.Joe Jackson- I’m still a bit tentative on Jackson, though he’s moved up a couple notches. Will probably make it this year, and already in my PhoM, but stands behind Sheckard in LF (better peak, but shortened career hurts him in Wins Shares and WARP), with Hill on his tail. Maybe I’m one of the suckers, but I still think he got a raw deal.

5.Bobby Wallace- I think he’s the best infielder available. Makes my Phom this year. Career WS = 345, Career WARP1 = 155.5, Career WARP3 = 108. These are great numbers for any player, let alone a SS.

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

7.Bob Caruthers- 119 Wins over .500 in his career. This is where I’ve consistently placed him. The debate continues.

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

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

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

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

12.Roger Bresnahan- A 15% Catcher Bonus puts him here. I have Duke Farrell as the next best eligible catcher, and he’s miles away.

13.Gavvy Cravath- His Career OPS+ of 150 and Black Ink total of 46 actually exceed Sam Thompson’s scores in those categories (though Sam has much more Gray Ink). Good peak and prime, but short career.

14.Pete Hill- Again, I tend to be conservative with newly-eligible players, starting at the low end of the range and working them up as comparative stats are measured and digested. The process is, of course, more difficult when objective stats are rough estimates based on limited availability. The Pete Hill posts have been great… but there is an obvious discrepancy between low and high estimates that I will continue to focus on and try to pin down where I feel he should be (my “gut” instinct). Let’s say he’s at the low end now, and can only go up in subsequent years.

15.Tommy Leach- Anyone with 300+ Win Shares is a good bet to be high on my list. Add his impressive WARP stats (WARP1 = 113.7, WARP3 = 74.8), and the fact that he’s easily the best (IMO) 3B on the list, and I can only wonder why he isn’t higher. Well, his Career OPS+ isn’t blowing me away (109) for one thing. Also, there are eligible 3Bs with better WS peaks (John McGraw) and others with better WARP scores (Lave Cross). Most relevantly- with Baker on the horizon, I’m afraid Leach is destined to sink back into the shadows a bit.

16-20: Foster, Browning, Monroe, Doyle, Griffith

Missing: Dickey Pearce- Supposedly was paid for playing amateur ball, in the guise of “benefit” games in his name… essentially, I guess he was paid at times his contemporaries weren’t. Credited with inventing the bunt, as well as getting rulemakers to adjust fair/foul rules due to his aggressive exploitation of existing rules. Also helped revolutionize the position of shortstop by varying his positioning according to who was up to bat. Started as a cricket player. Still have him around #25.

Lip Pike- I see at least four eligible CFs and several infielders ahead of him.
   73. OCF Posted: June 03, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#657272)
Brad G, the 1927 season hasn't happened yet. I'm still basking in the afterglow of my guys' World Series championship, thanks in no small part to a magnificent pitching performance by our midseason waiver pickup, the 39-year-old Pete Alexander.

And can you tell me again why you think the Babe was trying to steal that base?
   74. Brad G. Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:07 PM (#657318)
Oops! Jumped the gun a bit... whenever I see the year "1927", in any context, I immediately think of the Yanks.

And no, I don't think anyone (Babe included) has ever adequately explained that stolen base attempt. I always wonder how hung-over (or still-drunk) Alexander was when he was called into that last game. Would've been a great moment to witness in person (like Big Train way back in the '24 Series).
   75. jimd Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:26 PM (#657353)
For all those who continue to say "Caruthers career was too short" and then place Jackson high on the ballot, please click here and read.
   76. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 03, 2004 at 07:50 PM (#657739)
E.g., you are wrong on the facts. Williams *played* 19 years. But for WWII, he would have played 19.

? Did you mean to say 22 seasons at the end?

DiMaggio played 13. But for WWII, he would have played 16. Rizutto is comparable to DiMag.

And your comment about playing to age 34 representing "extreme longevity" is exactly what DanG did *not* say.

So his point remains unchallenged. That if a relatively short career, by itself, is reason enough to deny, oh, let's say, Lip Pike, election to the HoM, then consistency would demand the same analysis apply to other players. Start played longer than Pike, so Pike cannot be a HoMer. Well, Williams played substantially longer than DiMaggio, so....


Fine - let me go back to my actual comment on Lip Pike.

39. Lip Pike (36). I prefer longer careers from my semi-documented. What happened to him at age 33?

On semi-doc'd players we're on shakier ground, so I am more likely to look at a longer career as evidence that the player was great. That doesn't mean the only statistic I look at when compiling my ballot is seasons played. Add to that the quality of play in the 1860s/70s was lower back then & I will timeline a little.

I don't see him as ballot worthy. If you want to argue he should be closer to my ballot, that's fine, but ultimately I don't think it makes much difference since I can't see me putting him on. There's no way I'd put him as high as Gavvy Cravath, & I don't have GC on my ballot & the best GC might do is make the very bottom by 1932.
   77. EricC Posted: June 03, 2004 at 11:01 PM (#657949)
1927 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 the same league as Cobb, Speaker, and (then) Ruth puts him 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. Obviously not going to be a popular choice, but given that he has more career pitching WARP3 than any other eligible player, he should at least not be dismissed out of hand.

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

From the Department of Contrived Statistics:

Top 10 in NL OPS+ 1902-1919 "low-run era"; 3000+ PA:
1. Cravath, 2. Wagner, 3. Donlin, 4. Chance, 5. Magee, 6. Clarke, 7. Groh, 8. Bresnahan 9. G.J. Burns, 10. Seymour.
High rating also due in part to positional balance. I believe that catchers who dominated their position over a period of years deserve to be in the HoM. On the other hand, given that Schang is already waiting in the wings, I'm a little worried that my system is letting catchers in too cheaply.

5. Bobby Wallace This kind of player (very good every year for 15 straight) adds a hugh number of pennants over a career.

6. Pete Hill Believe he would have been a perennial major league MVP candidate in the mid 1900s, with enough career value to put him somewhere in Joe Kelley-Sherry Magee territory. Weird career shape. Apparently had a big decline in his 30s, similar to the latter part of Joe Kelley's career, but then came back to win more Holway all-star awards. The "benefit of the doubt" principle kicks in, as, otherwise, few Negro Leaguers would ever make my ballot. I'm comfortable with slotting him here, and comfortable with him making the HoM quickly (if that happens). I hope that those who are skeptical do not feel as though there is pressure to vote for him.

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. 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.

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

12. John McGraw Best 3B of 1890s. Highest career OBP before Ruth.

13. Frank Chance Best 1B of the 1900s. See Bresnahan comment.

14. Jimmy Ryan Comes out on top of the 1890s "CF glut" because of long career, but Duffy and Van Haltren are not far behind.

15. Gavvy Cravath See Bresnahan comment. Tough to get a handle on. Highest Black Ink score of any player not in either Hall (Merit or Fame), and a sabermetrician's dream player of high OBP and high SLG, so this may be greatly underrating him. On the other hand, (1) his stats were heavily influenced by his home park, and (2) I give less benefit of the doubt in cases such as this than I do in cases such as Pete Hill's.

George Van Haltren and Jimmy Sheckard are in my top 20.

Sam Thompson was a fine player, but I think that having his best years in historically high-offense years distorts his "eyeball" stats and that Mike Tiernan was at least his equal.

Joe McGinnity. Not a big fan. 121 ERA+ is not in "must elect" territory, and that's before questions about NL quality.

Bob Caruthers. I think that his peak, considered in context of era, league, and team, was not high enough or sustained enough to make up for its shortness.
   78. MichaelD Posted: June 04, 2004 at 01:49 AM (#658232)
HR Johnson and Van Haltren make my PHOM this year.

1. 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.

2. Bobby Wallace - Nice career. I flip-flopped Sheckard and Wallace.

3. Jimmy Ryan - I'm not sure what else to say. I guess I'm not necesarrily the biggest FOJR for a while now.

4. George Van Haltren - Before I was discounting his Win Shares too much for his pitching. I've moved him up even more this "year" passing Duffy because when I looked under the numbers it supported the numbers that said he should be ahead.

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.

The next four are all pretty close.

7. Larry Doyle - Big jump up. I was definitely underating him.

8. Gavvy Cravath - I'm right now giving him a middling bump up for his missed years (about half a full year) but could give him more.

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. Pete Hill - He may be too low as he has been described as similar to Sheckard. I'm not convinced the comparison holds up. Also maybe most of the best early NLers were infielders.

11. 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.

12. Sam Thompson - I re-evaluated the early players versus the later ones, by the numbers they still seem to be lacking but I gave them a little bit of a bump beyond what the numbers suggest. Thompson ends up here.

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

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

15. Mike Tiernan - Returns to the ballot. I always thought he was a little inferior to Thompson. Now he can return to the ballot too.

Next groups. Listed alphabetically. Like what I do with grades, I tried to find break for these groups.

16-22: Bresnahan, Caruthers, Chance, Childs, Evers, Jackson and Konetchy.

23-27: Jennings, Monroe, Pearce, Tinker and Welch.

28-30: Cross, Pike and Waddell.
   79. MichaelD Posted: June 04, 2004 at 02:03 AM (#658262)
Missing ballot:

Lip Pike - I think that Pearce is superior now. Pike just doesn't seem strong enough compared to his contempories already elected. I think I have the right number, but I'm sure others would disagree.

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.

Joe Jackson - I'm giving a penalty for the World Series, similar to what robc has done. I'm also primarily career oriented and Jackson doesn't do as well by natural methodology. Without the penalty, he'd be about 5-8.
   80. TheGoodSamaritan Posted: June 04, 2004 at 04:42 AM (#658376)
1927 Vote:
01. Bobby Wallace SS - Using a combo of career WARP3 and a 5 consecutive years peak WARP3, I have Wallace being more qualified for the HoM than HoMers Jack Glasscock and Monte Ward. When Hans Wagner was moved to shortstop full-time, Wagner said that he tried to copy Wallace's fielding style, implying that Wallace was considered the best-fielding shortstop of his time.

02. Pete Hill LF - By all accounts, Hill was regarded as a great hitter with a long career. I don't think Hill was in the class of Cobb and Speaker; if I were to pick a comp, it would probably be Zack Wheat but with better fielding.

03. Joe Jackson LF - Outstanding hitter, great peak, probably overrated as a fielder. As for Joe Jackson getting into the HoM with a Cleveland hat, that's probably for the best.

04. Bill Monroe 2B - I have been thinking about Monroe for some time now. I might be wrong, but if there is only one Negro League second baseman that I could elect into the HoM, it probably would be Monroe. When I think of Bingo DeMoss or Newt Allen, I think of players like Red Schoendienst, Nellie Fox or Frank White. Great career players, very good chance to get into the HoM, but not impact players. When I think of Monroe, I think of a Charlie Gehringer who played in the deadball era, somebody who is a force in his league. He is one of the few 2B of the Negro League that is considered one of the best player of the entire league. Dirk Knemeyer wrote that "Monroe stands with John Henry Lloyd as the finest Negro League players of their generation."

05. Joe McGinnity SP - The Iron Man didn't do that well on the WARP figures, especially in the peak department, but I have him being the best pitcher in his league 3 times and the MVP for one of those years (1903) and not too many pitchers could match that.

06. Bob Caruthers SP - The last great 19th century pitcher to not make it into the HOM.

07. Jimmy Sheckard LF - None of the outfielders on the ballot -- Duffy, Van Haltren, Ryan, Thompson, Tiernan, Jones -- really stands out, aside from Joe Jackson. I have Sheckard being the best of the bunch, but not by a lot.
08. Jimmy Ryan CF - I think he is the best CF of the bunch, but am not 100% sure. His WARP numbers are almost the same as the average HoM CF already voted in. Very close in value to Van Haltren.

09. George Van Haltren CF

10. Roger Bresnahan C - He is the classic Win Shares Love Him, WARP Hate Him player (along with Hugh Duffy and Sherry Magee). The WARP numbers for him are not that good because they have him to be very much below average fielder at a FRAA of -119. Win Shares has Bresnahan to be a C+ fielder, which I think is about average. The peak WARP numbers for Bresnahan are also very low. OTOH Win Shares loves Bresnahan as seen with his high ranking as the #16 all-time best catcher of all time, one slot above Buck Ewing, and his Win Shares per 648 PA. A person named Cyril Morong did a ranking of all the players with 5000 PA by their Win Shares per 648 PA and Bresnahan is ranked 6th in the catcher's list. Bresnahan is also ranked 45th(!) overall in Win Shares per 648 PA over players like Ed Delahanty (27.41), Roger Connor (26.60), Hughie Jennings (24.52) and Charlie Bennett (23.60).

11. Sam Thompson RF

12. Mike Tiernan RF - By WARP3 and WS, I found that Tiernan's value is very close to Thompson's.

13. Ray Chapman SS - I don't think there is any argument that Chapman was the best shortstop of his generation before he died, and as Bill James wrote in his first Historical Abstract that his stats would have looked even better with the lively ball coming (but would baseball have had a lively ball if Chapman wasn't killed?).

14. Rube Foster SP - As I wrote before, I have Foster ranked about the 9th greatest pitcher in Negro League history. Foster will get in the 'builders' wing of the HoM (if there is one), but right now I don't have him being a strong candidate as a player to get into the HoM for at least a decade or so.

15. Eddie Cicotte SP - By WARP3, Cicotte is the next best pitcher after Caruthers, a little ahead of Clark Griffith.
   81. TheGoodSamaritan Posted: June 04, 2004 at 04:54 AM (#658384)
off the ballot but was in the top 10 last year and/or top new candidate: Rube Waddell, Lip Pike, Dickey Pearce, Jake Beckley and Hippo Vaughn

For someone who needed a great peak to make it on my ballot, I only have Rube Waddell winning one Jim Creighton award in his career (1905), and that is not enough in my opinion when he is compared to somebody like Ed Walsh and McGinnity. As for Lip Pike, I think we have elected enough great but short-career players from the NA like Barnes, Spalding, McVey and Wright, who are clearly better than Pike. As for Pike's peak, I do not have Pike winning a MVP or being the best positional player in any of his years in the "majors". When I think about the stuff that is written about Dickey Pearce, I would picture Herman Long and sometimes maybe Roger Peckinpaugh. As John Murphy wrote about Pearce, "He played for over twenty years in the best leagues or on the best teams", I think the same also applies to Long and somewhat Peckinpaugh. Long played a major role for the team that Bill James considers as the best 19th century team of all time and played for a long time and played it very well with excellant defense. Peckinpaugh also played for a long time and was once actually voted MVP of his league. To recap: for me, the upside of Pearce is Herman Long and the downside is Roger Peckinpaugh and both are not in my top 15 so therefore neither is good ol' Dickey. Jake Beckley did not have the peak I was looking for in a 1b/lf/rf type player. Solid career numbers, but to me he is more Mark Grace than he is Eddie Murray. Hippo Vaughn was the best pitcher in baseball for a couple of years but his career was not long enough to get him into my top 15.
   82. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2004 at 05:39 AM (#658417)
I'm going with the big hitting outfielders at the top....

1. Joe Jackson (ne-4) -- Had him 4th last year while discounting both his 1919 & 1920 seasons. Joe Dimino's suggestion to skip the war credit as a way of discounting his 1919 season seems far to me. Adding in the two seasons and skipping the war credit and I cannot put him lower than #1. I'm a peak voter.
2. Lip Pike (5-4-2-1) -- 155 OPS+ CF in the NA/NL. Solid pre-NA play includes time at 2B. Brooklyn's best hitter in '70, second to Start in '69.
3. Sam Thompson (8-7-5-3) -- I like peak. An earlier start would make a vote for him easier. Could certainly hit. Held his own teamed with Brouthers in DET and Delahanty/Hamilton in PHI.
4. Joe McGinnity (9-8-6-5) -- Plank's ERA+ without the career length and Brown's W/L record without his ERA+. Joe had some great teammates as well.
5. Jimmy Sheckard (13-9-8-7) -- I was leaning towards placing him with the 90s OF glut, but has a higher peak than Van Haltren / Ryan and arguably Duffy with roughly equal career rates and value.
6. Pete Hill (ne) - Starting him just below Sheckard to be conservative, may move up as more information comes out.
7. Richard J. "Don't Call Me Dickey" Pearce (11-11-9-8) -- True Pioneer. With Start, the star of the greatest team of the '60s -- Brooklyn Atlantics. Much of his value comes before the end of the Civil War when few played organized ball outside of NYC. The game got so much bigger starting around '66. But, gosh... he played a long time...
8. Rube Foster (nr-nr-10-9) -- Decided to enter him into my ballot here. Great early pitcher. More known as a pioneer, but I like those kinds of guys.
9. John McGraw (10-10-11-10) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. Short career is keeping him from climbing up the ballot like the others are doing.
10. Gavvy Cravath (ne-11) -- Very good five year peak.
11. Charley Jones (nr-nr-13-12) -- I must admit, I had not been considering him. I guess I'm still sorting about my ballot on the third try. Late start (for the era) and unfairly blacklisted. Appears to be a hybrid or Pike/Stovey/Thompson, guys I've ranked fairly highly... may go higher
12. Bobby Wallace (12-13-12-13) -- Very long career. Lots of win shares, could hit a little before 1910, but mostly defensive value here. Low peak has me nervous, pitching numbers push him ahead of Jennings this week.
13. Hughie Jennings (14-12-14-14) -- I like peak and boy does Hughie have peak. Short career, poor seasons outside his peak slip his career OPS+ down to 117.
14. Bob Caruthers (nr-14-15-15) -- His peak value is becoming too hard to ignore, especially on a ballot this thin.
15. Clark Griffith (nr)-- I took a second look at him and he compares well to McGinnity.
   83. Howie Menckel Posted: June 04, 2004 at 02:46 PM (#658604)
1927 ballot, many of the comments updated from last year

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. PETE HILL - I think the ballpark issue may explain a lot of the "mid-career slump" that might be the major stumbling block for some. As for "rushing him in," well, I'm not real comfortable with Sherry Magee getting in (so quickly, maybe even at all), but we have to vote for what's available to us. Seems weird to penalize a Negro Leaguer for that, but not a white player. Hill is one of the best on this ballot, and earns his spot.
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.LIP PIKE - One more 1870s star before the rest of this pack; it bugs me a little 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. MICKEY WELCH - Closer analysis of his career by others has him up to No. 8 with a bullet. Still convinced we got a little off-track in the Keefe-Welch-Clarkson discussion; ok if we rate Welch third in that bunch, but not sure how he got THIS far behind. 61-34 vs HOMer pitching opponents, yes he had a very good team, but he lived up to that in the showdowns.
9. RUBE FOSTER - 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. Did benefit from his park, though.
10. BOBBY WALLACE - I've probably been underrating him a bit; looking for a post that gets me excited about him.
11. 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.
12. DICKEY PEARCE - Have 'rethunk' a bit, again to where I'm seriously debating who I'd want in the HOM. Can live with him, but not sure he was really THAT good.
13. ED WILLIAMSON - He COULD be a HOMer, whereas most also-rans now don't merit that statement. Have applied a big discount to the silly-HR season, yet he still looks fairly good.
14. PETE BROWNING - Great hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time.
15. BILL MONROE - Starting to think he was the victim of bad ballot timing; not reason enough to dismiss him, as far as I'm concerned. May move up in the next few years.

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. But the recent debate hasn't helped him much in my eyes.
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.

Cicotte and Konetchy (say THAT three times fast!) were on a HOM pace but pooped out too soon, self-inflicted on Cicotte's case.
   84. Howie Menckel Posted: June 04, 2004 at 02:49 PM (#658607)
Has anyone heard whether this site will ever be AOL compatible again?
Since the "upgrade," it's literally the only internet site on the web that I can't access via home and AOL. That undoubtedly will cost us lots of new voters down the road if it isn't fixed. If they can't post a message, why bother?
More amazing than this drastic downgrade is the fact that no one at the site, near as I can tell, has ever acknowledged it.
   85. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2004 at 03:16 PM (#658631)
It wasn't AOL compatible for the first few weeks but now is; this has been posted through AOL
   86. Howie Menckel Posted: June 04, 2004 at 03:18 PM (#658632)
Thanks, karl!
I'll check at home tonight to see if that's true. Still wasn't true last time I checked...
   87. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#658724)
this has been posted through AOL


Same here! IE can crawl back under its rock again.
   88. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#658757)
Seems a little quicker, too.
   89. Jeff M Posted: June 04, 2004 at 04:48 PM (#658781)
1. Jackson, Joe – Boycotted last week. I think he’s an easy call among the available candidates. Does equally well in WS and WARP and has excellent grey ink. I don’t discount his performance for the World Series scandal since his rating is based on regular season performance and there are no allegations of wrongdoing with respect to regular season games. His punishment is a shortened career, not a discount of what he actually accomplished.

2. Hill, Pete – No system for ranking negro leaguers is perfect, but he certainly appears to be able to claim he was the best player in the Negro Leagues for several years. For a reference point, I have him ranked lower than Magee, far lower than Crawford and about even with Joe Jackson. He’s quite a bit ahead of Pete Browning, who is next on my ballot. I used the I9 MLEs (for better or worse), computed some WS, made some adjustments for the deadball era and quality of play, and he winds up here. I don’t look ahead to try to determine whether we are going to elect other Negro League outfielders. I’m voting now.

3. McGinnity, Joe -- Solid WS numbers. Fantastic winning percentage and excellent Wins Above Team. Has some nice counting stats and good grey ink scores. Would probably have won two Cy Young Awards. Suffers a bit in the WARP system. I'm starting to wonder if his chance for election has slipped by.

4. Browning, Pete -- Hasn't budged on my ballot in a long long time. I have discounted his 82-85 and 89 seasons but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. I think he's a HoMer because he was easily one of the best hitters we've evaluated. He was an outfielder, so I doubt his suspect defense detracts much from his overall value.

5. Bresnahan, Roger -- I was surprised to see that in my system he was quite a bit better as a hitter than Charlie Bennett, though certainly not as good defensively. If you stack Bresnahan's WS and WARP1 numbers against the catchers actually elected to the HoF, he looks very solid. He’s also a worthy vote because catchers only comprise 6% of our HoM.

6. Caruthers, Bob -- WARP1 helped him leap higher on my ballot and I re-examined pitchers, which also bumped him up. Also, I stepped away from the numbers and looked at the big picture, and he was one hell of a baseball player. Too bad he didn’t play a bit longer and in the tougher National League.

7. Monroe, Bill -- His alleged comp is Jimmy Collins. He certainly appears every bit as good as Grant, but competition was stiffening in his era, so he deserves a bit more credit than Grant, IMO. I don’t see him getting elected now that Grant is in, but I would have preferred Monroe.

8. Leach, Tommy -- His numbers are deflated by the era, but normalized he looks very good. I've got him with 7 gold gloves at two different tough positions. He’s the only 3b candidate within sniffing distance of election (he played approximately half his games there).

9. Jones, Charley -- I give no additional credit for blacklisted seasons. He hit about as well as McVey, with power, but with a smaller WS peak and fewer WS per 162 games. I think he has been overlooked from the beginning.

10. Griffith, Clark -- An excellent win pct on some bad teams. I boost his win totals and win pct by approximately 1/2 of his Wins Above Team, which are outstanding. Has a nice career Linear Weights total also. My in/out line would be right after Griffith.

11. Duffy, Hugh -- He has some good counting stats, good grey ink and scores well on WS and WARP1 measures. In my system he bests Thompson based primarily on pennants added.

12. Waddell, Rube -- Comparable to Griffith, but win totals are far less impressive. Can't see putting him ahead of Griffith, unless you overvalue strikeouts.

13. Thompson, Sam -- Another pure hitter with questionable outfield defense. I don't think he was anywhere near as good a hitter as Browning. He didn't have an incredible peak or career, from a WS perspective, as outfielders go.

14. Larry Doyle -- He was consistently in the grey ink and his WS numbers hold up very well against HOF second basemen. Eight STATS All-Star teams. WARP doesn't like him nearly as much, probably because WARP seems to put too much weight on fielding (as if it is half the game), and he wasn't so hot in that department.

15. Jimmy Sheckard -- Bounces on and off my ballot, depending on how many we elect and how many newcomers are HoM worthy. I think he was an excellent player, but he just doesn't excite me as a HoMer.

Required Disclosures:

Pierce, Dickey -- Just outside the ballot. In part, it is because I have a hard time measuring him against other shortstops, since we don't have as much head-to-head data. I also think we are a little saturated with shortstops in the HoM right now. He's ranked #16, just ahead of Jake Beckley.

Wallace, Bobby -- His WS numbers are not that impressive in relation to existing HoF shortstops (he's at the bottom of the stack) and he was only the best shortstop in the league once. He's ranked #22 in my system, behind Willis and ahead of Chance.

Pike, Lip –I’ve given him a big boost for pre-NA play, though it appears to be documented more poorly than a player like Joe Start. Had some monster years, but only really played until he was 33, and his defense appears to have been very poor. He’s tied for #33 in my system, with Joss and Kauff.
   90. RMc's Burdensome Anonymity Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:29 PM (#659076)
1927
1. Joe Jackson: The best hitter on the ballot. Period.
2. Bob Caruthers: Great pitcher, pretty good hitter. (I'm not giving up on him.)
3. Bobby Wallace: Never brilliant, but very good-to-great. Long career, too.
4. Sam Thompson: Wotta hitter!
5. Jimmy Sheckard: Drew lotsa walks, great defense. (Nobody noticed at the time, but…)
6. Joe McGinnity: OK, I'm convinced enough to move him up a bit…
7. Pete Hill: How good was he, really? We'll never know.
8. Jake Beckley: Consistent; a cut below the top contenders.
9. George van Haltren: Caruthers' evil twin.
10. Rube Foster: A legend…and he could pitch some, too, y'know…
11. Dickey Pearce: A great player, lost to the vagaries of time.
12. Lip Pike: If only he was ten years younger…
13. Hughie Jennings: Ee-Yah…!!
14. Rube Waddell: Great pitcher, mostly remembered as a punchline.
15. Gavvy Cravath: Short but sweet career. And how can you ignore a guy named Gavvy?
   91. sunnyday2 Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:36 PM (#659092)
Pike "only" played until he was 33. Your #1, 6 and 12 did even less, and #13 and #14 played one year more than that despite the substantial advantages of 2X ML teams and many more jobs than that, plus modern conditioning, nutrition, etc.

There aren't 200 classic long-career superstars to put into the HoM. A 13 year career at 150+ OPS by a middle infielder/CF at a time when the average career was shorter than at any time since is not a very short career.

Also, unless I am mistaken, DavidFoss posted much new info about the play of Pearce, Pike, Start and others. I have dutifully removed Harry Wright from my ballot as a result. It would be nice if we didn't hear too much more about a lack of info about these guys after David's yeoman effort. What the data shows, clearly, is that Pearce in particular was a more valuable player than Start through 1871 and Pike very nearly Pearce's equal.

Finally, Pike played key defensive positions throughout his career. How bad could his defense have been? (I say that with a ;-) as it is a direct quote from an "analysis" of Larry Doyle. But seriously, he played key defensive positions and if our defensive stats today are not very enlightening, I'm not sure I know what to make of defensive stats from 150 years ago when there were no gloves and 67% of all runs scored were unearned.)

If we gave Pearce and Pike as much slack as Pete Hill, they would have been elected in 1898. No, make that 1897.
   92. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:38 PM (#659095)
Been a while RMc. Good to have you back!
   93. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:43 PM (#659108)
1927 ballot

Methodology:
I've decided to try to rank players statistically rather than by gut-feeling comparisons of some basic numbers. I will try to evaluate 30 players per election. For each of them, I consider eight categories. I take the player's five best years in three stats: OPS+/ERA+, WARP2 straight-line adjusted for season (adding them together to get 5-year-peak WARP), and WS adjusted for season length (added to get 5-year-peak WS), all adjusted for league difficulty (using an 11% AA discount). These make the three peak categories. Next, I take the player's career season/league adjusted WARP2 and WS, and career league-adjusted OPS+/ERA+ minus 80 (replacement level) times the number of seasons played. These are the three career categories. Finally, I modified the Ink tests for my personal preferences (3 points for BA/OBP/SLG and ERA/WHIP/K, 2 points for HR/R/RBI/SB and IP/W/SV/CG, 1 point for H/BB/TB and W-L%/GS/SHO). In each of these categories, I calculate the mean and standard deviation for the 30 players I'm considering and then get z-scores in each category for each player. Finally, I add these z-scores to get a final score. (note: I have received some good feedback on improving this system and will try to for 1928). I haven't been able to make KJOK's MLE's for Negro Leaguers work in my system yet, so I'll just use the agreed-upon comps as guidelines.

1. Joe Jackson (7.75). Plus ca change. Jackson is above average for this ballot in every category except Black Ink, and again, it’s not his fault that Speaker and Cobb played in the AL. His 183 five-year peak OPS+ dominates the ballot (z=2.21) and he leads in my Gray Ink (z=1.77), while he’s second in lifetime OPS+*years (z=1.54) and third in peak WS (z=1.05). I do see him as a no-doubt-about it HoM kinda guy.

2. Bob Caruthers (7.35). Well, he jumps a few light years up my ballot. I know WS may overrate 1880’s pitchers, but after applying the AA discount he tops out at 40 pitching WS for a season, which seems reasonable. As a two-way player matched only by the transitional Babe Ruth, Caruthers’ 1885-89 peak just dominates everyone else. My 287 calculated Win Shares over those five years are almost silly (z=4.03), but I think that shows just how much of an outlier this guy was—he was the best hitter and the best pitcher in his league in ’86, and the best pitcher and second-best hitter in ’87. WARP loves his peak too (z=2.40), and he actually tops the ballot in career WS (z=1.60) while placing well above average in the Ink categories. The only stat dragging him down is Peak OPS+/ERA+, and that’s because I’m not giving him credit for his hitting there (if I did, he’d probably zip by Jackson). The more I look at him, he was simply an unparalleled player, and we would be amiss not to recognize this level of dominance.

3. Sam Thompson (5.45). Drops a spot due to my massive reevaluation of Caruthers, but emerges from my new rating system none the worse for wear. Big Sam doesn’t dominate any category, but I am more convinced than ever he is the second-best hitter on the ballot: 1.34 SD above average in my Gray Ink, 1.14 in peak OPS+, 1.09 in career WARP. Only WS doesn’t really like him, and even then he comes out just below average for this ballot in both career and peak. Let’s face it, guys: The man could hit.

4. Iron Joe McGinnity (3.88). A drop-off from a clear top three for me, but McGinnity has fared well in my reevaluation, leapfrogging many players I was sure were better than him. The guy just racked up Black Ink like there was no tomorrow (z=2.48), and due to all those innings had the second-best peak Win Shares (z=1.08) of anyone on the ballot. He’s a bit unimpressive in peak ERA+ and career WARP, but man, did he fill up those leaderboards. He’s not my kind of player, but I’ve gotta give him credit.

5. Lip Pike (3.52). First of all, I found out he was a Jew (ahem, Rosenheck, ahem). He doesn’t get any extra points from me for paving the way for Hank Greenberg, Sandy Koufax, and (of course!) Shawn Green, but it doesn’t hurt either. What he does get extra points for is his pre-1871 play, which I have arbitrarily estimated at about 5.5 WARP per season. This elevates him above his very close competitors Browning and Waddell. His 177 peak OPS+ earns major brownie points (second to Jackson with z=1.81), and he’s average or above everywhere else. He really did own the NA. I don’t see what makes McVey, who got in over a decade ago, *that* much stronger than the Lip.

6. Pete Browning (3.42). Rated higher before I applied the AA discount, but was still the fifth-best hitter of his era (Brouthers, Connor, Anson, Kelly). He tops the ballot in OPS+*Years at z=2.00, while registering well-above-average scores in Peak OPS+ and both Ink categories and holding his own in peak WARP and WS and career WS. Only career WARP is holding him back from the no. 4 spot, where I would be otherwise inclined to put him. Just an extraordinary and underappreciated hitter.

7. Rube Waddell (3.30). Oh, how my favorites have fallen. As a DIPS devotee, I have a soft spot for Waddell, who from 1902-08 struck out 1/3 more batters per 9 than the league's second-place finishers in K’s per 9, including 1902 when he fanned hitters 82% more often than next-best finisher Jack Powell. Rube clearly got vastly more outs through his own pitching than any of his contemporaries, which is reflected in his strong showings in Black and Gray Ink (z=1.81, .83). He also fares well in lifetime ERA+*Years (z=.91) and peak ERA+ (z=.80). But WARP and WS just don’t see it. His peak registered just average on this ballot by both measures, and his career totals were over half a SD below the mean in each category. He’s one of my favorites, and I have no doubt he is a HoM’er, but he really only pitched for ten years and was only great in four of them.
   94. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:45 PM (#659114)
ahhhh!! that was an early draft. please strike that from the record. re-submitting...
   95. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:47 PM (#659118)
What the data shows, clearly, is that Pearce in particular was a more valuable player than Start through 1871 and Pike very nearly Pearce's equal.

... and since Start was an above average player well into the 1880s (at an advanced age, mind you), we can use him to compare Pearce and Pike to his standard (and virtually eliminate "the bad competition" rap against Pearce and Pike).
   96. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#659121)
ahhhh!! that was an early draft. please strike that from the record. re-submitting...

OK, Dan. As long as you don't make any more corrections to it later on. :-)
   97. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:51 PM (#659127)
If we gave Pearce and Pike as much slack as Pete Hill, they would have been elected in 1898.

Of course Marc, I wasn't that sold on Pike and Pearce didn't even make my ballot in '98! :)
   98. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 04, 2004 at 07:55 PM (#659137)
Methodology:
I've decided to try to rank players statistically rather than by gut-feeling comparisons of some basic numbers. I will try to evaluate 30 players per election. For each of them, I consider eight categories. I take the player's five best years in three stats: OPS+/ERA+, WARP2 straight-line adjusted for season (adding them together to get 5-year-peak WARP), and WS adjusted for season length (added to get 5-year-peak WS), all adjusted for league difficulty (using an 11% AA discount). These make the three peak categories. Next, I take the player's career season/league adjusted WARP2 and WS, and career league-adjusted OPS+/ERA+ minus 80 (replacement level) times the number of seasons played. These are the three career categories. Finally, I modified the Ink tests for my personal preferences (3 points for BA/OBP/SLG/fielding WS and ERA/WHIP/K, 2 points for HR/R/RBI/SB and IP/W/SV/CG, 1 point for H/BB/TB and W-L%/GS/SHO). In each of these categories, I calculate the mean and standard deviation for the 30 players I'm considering and then get z-scores in each category for each player. Finally, I add these z-scores to get a final score. (note: I have received some good feedback on improving this system and will try to for 1928). I haven't been able to make KJOK's MLE's for Negro Leaguers work in my system yet, so I'll just use the agreed-upon comps as guidelines.

1. Joe Jackson (7.33). Plus ca change. Jackson is above average for this ballot in every category except Black Ink, and again, it’s not his fault that Speaker and Cobb played in the AL. His 183 five-year peak OPS+ dominates the ballot (z=2.21) and he leads in my Gray Ink (z=1.72), while he’s second in lifetime OPS+*years (z=1.54) and third in peak WS (z=1.05). I do see him as a no-doubt-about it HoM kinda guy.

2. Bob Caruthers (6.94). Well, he jumps a few light years up my ballot. I know WS may overrate 1880’s pitchers, but after applying the AA discount he tops out at 40 pitching WS for a season, which seems reasonable. As a two-way player matched only by the transitional Babe Ruth, Caruthers’ 1885-89 peak just dominates everyone else. My 287 calculated Win Shares over those five years are almost silly (z=4.03), but I think that shows just how much of an outlier this guy was—he was the best hitter and the best pitcher in his league in ’86, and the best pitcher and second-best hitter in ’87. WARP loves his peak too (z=2.40), and he actually tops the ballot in career WS (z=1.60) while placing well above average in the Ink categories. The only stat dragging him down is Peak OPS+/ERA+, and that’s because I’m not giving him credit for his hitting there (if I did, he’d probably zip by Jackson). The more I look at him, he was simply an unparalleled player, and we would be amiss not to recognize this level of dominance.

3. Sam Thompson (5.33). Drops a spot due to my reevaluation of Caruthers, but emerges from my new rating system none the worse for wear. Big Sam doesn’t dominate any category, but I am more convinced than ever he is the second-best hitter on the ballot: 1.36 SD above average in my Gray Ink, 1.14 in peak OPS+, 1.09 in career WARP. Only WS doesn’t really like him, and even then he comes out just below average for this ballot in both career and peak. Let’s face it, guys: The man could hit.

4. Iron Joe McGinnity (3.91). A drop-off from a clear top three for me, but McGinnity has fared well in my reevaluation, leapfrogging many players I was sure were better than him. The guy just racked up Black Ink like there was no tomorrow (z=2.67), and due to all those innings had the second-best peak Win Shares (z=1.08) of anyone on the ballot. He’s a bit unimpressive in peak ERA+ and career WARP, but man, did he fill up those leaderboards. He’s not my kind of player, but I’ve gotta give him credit.

5. Pete Hill. Everyone is saying he comps to Sheckard, but since he was the best hitter in black baseball for four years and Sheckard may never have been the best hitter in white baseball, he gets the higher slot.

6. Jimmy Sheckard (3.41). Benefits a lot from my reconstructed Ink tests, which value fielding WS (Black Ink z=.72). *Very* strong career WARP and WS (z=1.38 and 1.24), and on the top half of the ballot in everything except peak OPS+, where he was still respectable. The fielding separates him from his offensive comps Ryan and Van Haltren.

7. Pete Browning (3.36). Rated higher before I applied the AA discount, but was still the fifth-best hitter of his era (Brouthers, Connor, Anson, Kelly). He tops the ballot in OPS+*Years at z=2.00, while registering well-above-average scores in Peak OPS+ and both Ink categories and holding his own in peak WARP and WS and career WS. Only career WARP is holding him back from the no. 4 spot, where I would be otherwise inclined to put him. Just an extraordinary and underappreciated hitter.
   99. karlmagnus Posted: June 04, 2004 at 08:00 PM (#659148)
Marc/sunnyday2. I agree that Pearce was better than anyone else we've looked at in 1870 and before, but not than Start. Reading backwards from 1870, their positions as hitters among their teammates was as follows:

Start:1/1/1/1/1/1/5/3/8/1/3 (1860)

Pearce:2/4/2/2/8/5/2/2/1/1/3/1/6/3 (1857)

Since these get less meaningful as we go backwards, it's a very clear lead for Start; it doesn't put me off Pearce altogether but reminds me just how good Start was, since he was a marginal HOMer based on 1871 and after.

Yes, OK, Pearce was a SS, but how much difference was there really between SS and 1B at this time? -- if Pearce invented the SS role, after the game had been played for about 20 years, it suggests that it wasn't at first anything like as essential as it later became. These people weren't turning a lot of DPs.

I'm an FO Pearce based on the desirability of electing more players from the ur-period of the game, but he really doesn't knock my socks off. While his prehistoric record is better than Pike or Meyerle, his historical record is nowehere near as good. As I said, all 4 of the pioneers are very close

For a Pioneer wing, I'd strongly favor Pearce and H. Wright but not Pike, whose mark on the game seems to have been mostly negative, or Meyerle, who seems to have glided through its formative years without a trace.
   100. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 04, 2004 at 08:20 PM (#659200)
8. Rube Waddell (3.17). Oh, how my favorites have fallen. As a DIPS devotee, I have a soft spot for Waddell, who from 1902-08 struck out 1/3 more batters per 9 than the league's second-place finishers in K’s per 9, including 1902 when he fanned hitters 82% more often than next-best finisher Jack Powell. Rube clearly got vastly more outs through his own pitching than any of his contemporaries, which is reflected in his strong showings in Black and Gray Ink (1.87, .64). He also fares well in lifetime ERA+*Years (z=.91) and peak ERA+ (z=.80). But WARP and WS just don’t see it. His peak registered just average on this ballot by both measures, and his career totals were over half a SD below the mean in each category. He’s one of my favorites, and I have no doubt he is a HoM’er, but he really only pitched for ten years and was only great in four of them.

9. Lip Pike (2.86). First of all, I found out he was a Jew (ahem, Rosenheck, ahem). He doesn’t get any extra points from me for paving the way for Hank Greenberg, Sandy Koufax, and (of course!) Shawn Green, but it doesn’t hurt either. What he does get extra points for is his pre-1871 play, which I have arbitrarily estimated at about 5.5 WARP per season. His 177 peak OPS+ earns major brownie points (second to Jackson with z=1.81), and he’s average or above everywhere else. He really did own the NA. As there aren't fielding WS for the NA I may be underestimating his Ink scores, but as I just don't think he was as great as Waddell I'm happy to have him here. I don’t see what makes McVey, who got in over a decade ago, so much stronger than the Lip.

10. Jimmy Ryan (2.05). Very strong career totals, as he’s second on the ballot in career WARP (z=1.73) and fourth in total Win Shares (z=1.43). But it’s just not enough peak for me, as he’s right at the mean in all three peak categories and nearly an SD below in both the Inks. While an average peak for a 30-player HoM ballot is certainly impressive, I’m one of those guys who thinks you can never get great by just being good.

11. Jake Beckley (1.98). As a peak voter, I hate this type of player. But his routine finishes near the top of the fielding WS for 1B prevent Black Ink from killing him (z=-.42), and the guy did just play forever. He is over a Z of 1 in Gray Ink and all three career categories. I can't leave him off my ballot.

12. Vic Willis (1.97). He was just one of the better pitchers in his league every year, as evidenced by his Gray Ink Z of 1.69, good for second on the ballot. Good Win Shares, pitched a long time. Not a HoM'er, but definitely underrated by the group, I think.

13. Gavvy Cravath (1.20). Oh how I love thee, Cactus Gavvy. When all those weenie deadball slap hitters were jackrabbiting around the bases, you were playing baseball as it was meant to be played, drawing walks and cranking longballs. Your superb power-hitting peak shows up in a dominant Black Ink score (z=2.14), and good finishes in the OPS+ categories. But even crediting you as a 13.5 WS player from 1909-1911, you just can’t get it done in the counting stats, especially WARP, which found your glovework (aside from 1915) quite unimpressive. Since you’re around a half SD below the mean in peak WARP and career WARP and WS, you can’t make the top ten, or my PHoM. How the mighty have fallen.

14. Hugh Duffy (1.12). Only one great, great year in 1894 (I know it was the biggest offensive season ever, but .440/.502/.694 is just so damn cool), yet a well above average player for a very long time. Consistent hitting and good glovework meant he finished strong in the Ink categories, and is a full SD above the mean in career WS. Needed a few more great seasons to make my PHoM.

15. Eddie Cicotte (.98). Good peak ERA+ (z=1.11), average most elsewhere.
Page 1 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
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.6903 seconds
68 querie(s) executed