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.

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?

"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.

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.

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."

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Guapo and, by the way (not that I'm any more than a gadfly and irritant in this group!) welcome!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

If Esteban Rivera doesn't reappear by Sunday (he said Friday), one of us should also move post #270 to the ballot thread.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Hmm. The filter has the perverse effect of making my last post seem more obscene than it actually was.

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. :-)

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)