Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, May 24, 2004

1927 Ballot Discussion

The top new candidates (thanks DanG and Chris Cobb!):

WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
287 73.1 1907 Ed Konetchy-1b (1947)
227 52.6 1908 Dode Paskert-CF (1959)
205 50.7 1910 Hippo Vaughn-P (1966)
189 48.4 1908 Slim Sallee-P (1950)
180 42.2 1910 Duffy Lewis-LF (1979)
161 44.9 1911 Ray Caldwell-P (1967)
155 38.0 1909 Dots Miller-1b/2b (1923)
143 37.9 1911 Lefty Tyler-P (1953)
106 28.8 1914 Braggo Roth-RF (1936)

Negro Leaguers
HF%—from expert voting in _Cool Papas and Double Duties_
BJ—Bill James positonal ranking in _NBJHBA_
MVP—Sum of Bill James’ best player and best pitcher awards and John Holway’s MVP and best pitcher awards
All-Star—number of times player designated as seasonal all-star by John Holway

HF% Career  Name-pos (born)          BJ    MVP All-Star
68% 1901-25 Pete Hill-CF/LF (1880)  #4 lf   2     5*
08% 1909-21 Frank Wickware-P (1888)         2     1*
00% 1914-21 Horace Jenkins-OF       (??)    1     2*

Players Passing Away in 1926

HoMers
Age Elected
75 1914 Cal McVey-C/1B
50 1924 Eddie Plank-P

Candidates
Age Eligible
66 1901 Bill Hutchison-P
64 1899 George Pinkney-3B
63 1900 Danny Richardson-2B
60 1903 Lou Bierbauer-2B

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 24, 2004 at 10:12 AM | 387 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 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4
   301. KJOK Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:14 AM (#654439)
It's at least possible that the centerfielders were just, on average, better players than the first basemen.

Sure, it's always POSSIBLE, and this is exactly what you see in Little Leagues (SS's and P's hit the best), but it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY at the far right of the ability curve. The requirement that CF's need to be fast enough to cover ground, and have a good arm, etc. should theoretically "weed out" enough players who were good hitters but couldn't meet the defensive requirements of the position that those players would then gravitate towards 1B, LF, etc. where the pool of potential players that could meet the positions skill demands would be higher, bumping the lighter hitting 1B,LF, RF to the bench, thus raising the offensive output at 1B, LF, RF. The only way that CF's on average could be better players BOTH offensively and defensively is if managers employed sum-optimum lineups, which is certainly possible over short time frames since they don't have "perfect" information, but highly unlikely over longer time frames as they would be putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
   302. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 04:04 AM (#654547)
The 2nd part is to infer the defensive spectrum by looking at the offense at the postion

I've never considered this a good idea for purposes of determining the spectrum shift. It makes sense to look at the offensive production to get a clue at whether the spectrum should be evaluated for a shift, but it isn't the evaluation itself. You have to actually analyze the game and the fielding information to conclude that it actually shifted.

It's too easy to look at a few OPS numbers and assume that is a reflection of positional defense -- and I particularly wouldn't use OPS for the analysis.

...there were fewer balls hit to the OF in the early days of baseball, many more bunt plays and throws to the bases for 1st basemen, and with more errors on the infield, more opportunities for a good 1st baseman to prevent errors from other infielder throws.

This is the right approach to the problem. There were definitely more bunt plays, but mostly in the deadball periods, and not every season from 1876-1919 is a deadball season. And yes, there were more errors on the infield, but many of those extra errors were fielding errors, not throwing errors -- so we have to be careful not to overstate a first baseman's preventative abilities.

I selected 15 random league seasons from 1876-1919 (Group 1) and 15 random league seasons from 1920-1995 (Group 2).

In Group 1, infielders (other than pitchers) made about 72% of the outs and outfielders made about 28% of the outs. I excluded strikeouts from the infielders PO of course. I also excluded OF assists from the infielders PO totals, because those are really OF plays, not IF plays (and we're discussing first basemen here, who rarely get the PO for an OF assist).

In Group 2, using the same methods, infielders (other than pitchers) made about 70% of the outs and outfielders made about 30% of the outs.

So yes, Group 1 infielders had a greater role in outs than the Group 2 infielders, but not much. The difference is about 1 out per game. I've got to believe that the largest share of that 1 out per game goes to 2b, SS and 3b, rather than 1b.

This was just a quick and dirty look, not a full-blown study, so it is ripe for further data analysis. However, I'm still not convinced that it was easier to play CF than 1b. I've got to believe that anyone who could play CF defensively back then could play 1b too.

Did anyone get too lame to play 1b and get moved to CF to hide the deficiencies?
   303. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:40 AM (#654727)
"The CF position came up with Cobb and Speaker for the teens - and the 1B position wouldn't come up with Gehrig until the middle of the 20's. I don't see that these outliers are by themselves evidence for an inverted defensive spectrum."

KJOK's numbers were great, they really help to shed some light on the spectrum, as does jimd's post.

But I think you should be using the replacement level - something like the bottom 3 regulars for your averages. By using this point, you eliminate the 'star outlier' problem. Let's say there are no stars, so you are taking #14-16. Then you import Ichiro and Matsui from Japan or something. If you replace #15 and #16 with Ichiro and Matsui, it throws your average off pretty big time. But if you replace #15 & #16 with with #12 & #13 in your average, it's not much of a difference.

You'd find something similar with AL SS's from the last 10 years. But by using the bottom of the league to figure out the defensive spectrum, you avert the issues with star glut.

If someone could do this, it would go a long way towards answering some of our questions. I don't have the time right now - I know Robert Dudek did something similar a long time ago - the results definitely showed the 2B/3B issue, also showed that RF, relatively speaking, was 'worse' in the 19th Century than DH is now.
   304. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 02, 2004 at 05:43 AM (#654728)
Jeff - I disagree, I think using offense is really the only way to figure out the relative value of defensive positions.

The number of plays if meaningless, for example, as this says nothing about degree of difficulty on the plays made. Heck, 1B have more chances than anyone.

But a manager is generally going to play the best hitter that can reasonably field the position out there. That's why defensive replacement level is average, but offensive replacement level is significantly below average.

So if you take the bottom hitters in the league at each position, you should get a pretty good idea of which positions require the most skill to play successfully.

I can't think of any other way to do it.
   305. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 07:58 AM (#654757)
I think using offense is really the only way to figure out the relative value of defensive positions.

I'm currently e-mailing this to Merriam-Webster for use under the definition of "oxymoron."
   306. Jeff M Posted: June 02, 2004 at 08:06 AM (#654758)
The number of plays if meaningless, for example, as this says nothing about degree of difficulty on the plays made. Heck, 1B have more chances than anyone.

I understand that the number of plays doesn't say anything about degree of difficulty. My response was to a statement that infielders made "more plays". I wasn't addressing the quality of the plays.

Anyway, I don't understand what the degree of difficulty has to do with putting 1b ahead of CF on the spectrum. Are you asserting that standing still and catching the ball (sometimes in the dirt) is somehow more difficult than covering a lot of outfield territory and having to throw? Yes 1b had to field more bunts, but how many more? Mostly, they still just stood there and caught the ball when it was thrown to them.

That's WHY 1b one of the lowest defensive positions on the spectrum: it doesn't involve a high degree of difficulty. Today, virtually everyone on the field can play 1b if he isn't good enough to play somewhere else. Washed up third baseman, catchers, outfielders (and even some DH's) play 1b.

I'll admit the possibility that right fielders and left fielders in the early years may not have converted to 1b as easily, but I think saying that center fielders couldn't adapt to 1b, but first basemen could adapt to CF, is absurd. And that's what you're saying if you put 1b ahead of CF on the defensive spectrum.
   307. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 02, 2004 at 09:04 AM (#654767)
"Are you asserting that standing still and catching the ball (sometimes in the dirt) is somehow more difficult than covering a lot of outfield territory and having to throw? Yes 1b had to field more bunts, but how many more? Mostly, they still just stood there and caught the ball when it was thrown to them."

I'm saying that is was tougher to 'stand still and catch the ball' when the glove was smaller, than it is today, I'm positive of that.

It was tougher to stand still and catch the ball 10-12 times a game, before there were gloves and a lot of strikeouts than it was to run it down in centerfield 3 times a game, I'm pretty sure. I'm positive that constant beating on the hands made it harder to hit the ball at that time too.

But I'm not saying it was tougher than playing centerfield for the entire period of 1871-1920. I'm saying we don't know based on the available information. If we find that the worst hitting first-basemen hit worse than the worst the worst hitting centerfielders, then I'd say that it's extremely convincing evidence that the skills needed to play 1B in that era were harder to come by than the skills needed to play centerfield.
   308. Chris Cobb Posted: June 02, 2004 at 03:35 PM (#655066)
But a manager is generally going to play the best hitter that can reasonably field the position out there. That's why defensive replacement level is average, but offensive replacement level is significantly below average.

I'm not convinced that standard management wisdom in the 1900-1920 period followed this paradigm, or that standard management wisdom was especially adept at identifying the best hitters.

See the careers of Bill Bergen, Gavvy Cravath, and Morrie Rath. I think it's just as arguable that the "conventional wisdom" dictated that a) slow sluggers were of questionable value because they couldn't beat out bunts and b) it was really important to have an agile first baseman, even though neither of these propositions were actually true. Game strategy was still rapidly evolving during the deadball era (and would be turned on its head by the Babe), so I don't think we can assume that the "conventional wisdom" is entirely trustworthy.
   309. KJOK Posted: June 02, 2004 at 11:19 PM (#655849)
but I think saying that center fielders couldn't adapt to 1b, but first basemen could adapt to CF, is absurd. And that's what you're saying if you put 1b ahead of CF on the defensive spectrum.

Not exactly. What putting 1B farther to the right of CF on the defensive spectrum means is that more players can fill the minimum defensive requirements of CF than can fill the minimum defensive requirements of 1B.

The argument, highly siimplfied, would be that CF simply requires that you can catch fly balls while
1B requires that you anticipate bunts, have quick relfexes & can field sharp ground balls, can make snap decisions on when to try for runners at 2B, 3B, & home, and can scoop up and prevent errors on throws from other infielders.

A modern example of an individual player would be Joe Morgan. Morgan played an average to good 2B, but he probably didn't have the arm to play any of the OF positions or 3B, and didn't have the height to play 1B, even though those positions are left of 2B on the modern defensive spectrum.
   310. robc Posted: June 03, 2004 at 02:44 AM (#656522)
Morgan played 14 games at LF, 2 at CF, and 3 at 3B in his career. He could have played Left Field regularly if necessary. There have been some bad left field arms.
   311. sunnyday2 Posted: June 03, 2004 at 04:16 AM (#656758)
Thanks jimd for post #284. I'm not sure that the differences shown by position and by decade are statistically significant, are you? I mean how many SS seasons (C seasons, 3B seasons, etc.) are there in a decade? Well, anywhere from about 80 to about 300, I guess. Is a 5% differential between SS and (whatever) statistically significant across a sample size of 80? 160? I don't know for sure, but I think not.

Certainly the data for pitchers is significant. And maybe, maybe the numbers for 19th century catchers. But other than that, it is suggestive but not conclusive in my mind.

This point is made by the differences among scores for the same position over time. IOW was SS easier or less important in the 1900s vs. the 1910s? The 1990s vs. the 1970s? Or do the numbers simply reflect the random impact of outliers like Wagner, Ripken, ARod, etc?

So I'm not sure how to use these numbers. In the end it comes down to individual cases. We're not voting for types.
   312. Guapo Posted: June 03, 2004 at 08:18 AM (#656934)
Hi guys. I’m a long time lurker who decided about 3 elections ago that he wanted to get involved and have been playing catch-up with rankings since then. I think I’m ready to go. My understanding is that in order to get involved I need to first post a provisional ballot here with explanations. If there’s anything else I need to do, please let me know (I did sign up with the Yahoo group.)

As will soon become apparent, I am a peak voter....

1. Joe Jackson- And as a result, Jackson stands out for me from the rest of this ballot in a big way.
2. Pete Hill- The analysis on this board validates the opinions of those who saw him play. No reason to believe he was anything but an all-time great.
3. Larry Doyle- I was surprised he didn’t get more support last time- he looks like an obvious pick to me. Finished in top 10 in league in OPS+ 7 times- there aren’t many on the ballot who can top that, plus he’s a 2Bman. His defense would have to be pretty bad to nullify that kind of offense.
4. Rube Foster- Was benchmarked throughout his career by observers to guys like Rusie, Young and Waddell. His performance throughout the oughts was remarkable- I can’t hold it against him that he didn’t have the career arc of an Eddie Plank.
5. Joe McGinnity- A fair number of his deadball pitcher peers have already gone in, but in my opinion he’s far above the other eliigble moundsmen.... I wanted to vote for more than 2 pitchers, but right now I can’t see anyone else that I want to see elected.
6. Gavvy Cravath- Impressive peak, but his career is relatively short even by my low standards, so he might slip down the ballot. Can’t quite rationalize putting Konetchy ahead of him at this point though.
7. Ed Konetchy - The best first baseman of his time, largely forgotten because of the era and teams for which he played. I know most people have Chance ahead of him on peak, but I think it’s too close to call, and Konetchy’s way ahead on career value.
8. Bill Monroe- Rube Foster reportedly described him as the greatest player he ever saw. Long career, certainly comparable to Grant- so could rank higher.
9. Frank Chance- Bill James compared him to Keith Hernandez in the first Historical Abstract- that always stuck with me. An OBP stud who was an offensive star, albeit for a short time.
10. Roger Bresnahan- Benefits from a big positional boost. Very unique career makes him difficult to compare to others, and so ranking him is a challenge.
11. Dickey Pearce- Mentally, I’ve had him everywhere in the last couple of weeks from 1st to off the ballot. The arguments in his favor on this board have been convincing. What I need to see in order to move him up is clear evidence that he was a dominant offensive player during his career. I’m open-minded, but in the meantime I’ve decided to cop out slightly and rank him around my personal threshold of electability.
12. Tommy Leach- Like some others here, I’m surprised he hasn’t been doing better- would seem like a guy who’d appeal to career voters. I like his 3B/CF versatility, so he might move up.
13. Fielder Jones- Never would have believed when I started this that he’d end up on the ballot, but here he is. The best centerfielder in baseball between Hamilton and Cobb.
14. Lip Pike- Another guy who could rank higher- I don’t have a good feel for if he should be getting credit for the 1860's, and if so, how much.
15. Levi Meyerle - Can’t justify ranking him much lower than Pike- his career doesn’t seem much shorter, and he was an NA star. Short career doesn’t seem particularly unusual in the context of his times. Might move up as a result.
   313. Guapo Posted: June 03, 2004 at 08:21 AM (#656935)
Notable omissions:

Bobby Wallace: I get that the long career is impressive, but I don’t believe he was ever really a “great” player, which is my threshold standard. If Bobby Wallace was the best player on your team, would you expect that team to win the pennant?... why is Wallace ranking so high, while Herman Long is barely pulling any votes?

Jimmy Sheckard: Very good player, but I see him as the third-best leftfielder in his not-particularly deep league for most of his career, behind Clarke and Magee. Might make the bottom of my ballot some day, but unlikely (he’ll probably be elected before that happens)

Sam Thompson: Ranks similar to Sheckard in my mind.... a good player, but I would rank him behind a bunch of his late 80's-early 90's peers (including Tiernan).

Bob Caruthers: The only thing I’m sure of is I have nothing to add to the discussion. He burned brightly for a few years, but his numbers aren’t that much more spectacular than his peers, and the career numbers are really short. I’m more likely to support McCormick or Mullane.

Jake Beckley: A personal fave, but he was the fourth best 1B for most of his career, whereas Konetchy and Chance were the best of their eras.

George Van Haltren: I’ve gone back and looked at him, but I see him as well behind his contemporaries Duffy and Ryan. Will never make my ballot.

Jimmy Ryan: You know the story... similar to Van Haltren. I’d take Jimmy over George based on peak. Ryan’s not a bad candidate, but there’s a limit to how many 1890's outfielders I can support.

Rube Waddell: Another great, but probably about the seventh best pitcher of his era behind a lot of guys who’ve already been elected. I would rank him around where I’d rank Hippo Vaughn.

Hope I can participate. Thanks for taking a look.
   314. karlmagnus Posted: June 03, 2004 at 11:36 AM (#656952)
Guapo, your point on Wallace answers your doubt about Caruthers. He should not be regarded simply as a pitcher; he was also for a few years among the best hitters in the league. If you had Caruthers on your team, at his best, and an average supporting cast, it would be quite difficult NOT to win the pennant. His peak value, however you measure it, is an order of magnitude higher than anyone else on this ballot including even Jackson.
   315. karlmagnus Posted: June 03, 2004 at 11:44 AM (#656954)
Guapo and, by the way (not that I'm any more than a gadfly and irritant in this group!) welcome!
   316. TomH Posted: June 03, 2004 at 11:48 AM (#656955)
Welcome, Guapo! Thanks for taking the time to follow the guidelines and give us a well-thought-out prelim ballot.

re: karlmagnus' point above -- I'm not a peak voter, so I'm also then not the best friend of Caruthers, but it is surprising to me that you'd not be in favor of Bob since you value peak highly. Even I would admit his W-L record is mighty impressive.
   317. stephen Posted: June 03, 2004 at 12:27 PM (#656962)
Hey, as a fellow longtime lurker who just got involved... welcome!

I'd just like to say that I've had more difficulty ranking Caruthers than any other player, but I think your ranking of him should be based on how you feel about these issues:

1) Are you a peak voter? He's got a tremendous peak, but outside of that, there is very little to his career. You have to determine your comfort level.
2) The AA. What do you think of the quality of the league? Win shares can't rate the quality of competition, actually it has to assume all wins are created equal. A discount for the AA hurts Caruthers
3) Relation to other pitchers. You're not ranking the guy in a vaccuum. How do you rate him compared to other peak guys like Joss or Waddell?
   318. Chris Cobb Posted: June 03, 2004 at 02:35 PM (#657096)
Guapo, welcome!

Your preliminary ballot looks well-reasoned.

I have one question for you: have you given thorough consideration to the short-career, high-peak players of the 1890s who remain eligible? I notice that your ballot holds twelve twentieth-century players and three from the 1860s-1870s, but nobody who peaked in the 80s or 90s.

I'm thinking especially of Cupid Childs, Hughie Jennings, and John McGraw. If you like Larry Doyle and Frank Chance, these are players whose merits (to me, at least) seem quite similar. They haven't gotten a lot of discussion in the past few years (with the limited exception of Childs), so it occurred to me that you might not have had an impetus to consider them carefully. If you haven't, I think you'll find they're worth a look.
   319. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 03, 2004 at 04:13 PM (#657256)
Hola, Guapo (conceited, aren't you? :-)

Good looking ballot. Your reasoning for Pearce's placement seems more than reasonable, BTW. It's also nice to see a little more love for Konetchy, too.
   320. Daryn Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:00 PM (#657307)
I would think Guapo's vote should be moved to the ballot thread and counted. We have not consistently made people wait a year and it is obviously reasonable, particularly with its high placing of Foster :) and complete omission of Clay Bellinger.
   321. Michael Bass Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:11 PM (#657325)
My understanding from when I started is that you post the ballot here to make sure there aren't any reasons to not allow it (and in this case, doesn't seem like there are). After a couple days, the voter's free to post in the main ballot thread.

As for Long vs. Wallace

94 OPS+ vs. 105
77 WARP3 vs. 108
265 Win Shares vs. 345

Not saying Long isn't underrated, but in this crowd, you can't be particularly surprised that he isn't in Wallace's range, particularly among career voters (of which I am one).
   322. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:21 PM (#657340)
After a couple days, the voter's free to post in the main ballot thread.

If he doesn't by Sunday, one of us should add it to the thread.
   323. OCF Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:25 PM (#657351)
If Esteban Rivera doesn't reappear by Sunday (he said Friday), one of us should also move post #270 to the ballot thread.
   324. DanG Posted: June 03, 2004 at 05:55 PM (#657414)
Daryn, I don't want to make this a full-blown discussion of Clay Bellinger (perhaps it needs its own thread?). After all, he isn't eligible for another 80 years (barring a comback).

However, I am compelled to note that as a 3B/CF he is a latter day analogue to Tommy Leach. Also, he led his team to the world championship every season he played.
   325. PhillyBooster Posted: June 03, 2004 at 08:06 PM (#657779)
Off topic for 1927, but does anyone know which borderline PITCHERS were most hurt by World War II service?

Feller and Spahn were certainly hurt, but they aren't anywhere near borderline.

Sain and Joe Dobson and Newsom were hurt, but they would have made my ballot even with 600 more quality innings. Many other pitchers who I had expected to lose time (Harder, Derringer) actually pitched through the war years.

Who are the borderline pitching candidates who might become ballotworthy with WWII service added?
   326. DanG Posted: June 03, 2004 at 08:48 PM (#657834)
Who are the borderline pitching candidates who might become ballot worthy with WWII service added?
The first ones I found of interest are Schoolboy Rowe, Johnny VanderMeer and Kirby Higbe. Still looking.
   327. ronw Posted: June 03, 2004 at 10:02 PM (#657896)
borderline pitching candidates who might become ballot worthy with WWII service added

I've also got Lon Warneke, Tommy Bridges, and Virgil Trucks.

More questionable are Vic Raschi, Larry Jansen, Mel Parnell, who didn't start before WWII.

Perhaps Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing, and Early Wynn can have their HOM cases bolstered. They are pretty borderline, but war credit might put them in.

Bob Lemon and Hoyt Wilhelm are two candidates who didn't start their careers before WWII, but may have been delayed because of it.
   328. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 03, 2004 at 10:38 PM (#657929)
Sal Maglie is the guy that I'm looking at. The vast majority of his fine major league career happened after age 32. He was blacklisted for a few years because he jumped to the Mexican League so we're going to have to figure out what to do with that (the same goes for Mort Cooper, BTW). A discussion page will be needed when he becomes eligible, IMO.
   329. DavidFoss Posted: June 03, 2004 at 11:19 PM (#657958)
Bob Lemon and Hoyt Wilhelm are two candidates who didn't start their careers before WWII, but may have been delayed because of it.


This is going to be true of a lot of people... guys that could have spent key developmental years in the high minors in 44-45 and been rookies in 46 instead of 47 or 48. Gil Hodges comes to mind.

Not sure if there is anything we can do about these guys.
   330. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2004 at 05:27 AM (#658409)
Finally getting around to posting the JOE START numbers that were requested a couple of days ago....

===================================

JOE START

1860 -- Brooklyn Enterprise (2-7)
-- Pos-- 3B-1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/ Newark
-- Hitting -- 3rd on team with 2.17 R/G (Cornwell/Oddie 2.29)
1861 -- Brooklyn Enterprise (5-4)
-- Pos -- 1B-3B
-- Team Record: 5-4
-- Competition -- NYC+/Newark
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 4.14 R/G (Murtha 3.6, Dick 3.2, Crane/Chapman 3.0)
1862 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (2-3)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 8th on team with 1.5 R/G (CSmith 2.75, Pearce 2.60, Oliver 2.5)
1863 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (8-3)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Newark/Princeton/Philadephia
-- Hitting -- 3rd on team with 2.56 R/G (CSmith 3.0, Pearce 2.73, Pratt 2.42)
1864 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (20-0-1)
-- Pos -- 1B-3B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Rochester/Woodstock, ON
-- Hitting -- 5th on team with 4.56 R/G (CSmith 5.26, Galvin 5.13, Pearce 4.7)
1865 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (18-0)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Philly/Wash/Newark
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 4.56 R/G (CSmith 4.38, Crane 3.94, Pearce 3.76)
1866 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (17-3)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Cambridge MA/Albany
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 4.31 R/G (SSmith 4.17, MacDonald 4.1, Chapman 3.83)
1867 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (19-5-1)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Albany
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 4.37 R/G (Pearce 3.61, Crane 3.52, Mills/Ferguson 3.42)
1868 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (47-7)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Wash/Cincy/Chicago/Boston/Milw/Det/Syr/Alb/Bal/Cle
-- Hitting -- played 45 of 56 games
----Runs -- 1st on team with 4.52 R/G (Pearce 4.24, CSmith 4.24)
----Hits -- 1st on team with 4.48 H/G (Pearce 4.11, Chapman 4.04)
----TB -- 4th on team with 5.44 TB/G (Ferguson 6.12,CSmith 5.65,Chapman 5.57)
1869 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (40-6-2) (Pro: 15-6-1)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Bal/Wash/Cincy/Alb/Philly
-- Hitting (all games):
---- Runs -- 1st on team with 4.41 R/G (CChapman 4.10, Pike 4.02, Pearce 3.70)
---- Hits -- 1st on team with 4.41 H/G (CChapman 4.10, CSmith 4.00, Pearce 3.72)
---- TB -- 1st on team with 5.02 TB/G (Pike 6.77, CChapman 6.52, Ferguson 5.83)
1870 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (41-17) (Pro: 20-16)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Rockford/Philly/Bal/Wash/Cincy/Cle/Chi
-- Hitting (pro only):
---- Hits -- 1st on team with 2.75 H/G (Pearce 2.50, JChapman 2.39, Pike 2.33)
---- TB -- 2nd on team with 4.14 TB/G (Pike 4.25, JChapman 3.31, Pearce 2.94)
   331. Guapo Posted: June 04, 2004 at 10:21 PM (#659522)
Hey guys- just wanted to say thanks for the welcoming comments and feedback on the ballot. (thank god that Clay Bellinger comes out 16th in my system- otherwise we could have had a problem)

I will move it to the ballot thread sometime this weekend, but want to give it one last look- I will dutifully go back over Caruthers another time. I'd concluded that his remarkable peak wasn't quite long enough (in the context of the times) to make up for the short career, but will take another look. I also want to respond to some of the other comments re: Caruthers, Childs, Jennings.

I did want to say the following: the quality of the discussions and analysis related to this project is unbelievable. Seriously, the last time I was exposed to this much new information about baseball history was probably when I read the original Historical Abstract in 1984. So I wanted to thank everyone, generally, for the time and effort expended. I really hope the old threads that got truncated during the changeover get restored- there were some I probably would have printed out if I thought they were going to get lost.

Anyway, I figured it would be unseemly to kiss everyone's ass in my first post (wouldn't want it to be construed as a blatant attempt to gain acceptance for my ballot) but wanted to get that off my chest.
   332. Guapo Posted: June 04, 2004 at 10:24 PM (#659525)
Hmm. The filter has the perverse effect of making my last post seem more obscene than it actually was.
   333. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2004 at 10:27 PM (#659526)
Hmm. The filter has the perverse effect of making my last post seem more obscene than it actually was.

You should have said donkey instead. :-)
   334. Howie Menckel Posted: June 05, 2004 at 02:16 PM (#660907)
Well, I'll be darned. This DOES work off AOL...
   335. Howie Menckel Posted: June 05, 2004 at 02:17 PM (#660908)
Now all we need is to restore the old threads (and extensive compilations I had made), and I'll be a helluva lot less cranky from now on...
   336. Guapo Posted: June 05, 2004 at 08:17 PM (#661151)
I know some people are giving Joe Jackson war credit for working for the war effort in 1918. I was just skimming through "Shoeless Joe and Ragtime Baseball" by Harvey Frommer and it discusses Jackson's 1918. What's interesting is that according to Frommer, Jackson (and other ballplayers who went into wartime industry as opposed to the service) were perceived as slackers and took a beating in the press.

In 1918, Jackson's draft board in Greenville changed his designation to Class-1- eligible for military service. Jackson took a job in the shipyards and played in a "patriotic baseball league" for a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel in Willmington, DE.

Probably because of his fame, Jackson became the poster boy for sissy baseball players who weren't willing to go fight. One newspaper said:

"Either the fighting blood of the Jacksons is not as red as it used to be in the days of Old Stonewall and Old Hickory or 'General Joe' of the Chicago White Sox concluded there was enough of the family in the war already... with four brothers in service, he has indicated that he will flee to the refuge of a shipyard hoping to escape service. Probably Mrs. Jackson who is the boss of the family has had some influences also in her husband's determination to take up ship buildign in preference to trench work."

The New York Herald: "[Jackson has] conscientious objections to getting hurt in defense of his country and to associating with patriots."

The Chicago Tribune: "[Jackson is a person of] unusual physical development, and presumably [he] would make an excellent fighting man, but it appears that Mr. Jackson would prefer not to fight... Good Americans will not be very enthusiastic over seeing him play baseball after the war is over."

Ban Johnson: "I hope that the provost marshall yanks Jackson and these other evaders from the shipyards and the steel works by the coat collar. I hope they are sent to cantonments to prepare for future events on the western front."

Charles Comiskey: "I don't consider them fit to play for my club. I hate to see any players, particularly my own, go to the shipyards to escape service." (I guess he changed his mind.)

So, depending on how you look on it, Jackson might have been a crook and a nancy boy.
   337. Jeff M Posted: June 06, 2004 at 02:41 PM (#661625)
Morgan played an average to good 2B, but he probably didn't have the arm to play any of the OF positions or 3B, and didn't have the height to play 1B, even though those positions are left of 2B on the modern defensive spectrum.

This is a good rebuttal to my argument.

The argument, highly siimplfied, would be that CF simply requires that you can catch fly balls while 1B requires that you anticipate bunts, have quick relfexes & can field sharp ground balls, can make snap decisions on when to try for runners at 2B, 3B, & home, and can scoop up and prevent errors on throws from other infielders.

Boy, you really love first basemen, don't you? That's about as dull a description of centerfield, and rosy description of 1b, as I've ever seen. If I hadn't actually played baseball, I'd probably want to be a first baseman for the glory of the defensive role. :)
   338. DavidFoss Posted: June 06, 2004 at 05:31 PM (#661735)
Here's an 1870 statistical mini-season recap, courtesy of Marshall Wright's NABBP book. Team records are for pro-only games. Statistical ranks are pro-only when pro-only numbers are available.

1870

Cincinnati -- 27-6-1
-- H/G -- GWright, Waterman, Leonard/McVey
-- TB/G -- GWright, Waterman, Leonard
Chicago -- 22-7
-- Avg -- Flynn, Wood, Cuthbert
-- Slg -- Treacey, Pinkham, Meyerle
Philadephia Athletic -- 26-11-1
-- H/G -- Fisler, Malone, Sensenderfer/McBride
-- TB/G -- Fisler, McBride, Malone
NY Mutual -- 29-15-3
-- H/G -- Mills, Hatfield, Eggler
-- TB/G -- Mills, Hatfield, Eggler
Brooklyn Atlantic -- 20-16
-- H/G -- Start, Pearce, Chapman
-- TB/G -- Pike, Start, Chapman
Union Lansingburg-- 11-13-1
-- H/G -- Kling, CFisher, TYork
-- TB/G -- Kling, CFisher, TYork
Rockford -- 10-13-1
-- H/G -- RBarnes, JSimmons, Addy
-- TB/G -- Stires, JSimmons, Addy
Cleveland -- 9-15
-- H/G -- ESutton, JWhite, ArAllison
-- TB/G -- JWhite, ESutton, ArAllison
Washington Olympic -- 10-18
-- H/G -- NYoung, DForce, Gibney
-- TB/G -- NYoung, DForce, HBurroughs
Union Morisania 7-18
-- H/G -- Higham, Gedney, JBass
-- TB/G -- JBass, Higham, Pabor
Washington National 2-9
-- R/G -- Hodges, Hicks, Hollingshead
Brooklyn Eckford 2-12-1
-- H/G -- RHunt, EDuffy, AnAllison
-- TB/G -- EDuffy, RHunt, AnAllison
Maryland 2-14
-- R/G -- TWorthington, CBearman, MHooper
Boston TriMountain 0-4
-- R/G -- Kelley, Sanderson, Freeman
Portsmouth Riverside 0-6
-- R/G -- Galliker, Riley, Davis
   339. DavidFoss Posted: June 06, 2004 at 05:37 PM (#661746)
Here is the same season mini-stat-recap for 1869 collected from MWright's NABBP book. Team records are for pro-only games. Individual rankings are based from stats from all games (no separation of pro-only stats for individuals in 1869). FYI -- Rockford not included because they were amateur this season.

1869

Cincinnati -- 19-0
-- Runs -- GWright, Waterman, McVey
-- Hits -- GWright, Waterman, HWright
-- TB -- GWright, Sweasy, Waterman
Brooklyn Atlantic -- 15-6-1
-- Runs -- Start, CChapman, Pike
-- Hits -- Start, CChapman, CSmith
-- TB -- Start, Pike, CChapman
Philadephia Athletic -- 15-7
-- Runs -- Reach, Cuthbert, McBride/Sensenderfer
-- Hits -- McBride, Reach, Sensenderfer
-- TB -- Reach, McBride, Cuthbert
Brooklyn Eckford -- 15-8
-- Runs -- Treacey, Patterson, Hodes
-- Hits -- Patterson, AAllison, Pinkham
-- TB -- AAllison, Pinkham, Patterson
Union Lansingburgh -- 12-8-1
-- Runs -- McAtee, MKing, SKing
-- Hits -- MKing, McAtee, BCraver
-- TB -- MKing, McAtee, BCraver
NYMutual -- 11-15
-- Runs -- Hatfield, Flanly, Mills
-- Hits -- Mills, Flanly, Hatfield
-- TB -- Mills, Hatfield, Flanly
Washington Olympic -- 9-12
-- Runs -- Malone, DForce, NYoung
-- Hits -- Malone, DForce, NYoung
-- TB -- Malone, DForce, NYoung
Maryland -- 7-12
-- Runs -- ECope, MHooper, WGoldsmith
Washington National -- 4-12
-- Runs -- Gibney, Coughlin, SStudley
-- Hits -- Gibney, Coughlin, SStudley
-- TB -- Gibney, Coughlin, GFox
Philadephia Keystone -- 3-17
-- Runs -- BDick, CWeaver, Flowers
-- Hits -- CWeaver, BDick, Flowers
-- TB -- CWeaver, Flowers, Bechtel
Cleveland Forest City -- 1-6
-- Runs -- ARSmith, ESmith, JWhite/Burt
Irvington, NJ -- 0-9
-- Runs -- Farrar. GEaton, GLines
-- Hits -- HCampbell, GEaton, GLines
-- TB -- HCampbell, GEaton, MStockman
   340. Michael Bass Posted: June 06, 2004 at 07:42 PM (#662197)
Should someone post Esteban Rivera's ballot today, or wait till tomorrow?
   341. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 06, 2004 at 07:59 PM (#662263)
Should someone post Esteban Rivera's ballot today, or wait till tomorrow?


I would wait until tomorrow morning.
   342. Jeff M Posted: June 06, 2004 at 10:01 PM (#662513)
</i>Not saying Long isn't underrated, but in this crowd, you can't be particularly surprised that he isn't in Wallace's range, particularly among career voters (of which I am one).</i>

I've always had these two guys about even. I don't mess with WARP3, but using WARP1 adjusted for season length, their 3-year and 7-year peaks are almost identical, as is their 5-year consecutive peak. Long has a better adjWARP1/162 games. Wallace accumulated more adjWARP1.

Win Shares on the other hand, shows Long quite a bit ahead in those peak categories. Win Shares and WARP also show Long as a better defender -- if you use FRAA under WARP. If you use FRAR, Long was better on a per year basis and Wallace accumulated more.

In the end, I rank Long ahead of Wallace because of the defense and because he was a slightly more dominant player on a year-to-year basis.
   343. KJOK Posted: June 06, 2004 at 11:09 PM (#662586)
Boy, you really love first basemen, don't you? That's about as dull a description of centerfield, and rosy description of 1b, as I've ever seen. If I hadn't actually played baseball, I'd probably want to be a first baseman for the glory of the defensive role. :)

You played baseball in the deadball era? You must be OLD.... ;>)

Seriously, 1st baseman jump over the right of my defensive spectrum pretty quickly as we move into the 1920's and 1930's. First base has probably had the most drastic change in responsibility over time of any position.
   344. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 07, 2004 at 07:48 AM (#662928)
Echoing Michael Bass . . .

Long 8500 PA, 94 OPS+
Wallace 9600 PA, 106 OPS+

That's an enormous difference. Throw in 400 IP at 125 ERA+ and I don't see Wallace and Long on the same planet.

The seasons were a little shorter for Long, but Wallce basically played 2 more seasons, plus he pitched for a year and a half and was a much better hitter - 27 points per year of OBP and 12 points per year of SLG.

In an era where errors were much more important in terms of ranking fielders, Wallace's FPct was 12 points above his leagues, Long's was 3 points ahead.

Beckley/Konetchy - how can anyone look at these two and have Konetchy ahead?

Beckley 10470 PA, 125 OPS+
Konetchy 8664 PA, 122 OPS+

Beckley played during shorter seasons so the length edge is much bigger than it looks here. Both had a similar OBP/SLG split, so that's not an issue.

Konetchy had 5 years between 130-150 OPS+. Beckley had two years over 150 (one was a half season). He also had 4 years between 130-150.

But in terms of years between 115-130, Beckley has him 8-5.

I don't see how anyone could have Konetchy near Beckley on a ballot.
   345. PhillyBooster Posted: June 07, 2004 at 02:15 PM (#663027)
From Joe's ballot:

30. Cupid Childs (--) - Another one to rejoin my consideration set, but I don't see how you can compare him with Doyle and have Childs come out on top. I'm all ears if you want to try to convince me.

With Grant inducted last year, Childs is now my #1 second baseman, so I will jump to his defense.

How do you compare them and have Childs come out on top? It is actually extremely simple. They are nearly identical offensively, and Childs wins defensively -- both in terms of quality against his peers and overall importance of second base at the time he played.

First: Their careers were practically the same length. Doyle has about 620 more plate appearances -- the equivalent of one season, that is at least cancelled out by Childs' seasons being 20 about games shorter. I haven't worked out the math, but I would eyeball that Childs had the longer adjusted career.

Next: OPS+, Doyle leads 126 to 119, a small lead for Doyle that obscures that Childs leads in the more important OBP+. Childs also had more "off-years" offensively, which gives him a comparably higher offensive peak in his good years. Doyle was clearly the better slugger, but a lot of that stems from his fluke ability to take advantage of 1911 (25 double and 25 triples!).

In my view, they are about a wash offensively. Baseball Prospectus agrees, giving Doyle 542 Batting Runs Above Replacement and gives Cupid Childs 515 (not adjusted for season length).

Defensively, Baseball Prospectus gives Doyle 164 Fielding Runs BELOW Average and gives Childs 42 Fielding Runs ABOVE Average. Besides being better compared to his peers, though, Childs also played second base at a time when it was a more important position. Looking at their career "League Range Factors" (these are the league averages, not their individual numbers), Childs' peer second basemen made 5.54 plays per game (a number Childs exceeds) versus 4.99 for Doyle's era (a number Doyle falls short of). This is borne out by the raw numbers that show Childs making more put outs and assists, and almost as many double plays, despite playing almost 300 fewer games in the field.

Overall, I consider Childs the best second baseman of his league in 1890 (AA), and 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1896 (NL). He was also second best to Bid McPhee in 1897. That 6 #1 and 7 top 2 finishes, the final 6 in a one-league context.

Doyle was the #1 2B in the National League in 1911, 1915, 1916, and 1917. He was also second in 1910 (to Miller Huggins). That's only 4 first places and 1 second place in a 2 or 3 league context. (In 1915-1917, for example, he was only second overall to Eddie Collins in the AL).

Now, I am not going to make a claim that Doyle was a horrible defensive player and write him off just because of that. He should be considered fairly for what he did, good and bad. But in a one-to-one comparison, where the two are nearly identical offensively, and Childs was the dominant force at his position for a longer period of time, I cannot see how it is reasonable to rank Doyle above the defensively superior player.
   346. karlmagnus Posted: June 07, 2004 at 02:50 PM (#663084)
'28 disussion thread won't accept posts, but this one does. Home Run Baker didn't hit enough home runs to be a top-ballot candidate!
   347. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 07, 2004 at 10:49 PM (#663761)
Beckley/Konetchy - how can anyone look at these two and have Konetchy ahead?

Beckley 10470 PA, 125 OPS+
Konetchy 8664 PA, 122 OPS+


Joe, do you feel a 125 OPS+ during Beckley's time is the same as during Konetchy's? I'm against using a timeline, but you still have to take into account the role each player's competition and scoring environment had on their numbers.

With that said, Beckley makes my ballot next week.
   348. Jeff M Posted: June 08, 2004 at 01:54 AM (#663875)
Long 8500 PA, 94 OPS+
Wallace 9600 PA, 106 OPS+

That's an enormous difference. Throw in 400 IP at 125 ERA+ and I don't see Wallace and Long on the same planet.


Well, yeah, if you use only one hitting metric and assume it is the right one. We can always choose a metric that produces a result to support our vote.

There are at least two other significant hitting metrics, WS and WARP, that argue more for Long. I wouldn't call that the sort of slam dunk that justifies 29 spots between their rankings, but that's just me. I like to look at a lot of different measures because like religion, none of of knows which path is the right one. :-)

I don't see how anyone could have Konetchy near Beckley on a ballot.

This I agree with. I've got Beckley 16th (meets 64% of my standards) and Konetchy 49th (meets 51% of my standards). To me, after making adjustments for season length and run scoring environment, Beckley and Konetchy produce about the same rate stats. But Beckley did it for 2,000 more PAs, which is about 4 full seasons back then.
   349. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:58 AM (#664045)
"Joe, do you feel a 125 OPS+ during Beckley's time is the same as during Konetchy's? I'm against using a timeline, but you still have to take into account the role each player's competition and scoring environment had on their numbers."

I feel Beckley's era probably more impressive. The bulk of his prime was played during the time of one league, not two leagues.

Wallace/Long:

"But Beckley did it for 2,000 more PAs, which is about 4 full seasons back then."

Wallace did it for about two more full seasons, and that's important. He was a lot better and he did it longer.

"Well, yeah, if you use only one hitting metric and assume it is the right one. We can always choose a metric that produces a result to support our vote."

I just used OPS+ to give an eyeball number for writing it up. I don't use it in my rankings, and I certainly didn't cherry pick it. It was easily available, so I used that for writing something up while at work.

BRARP - Wallace 449, Long 290. Again, and enormous edge.

FRAA - Wallace 174, Long 200. Not quite as big an edge, Long was somewhat better as a fielder. WS has him as an A+, Wallace a B. Since Wallace had a longer career, the cumulative edge for Long's better 'rate' is lowered.

PRAR - Wallace 65, Long 0.

Total - Wallace 688, Long 490. That's about 20 wins, or 34 spots in my rankings at this time.
   350. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:01 AM (#664047)
Lest you think I 'cherry picked' those, I've spoken with Tango about this, and those are the numbers that should be used for evaluating players (though one may not agree with how Prospectus calculates the components).

If I used FRAR, Wallace would have an even bigger edge, as he 'outpoints' Long 907-843 there. But fielding replacement is average, so that's what should be used.
   351. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:07 AM (#664049)
Let's use the adjusted for all-time too, just for completeness:

BRARP: Wallace 438, Long 250.
FRAA: Wallace 100, Long 108.
PRAR: Wallace 58, Long 0.

Total: Wallace 596, Long 358. Edge is up to ~24 wins. Looks like I definitely didn't cherry pick in post 349.

I guess you could gather that Wallace's career extended into the early 1910s, and WARP likes the 1900's competition level better than 1890s, which surprises me (as the 1890s were one-league). Any other ideas?
   352. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:14 AM (#664050)
Actually, I'll be posting the BRARP+FRAA+PRAR numbers with my ballot from now on - it's not something I strictly use - haven't even calced it for everyone yet, and it tells you nothing about peak - but it's my best guide when I'm stumped.

Does anyone have a rough idea of what the difference between a replacement level pitcher's offense (as would be calced by Prospectus) and an average pitcher's offense (obviously it varies by year). I've just been eyeballing/guesstimating to this point, but really all pitchers BRARP numbers should be adjusted for this.
   353. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:19 AM (#664051)
Let's do the same for Konetchy and Beckley (using the adjusted for all-time numbers):

BRARP: Beckley 379, Konetchy 256
FRAA: Beckley -75, Konetchy 17 (interesting . . . )
PRAR: Beckley -11, Konetchy -2

Total: Beckley 293, Konetchy 271.

Interesting indeed - what do you guys think of Prospectus' rating of their fielding? -53 of Beckley's total is from 1900-07, the end of his career - could he have been that bad a fielder?

WS, IIRC gives Beckley a B and Konetchy an A+, I'd have to double-check when I get home.
   354. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:28 AM (#664053)
Using WARP1 numbers:

BRARP: Beckley 605, Konetchy 488
FRAA: Beckley 32, Konetchy 141 (makes sense now, WS doesn't downplay the 'all-time' part)
PRAR: Beckley -11, Konetchy -1

Total: Beckley 626, Konetchy 628.

Aha John, Prospectus does agree with me that Beckley's era/schedule adjustment is a plus relative to Kontechy, mainly I would assume because of the shorter schedules.

Easy way to test it actually:

Beckley WARP1/WARP2 - 116.0/80.5 (1.44)
Konetchy WARP1/WARP2 - 104.9/71.3 (1.47)

Since Beckley's adjustment is lower they are saying his leagues were slightly tougher.

WARP2/WARP3 gives you the 'schedule bonus'

B: 80.5/86.3 (.933)
K: 71.3/73.1 (.975)

So Beckley's seasons were shorter too. Since WARP3 doesn't give a straight-line adjustment, you could say that Beckley is 'underrated' slightly by the WARP3 numbers even still, if you believe in the pennant is a pennant theory . . .

If that defensive edge is legit, they are closer than I thought. Not sure if that moves Konetchy up or drops Beckley yet.
   355. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:37 AM (#664054)
Home Run Baker/Ed Williamson/Jimmy Collins

WARP1
BRARP: B 511, W 292, C 367
FRAA: B 69, W 76, C 238
PRAR: B 0, W -3, C 0
Total: B 580, W 365, C 605

WARP3
BRARP: B 446, W 216, C 288
FRAA: B 29, W 3, C 173
PRAR: B 0, W -3, C 0
Total: B 475, W 216, C 451

WARP1 doesn't do Williamson justice because of the steep timeline and the short schedules.

One other thing I just realized, when I say WARP3 above, it's really WARP2 I think. The adjusted for all-times don't account for schedule . . .
   356. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 08, 2004 at 03:40 PM (#664286)
If that defensive edge is legit, they are closer than I thought.

...and Konetchy has the better peak argument, IMO.

WS, IIRC gives Beckley a B and Konetchy an A+,

Konetchy gets an A-.
   357. Jeff M Posted: June 09, 2004 at 12:18 AM (#665134)
He was a lot better and he did it longer.

You are half right. :)
   358. Paul Wendt Posted: June 27, 2004 at 05:42 PM (#701097)
Isn't this an awful way to organize information?
I will post this here and at 1871.

In 1927 Ballot Discussion #1-48 and passim, David Foss posted some batting data derived from Marshall Wright NABBP 1857-1870, for seven(?) star players and for the 1869 and 1870 seasons.

In #1-53, David referred to Athletics Reach & McBride. Later, he featured Al Reach but not Dick McBride (or I missed it).

Total Baseball 8 includes an article by John Thorn on the greatest player of all-time, historically considered. Based on email consultation several months ago, I expect that that article lists the five greatest players for each decade from the 1850s, and that Dick McBride is one of the five listed for the 1860s.
Right?

Dick McBride is one, maybe "the obvious" candidate for the treatment David Foss has given to other 1860s stars.
   359. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 28, 2004 at 01:43 AM (#702619)
Dick McBride is one, maybe "the obvious" candidate for the treatment David Foss has given to other 1860s stars.

I'd also would love to see it, Paul.
   360. Paul Wendt Posted: July 04, 2004 at 06:22 PM (#716060)
"1871" did not become a "Hot Topic" listed in the right menu, so I will now stay here. There I observed that Dick McBride's best decade may have been 1866-1875, but he would be listed in the 1860s, which practically includes 1870. (As Jim Creighton played mainly after 1859, but he would be listed in the 1850s, which practically includes at least 1860-61.)

Quoting myself:
Total Baseball 8 includes an article by John Thorn on the greatest player of all-time, historically considered. Based on email consultation several months ago, I expect that that article lists the five greatest players for each decade from the 1850s, and that Dick McBride is one of the five listed for the 1860s.
Right?


In reply to Marc, off-list: Total Baseball 8 has been distributed. I don't expect to see it soon. I hope that some reader has it and will confirm or correct my advance information by listing John Thorn's 1850s-1860s selections, or explaining how the feature differs.
   361. DanG Posted: July 05, 2004 at 01:49 AM (#717017)
In TB8, Thorn lists these:

1850's: Joe Leggett, Charles DeBost, Pete O'Brien, Louis Wadsworth, Frank Pidgeon.
1860's: Charley Smith, Joe Start, George Wright, Dickey Pearce, Jim Creighton.
1870's: Ross Barnes, Deacon White, George Wright, Cap Anson, Al Spalding.

As Thorn explains it, these are not necessarily those with the greatest statistics, "but who won acclaim as great players--men of character, vigor, magnetism."
   362. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:53 AM (#718821)
DICK MCBRIDE

1863 -- Philadelphia Athletic (7-5)
-- Pos -- SS-P
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Altoona
-- Hitting -- 3rd on team with 2.5 R/G (Kleinfelder 3.0, Paul 2.67)
1864 -- Philadelphia Athletic (8-1)
-- Pos -- P-C
-- Competition: NYC+/NJ/Phila/Altoona
-- Hitting -- 8th on team with 2.25 R/G (Kleinfelder 3.64, Berkenstock 3.5)
1865 -- Philadephia Athletic (15-3)
-- Pos -- P-SS
-- Competition -- NYC+/Philly/Newark/Altoona
-- Hitting -- T-1st on team with 3.8 R/G (MSmith 4.0, Berkenstock 3.93, Reach 3.8)
1866 -- Philadephia Athletic (23-2)
-- Pos -- P-3B-SS
-- Competition -- Philly/NJ/NYC+/Wash/WilkesBarre
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 6.4 R/G (Hayhurst 6.31 (13G), Pike 6.25, Dockney 5.90, Reach 5.83)
1867 -- Philadephia Athletic (44-3)
-- Pos -- P-3B
-- Competition -- Philly/Wash/NYC+/Boston
-- Hitting -- 2nd on team with 5.89 R/G (Reach 6.0, Sensenderfer 5.60, Kleinfelder/Fisler 5.33)
1868 -- Philadephia Athletic (47-3)
-- Pos -- P
-- Competition -- Philly/Pit/Cin/Lou/STL/Chi/Rock/Roch/Syr/NYC+/Wash/Alb/Cle/NJ
-- Hitting (no H-data)
---- Runs -- 8th on team with 4.30 R/G (Reach 5.14, Radcliff 5.0, Fisler 4.91, Cuthbert 4.8)
---- TB -- 5th on team with 5.30 TB/G (Fisler 6.47, Reach 6.10, Cuthbert 5.6, Sensenderfer 5.42)
1869 -- Philadelphia Athletic (45-8) (Pro:15-7)
-- Pos -- P-2B
-- Competition -- Philly/NJ/Cincy/NYC+/Bos/Bal/Wash/PA/Alb
-- Hitting (all games)
---- T-3rd on team with 5.00 R/G (Reach 5.39, Cuthbert 5.13, Sensenderfer 5.00)
---- 1st on team with 5.35 R/G (Reach 5.26, Sensenderfer 4.56, McMullin 4.53)
---- 2nd on team with 8.18 TB/G (Reach 9.11, Cuthbert 7.70, Fisler 7.67)
1870 -- Philadephia Athletic (65-11-1) (Pro: 26-11-1)
-- Pos -- P
-- Competition -- Phi/Bal/NYC+/CT/Cin/NJ/Chi/Wash/FtW/Cle/Buf/Bos
-- Hitting (pro games only)
---- Hits -- T-3rd on team with 2.30 H/G (Fisler 2.36, Malone 2.32, Sensenderfer 2.30)
---- TB -- 2nd on team with 3.66 TB/G (Fisler 3.86, Malone 3.56, Sensenderfer 3.35)
   363. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 07:04 AM (#718825)
OK... there is Dick McBride's numbers collected from Marshall Wright's "The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870".

Remember that McBride was primarily a pitcher through much of his career. MWright does not have any of the pitching splits for McBride that were available for HWright in Cincy.

Paul Wendt: Sorry, I missed your post on the 27th and was away for the holiday and unable to post for some reason. (I was away from the book anyways...). I have all of the Marshall Wright data posts saved on my hard drive as text files. They can easily be reposted somewhere else if one can think of a better place for this information. -- (reformatted, too if that is desired).

DanG: Thanks for the list. I can collect the data for others on those lists as I get the chance.
   364. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 07:33 AM (#718838)
JIM CREIGHTON

1858-9 Brooklyn Niagara
-- (no data, evidence of play from Creighton mini-bio in the 1862 season recap)
1859 -- Brooklyn Star (8-1)
-- Pos -- P
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ
-- Hitting -- 5th on team with 2.5 R/G (TMorris 4.5, EPatchen 3.2, GTicknor 3.0)
1860 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (18-2-1)
-- Pos -- P-OF
-- Competition -- NYC+/Phila/Bal/Alb/Buffalo
-- Hitting -- 7th on team with 2.35 R/G (JLeggett 3.5, APearsall 3.0, JWhiting 2.9)
1861 -- Brooklyn Excelsior ??
-- (team listed ("Other Teams") -- but not documented this season)
1862 -- Brooklyn Excelsior
-- Pos -- P-2B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Boston
-- Hitting -- Leads team 22 R in 6 G (3.67 R/G)... only two team games have boxes though. This implies that most of Creighton's data comes from all-star games this season.
   365. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 07:42 AM (#718842)
OK... another pitcher posted. Hard to interpret pitchers from this era... MWright has pitching data available for only a handful of teams near the end of the pre-NA era.

Still, Creighton is a legendary figure so I posted his info.

(Correction -- Excelsior had a 4-1-1 record in 1862)
   366. DavidFoss Posted: July 08, 2004 at 07:53 AM (#722970)
CHARLES SMITH

1858 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (7-0)
-- Pos -- 3B
-- Competition -- NYC+/New Brunswick
-- Hitting -- 6th on team with 3.0 R/G (JPrice 4.0, POBrien 3.5, McMahon 3.28, Boerum 3.25)
1859 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (11-1)
-- Pos -- 3B-2B ( only 6 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- T-2nd on team with 3.67 R/G (JOliver 3.73, DPearce 3.67, POBrien 3.25)
1860 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (12-2-2)
-- Pos -- 3B-C
-- Competition -- NYC+/New Brunswick
-- Hitting -- 2nd on team with 2.5 R/G (JPrice 2.53, DPearce 2.31, JOliver 2.0)
1861 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (5-2)
-- Pos -- 3B-2B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ
-- Hitting -- 3rd on team with 3.67 R/G (RSeinsoth 3.83 (6G), DPearce 3.7 (10G), FSeinsoth 3.14)
1862 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (2-3)
-- Pos -- 3B
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 2.75 R/G (Pearce 2.60, Oliver 2.5)
1863 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (8-3)
-- Pos -- 3B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Newark/Princeton/Philadephia
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 3.0 R/G (Pearce 2.73, Start 2.56, Pratt 2.42)
1864 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (20-0-1)
-- Pos -- 3B-SS-2B
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Rochester/Woodstock, ON
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 5.26 R/G (Galvin 5.13, Crane 4.72, Pearce 4.7)
1865 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (18-0)
-- Pos -- 3B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Philly/Wash/Newark
-- Hitting -- 2nd on team with 4.38 R/G (Start 4.56, Crane 3.94, Pearce 3.76)
1866 -- DID NOT PLAY (Brooklyn Atlantic well documented)
1867 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (19-5-1)
-- Pos -- SS-1B (11 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Albany
-- Hitting -- 9th on team with 2.91 R/G (Start 4.37, Pearce 3.61, Crane 3.52, Mills/Ferguson 3.42)
1868 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (47-7)
-- Pos -- 2B (38 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Wash/Cincy/Chicago/Boston/Milw/Det/Syr/Alb/Bal/Cle
-- Hitting --
----Runs -- 3rd on team with 4.24 R/G (Start 4.52, Pearce 4.24)
----Hits -- 4th on team with 4.0 H/G (Start 4.48, Pearce 4.11, Chapman 4.04)
----TB -- 2nd on team with 5.65 TB/G (Ferguson 6.12, Chapman 5.57, Start 5.44)
1869 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (40-6-2) (Pro: 15-6-1)
-- Pos -- 3B (33 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Bal/Wash/Cincy/Alb/Philly
-- Hitting (all games):
---- Runs -- 5th on team with 3.64 R/G (Start 4.41, CChapman 4.10, Pike 4.02, Pearce/Ferguson 3.70)
---- Hits -- 3rd on team with 4.00 H/G (Start 4.41, CChapman 4.10, Pearce 3.72)
---- TB -- 5th on team with 5.24 TB/G (Start 7.41, Pike 6.77, CChapman 6.52, Ferguson 5.83)
1870 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (41-17) (Pro: 20-16)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Rockford/Philly/Bal/Wash/Cincy/Cle/Chi
-- Hitting (pro only):
---- Hits -- 6th on team with 2.03 H/G (Start 2.75, Pearce 2.50, JChapman 2.39, Pike 2.33)
---- TB -- 6th on team with 2.78 TB/G (Pike 4.25, Start 4.14, JChapman 3.31, Pearce 2.94)
   367. DavidFoss Posted: July 08, 2004 at 07:59 AM (#722973)
OK... working my way back DanG's list. Another long-time Brooklyn Atlantic is posted, Charles Smith.

Apologies for the differences in rankings implied by the CSmith and DPearce posts. Pearce was the first post I did and I went by raw runs totals in the earlier and shorter seasons. Since then, its been all per-game rankings. CSmith tended to play slightly fewer games than Pearce did during the early days. Difficult to compare quality and quantity. You know have both lists for those years. If anything stands out, I can post the raw totals for a whole team if you'd like.

Inexplicably, CSmith sat out the entire 1866 season and played only a fraction of 1867. Any ideas why?
   368. andrew siegel Posted: July 08, 2004 at 01:05 PM (#723029)
All you fans of Dickey Pearce: If you have Pearce number one on your ballot, why isn't Charley Smith somewhere in the top 15? He played on the same great teams as Pearce, earned the respect of his contemporaries, played key defensive positions, and had better batting stats than Pearce?
   369. DanG Posted: July 08, 2004 at 02:12 PM (#723075)
David:

I believe Harry Wright took time off to play cricket. Perhaps Charles Smith missed time due to this, also.

Andrew:

Why Pearce over Smith? Two things occur to me: 1) Career length; 2) Pearce's NA play gives us greater certainty of his quality.
   370. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 08, 2004 at 02:22 PM (#723083)
All you fans of Dickey Pearce: If you have Pearce number one on your ballot, why isn't Charley Smith somewhere in the top 15? He played on the same great teams as Pearce, earned the respect of his contemporaries, played key defensive positions, and had better batting stats than Pearce?

Because his career wasn't as long, he didn't play shortstop or catcher and nobody raved about his defense as they did with Pearce.

Next? :-)

BTW Andrew, Smith will be number two on my ballot. With my immense powers of persuasion, I'll have in the Hall within a month!

Muwuhahahahahaha!

Seriously, he looks like an excellent player, but he won't be near my ballot this election. You can relax now. :-)
   371. andrew siegel Posted: July 08, 2004 at 03:20 PM (#723155)
Maybe my comments came across as cranky (I was only trying to truncate them so that I could get some real work done) but my bigger point is this: looking at the stats for pre-1868 baseball, I'm just not sure that Dickey Pearce was the best player, let alone head-and-shoulders above everybody else. If, after factoring in career length and all the subjective comments about Pearce, you guys want to dub him the MVP of the 1860s and induct him into the HoM on that basis, we've certainly got room in the Hall for him. But, if we're all being honest with ourselves, the evidence doesn't support the proposition that Pearce is an HoMer while Smith, Reach, et al. are out of the consideration set. Will it make any difference one way or the other whether Smith or Reach pick up a half dozen 15th place votes? Of course not. But their existence and performance do seem to me to cast doubt on how uniquely accomplished Pearce was.
   372. DavidFoss Posted: July 08, 2004 at 03:32 PM (#723173)
Is it a big deal to post a zip file to the yahoo group. I have text file versions of all my pre-NA posts and would like to make them more readily available instead of sprawled across all four pages of this 1927 discussion thread.

Once I post a zip file, is it difficult to remove/replace/update? I'd like to be able to add players from time to time and fix any errors I find as well. (e.g. McBride's 1865 ranking looks funny)

Thanks.
   373. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 08, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#723250)
But, if we're all being honest with ourselves, the evidence doesn't support the proposition that Pearce is an HoMer while Smith, Reach, et al. are out of the consideration set.

There are a few candidates that are worthy (Bob Ferguson is another good one that comes to mind), but let's be an honest here. I've had an uphill struggle trying to get Pearce as high as he is. None of the candidates are as good as him, IMO. Sometimes you have to pick the right fights. :-)

Plus, I'm not confident about the others' defense (which David doesn't have acces to those numbers), while I am with Pearce.
   374. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 08, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#723254)
acces access
   375. OCF Posted: July 08, 2004 at 11:19 PM (#723912)
Plus, I'm not confident about the others' defense (which David doesn't have access to those numbers), while I am with Pearce.

I'm assuming the evidence for this is based on testimonials, reminiscences, and eyewitness accounts. That's fair enough, and probably true - but if what we had from the dead ball decades were testimonials, reminiscences, eyewitness accounts, and some hard-to-interpret offensive numbers (say, hits/game), would we now be considering Hal Chase as a candidate?
   376. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 08, 2004 at 11:27 PM (#723950)
I'm assuming the evidence for this is based on testimonials, reminiscences, and eyewitness accounts. That's fair enough, and probably true - but if what we had from the dead ball decades were testimonials, reminiscences, eyewitness accounts, and some hard-to-interpret offensive numbers (say, hits/game), would we now be considering Hal Chase as a candidate?

No, because Hal Chase was a crook who can match one anecdote describing a defensive gem of his with another that outlines how he would deceive his teammates and fans into believing he was doing all he could to win on a particular play.

If somebody can show evidence that this describes Pearce in any way, I will take him off my ballot in a heartbeat.
   377. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 02:53 AM (#724932)
BOB FERGUSON

1865 -- Brooklyn Enterprise (1-10)
-- Pos -- 3B-SS (5 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/Newburgh
-- Hitting -- 4th on team with 3.20 R/G (ESmith 4.09, WCornwell 3.57, RCornwell 3.40)
1866 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (17-3)
-- Pos -- 3B-OF
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Cambridge MA/Albany
-- Hitting -- 9th on team with 2.44 R/G (SSmith 4.17, MacDonald 4.1, Chapman 3.83)
1867 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (19-5-1)
-- Pos -- 3B 
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Albany
-- Hitting -- T4th on team with 3.42 R/G (Start 4.37, Pearce 3.61, Crane 3.52, Mills 3.42)
1868 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (47-7)
-- Pos -- 3B 
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Wash/Cincy/Chicago/Boston/Milw/Det/Syr/Alb/Bal/Cle
-- Hitting -- 
----Runs -- 4th on team with 4.15 R/G (Start 4.52, Pearce 4.24, CSmith 4.24)
----Hits -- 5th on team with 3.80 H/G (Start 4.48, Pearce 4.11, Chapman 4.04, CSmith 4.0)
----TB -- 1st on team with 5.65 TB/G (CSmith 5.65 Chapman 5.57, Start 5.44)
1869 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (40-6-2) (Pro: 15-6-1)
-- Pos -- C 
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Bal/Wash/Cincy/Alb/Philly
-- Hitting (all games):
---- Runs -- T4th on team with 3.70 R/G (Start 4.41, CChapman 4.10, Pike 4.02, Pearce 3.70)
---- Hits -- 6th on team with 3.55 H/G (Start 4.41, CChapman 4.10, CSmith 4.00, Pearce 3.72)
---- TB -- 4th on team with 5.83 TB/G (Start 7.41, Pike 6.77, CChapman 6.52)
1870 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (41-17) (Pro: 20-16)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+/Rockford/Philly/Bal/Wash/Cincy/Cle/Chi 
-- Hitting (pro only):
---- Hits -- 5th on team with 2.25 H/G (Start 2.75, Pearce 2.50, JChapman 2.39, Pike 2.33)
---- TB -- 5th on team with 2.88 TB/G (Pike 4.25, Start 4.14, JChapman 3.31, Pearce 2.94)
 

   378. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 03:02 AM (#724947)
Hmmm... thought I would experiment with the PRE tag there. Not sure that I like how it looks.

Ferguson was suggested by John and he is often listed as one of the more renown players of the day. I think Spalding's old guides mentioned him in a short list of players of the day.

It appears that the 1870 Mutuals and Atlantics merged to form the 1871 NA-Mutuals. Ferguson made the cut for that and then left to manage the Brooklyn Atlantics II in the NA. Anyhow the post-1871 information is much more documented.

Giving you guys a pretty vivid picture of the Atlantics squad.
   379. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 03:03 AM (#724949)
Oh yeah... as usuall all these numbers compiled from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870 book.
   380. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 03:46 AM (#725004)
Compiled from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870 book....



JOE LEGGETT

1857 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (1-2)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- Only 1 or two boxes for each player. 8 runs in 1 game (GCole 5R/1G, WYoung 5R/1G, CEtheridge 8R/2G)
1858 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (8-5)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 5th on team with 3.28 R/G (WYoung 4.14, ADayton 3.86, JHolder 3.72, AMarkham 3.43)
1859 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (12-3)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 3.27 R/G (ERussell 3.27 (11G), TReynolds 3.23, APearsall 3.07)
1860 -- Brookleyn Excelsior (18-2-1)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+/Alb/Buf/Bal/Phi/Roch
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 3.5 R/G (APearsall 3.0, HPolhemus 2.93 (14G), JWhiting 2.9)
1861 -- Brooklyn Excelsior ??
-- (team listed ("Other Teams") -- but not documented this season)
1862 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (4-1-1)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+/Boston
-- Hitting -- 0 runs in only game he has box for... only two team games have boxes though.
1863 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (5-4)
-- Pos -- C (5 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Phi
-- Hitting -- 8th on team with 1.2 R/G (ABrainard/GFlanly 2.8, GCook 2.6, HBrainard 2.4)
1864 -- DNP? (Brooklyn Excelsior is documented)
1865 -- DNP? (Brooklyn Excelsior is documented)
1866 -- Brooklyn Excelsior (13-6-1)
-- Pos -- C-SS
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Phi/Was/Bos/Alb
-- Hitting -- 8th on team with 3.21 R/G (GFlanly 3.69, FNorton 3.50, JClyne 3.33)
   381. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 04:01 AM (#725026)
Compiled from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870 book....


CHARLES DEBOST

1857 -- New York Knickerbocker (2-2)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- T4th with 2.67 R/G (FNeibuhr 3.5, NWelling 3.25, DanAdams 3.0, NMcLaughlin 2.67)
1858 -- New York Knickerbocker (0-3-1)
-- Pos -- C
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- T3rd (with many) with 2.0 R/G (HWright 3.0, DanAdams 2.67)
1859 -- New York Knickerbocker (1-3)
-- Pos -- C-SS
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- T2nd with 3.0 R/G (HWright 3.5, JDavis 3.0, Stephens/NWelling/DanAdams 2.75)
1860 -- New York Knickerbocker (0-1) (32-9 loss to Excelsior)
-- Pos -- SS
-- Hitting -- 1 Run (NWelling 2, Keeler/JaDavis/Botsford/Walker/HWright/Morrow 1, Hayward 0)
   382. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 04:23 AM (#725040)
Compiled from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870 book....


FRANK PIDGEON

1857 -- Brooklyn Eckford (2-5)
-- Pos -- C-P
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 2nd on team with 3.2 R/G (GGrum 3.8, Tostivan 3.0, McVoy 2.5)
1858 -- Brooklyn Eckford (5-1)
-- Pos -- P
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 2nd on team with 4.67 R/G (GGrum 5.33, HManolt 4.0, Tostivan 3.33)
1859 -- Brooklyn Eckford (11-3)
-- Pos -- P
-- Competition -- NYC+/Newburgh/Hoboken
-- Hitting -- 3rd on team with 3.33 R/G (JGrum 4.08, HManolt 3.91, Brown 3.16)
1860 -- Brooklyn Eckford (15-2)
-- Pos -- 2B-P (only 9 games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ
-- Hitting -- 2nd on team 3.556 R/G (JGrum 3.563, AMills 3.31, HManolt 3.19)
1861 -- DNP ?? (Brooklyn Eckford is documented)
1862 -- Brooklyn Eckford (14-2)
-- Pos -- OF-P (played in 3 of 8 documented games)
-- Competition -- NYC+/Philly/Newark
-- Hitting -- 9th on team with 3.3 R/G (Mills 4.88, Manolt 4.63, Wood 4.5)
   383. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 04:37 AM (#725046)
Compiled from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870 book....


(LOUIS?) WADSWORTH

1857 -- New York Gotham (4-2)
-- Pos -- 1B-OF
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- T-7th on team with 2.17 R/G (TGVanCott 3.17, Cudlipp 3.0, Sheridan 2.8)
1858 -- New York Gotham (1-6)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- T1st with 3.5 R/G (Bertis 3.5, McCosker 3.33)
1859 -- DNP? (New York Gotham is documented)
1860 -- New York Gotham (8-1-4)
-- Pos -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 10th on team with 1.5 R/G (Burtis 3.67, TSVanCott 2.67, Connell 2.43)
1861 -- New York Gotham (1-2)
-- POs -- 1B
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 1 run in only game (Griswold 3.0, McKeever 2.8, Turner 2.33)
   384. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 05:09 AM (#725053)
Compiled from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870 book....

PETER OBRIEN

1857 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (7-1-1)
-- Pos -- OF
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 5th on team with 3.63 R/G (8G) (MOBrien 3.83(6G), LMBergen 3.8(5G), JPrice 3.75(8G), JHolder 3.67(6G), DPearce 3.5(8G))
1858 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (7-0)
-- Pos -- OF
-- Competition -- NYC+/NewBrunswick
-- Hitting -- T3rd on team with 3.25 R/G (JPrice 4.0, AMcMahon 3.29, PBoerum 3.25)
1859 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (11-1)
-- Pos -- OF
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 4th on team with 3.25 R/G (JohnOliver 3.73, DPearce/CSmith 2.67)
1860 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (12-2-2)
-- Pos -- OF-2B-SS-3B
-- Competition -- NYC+/New Brunswick
-- Hitting -- 6th on team with 1.92 R/G (JPrice 2.53, CSmith 2.5, DPearce 2.31, JohnOliver 2.0)
1861 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (5-2)
-- Pos -- SS-OF-P
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ
-- Hitting -- 8th on team with 2.71 R/G (RSeinsoth 3.83 (6G), DPearce 3.7 (10G), CSmith 3.67, FSeinsoth 3.14)
1862 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (2-3)
-- Pos -- SS
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting -- 6th on team with 2.2 R/G (CSmith 2.75, Pearce 2.60, JoeOliver 2.5)
1863 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (8-3)
-- Pos -- SS
-- Competition -- NYC+/Newark/Princeton/Philadephia
-- Hitting -- 6th on team with 2.29 R/G (CSmith 3.0, Pearce 2.73, Start 2.56, Pratt 2.42)
1864 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (20-0-1)
-- Pos -- OF
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Philly/Rochester/Woodstock, ON
-- Hitting -- 6th on team with 4.21 R/G (CSmith 5.26, Galvin 5.13, Crane 4.72, Pearce 4.7)
1865 -- Brooklyn Atlantic (18-0)
-- Pos -- OF
-- Competition -- NYC+/Philly/Wash/Newark
-- Hitting -- 9th on team with 3.07 R/G (Start 4.56, CSmith 4.38, Crane 3.94, Pearce 3.76)
   385. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 05:18 AM (#725056)
OK... that's all the 50's and 60's guys on DanG's list.

A couple of more Atlantics in there as well. You all should have those rosters memorized by now. :-)

The 50's guys had fairly short careers. Not sure how old those guys were because they fell off the radar before getting an entry in the NA register. They could have been stars before 1857 as well. MWright has only game scores before 1857. 1857 was the year that they instituted the 9-inning game... before that it was the finish an inning with 21 or more that won.

I suppose I could do HOM-ers Barnes, Spalding, McVey, White & Sutton for completeness. Much of their numbers are in the 1869/1870 yearly professional summaries.
   386. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 05:54 AM (#725064)
Oh and Dickey Pearce fans can rejoice! :-)

I found a partial season for him... inexplicably he played 5 games for Brooklyn Excelsior in 1866. That partly explains his off year that season...

I've been using the book index for a long time so I don't suspect there are many more cases of this. Pearce was my first post and I missed it. I got suckered into the continuity of his career with the Atlantics and just jumped to the Atlantics part of each seasons numbers.

1866 -- SS-3B (Brooklyn Excelsior) (5 games)
-- Team Record -- 13-6-1
-- Competition -- NYC+/NJ/Phi/Was/Bos/Alb
-- Hitting -- 3.8 R/G in 5 games (GFlanly 3.69, FNorton 3.50, JClyne 3.33)

He did score at a decent rate in the very limited time he played for them.

I've added this section to his txt file and it will go into the zip file I will post to the yahoo groups page.

Overall it was still an off year in 1866 in my opinion, but not quite as poor as first reported. Again sorry for this omission.

(I understand this pre-NA data -- although quantitative in nature -- is probably best viewed to give a qualitative picture... so these five games probably won't matter that much to many people. But I might as well try to be complete in my fact reporting as I can be).
   387. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 09, 2004 at 02:36 PM (#725262)
I found a partial season for him... inexplicably he played 5 games for Brooklyn Excelsior in 1866. That partly explains his off year that season...

We FODP will gladly accept anything that helps his cause. Thanks for all of your data mining, David.
Page 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0236 seconds
49 querie(s) executed