Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, June 14, 2004

1928 Ballot

Balloting for 1928 is now open. I’ll have my revised WARP numbers up this week (I’ve got the eligibles done, need to do the HoMers now), based on BRARP+FRAA+PRAR. These numbers overrate pitchers because the replacement level for their offense is underrated. I’ve adjusted for season length as well.

An early tease, the top 8 (I think? need to look again, numbers are not on this PC) eligibles are all pitchers. Several of them are old timers, to whom the season-adjustments maybe shouldn’t apply. Obviously there is something wrong with that, so I need to do the current HoMers for perspective.

Hopefully I get the current HoMers done tonight, but there are 50 of them (47 with stats) so it likely won’t be until tomorrow night (early Wednesday). I’ll be tweaking my ballot somewhat this week as there were a few surprises.

Another thing I noticed is the monumental difference between WARP and WS fielding evaluations on some players. So I’ll list each component (BRARP, FRAA, PRAR) for both WARP1 and WARP2 and I’ll give the player’s WS defensive letter grade also. Once I can get the data input, I’ll list his season length adjusted WS total too, but that’s not likely to be out until 1929.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 14, 2004 at 08:24 PM | 196 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 14, 2004 at 08:35 PM (#676483)
Moving this over to the hot topics . . .
   2. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2004 at 08:47 PM (#676509)
I use a combination of peak and career for the rankings. Therefore, career guys will mix with peak guys on my ballot. I also view each position on an equal basis. This doesn't mean that I have a quota to fill each position for my top ten. Sometimes a position will not have a viable candidate for a certain "year."

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Frank Baker-3B (n/a): Greatest third baseman since Sutton and the finest of the Deadball Era. His abridged career is the only thing that stopped him from being an inner circle HoMer (if you value peak more, than he is in the circle). A definite HoMer, nevertheless. Best major league third baseman for 1909, 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914. Best AL third baseman for 1910 and 1918.

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

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

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

7) Vic Willis-P (7): Why does this man receive such little respect? Willis and McGinnity are very close, IMO. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

8) Ed Konetchy-1B (8): Best first baseman of the Deadball Era, IMO. Best major league first baseman for 1910, 1911 and 1916 (very close in 1909 and 1911). Best NL first baseman for 1909, 1911 and 1919.

9) Joe McGinnity-P (9): Durability, in the defense of your team, is no vice! :-) Best major league pitcher for 1900 and 1903. Best NL pitcher for 1904.

10) Roger Bresnahan-C/CF (10): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop or Petway. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2004 at 08:47 PM (#676510)
11) Bill Monroe-2B/3B (11): I think he's worthy. Long career and nice peak. Many considered him a better hitter and fielder than Jimmy Collins as a third baseman. McGraw said (I'm assuming somewhat hyperbolically) that Monroe was the greatest of all-time. This may be too low for him.

12) Hugh Duffy-CF/LF/RF (12): "Only" the third best centerfielder of the '90s, but that position was very strong for that decade. Best major league rightfielder for 1890 and 1891. Best major league centerfielder for 1892, 1893 and 1894.

13) Frank Chance-1B/C (13): Best first baseman for the first decade of the 20th century. Even more so than Beckley, the Peerless Leader shouldn't be compared with the ABC boys ore the post-1920 crop of first baseman. The cream-of the-crop from Franklin Adam's famous trio. Best major league first baseman for 1903, 1904. 1905, 1906, and 1907 (close in 1908). Best NL first baseman for 1908.

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

15) Bob Caruthers (n/a): After thirty elections, he finally makes an appearance. While I still think his peak wasn't as historically great as others think and he did have a short career, I feel I have been shortchanging him (and other 1880s pitchers) a tad. Parisian Bob gets a nod from me. Best AA pitcher for 1889 and close to being the best AA pitcher for 1885 and 1886.

Van Haltren, Beckley, Wallace, Sheckard, and Thompson are close. Caruthers, after further consideration…wait…I don't have to mention it this week. :-)
   4. ronw Posted: June 14, 2004 at 08:58 PM (#676531)
1928 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. I'll gladly incorporate WARP when they finally complete their fix.)

1. Frank Baker The best eligible 3B in history at this point, and probably will remain so until 1974. Few players could compare to Cobb, Speaker and Collins in the early teens. Baker (and maybe Jackson) were probably the only ones. MVP candidate 1911-1914, All-Star candidate 1909-10, 1916-19. (10 HOM seasons)

2. Dickey Pearce Until 1925, I had been considering the project to run from 1871, with pre-1871 contributions only available to those players who made significant post-1871 contributions. However, John Murphy pointed out that the literal language of the constitution requires us to consider pre-1871 players. Pearce was a top player during the pre-statistics period for a long enough time to be deserving of enshrinement.

3. Joe McGinnity I think very comparable to electee Walsh, and has been on the ballot long enough. MVP Candidate 1899-1900, 1903-1904. All-Star candidate 1901-1902, 1905-1907. (9 HOM seasons)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. Larry Doyle I see a bit longer career than the other offensive 2B candidates (Childs, Dunlap, and soon Pratt). In my system, that’s enough to make the bottom of this ballot. MVP candidate 1912, 1915, All-star candidate 1908-11, 1914, 1916-17, 1919-20. (11 HOM seasons)


Lip Pike – Due to reconsiderations of Negro League players, Number 17 on my ballot now. Who’s ahead? Just Tommy Leach. With Poles and Petway next year, Pike will not make the ballot until 1930. MVP candidate 1876 All-star candidate 1871-75, 1877-78. (7 HOM seasons)

Bob Caruthers – Each year, one or two players vault barely ahead of poor Bob. He’s at #19 this year, but Poles, Petway, Gardner, Hooper, Burns, Santop, Cooper and Mendez will pass him among the weaker classes in the next few years. However, I don’t have an irrational bias against him. He just doesn’t measure up on my career-weighted system. MVP candidate 1885-1889, All-Star candidate 1890-1892. (8 HOM seasons)

Sam Thompson – Some of the top returnees are just missing my ballot, and may make it later in the 20’s. Thompson is probably not one of them. I see Thompson as below Pike, Thomas, Griffin, Tiernan, Charley Jones, and the OF on my ballot, so he may not quite get there. MVP candidate 1887, 1895, All-Star candidate 1886, 1889-1894. (9 HOM seasons)
   5. karlmagnus Posted: June 14, 2004 at 09:02 PM (#676541)
1928 Part 1:
Baker surprisingly low on my ballot; it’s a short career and not quite an outstanding one.

1.(8-9-8-14-13-11-8-5-4-5-4-5-4-2-2-2-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1) Bob Caruthers - Still in first place. 218-99 is more and more impressive when you compare Rusie, Griffith and McGinnity, let alone Walsh (Caruthers won 25 more games than Waddell and lost 27 fewer, puitching about 100 fewer innings. As a batter TB/PA .483, TB/Outs .793, so better than Nap and close to Stovey. If he’d just concentrated on pitching, added 50% to his career length, and gone 327-149, he’d have been in on the first ballot. Magnificent peak: 1886-87 59-23 and an OPS+ of 180 on 681AB beats anyone (Ruth’s best 2-way years, 1917-18, he was 37-20 and OPS+ of 182 on 440AB.) Compare with Ward, whose TB+BB/PA was .374 and TB+BB/Outs .545 and W-L was 164-102 (ERA+118) Caruthers was a better hitter and much better pitcher - so why have we elected Ward and not Caruthers?

2. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3) Mickey Welch - 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the short career dead ball era pitcher glut. 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. Welch not as good as Clarkson, but not that far off. Better than the 00s pitchers, all of whom were pitching in favorable conditions, none of whom (other than Young and Matty) got near 300 wins.

3.(N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4) Jake Beckley Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap. TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707 not as good as outfielder glut - but much of his career was played in the dead ball ‘00s, and 1B was a marginally more important fielding position than outfielder then. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford.

4. (N/A-6-7-4-4-3-3-3-4-7-8-5-7-5-5-5-5-5) Joe McGinnity. Career stats better than Griffith or Rusie; career ERA+ a meaningless stat before 1913.

5.(N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6) Hugh Duffy TB+BB/PA of .489 and TB/Outs of .788, but this in the high-offense 1890s, and he’s way below Beckley on total hits. Like the 1894 peak, though - and it’s ’94 not ’93, pitchers had had a year to adjust. Significantly behind Beckley on counting considerations.

6. (N/A-13-13-14-12-11-7-6-6-5-6-5-4-4-6-9-8-6-6-5-5-8-10-9-7-7-7) Sam Thompson Only 2,136 hits adjusted to 130 game season. However TB+BB/PA was .534 and TB/Outs .865, among the highest figures on the ballot, so high peak. Even though this figure is inflated by his having no decline phase, and by his big years coinciding with hit gluts, each new outfielder makes Thompson look a little more special.

7. (N/A-10-8) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win carrer he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.)

8. (N/A-14-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A) Clark Griffith He’s another Amos Rusie, but not quite as good (Rusie was my #12 the year we elected him, I’d have him about 10 on this ballot.) 237 wins is not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice - but he doesn’t match up even close to Welch or Caruthers, in my view (Welch’s 1885 is much better than Griffith’s 1898.)
   6. karlmagnus Posted: June 14, 2004 at 09:03 PM (#676550)
1928 Part 2:

9. Home Run Baker TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .719. Yes I know he was a 3B but he had a short career, only 1838 hits. Not as good as Collins, who I would probably have about here on this ballot.

10. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A) Jimmy Ryan Counting stats similar to Van Haltren and better than Duffy, peak slightly better than Van H, not as good as Duffy, rate stats also not as good as Duffy. Hence, on balance should be below Duffy. TB+BB/PA .485, TB+BB/Outs .773. He and Van H move above the pioneer bloc, now there’s room for them.

11. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A) George van Haltren Counting stats almost like Delahanty, but again need to be deflated for the 1890s. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s. No peak to speak of - what happened to him in 1893-95, when he should have been in his prime?

12. (N/A-11) Dickey Pearce Very unimpressive in NA, but long and pretty good career in period before the leagues – best bit of it however was before 1865, when data is very sketchy indeed and competition was local to NY area. Probably the third best 1860s player, behind George Wright and Joe Start.

13. Pike (9-12-12-11-9-10-10-13-12-15-14-N/A-12) Lip Pike - Like Start, give some credit for missing 1860s. However, normalize 1871-78 season by season and he gets 1,592 hits after 26 - not quite an obvious HOM-er. 4 “normalized 200-hit” seasons, but only just, whereas Meyerle’s 1871 peak normalizes to 320 (obviously a random fluctuation, but in the right direction!)TB+BB/PA .478, TB+BB/Outs .713 Also, unlike McVey who was clearly damn good in 1880, Pike was through by 1881.

14. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13) Levi Meyerle. Normalize 1871-77 season by season to 130 games and he gets 1,577 hits, only 15 less than Pike in 1 less season, and he was only 2 months younger, so 1860s value presumably also close (was baseball better reported in local papers where Pike played?). Better peak, too. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .751, though this, like McVey and Pike’s figures, includes no “decline” phase. Also, he was a 3B. Why did Meyerle quit? -- unlike Pike, he was nowhere near done in 1877. OPS+164 vs 152 for McVey and 155 for Pike. Lower than Pike because not a huge pre-’71 career.

15. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14) Harry Wright Better than Pearce in NA, but how good was he really compared to the rest? But I’m convinced by the anecdotal evidence that he has to have been at least as good as this. Lowest of the 4 pioneers, because pre-71 career not very distinguished.


16 Bobby Wallace. Decent length career, TB+BB/PA only .402, TB+BB/Outs .596, though mostly in the deadball era, and he wasn't a bad pitcher for a year or two. Career length considerations, and pitching moves him up an extra couple of spaces, but he’s slid back down below pioneer bloc. Will reappear on ballot in ’29 if not elected in ’28.

17. Cupid Childs

18. (N/A-15) Jimmy Sheckard Only 2,084 hits, but a walk machine. TB+BB/PA .440, TB+BB/Outs .691, but that's in the low scoring 00s.

19. Deacon McGuire
20 Larry Doyle
21. Tony Mullane.
22. Pete Browning
23. Roger Bresnahan
24. Jack Clements
25. Rube Foster
26. Sam Leever
27. (N/A) Bill Monroe
28. Vic Willis
29. Mike Tiernan
30. Chief Bender
31. Ed Konetchy
32. Hughie Jennings
33 Jesse Tannehill

34. Rube Waddell Short career but very high peak, but under 200 wins so probably not HOM-worthy. 193-143 not at all special (40 less wins) compared to Griffith or McGinnity. Fielding and hitting negative, not positive -- I don't buy it.

35 Tommy Leach
36. Lave Cross
37. (N/A-15-N/A) Tom York
   7. Jeff M Posted: June 14, 2004 at 10:18 PM (#676668)

You think Duffy was better than Home Run Baker?
   8. karlmagnus Posted: June 14, 2004 at 10:26 PM (#676682)
Yes. 20% Longer career, for one thing. Not a huge amount in it, though.
   9. Jeff M Posted: June 14, 2004 at 10:33 PM (#676688)
Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman.

John, I know I asked you about this last time, but it still bothers me. I think maybe that statement should say "Based on [insert metrics here]..." because clearly there are several measures that arguably disprove that statement, as I posted before. Or maybe say "In my opinion..."

It's very hard in an e-mail or blog posting format to convey tone, so please understand that I am posting this purely in an intellectual sense, not based on emotion or picking a fight or anything like that (I hope you already know that).

But here's my point: Like it or not, your statements carry great weight among other voters. Without going so far as referring to you as a role model and getting back a Charles Barkley-like response, I think you have to be careful about what you say and how you say it. Joe is in the same position (and a couple of others are too). Fortunately I'm immune from the respect of the other voters. :)

I'm not claiming your statement is per se incorrect, because you certainly have support for it, but it is your opinion and it is based on a specific set of metrics. Because you are using a specific set of metrics, that statement can be fairly easily refuted by using several other metrics and by examining the fact that Childs had very little competition while Doyle had Eddie Collins and Johnny Evers.

So since your statements carry such great weight, and this particular statement is not qualified by your opinion or the metrics on which it is based, I have concerns that it might mislead some people.

Maybe I just have a hard time turning off the securities lawyer in me, but it does concern me.

And again, this comment is made primarily because you have commanded such respect in our two years on this project.
   10. Jeff M Posted: June 14, 2004 at 10:48 PM (#676699)
Since the pitching thread isn't yet up, I wanted to post a brief note here about The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, in the event you are considering a purchase (or don't know it exists).

Without doing a full-bodied review, let me just give some bullet points:

*75% of the book is a pitcher "census" that is focused exclusively on what type of pitches a pitcher threw, and how hard he threw them (when such data is available). It lists everybody, with career records, years pitched and what pitches he threw, and citations to the source material (and sometimes quotes therefrom).

*10% of the book consists of essays on various types of pitches (e.g., what is a forkball, who invented the screwball, is the inshoot the same as the cut fastball, etc.)

*10% of the book consists of 2-3 page essays on ten pitchers (all of whom were good but maybe not great): Bond, Mullane, Wilbur Cooper, Rommel, Harder, Warneke, Bridges, Walters, Pierce and Friend. Interesting reading.

*5% of the book consists of a longish essay on pitcher abuse points (the BP measure) and a response essay from Keith Woolner. Then there's a Bill James "toy formula" used to predict the actual Cy Young winner -- as opposed to predicting who SHOULD win the award, it is simply trying to predict who will win the vote.

It has a lot of never-before collected data on who threw what, but the book won't change much of your thinking with respect to your HoM votes. I'm not disappointed I bought it, but it is mostly a reference work of limited scope (sort of like the SABR Home Run encyclopedia).
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2004 at 11:03 PM (#676714)
And again, this comment is made primarily because you have commanded such respect in our two years on this project.

I don't know what to say, Jeff, but: what do you want? :-D

Seriously, thank you very much. I guess my bulldog tenacity has made its mark here. I'm definitely not the most lucid or analytical thinker here, but I try.

I'm not claiming your statement is per se incorrect, because you certainly have support for it, but it is your opinion and it is based on a specific set of metrics. Because you are using a specific set of metrics, that statement can be fairly easily refuted by using several other metrics and by examining the fact that Childs had very little competition while Doyle had Eddie Collins and Johnny Evers.

Except I'm using WS. All I'm doing is WS*WS per 162 games. That's it. I'm looking for a combination of quantity and quality.

As for Doyle, I agree that Collins is an unfair comparison (Evers is not - Doyle was clearly the best second baseman in the NL and I have the Crab besting Childs only once during the teens), yet Doyle still led the NL less times than Childs did in a one-league environment, IMO.

My point was not to beat up on Doyle, but to highlight Childs. Certainly, a case can be made that Doyle was better if you're a timeliner. What I don't understand is Childs not on everyone's ballot.
   12. favre Posted: June 15, 2004 at 01:49 AM (#676843)
1.Frank Baker
2.Dickey Pearce

I give a lot of weight to a player’s best seven best (non-consecutive) seasons. In his seven best seasons, Baker was a comparable hitter to Sam Thompson while playing very good defense at third. As others have mentioned, he’s the best player we’ve seen at his position.

We’ve all seen them before, but here is a summary of the arguments for Pearce: 1. From 1859-1868, he was the first or second best hitter (except 1865-66) on the premier team of his time. 2. He reinvented the position of shortstop, giving him tremendous defensive value 3. He was still fielding at short in his ‘40s 4. His career lasted over twenty years. 5. He was highly regarded by his contemporaries. That’s a strong case for induction.

3.Lip Pike
4.Joe McGinnity

I’ve been one of Lip’s strongest supporters for years now, but some re-examination has convinced me to drop him behind Pearce. Pike’s NA and pre-NA numbers are similar: he was clearly a star for years, the best 2B of the 1860s and the best outfielder of the NA. However, Pearce was arguably the best player in baseball for a stretch (’59-’63). Pike cannot make that claim, and Pearce’s career was considerably longer.

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

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

The players with very good careers but little or no peak. Wallace’s value as a fielder and pitcher gives him the edge over Beckley. I am struck by the fact that, in 1928, we’ve see few quality first basemen in the past thirty years (although Gehrig is setting the standard for the position as we speak). Ed Konetchy has similar value to Beckley from age 22-35; probably more value, given run production during the era and Konetchy’s defense. Yet Beckley also had a good season at age 21 and a very good season at age 36; he also had 300 PA at age 20 with 152 OPS+ and 900 PA in his late thirties where he hit for league average. Beckley’s career simply surpasses all other first basemen from the 1890s until the 1920s.

Between 1895-1901, Griffith never had a season ERA+ lower than 119 in a hitter’s era. In those seven seasons, Griffith was 154-87, .639 WP; his team’s WP was .449 without him.

8.Rube Foster
9.Rube Waddell

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

10.Jimmy Sheckard
11.Tommy Leach
12.Ned Williamson

Both Sheckard played excellent defense value at OF and 3B mixed in with good hitting in a low offense era; Sheckard had a couple of seasons of outstanding hitting. Williamson was also an excellent fielder and similar hitter to these two, but played in more offense-friendly era.

13. Sam Thompson
14. Pete Browning
15. Cupid Childs
16. Larry Doyle
17. Mike Tiernan

I see Thompson, Tiernan, and Browning having very similar value. Thompson and Tiernan have often been linked together, of course, but I think Browning was a comparable player: relatively short career, not much defense, but a very good hitter. Childs and Doyle were also similar hitters, although Doyle has more questions about his defense.

18.Hugh Jennings
19.Bob Caruthers

Great players for five years, but with little else on their resume’. I don’t think the AA reached parity with the NL during Caruthers’ peak years of 1885-1887.

20. Mickey Welch
21.Bill Monroe
22.Charley Jones
23.Frank Chance
24.Vic Willis
25.Gavvy Cravath
26.Addie Joss
27.Roger Bresnahan
28.Jimmy Ryan
29.George Van Haltren

Jimmy Ryan and George Van Haltren were good hitters in a great hitting era which already has plenty of inductees to the HoM. Their position is underrepresented, but in the next seven years we’re going to see Cobb, Speaker, Poles, and Torriente (and let’s not forget about Pike).
   13. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2004 at 01:54 AM (#676850)
Thanks John,

I've been meaning to take a 2nd glance at Childs for a while... its possible I'm missing the difference in season lengths. The 1890's seasons were not that short but they were indeed shorter and that might be enough to make a difference.

I have Doyle slated at 15th right now and Childs off ballot. My reasoning was that Doyle hit better (126 to 121 OPS+) and that he played longer by a season or two. Childs played much of his career in a one league era but his exceptional rookie season was in the 3rd league... the 1890 AA. Heavy discount for that monster season, IMHO.

Doyle's got him in WS career... 289 (238H/50F) to 238 (180H/57F). As for peak, it goes:

Larry -- 33,29,28,27,25,21,20,20,19,18,17,16,12,4
Cupid -- 32,31,27,23,20,18,18,18,12,12,6

With Childs's 31 season being a candidate for discount.

Anyhow, its not unreasonable that one would rank Doyle ahead of Childs without timelining using Win Shares.
   14. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2004 at 02:02 AM (#676862)
Now, perhaps I was just playing devil's advocate a bit too much there. There still is the issue of season length. The issue of WARP rating the defensive differences much higher.

Also, the issue of WARP actually stating that Childs was a better hitter by rate (EQA)... which appears to be due to Childs' high walk rate.

OK... if I'm going to continue talking to myself, I'm going to go the discussion thread. :-)
   15. dan b Posted: June 15, 2004 at 02:10 AM (#676872)
Win shares are my metric of choice. I start with a composite ranking = 4 x Career + (3 best years)/3 + (5 best consecutive years)/5 + (8 best years)/8 + WS per 162. I then make adjustments justified by individual components with a touch of subjectivity thrown in. I use the same system for hitters and for 60’ 6” era pitchers. I also look at WS w/o defense for a hitting only ranking. (Number in parenthesis shows composite rank.)

1.Baker(1) By my assessment H. R. Baker will be the all-time MLB 3rd baseman in the HoM until we elect Mathews in 1974. 2nd best 5-year peak of eligible players behind Wagner.
2.McGinnity (1) Elected to my HoM in 1916.
3.Bresnahan (22) Big jump this year to fill the void behind the plate. I expect we will elect Santop when eligible, but our HoM will be flawed if we do not induct at least one Major League catcher who played between Buck Ewing’s retirement in 1897 and Gabby Hartnett’s debut in 1922. IMO, a 25-year span without representation at the toughest defensive position would be a blow to the credibility of our project. I am aware of the arguments against him – only caught 68% of his games, 2 of his best years were as a CF, short career. But the other contenders to fill the void – most notably Schang (only topped 20 WS twice and never topped 21), and Schalk (couldn’t hit), are even weaker choices and played most of their careers after the advent of the lively ball. SABR dead ball era committee has him #1, so does NHBA.
4.Jennings (6) – elected to my HoM in 1908. 5-year peak 5th best of eligible players behind Wagner, Baker, Delahanty and Lajoie. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar.
5.Duffy (2). 3rd in 5-year peak, 2nd in 8-year, elected to my HoM in 1912.
6.Sheckard (3) 1st in career, 3rd in 3-year peak, 3rd in 8-yr peak, 3rd best hitter on ballot. Personal HoM in 1921.
7.Griffith (3) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, elected to my HoM in 1913.
8.Chance (12) – ranks 2nd on hitting alone behind Baker. 5 times one of the top 12 players in the NL, 4 times one of the top 5 hitters. Best 1B of the era. NHBA rank of 25 puts him in the BJHoM. My HoM in 1921. The Peerless Leader merits more attention here.
9.Waddell (4) I like his peak and K’s. 2nd to Joss in WS/IP. 2nd best LHP to date. Hall worthy.
10.Leach (5) 4th in 8-yr peak, 3rd in career.
11.Browning (16) – Reclaims lead in WS/162 with Jackson’s induction, elected to my HoM in1906.
12.Caruthers –Use NHBA rankings to build BJHoM and Parisian Bob was inducted in 1898.
13.Doyle (10) NHBA rank of 20 put him in BJHoM in 1926.
14.Wallace (17) – 6th in career.
15.Joss (11) 1st in WS/IP. Great pitcher belongs on more ballots.
16.Ryan (4) – 4th in career.
17.Tiernan (11) 5th best on hitting alone.
18.Thompson (15) 11th in 8-year peak
19.Willis (4) – 1st in career, 2nd in 3-year peak.
20.Childs (19) – “Best 2B of 90’s” – J. Murphy :)
   16. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 15, 2004 at 03:37 AM (#676962)
For those looking at Childs/Doyle, the numbers from my adjusted WARP ratings . . .

Childs 71.0 Best year, 13.7 in 1890 in 3rd best league, AA. Using 1891-93 as a guide and eyeballing a 5-5.5 for that year is much more appropriate. He basically had 1.2-1.3 more WARP1 than WARP2 in those years, so I'm thinking the same would apply to 1890 if he weren't in a 3rd rate league, and he had 4.0 adjust WARP2 in 1890).
Doyle 37.5 WARP hates his defense. -164 WARP1 FRAA, -237 WARP2.

Adjusting for season length

Doyle 513 WARP1 BRARP; 457 WARP2 BRARP.
Childs 588 WARP1 BRARP; 473 WARP2 BRARP.

Basically WARP gives Childs a slight edge offensively after adjusting for league quality. Their OPS+ disagrees with this (126 Doyle, 119 Childs), but Childs' OPS+ was more OBP driven. It's close enough to call it a wash, well within the range of error for both metrics. Childs had a higher peak, but Doyle played a two more seasons.

The relative ranking then would then depend on the relative merits of their defense. I forgot to bring my WS book with me tonight, so I don't have their letter grades here, but obviously, WARP likes Childs' D a lot more. Seasonally adjusted:

WARP1 fielding runs above average:
Childs 54
Doyle -171

WARP2 fielding runs above average:
Childs -36
Doyle -248

I think I've been turned, and I'll be moving Childs ahead of Doyle, unless WS had the exact opposite answer on their D, then it's back to the drawing board. Not sure where they'll stand overall just yet.

Major changes ahead on my ballot this week . . .
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: June 15, 2004 at 03:38 AM (#676963)
Jeff M, securities attorney, do you seriously believe that John M and karl should have to justify their ballots to you? Or that John should be more careful of what he says than you should be?

John, don't let this guy manipulate you just because every time he puts the needle in, he puts a couple smiley faces!

Yeah, I know, it's really hard to convey tone. You, sir, convey your arrogant tone quite well. You and your post #29 on the 1926 results thread are why I no longer play in this sandbox. For two weeks, every time I logged in I was so upset I was bashing innocent bystanders like Jim Sp, and for that I am sorry.

Bottom line, this used to be fun. Jeff M, securities attorney, don't spoil it for John M and karl. Go lay your smiley faced BS on some corporate crook. Oh, wait, you probably defend them.
   18. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 15, 2004 at 03:57 AM (#676971)
Marc (sunnday2) - I think that was a bit harsh. John and Karl should have to justify their ballots to anyone that asks - that's a major part of this project. But either way, I thought Jeff's tone was pretty respectful of John, he went out of his way to be cordial while criticizing. On a separate note, your last sentence in #17 was simply uncalled for.

I went back and read the comment you referred to, and skimmed down a little further past it, and I didn't see anything to go crazy over. Sure I could see why it may have irked you, but I think this is a bit of an overreaction.

I did not realize that you aren't playing in this sandbox anymore - that really disappoints me, you've been a major contributor, I hope you'll reconsider. That was almost a month ago - are you still having browser issues?
   19. Howie Menckel Posted: June 15, 2004 at 03:59 AM (#676972)
Jeff M and Marc/Sunnyday,
Let's ease off the throttle a bit.
Murphy obviously is just giving his opinion, albeit based on definite stats.
Jeff M almost can tell himself that he is going overboard.
And Sunnyday merely is as frustrated as I have been at times over the site's recent "improvement."
No more kerosene!

I do think that Murph gives unneeded bonus pts to guys lucky enough to play in a year when all his competitors stink, but he's also taught me a lot about plenty of players. So I'm not dismissive of his vote - and yet not "overly influenced," either.
Let's all take the high road, we'll be glad we did..
   20. andrew siegel Posted: June 15, 2004 at 05:06 AM (#676987)
Rather than weighing in on the tone battle, I thought I'd vote.

(1) Home Run Baker (new)-- A fairly straightforward number one for me. Sure, I wish his career was longer, but his peak is among the top 75 of All-Time and he hung around long enough to put up more best in his league seasons at 3B than anyone we will see for awhile. On my All-Time list, he slots in one spot ahead of Jackson.

(2) Jimmy Sheckard (3rd)-- WARP and Win Shares both love him and they agree on little else on this ballot; the kind of multi-dimensional, BB-drawing, unorthodxly-shaped career that is chronically underrated. Three great seasons amidst a long and very productive career.

(3)George Van Haltren (5th)-- I've got the next six very close. VH moves up by default, but I love his consistent and multi-faceted excellence; reminds me in that regard of two HoMers who I would have loved to have on my team: Richardson and Stovey.

(4) Jimmy Ryan (9th)-- Finally gave up on trying to keep distance between him and Ryan; did any two contemporaries ever have such similar careers? Davis and Dahlen, maybe?

(5) Bobby Wallace (7th)-- Put up as many WS as VH and Ryan despite WS's underrating of defense; still don't think his peak was special, but consistent excellence is the theme of the day.

(6) Cupid Childs (4th)-- Here's my slight nagging doubt on him: sure he looks great if you use raw WARP numbers and use WS to compare him to his peers (as I have been doing), but doesn't he look pretty medicore if you do the opposite?

(7) Hughie Jennings (6th)-- Hard for me to rank him ahead of Childs, given that Childs also had a high peak and had twice as many productive years.

(8) Charley Jones (8th)-- Hard to see why any prime-oriented voter would ignore him.

(9) Lip Pike (10th)-- Achievements pre-1871 and post-1871 make him the Monte Irvin of that transition.

(10) Joe McGinnity (12th)-- One notch below Brown and Plank; one notch above Griffith, Waddell, Joss, and Willis. There should bee room for him in the HoM.

(11)Bob Caruthers (11th)-- Joe's comments about WARP overrating his pitching offense and the low IP he threw even during his peak seasons give me pause, but it's hard to see who might jump over him.

(12)(N)ed Williamson (14th)-- Baker's arrival shows his pluses and minuses as a candidate; take three of Baker's five big seasons and knock 10 WS off each and you have Williamson.

(13)Sam Thompson (unranked)-- Either you guys wore me down or I;m just feeling kindly to WARP this week, but it's hard to see how Hugh Duffy's baserunning, durability, and corner OF defense could make up for the huge offensive edge Thomspon had and they had careers of roughly equal lengths; plus Duffy's defensive edge is a matter of some dispute.

(14) Hugh Duffy (13th)--See above; where do all the WS come from?

(15) Clark Griffith (unranked)-- Just edges Bresnahan for this spot.

Next 10: Bresnahan, Dunlap, Chance, Beckley, Doyle, Monroe, Griffin, Browning, Tiernan, Joss.

Beckley is close based on positional representation, but I can't quite accept the argument that 1B was so defensively demanding during his career that only a hadnful of stoic souls could play it; without that kind of argument, all he's selling is offense and he's no Tiernan, Browning, or Caravath.

I just don't see honoring Pearce for being the best player in NY between the death of Creighton and Start's coming of age; plus, if we're going to knock Hal Newhouser for his wartime competion, why does Dickey get off scot free?
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 15, 2004 at 05:48 AM (#677014)
I do think that Murph gives unneeded bonus pts to guys lucky enough to play in a year when all his competitors stink

But I'm really not doing this. I do compare the player to his contemporaries to get an idea of how tough the position was responsibility-wise and attrition-wise.

BTW, I don't think Childs contemporaries stunk at second. Playing second was much tougher on the body (IMO) during the 1890s than the 1910s. Childs' era may not have had a Lajoie (who started second at the tail end of Childs' career) or Collins, but the rest could hold their own when placed in the proper context.

Finally, any time anyone wants to discuss something that I have posted, I will be more than happy to make my case the best way I can provided he is civil. Jeff passed that test with flying colors. Besides, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

BTW Marc, I hope you reconsider and join the discussion part of the group again.

I just don't see honoring Pearce for being the best player in NY between the death of Creighton and Start's coming of age; plus, if we're going to knock Hal Newhouser for his wartime competion, why does Dickey get off scot free?

1) Pearce was a great player for longer than that (and before the Civil War to boot).

2) If we make the proper deductions for the war years, Newshouser is still a great player. So was Pearce.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 15, 2004 at 06:04 AM (#677016)
20.Childs (19) – “Best 2B of 90’s” – J. Murphy :)

At least nobody can deny that. :-)
   23. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2004 at 06:41 AM (#677028)
A few changes this year... mostly near the bottom of the ballot. Trying to stress more non-outfielders, Cravath was a casualty. This sentiment could percolate to the top half of the ballot in future seasons. These ballots are quite thin, though. Very difficult to separate slots 2-20. Also experimenting with BOLD this year. I hope this works.

1. Home Run Baker (ne) -- 135 OPS+ at 3B. Second-best member of the $100,000 infield. Best 3B candidate so far.
2. Lip Pike (5-4-2-1-2) -- 155 OPS+ CF in the NA/NL. Solid pre-NA play includes time at 2B. Brooklyn's best slugger in '70, second to Start in '69. Another said he's the Monte Irvin of the NABBP/NA transition, not a bad analogy.
3. Sam Thompson (8-7-5-3-3) -- I like peak. An earlier start would make a vote for him easier. Could certainly hit. Held his own teamed with Brouthers in DET and Delahanty/Hamilton in PHI.
4. Joe McGinnity (9-8-6-5-4) -- Climbed my ballot after more worthy candidates were inducted... really just a peak-only pitcher with a few high-IP/high value seasons. Played extremely well in rookie season despite being in the 'b-squad' of the Bro/Bal syndicate.
5. Jimmy Sheckard (13-9-8-7-5) -- Fine peak seasons rank him ahead of OF glut. Good fielding outfielder for excellent defensive squad as well.
6. Richard J. "Don't Call Me Dickey" Pearce (11-11-9-8-7) -- True Pioneer. With Start, the star of the greatest team of the '60s -- Brooklyn Atlantics. Much of his value comes before the end of the Civil War when few played organized ball outside of NYC. The game got so much bigger starting around '66. He was not all peak, though, as he's still a decent hitter in 67,68 & 70.
7. Rube Foster (nr-nr-10-9-8) -- Decided to enter him into my ballot here. Great early pitcher. More known as a pioneer, but I like those kinds of guys.
8. John McGraw (10-10-11-10-9) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. A look at Baker's short career and swift election should cause some to take a second look at Johnny Mack.
9. Charley Jones (nr-nr-13-12-11) -- Late start (for the era) and unfairly blacklisted. Appears to be a hybrid or Pike/Stovey/Thompson, guys I've ranked fairly highly.
10. Bobby Wallace (12-13-12-13-12) -- Very long career. Lots of win shares, could hit a little before 1910, but mostly defensive value here. Low peak has me nervous, pitching numbers push him ahead of Jennings.
11. Hughie Jennings (14-12-14-14-13) -- I like peak and boy does Hughie have peak. Short career, poor seasons outside his peak slip his career OPS+ down to 117.
12. Clark Griffith (nr-15)-- I took a second look at him and he compares well to McGinnity. Long tail at the end of career is masking a solid prime from 94-01
13. Bob Caruthers (nr-14-15-15-14) -- His peak value is becoming too hard to ignore, especially on a ballot this thin.
14. Larry Doyle (nr) -- Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak, short career keeping him this low.
15. Cupid Childs (nr) -- Very comparable to Doyle. OPS+ is OBP heavy
   24. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 15, 2004 at 07:31 AM (#677043)
"Playing second was much tougher on the body (IMO) during the 1890s than the 1910s."

I know the 1890's were rowdy, but I was under the impression that 2B has gotten tougher as the game has matured as opposed to easier. 2B was more like 3B today in the 1890's than it was in the 1910's (I think).

Now if you want to say all positions were tougher to play in the 1890's, because the game was almost a contact sport, the gloves were smaller, etc. that's reasonable. But relative to the other positions, I think 2B became tougher over time, not easier.
   25. Rusty Priske Posted: June 15, 2004 at 12:39 PM (#677082)
PHoM inductees: Joe Jackson and Frank Baker

1. Bobby Wallace (1,2,2) PHoM 1920. Great career. Eclipses the rest of the pack.

2. Jimmy Sheckard (2,3,3) PHoM 1919. Starting to get decent recognition here.

3. Bob Caruthers (4,5,5) PHoM 1919. How has he stayed unelected for so long?

4. George Van Haltren (3,4,7) PHoM 1912. He is my earliest induction not yet so honoured by the HoM.

5. Jake Beckley (9,7,10) PHoM 1913. He seems to be losing momentum.

6. Mickey Welch (5,9,9) Very overlooked.

7. Lip Pike (x,x,x) I have come around.

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

9. Rube Foster (9,11,13) With a surge in Negro League voting, may get more support.

10. Dickey Pearce (7,8,12) PHoM 1927. I should have put Foster in last year.

11. Bill Monroe (13,14,x) See Foster.

12. Frank Baker (new) Different list of players means a different spot on the list. He will likely move up if not inducted.

13. Joe McGinnity (12,12,14) Overrated, but still worthy of a spot on the ballot.

14. Tommy Leach (15,13,15) PHoM 1921. I jumped the gun.

15. Hugh Duffy (14,15,x)
   26. karlmagnus Posted: June 15, 2004 at 12:54 PM (#677088)
I thought Jeff M's question perfectly reasonable; I hadn't compared Duffy and Baker directly till I looked at it. As there are 15 factorial (more than 1 billion) possible orderings of a 15 person ballot, one doesn't necessarily look at any given pair against each other. On reflection, though, I stand by my original ordering, though I agree it's quite close.

As a former investment banker and current journalist, I LIKE securities lawyers. Trial lawyers, though are another matter :))

Sunnyday 2, don't leave us, and please don't get upset by occasional snottiness. Though mind you if you're an EOBC (I don't remember), hasta la vista, at least until he's been elected!
   27. PhillyBooster Posted: June 15, 2004 at 01:32 PM (#677108)
This was my post #345 from the 1927 discussion thread. I am re-printing it since hardly anyone reads the ballot discussion threads after the ballot thread for that year is also complete, and also because Childs/Doyle has come back up, and I am firmly in the Childs camp:
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.
   28. Jeff M Posted: June 15, 2004 at 01:54 PM (#677119)
Wow. I had no idea you were so upset, Sunnyday. Maybe send me an e-mail next time and we'll clear it up.

I looked back at post #29 on the '26 ballot discussion thread, and I can't understand what is harsh about it. I was just stating my opinion and I didn't trash you (or anyone else) in the process. The first paragraph contains two "light" comments. The second paragraph apologizes to you because you were offended by me claiming Spalding's election wasn't "our proudest moment." The rest of it is explaining why I made the "not our proudest moment" comment. I repeatedly state it is just my opinion and that the Spalding election wasn't a model. What is offensive about that?

For the record, I am a sarcastic person and a lot of the questions I ask and criticisms I level are said with a smile on my face. That's why I include the smileys. I don't include smileys simply to "stick the needle in" with a smile.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. It certainly wasn't my intent.

Simply put, I like to see attribution for statements. When I see attribution, I don't ask many questions (because the attribution answers them). When I don't see attribution, I ask questions...not to tear down the person who made the statement, but so we all know where the statement came from. And it's likely that whatever source is attributed to a statement will help convince me of its accuracy. Just the nature of research in my opinion.

Again, I apologize, and if I'm the one that needs to step out of the project, let me know.
   29. PhillyBooster Posted: June 15, 2004 at 02:11 PM (#677133)
Players who moved from last week in bold. The rest are the same.

1. Bob Caruthers (1) -- No good reason. Just picked his name out of a hat.

2. Jake Beckley (4) -- great hitter at an important position. Best in his league for years, second best to HoMers for more years. I don't discount his "peak" because it was somewhat flattened into a lengthy "prime." He was great for his whole career, and when he wasn’t the best, he was second to a HoMer. He had been mid-ballot for year, but as the ballot choices get weaker, Beckley soars over mediocre competition.

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

4. Home Run Baker (n/e) – the Roger Bresnahan of third basemen. Shortish career, but towers over his peers. I get the sense that he will be elected this week, and that is not a bad thing. But the recognition of positional scarcity should apply just as strongly to Bresnahan, both of whom tower below (tower below?) Beckley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Cupid Childs (13) – See post 27 above above for my defense of Childs over 2B contender Doyle.

12. Mickey Welch (15) – Innings. Pitchers through a lot of innings in the 1880s, and that has lots of value, even if the ERA+ is “only” 113 over the 4802 innings. The McGinnity v. Joss argument thrived on comparing McGinnity to Joss plus a replacement player. Well, Welch had 1350 more innings than McGinnity. He also was not that much worse than Keefe, as a comparison of the two when they were on the same team shows. A top 20 pitcher in wins and innings, with a solid win% and a non-embarrassing ERA+ should not fall this low. Though experiment: Welch minus 1880-1882 (ages 20-22, the Troy years): 238-146, .620 W%, 3579 Innings, and an ERA+ that climbs to 118. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Joe McGinnity. Now, of course 1880-1882 count, both that was essentially 3 years of average. Is McGinnity plus 3 years of “average” the difference between top of the ballot and off-the-ballot? No. I have Welch just a little lower due to comparisons among their respective peers, but they are really very close.

13. Ed Williamson (10) -- Is simply not that much worse than Ezra Sutton. Is simply that much worse than Baker, however.

14. George van Haltren (14) -- He and Williamson and Welch are part of my "reconsideration brigade" of players who fell too low through neglect. Best centerfielder if you don't like Pike.

15. Bobby Wallace (off) – I hope my vote for Bobby isn’t the one that pushes him over Joe “always a bridesmaid” McGinnity toward election, but the fact is that he’s the best shortstop available from 1870 to the present and that pushes him up over the first basemen, and outfielders below him.

16-20: Chance, Konetchy, Sheckard, Clements, Griffith
21-25: Evers, Jennings, S. White, Browning, Doyle
26-30: Monroe, McGraw, Duffy, Tinker, McGuire
   30. jhwinfrey Posted: June 15, 2004 at 02:51 PM (#677196)
Let's vote...
1. Mickey Welch (1,1)-- 300 wins is a bit overrated as a measure of a pitcher's career, but it is still a good indicator. Welch also has the highest career WS of any eligible other than Mullane. PHoM in 1926

2. Joe McGinnity (3,2)-- Continued to pitch in the minors after his MLB career and racked up a total of 480 professional wins. PHoM in 1926.

3. Dickey Pearce (7,4)-- The great research done by members of this forum has convinced me that Pearce is better than most of us are ranking him. PHoM in 1927.

4. Bob Caruthers (4,5)-- He, Joss, and Wood are probably the best peak pitchers on the ballot. And in my view, Caruthers had the best career of the trio. PHoM in 1928.

5. Jake Beckley (6,3)-- Why the drop for Beckley? I guess I have a bit of a see-saw going between pitchers and hitters... PHoM in 1927.

6. Frank Baker (ne)-- Baker and Thompson are neck-and-neck for me. Baker gets the nod because of playing 3rd base.

7. Sam Thompson (8,6)-- A slugger in an age of triples, he's a step below Delahanty and Brouthers among the early power hitters. But not far below. PHoM in 1910.

8. Rube Waddell (5,8)-- Some argue that his strikeouts make his stats look better than they are. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that K's are better than other outs. And his 300-K seasons in the 19-aughts are impressive.

9. Roger Bresnahan (9,11)-- Many have made better arguments than I can here. I'll just add that Breshnahan is reputed to have developed the snap-throw to first.

10. Addie Joss (10,9)-- If you had to pick a pitcher eligible for this ballot, in his prime, to pitch game 7 of the world series, who would it be? I think I'd pick Joss.

11. Tony Mullane (12,13)-- 399 career win shares. Even if you only give him 75% credit for playing against inferior competition, he's still in the neighborhood of Baker and ahead of McGinnity.

12. Lip Pike (13,14)-- In an age of stolen base artists, he stands out.

13. George Van Haltren (14,15)-- A very good player for a long time.

14. Bill Monroe (15, nr)-- I'll trust John McGraw's judgement, at least this far up the ballot.

15. Bobby Wallace (nr)-- Wallace finally makes it onto my ballot, just squeaking ahead of Sheckard.

Off-ballot, in order:
16: Jimmy Sheckard-- In my view, his peak of 1899-1903 isn't enough to off-set his many merely good years. His career OPS+ of 120 includes a few seasons of 150 or more and many around 115.

17-20: Leach, Ryan, Willis, Duffy
21-25: Doyle, Griffith, Foster, Konetchy, Browning
26-30: Cicotte, Evers, Milan, Huggins, Jennings
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 15, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#677254)
Now if you want to say all positions were tougher to play in the 1890's, because the game was almost a contact sport, the gloves were smaller, etc. that's reasonable.

That's what I meant, Joe. Sorry about the confusion.
   32. Daryn Posted: June 15, 2004 at 06:03 PM (#677555)
I don't see Baker the way the majority do.

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

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

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

4. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. has him as the best first baseman in baseball for a long time.

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

6. Bob Caruthers – nice Winning percentage, great peak, short career, surprisingly low era+, 130 ops+ as a hitter.

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

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

In/out line for me

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

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

11. Tommy Leach – slightly inferior to Sheckard, better fielder, worse hitter. 300+ WS.

12. Frank Baker – doesn’t do much for me, mirror’s Pike’s 4 home run titles. Could be above Wallace, Sheckard and Leach, but not much higher. I'll consider moving him up to 7 or 8 next year if he is still eligible.

13. Lip Pike – 4 monster seasons, career too short.

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

15. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity.

The rest

16. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Clyde Milan – nice willie wilsonesque career.

25, 26, 27 and 28. Rube Waddell, Jim McCormick, Addie Joss and Ed Cicotte -- pitcher glut, throw in Willis, Bender and Mullin for that matter.

Next in line, in no order, but I’d be very reluctant to but them on a ballot (29 to 41)-- Evers, Tiernan, Tinker, Jennings, Bender, Williamson, Meyerle, Mullane, Willis, White, Thomas, Cross, Mullin and Chance.
   33. Jim Sp Posted: June 15, 2004 at 07:23 PM (#677707)
For two weeks, every time I logged in I was so upset I was bashing innocent bystanders like Jim Sp, and for that I am sorry.

Thanks, sunnyday2, I appreciate that.
   34. jimd Posted: June 15, 2004 at 11:31 PM (#678154)
Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

The greatest players are those who combine a high peak with longevity. However, a player can demonstrate greatness for a shorter period of time and then be unable to follow through with the longevity, which is partly a function of luck (amongst other things such as genetics and discipline). OTOH, a player can demonstrate longevity but not demonstrate "greatness" (no high peak).

Both of these types of players are flawed, but I think both have a place in the HOM, because there are not enough truly great players available to fill the HOM quota. I try to balance the two types, not leaning one way or the other. Although it may seem like my ballot caters to peak players, it only looks that way because the majority of voters here tend to elect most of the good career players (high peak or no) while leaving most of the great-peak/short-career guys behind.

1) B. CARUTHERS -- The best player available, measured by peak value. (No new arguments this year.)

2) B. WALLACE -- Made my PHOM in 1921, instead of Collins, though Jim has made it since. Wallace appears to be a victim of Bid McPhee syndrome; some voters refuse to believe the D.

3) J. SHECKARD -- Surprised me. The best NL OF'er of the early oughts, by peak. He didn't last as long as Clarke, which drops him to just above the glut. In my revised PHOM, instead of Joe Kelley (who is now also in).

4) H. JENNINGS -- Using rolling 5-year peaks for WARP-3, only he and Tommy Bond, eligible for this ballot, can claim to have been the "best player in baseball" without question. All of the others have already been elected or are not yet eligible; elected to my PHOM over a decade ago.

5) F. BAKER -- Very similar peak value and career value to Joe Jackson; Baker makes up the offensive shortfall with defense at a key position. Baker places higher due to positional scarcity vs positional glut (and the scandal penalty).

6) D. PEARCE -- Reflecting on him and his long career at a top defensive position in the undocumented dawn of the game, I think he belongs. (Basically, the Joe Start argument, with less documented evidence.)

7) T. BOND -- Both WARP and Win Shares rate him as the best player in the game during the late 1870's. Career prematurely shortened by the rule change that moved the pitching box back 5 feet in 1880. You just don't modify at will the break on that "curved-ball" you've been throwing for five years. If the banned players of the 1910's deserve sympathy, how about Tom; he didn't even appear to do anything wrong, just be great at the wrong time for the wrong rule change.

8) R. FOSTER -- Legendary peak for a short time in the oughts. Very good pitcher for some time afterwards. Those who vote peak should re-examine him. Still a lot of questions, but he has the potential to get a #1 vote, depending on the answers.

9) J. RYAN -- Here comes the glut. Much better peak when compared with his contemporaries, but not up to Sheckard's level either.

10) G. VAN HALTREN -- He and Wallace have the best careers left on the current ballot, now that the really good career players have been inducted. Wallace has the better peak, though that's not difficult to do. GVH is the Beckley of outfielders, though better, unless Jake deserves more defensive credit than I'm giving (via WARP).

11) S. KING -- Not likely to go anywhere soon, but this is where he rates.

12) N. WILLIAMSON -- Need some infielders on this ballot; the best not in either the HOM or PHOM.

13) S. THOMPSON -- He's back, for longer than I thought.

14) F. JONES -- Reached the top of the OF heap before he walked away. Not enough peak for the peak voters to really get excited about and not enough career for the career voters. Some of each will work on my ballot.

15) J. MCGINNITY -- Close enough to not be worth explaining why not.

Just missing the cut are:
Jim Whitney, Herman Long, Fred Dunlap, Cupid Childs, Lip Pike,
Gavy Cravath, Jim McCormick, Lave Cross, Rube Waddell, Jake Beckley,
Hugh Duffy, Roy Thomas, Charlie Buffinton, Billy Nash, Clark Griffith
   35. EricC Posted: June 16, 2004 at 12:12 AM (#678239)
Marc/sunnyday, I hope that you will continue to participate in the HoM project. You're "one of us".

1928 ballot.

1. Frank Baker A respite from the drought; a great player on a ballot of marginal candidates. The best 3B to date. Prime didn't last long enough to make him one of the greatest of the greatest, but being the best at position 6 consecutive years, 1909-14, puts him in rare company. Not very comparbale to anybody else that we've seen to date, but I see similarities to George Wright.

2. Eddie Cicotte Thankfully, I can go another election before having to explain why I'm the nut who has Eddie Cicotte number 1. I see decent career length, in spite of its early end, and a peak where he was arguably second to Walter Johnson. Although I don't use WARP in making my ratings, I agree in general with the way that WARP3 compares eras and leagues, so, looking ahead, I see a dilemma. Cicotte has more WARP3 as a pitcher than any other eligible player. On the other hand, there will be 10 or so more pitchers with higher WARP3 becoming eligible between now and 1945, with only Johnson and Alexander (and Smokey Joe Williams) looking obviously qualified. I may have to modify my system eventually if my ballot becomes too heavy with interchangeable pitchers.

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

4. Roger Bresnahan

Top 30 deadball era (1901-1919) OPS+; 3000+ PA. (Individual year OPS+ averaged weighted by plate appearances, so figures may have slight errors compared to OPS+ correctly calculated from the raw data).

## ##PA OPS+ Name
01 8281 183 Cobb
02 5041 169 Jackson
03 6954 163 Speaker
04 9640 153 Wagner
05 8256 151 Lajoie
06 4591 150 Cravath
07 7389 150 E. Collins
08 3376 149 Kauff
09 3664 147 Donlin
10 4680 147 Flick
11 10037 146 Crawford
12 3663 143 Stone
13 6033 140 Baker
14 4537 139 Chance
15 5900 137 Clarke
16 8546 137 Magee
17 3198 136 Burkett
18 4381 134 Veach
19 4169 132 Groh
20 4022 132 Seybold
21 3609 131 Hickman
22 4632 129 G.J. Burns
23 3385 129 Freeman
24 5541 129 Hartsel
25 3456 128 Gessler
26 6852 127 L. Doyle
27 5818 127 Titus
28 5355 127 Bresnahan
29 3893 127 S. Evans
30 5676 126 Wheat

Bresnahan, and Chance, by being the best hitters at their positions for the deadball era, are decent candidates, though the NL weakness and the shortness of their careers prevents them from being great candidates. Cravath makes the ballot for being great for long enough, with some credit for non-major league play.

5. Bobby Wallace Very good every year for 15 straight. Would love to see his pennants added total.

6. Jake Beckley At one point or another, was the active career leader in G and AB and R and H and 2B and 3B and HR and RBI. This, my friends, is a career . And it would be nice to see the greatest 1B between Brouthers and Sisler inducted before the umpteenth best outfielder from this period.

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

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

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

10. Hughie Jennings Among the highest peaks of any eligible player, but was only good for 5 years.

11. Frank Chance

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

13. Gavvy Cravath

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

15. Cupid Childs Returns to my thinning ballot with a coincidence of timing that will arouse the suspicions of the conspiracy theorists, but this has nothing to do with John's advocacy. The best 2B of the 90s, but his career petered out a bit too fast for him to rate higher.

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

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

Joe McGinnity. Not a big fan. 121 ERA+ is not in "must elect" territory, and that's before questions about NL quality. Let's not rush this one. :-)

Bob Caruthers. My latest reevaluation was a wash. I still think that his peak, considered in context of era, league, and team, was not high enough or sustained enough to make up for its shortness.
   36. Jeff M Posted: June 16, 2004 at 01:37 AM (#678463)
jimd's ballot made me think of Tommy Bond again. Bond is one of the 10 pitchers who gets a separate essay in The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers.

It has an interesting tale of Bond's fewd with Bob Ferguson. Apparently Bond accused Ferguson of "selling games" and they had a public battle in the newspapers. Bond eventually took back the accusation, saying simply that he was mad when he made the statement. :)

Also a good story in there about how Harry Wright proved a ball could curve, using Tommy Bond as the example (and when observers claimed it was the wind, he used Lefty Mitchell to curve it the other way).

The essay (actually authored by Neyer) concludes that Bond was overused/abused early in his career and his arm simply gave out by 1880: "In 1880, all of Bond's hard work over the previous six seasons finally had its way with his right arm. (In retrospect, the only surprise is that he lasted as long as he did; none of his contemporaries were able to pitch as well as he did for so long)."
   37. TheGoodSamaritan Posted: June 16, 2004 at 02:28 AM (#678768)
1928 Vote:
Babe Ruth's extraordinary accomplishment of hitting 60 four-baggers in a season might seem like a monumental achievement, but is it? I have consulted a fascinating person named Dr. Emmett Brown who has methods in predicting the future and he tells me that Babe's Home Run record will be broken multiple times by multiple players, including once by another Yankees' right fielder! By the end of the century the record would hit 73, set by one Barry Safeinvestment (or something like that), the godson of somebody famous named the "Howdy Child" (or some other confusing nickname). The record would stand for another 33 years until a cyborg named Steve Austin hits 111 home runs for the Mexico City Mercenaries in the new 186 games season. Hearing all this, I would propose that the future commissioners put an asterisk on all new home run season marks, because they would have been broken with the help of:
a)a longer schedule.
b)enhancement drugs.
c)biomedic upgrades.
d)wimpy pitchers who could no longer pitch 9+ innings.
All of which wasn't available when the Babe was playing. BTW Dr. Brown would only tell me that this year's World Series would involve the NY Yankees and the St. Louis Cardinals. Seeing how the 1926 World Series went, I think I'll put some big money on the Cardinals to win it all...
On with my ballot:

01. Frank Home Run Baker 3B - The best 3B until Eddie Mathews hits the scene. Key member of the great A's team in the early 1910's.

02. Bobby Wallace SS - Using a combo of career WARP3 and a 5 consecutive years peak WARP3, I have Wallace being more qualified for the HoM than HoMers Jack Glasscock and Monte Ward. When Hans Wagner was moved to shortstop full-time, Wagner said that he tried to copy Wallace's fielding style, implying that Wallace was considered the best-fielding shortstop of his time.

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

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

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

06. Jimmy Sheckard LF - None of the outfielders on the ballot -- Duffy, Van Haltren, Ryan, Thompson, Tiernan, Jones, Milan -- really stands out. I have Sheckard being the best of the bunch, but not by a lot.

07. Jimmy Ryan CF - I think he is the best CF of the bunch, but am not 100% sure. His WARP numbers are almost the same as the average HoM CF already voted in. Very close in value to Van Haltren.

08. George Van Haltren CF
   38. TheGoodSamaritan Posted: June 16, 2004 at 02:31 AM (#678789)
09. Roger Bresnahan C - He is the classic Win Shares Love Him, WARP Hate Him player (along with Hugh Duffy and Sherry Magee). The WARP numbers for him are not that good because they have him to be very much below average fielder at a FRAA of -119. Win Shares has Bresnahan to be a C+ fielder, which I think is about average. The peak WARP numbers for Bresnahan are also very low. OTOH Win Shares loves Bresnahan as seen with his high ranking as the #16 all-time best catcher of all time, one slot above Buck Ewing, and his Win Shares per 648 PA. A person named Cyril Morong did a ranking of all the players with 5000 PA by their Win Shares per 648 PA and Bresnahan is ranked 6th in the catcher's list. Bresnahan is also ranked 45th(!) overall in Win Shares per 648 PA over players like Ed Delahanty (27.41), Roger Connor (26.60), Hughie Jennings (24.52) and Charlie Bennett (23.60).

10. Sam Thompson RF

11. Mike Tiernan RF

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

13. Eddie Cicotte SP - By WARP3, Cicotte is the next best pitcher after Caruthers, a little ahead of Clark Griffith.

14. Fielder Jones CF - Makes it back on to the ballot after some of the backlog was cleared up.

15. Ray Chapman SS - John Murphy wrote on another page that he considers Art Fletcher to be better than Ray Chapman and he may be right. Right now Chapman has the offensive edge while Fletcher has the defensive.

BTW Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Rube Waddell, Jake Beckley and Clyde Milan did not make my on to my top 15.
   39. DavidFoss Posted: June 16, 2004 at 03:19 AM (#679042)
Career home run list:


1 Babe Ruth 416
2 Cy Williams 234
3 Rogers Hornsby 217
4 Ken Williams 185
5 Roger Connor 138
6 Jack Fournier 136
7 Harry Heilmann 135
8 Zack Wheat 132
9 George Kelly 128
10 Sam Thompson 127

Seems like just seven years ago that Connor was the all-time home run king... hey, it was!


1 Babe Ruth 1927 60
2 Babe Ruth 1921 59
3 Babe Ruth 1920 54
T4 Lou Gehrig 1927 47
T4 Babe Ruth 1926 47
6 Babe Ruth 1924 46
7 Rogers Hornsby 1922 42
T8 Babe Ruth 1923 41
T8 Cy Williams 1923 41
T10 Ken Williams 1922 39
T10 Rogers Hornsby 1925 39

Ned's long-standing old mark of 27 is now only good for 19th.

Obviously these 1920's players are using steroids!
   40. Jeff M Posted: June 16, 2004 at 03:45 AM (#679160)
Funny stuff, you two. :)
   41. DanG Posted: June 16, 2004 at 01:37 PM (#679590)
New exhibits for Griffith, Bresnahan, Duffy, Williamson. The other “Home Run”, Frank Baker, sweeps into the HoM in 1928. Spot Poles and Bruce Petway add to the “Negro Leaguer glut” in 1929. We start scraping bottom in the candidate dead zone 1930-32.

1)Baker – Many rankings (e.g., Bill James, BB Survivor) see him as a top 100 player; nobody suggests he was less than a mid-tier hall of famer. No other candidate here gets near those sorts of props. However, I must point out that he hit 70 of his 96 career homers at home. Why didn’t he play with the Feds in 1915?

2)Wallace (2,1,1) - Like McPhee, he was a regular for 18 years. Wallace consistently leads Bid in OPS+ by 7-8 points during their prime years. As fielders it’s a wash, comparing an A+ 19th century 2B to an A- deadball SS. A leading run producer in his prime, the list below shows him surrounded by HoMers, plus he had more defensive value than most of those players. Players leading in RBI plus Runs Scored 1897-1908:
1—2250 H. Wagner
2—2110 N. Lajoie
3—1813 J. Collins
4—1772 F. Clarke

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

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

3)Pearce (3,2,2)– If the HoM is about respect for all eras, then Pearce is a “n-b”. Our Hall has only two players who played much before 1868 (Start and Wright). Unlike the Negro League Grants, we know that Pearce was a star of the first rank while playing at the highest level. The more I learn about him the more he seems like the Ozzie Smith of his time, a historically great defender, productive offensively, smart. Also similar to Bobby Wallace. If HoM voting had begun ten years earlier, electing one player per year, both he and Pike would already be in: 1888-Barnes, 1889-Wright, 1890-Spalding, 1891-McVey, 1892-Start (1st-ballot), 1893-Pike, 1894-Sutton (1st-ballot), 1895-Pearce, 1896-White (1st-ballot), 1897-Hines (1st-ballot), 1898-Gore (1st-ballot), 1899-O’Rourke (1st-ballot), 1900-Clarkson (1st-ballot).

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

The rest of these guys wouldn’t be bad HoMers, but I can’t justify ranking any of them among the top four, above my personal “Clearly deserving” line.

5) McGinnity (5,5,5) – A poor man’s Rusie, but that’s still enough to be a HoMer. I like guys who play, and while the Iron Man lacked longevity, few pitchers were more durable. Most Games Started 1899-1908:
1—381 J. McGinnity
2—375 V. Willis
3—374 C. Young
4—350 J. Powell
5—327 J. Chesbro
6—312 B. Dinneen
7—311 C. Mathewson
8—309 R. Waddell
9—298 A. Orth

6) Sheckard (6,6,6) – The recently released Deadball Stars of the National League by SABR isn’t terribly supportive of him…lotsa nice words about Cravath, though. Disregarding that for now. Discussion moves him to the top of the glut. Players with 300 Stolen Bases 1898-1912:
1—622 H. Wagner
2—449 J. Sheckard
3—400 F. Chance
4—398 T. Cobb
5—377 S. Mertes
6—350 F. Clarke
7—339 S. Magee
8—330 E. Flick

9—304 J. Tinker
10-302 T. Leach

7) Van Haltren (7,8,9)—As to why he is opening a gap from Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he has much higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan actually played more corner outfield. Players with 2500 times on base 1889-1901:
1—3392 B. Hamilton
2—3134 G. Van Haltren
3—3046 J. Burkett
4—3043 E. Delahanty

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

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

3—1429 T. Leach
4—1408 N. Lajoie
5—1392 H. Davis
6—1343 F. Clarke
7—1286 D. Murphy
8—1278 S. Magee
9—1266 J. Sheckard

9) J. Ryan (9,10,12)—Why didn’t he play in 1901? Most outfielder Assists, 1876-1917
1—375 J. Ryan
2—348 G. VanHaltren
3—348 Tom Brown
4—307 J. Sheckard
5—289 O. Shaffer
6—285 K. Kelly
7—283 S. Thompson
8—273 D. Hoy
9—270 J. Burkett
10- 268 T. McCarthy
10- 268 S. Crawford
   42. DanG Posted: June 16, 2004 at 01:37 PM (#679591)
10) Griffith (10,11,13) – The #4 pitcher of his era, behind three first-balloters, but firmly ahead of #5. Gets extra credit for excelling in the contraction years 1892-1900, an era lagging in number of HoMers. Could hit a little, too. Pitchers with highest OPS as hitters 1894-1903, minimum 500 PA:
1—.796 J. Stivetts
2—.696 A. Orth
3—.689 W. Mercer
4—.684 J. Meekin
5—.676 J. Tannehill
6—.673 N. Callahan
7—.650 C. Griffith
8—.646 F. Dwyer
9—.643 F. Killen

11) Bresnahan (13,14,15) – Catcher is the most poorly represented position in the HOM, a condition that may prove to be chronic. Could move higher, but I really like guys who play. Played half his teams’ games in only 11 seasons, averaging 71% of team games in those years. Still, his offensive production towers over other catchers of his era, so he deserves a vote. Lacking Bennett’s durability and longevity. Defense only C+. Players with OBP over .380, 1903-14 (minimum 3100 PA):
1—.424 T. Cobb
2—.420 E. Collins
3—.413 T. Speaker
4—.401 R. Bresnahan
5—.400 H. Wagner
6—.399 F. Chance
7—.396 R. Thomas
8—.386 N. Lajoie
9—.382 M. Huggins

12) Thompson (12,13,14)– Sure, a lot was context, but nobody put more runs on the board than Sam over a 14-year period (see below). He averaged 28 OF assists (among the best) and 25 steals (below average, actually) over eight prime years, so he also contributed in ways other than batting. Players with 2100 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1885-98:
1—2548 S. Thompson
2—2481 H. Duffy
3—2446 C. Anson
4—2339 R. Connor

5—2227 J. Ryan
6—2217 E. McKean
7—2202 D. Brouthers
8—2147 E. Delahanty

9—2140 M. Tiernan

13)Duffy (11,12,8)– A WHOLE lot was context. Not a long career (12.4 yrs) for a corner OF, I’m coming around to the consensus view of him, continues to slide down. Hit 82 of his 106 career HRs at home. Players with 1900 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1889-99:
1—2585 H. Duffy
2—2348 E. Delahanty
3—2141 G. Van Haltren
4—2135 B. Hamilton
5—2117 J. Beckley
6—2099 H. Long
7—2038 E. McKean
8—1939 G. Davis
9—1901 J. Ryan

14)Beckley (14,--,--) – He’s Joe Start, but without a peak and retired four years sooner. Grade B fielder, won four WS GG. The many triples are a product of a strange park in Pittsburgh; hit only 34 of 86 career homes at home and his other stats do not suggest good foot speed. Firstbasemen with 950+ RBI through 1926:

1--2076 Anson
2--1575 Beckley
3--1322 Connor
4--1296 Brouthers

5--1060 McInnis
6--992 Konetchy
7--968 J. Doyle
8--952 H. Davis

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

15)Williamson (15,15,--) – Too similar to HoMer Collins to be too far off the radar. I think anyone who gives a bump for underrepresented positions needs to give (N)Ed a serious look. Players with 300+ walks 1879-88:

1—442 N. Williamson
2—415 G. Gore
3—344 R. Connor

4—339 Y. Robinson
5—329 D. Brouthers
6—323 K. Kelly
7—319 H. Stovey

8—312 J. Morrill
9—305 C. Anson

Bob Caruthers – I echo Joe’s case against him; he may crack my ballot in the dead zone of the early ‘30’s. Among the factors working against BC: Team support was great; pitching career was shorter than any current HoMer; not a workhorse; weaker league quality; the era 1881-93 already well-represented in the HoM. Not one of the big winners of his era. Pitchers with 200 wins, 1883-93:
1—319 J. Clarkson
2—300 T. Keefe
3—251 H. Radbourn
4—247 P. Galvin

5—246 T. Mullane
6—240 M. Welch
7—231 C. Buffinton
8—218 B. Caruthers
9—200 G. Weyhing
   43. Jeff M Posted: June 16, 2004 at 01:44 PM (#679600)
Why didn’t he [Baker] play with the Feds in 1915?

"The Ballplayers" says he "sat out in protest" but it isn't clear whether he was protesting his teammates being lured by the higher salaries of the FL or whether he was protesting the fact that Connie Mack was breaking up a great team rather than pay high salaries to his stars.
   44. Jeff M Posted: June 16, 2004 at 01:53 PM (#679611)
1928 Ballot

1. Baker, Frank – Easy choice for #1 this week, in my opinion. Excelled in all phases of the game and played on pennant winners. Could have played longer, but when he did play, was unquestionably one of the best players in the game, particularly at his position.

2. McGinnity, Joe -- Solid WS numbers. Fantastic winning percentage and excellent Wins Above Team. Has some nice counting stats and good grey ink scores. Would probably have won two Cy Young Awards. Suffers a bit in the WARP system. Inducted into my PHoM in 1914.

3. Browning, Pete -- Hasn't budged on my ballot in a long time. I have discounted his 82-85 and 89 seasons but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. I think he's a HoMer because he was easily one of the best hitters we've evaluated. He was an outfielder in the early years, so I doubt his suspect defense detracts much from his overall value. Inducted into my PHoM in 1912.

4. Bresnahan, Roger -- I was surprised to see that in my system he was quite a bit better as a hitter than Charlie Bennett, though certainly not as good defensively. If you stack Bresnahan's WS and WARP1 numbers against the catchers actually elected to the HoF, he looks very solid. He’s also a worthy vote because catchers only comprise 6% of our HoM. Inducted into my PHoM in 1926.

5. Caruthers, Bob -- WARP1 helped him leap higher on my ballot and I re-examined pitchers, which also bumped him up. Also, I stepped away from the numbers and looked at the big picture, and he was one hell of a baseball player. Makes it into my PHoM in 1928.

6. Leach, Tommy -- His numbers are deflated by the era, but normalized he looks very good. I've got him with 7 gold gloves at two different tough positions. He played approximately half his games at 3b. He might look less attractive to some since Baker will be elected from the 3b spot, but my rankings don’t change based on who we’ve elected and who we haven’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Pearce, Dickey -– The HoM is a little full of shortstops right now, but he’s the best SS candidate available.

15. Beckley, Jake -- Makes my ballot for the first time since 1913. My ranking of Beckley has not changed over that time period. Very solid and long career, but like Sheckard, I don’t quite see him as a HoMer, though I do see a significant gap between Beckley and Konetchy.

Required Disclosures:

Wallace, Bobby -- His WS numbers are not that impressive in relation to existing HoF shortstops (he's at the bottom of the stack) and he was only the best shortstop in the league once. He's ranked #20 in my system, behind Willis and ahead of Chance.

Pike, Lip –I’ve given him a big boost for pre-NA play, though it appears to be documented more poorly than a player like Joe Start. Had some monster years, but only really played until he was 33, and his defense appears to have been very poor. He’s tied for #32 in my system, with Joss and Kauff.
   45. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: June 16, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#679770)
1. Jimmy Sheckard (2,1). Those Cubs remind me of the Beatles. A bunch of tremendous talents all in their primes together - but when those glory years were done, the decline phases of the different members wasn't nearly as strong as one would've guessed. Sheckard's the only exception. He's the only guy to not only have a strong prime, but also a heckuva career. Strong offense & great defense.

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

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

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

5. Dickey Pearce (7,6). Best baseball player born during James Madison's lifetime.

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

7. Frank Baker (new). Heckuva prime, but a very short career. His prime'll get him over Leach as the top 3Ber on the ballot, but that's largely because Leach spent so much time in the OF & thus didn't have as much replacement value. Best third baseman of his generation.

8. Clark Griffith (12,12). Personal favorite 1890s pitcher. Nice career, nice prime. The median winning percentage of his opponent is the highest of the four pitchers I've got on the ballot. Leaps ahead of BC as I'm more impressed by the level of competition he faced & his durability. Jumps a little due to periodic reevaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 Joe Tinker (15,16). The secret weapon on those great Cubs teams. Best glove on the ballot bar none. And an above average hitter for a SS. If he'd had a normal decline for a player with his prime, he'd be in the top third of my ballot.

Off-ballot 10 top returnees:
29. Lip Pike (36,39). The best I can see him as is comparable & slightly better than Gavvy Cravvath - if you ignore GC's minor league play. I don't ignore that & even still Cravvath's off my ballot.
   46. Rick A. Posted: June 16, 2004 at 03:57 PM (#679779)
1928 Ballot

Please welcome Frank Baker and Harry Stovey to my PHOM

1.Frank Baker – Career is a little short for my tastes, but a combination of solid prime, very good above average value, still decent career value, and the best 3rd baseman we’ll see for a long while gives him the top spot.
2.Dickey Pearce Best SS of 1850’s and 1860’s. 20+ year career, acknowledged the best by contemporaries, played on the best team (Brooklyn Atlantics) for much of that time. Elected PHOM in 1919.
3.Bobby Wallace – Not a very high prime, but a nice, long career. Seems more like Bid McPhee to me than Jake Beckley. Elected PHOM in 1926.
4.Charley Jones – 96% of value is above average. Truly great hitter who missed 2 years in his prime. Elected PHOM in 1926.
5.Lip Pike – 95% of documented career is above average. Fresh look at Charley Jones, Pike, and Browning made me change my order of them. Elected PHOM in 1918.
6.Pete Browning – 61% of value is prime, 89% of value is above average.
7.Ed Williamson –Realized I was undervaluing him. We’re on track to elect 8 deadball pitchers, and I’m fine with that, but shouldn’t we elect the second best thirdbaseman from th 1880’s. Great defensive player and very good hitter.
8.Joe McGinnity - 83% of value is above-average. Good prime value. Moved up due to comparison w/Brown.
9.Bob Caruthers – OK, the arguments for Caruthers have convinced me that he deserves a place on my ballot. Good-to-great pitchers who can hit the crap out of the ball are very rare indeed.
10.Rube Foster - Moved up due to re-evaluation and new info.
11.Jimmy Sheckard – Just a step behind Keeler. 84% of value is above average.
12.Cupid Childs – Good hitter. Not as good defensively as McPhee. 84% of career above average.
13.Hughie Jennings – 77% of value is prime alone. Unfortunately, that’s all he’s got. Still that’s enough to get him this high. Re-evaluated 1890’s infielders since they seemed to get beat up during their playing days.
14.Bill Monroe –Seems to fit between Grant and White.
15.Hugh Duffy –. 82% of career is above-average. Great defense. Took another look at him and he moved up a couple of spots

Off the ballot
16-20 Thompson, Willis, Tiernan, Van Haltren, Welch
21-25 Waddell, Doyle, Leach, Griffin, Griffith
26-30 McGraw, Chance, Dunlap, Beckley, Mullane
   47. Michael Bass Posted: June 16, 2004 at 04:27 PM (#679833)
I am mainly using WARP3, Win Shares, OPS+, ERA+. I am more a career voter than anything, but that's hardly an exclusive description.

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

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

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

4. Jimmy Sheckard (5,4) - Really a strong career, just a hair behind VH.

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

6. Frank Baker (new) - Great player, didn't play quite long enough to move higher up my ballot.

7. Sam Thompson (10,9,7) - Better hitter, worse defender than most of the OFs.

8. Fielder Jones (9,8,8) - I'm Fielder's best friend, and I still think this is about right for him on a career basis. Lotta value in his very long career.

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

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

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

12. Bill Monroe (--,--,14) - See the Foster comment, but Childs is my benchmark for Monroe. May move up significantly next year, I'm reconsidering him with the arrival of Poles, and some other NLers who I suspect may not be as good of candidates as Monroe.

13. Tommy Leach (15,15,15) - Quality long career with quality defense at two positions. Not a great hitter. Fielder Jones lite.

14. Jake Beckley (--,--,--) - Finally makes my ballot. Lotta career, but never really that great of a player.

15. Rube Waddell (--,--,--) - The top name on what I consider to be the pitching glut. About 5-7 guys, all of similar value.

Top 10 Returners not on my ballot

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

16. Dickey Pearce - Moves way up. Could make the very bottom of my ballot next year. More likely will get on in 1930. Can't ignore his long career.

22. Lip Pike (12,12,12) - Reconsideration of him and Pearce (and Tommy Bond) move Lip way down. Don't think he was *that* much better than Bond, who I don't like much at all. Doesn't have the career standout length of Pearce.

16-20: Pearce, Griffin, Willis, Mullane, McCormick
21-25: McGinnity, Pike, Wood, Thomas, Jennings
26-30: McGraw, Bresnahan, Joss, Evers, Cicotte
   48. Jeff M Posted: June 16, 2004 at 04:55 PM (#679887)
Those Cubs remind me of the Beatles.

Chris, which one is Ringo?
   49. Brad Harris Posted: June 16, 2004 at 05:12 PM (#679913)
Getting this in before closing time...

1. Frank Baker - no-brainers like Baker make this too easy sometimes.
2. Dickey Pearce - now that his inclusion on the ballot is not a question, you've got to rate him above Bobby Wallace.
3. Jimmy Sheckard - best OF on the ballot for combination peak/career.
4. Joe McGinnity - I've moved him up my ballot considerably. I found a re-evaluation of Iron Joe to be a freshing example of why these lists shouldn't remain stagnant.
5. Lip Pike - I like the Monte Irvin comparison someone made. Pike is the best CF on the ballot.
6. Eddie Cicotte - he won't ever get elected (in large part because of the '19 World Series), but this knuckleballer was a great one and projects to continue being one if he hadn't been expelled from the league.
7. Gavvy Cravath - gets the nod over Thompson as the next best OF. (Boy, there's a lot of them.)
8. Cupid Childs - I've been converted. Just a hair better than Doyle, on the whole.
9. Larry Doyle - still very much underrated by the electorate.
10. Bob Caruthers - overall value is underestimated.
11. Sam Thompson - has fallen considerably down my ballot as I've reconsidered others. Too short a career to rate much higher ATPIT.
12-13. Jimmy Ryan/George Van Haltren - I just can't decide between these two guys. Geez.
14. Bobby Wallace - peak is better than I thought, but still based so much in his defense.
15. Ed Konetchy - gotta give props to "Big Ed". Better player than Beckley, IMO.
   50. Michael Bass Posted: June 16, 2004 at 05:18 PM (#679919)
Is that Ryan 12, VH 13? If not, is a tie allowed? I was under the impression it was not except for the 15th slot, though I haven't looked it up
   51. TomH Posted: June 16, 2004 at 05:40 PM (#679947)
1928 Ballot
review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 13 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 96 adjusted for defense and timeline and maybe speed. I don’t believe in much extra value for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

1-Frank Baker (new)
I give him some credit for the missing 1915 and 1920 seasons. Another boost for subjective time-and-place transportation to modern game. Post-season heroics bump him up a notch too. Not an earth-shattering #1, but we’ve already elected the no-brainers, as well as most of the semi-brainers too :)
2-Clark Griffith (1)
He Won Lots of Games, Pitching for Lousy Teams, even often Facing the Toughest Opponents. Where Is The Love?
3-Sam Thompson (2)
Best full-career Hitter. Add a bit to his career totals for lost time before age 25, and make an educated guess at how he would hit in the live ball era, and he’s a monster
4-Bobby Wallace (4)
Good hitter, good hands (8-10 fewer errors per year than most shortstops), good range. Think Dave Concepcion, except with more power, a longer career, oh plus he pitched well for 2 years also. Take that, Joe Morgan!
5-Lip Pike (6)
Even timelining like WARP does, his adjEqA is .300 (better than most players on the ballot); not bad for a guy who could play 2B as well as CF. WS and OPS+ love him. The more “very good” OFers who come along, the more Mister Pike stands out.
6-George Van Haltren (5)
Hit. Ran. Played defense. Pitched. Long career. Played in one-league 1890s. Solidly on my ballot.
7-Jim McGinnity (7)
Con: Same ERA+ as Griffith. Similar IP. Couldn’t hit quite as well, slightly lower WARP, possibly better defense behind him, W-L record adjusted for support not that great.
Pro: Great ’05 series, good minor league stats, and he allowed few unearned runs.
8-Bob Caruthers (11)
Great W-L record result of his fine pitching AND bat. But a short career, in a weaker league. And his taste in teammates is unsurpassed; when he WASN’T pitching, they still won over 60% of their games.
9-Rube Waddell (10)
Same big years as McGinnity, less other stuff tossed in. Six time leader in KOs, 3 ERA+ titles help.
10-Jimmy Sheckard (9)
Dropped a bit this week as I reconsidered hitting stats of 1Bmen compared to OFers, and realized I was dissing pre-1920 first sackers, and slightly overrating the outfield guys.
11-Jim McCormick (12)
Awesome 56+ Wins Above Team. Lots of IP. Also pitched behind poorer defenses than most Ps on this list, so ERA+ doesn’t tell the whole story. Plus he could hit.
12-Addie Joss (13)
Bonus points for his great pennant exploits.
13-Ed Williamson (14)
Decent hitter. Great defense. Underrepresented position. And many of the guys he played with and against thought he was the best. I don’t penalize him for his below-average fielding at shortstop. If they had left him at 3rd, he’s be as good as Ezra Sutton.
14-Hughie Jennings (15)

The 15th spot is the hardest one, since our system creates a big bonus for at least making the ballot:
15-John McGraw (off)
I’m a career voter, but these guys accomplished more in a few years than most others did in many.

Next up would be Dickey Pearce….
While I was a FO Frank Grant, and one could very well argue that Pearce and Grant should be paired on basis of “best player in their league”, I believe “very likely the best black prior to 1900” is a better than “possibly the best player of the 1860s, and very likely the best of the early 1860s”. Dominating a game in the NYC area of the country while many guys are fighting a war – well, I’m still on the fence.

…or Jake Beckley
The Tony Perez of the 1900 era. Actually, if the time comes, I’ll have him ahead of Tony. Errgh, my second dig of the Big Red Machine in one ballot. Not intentional.

Also barely missing this week are Roger Bresnahan and Cupid Childs

Near the edge: R Foster, J Ryan, H Duffy, L Doyle, C Jones, B Monroe
   52. PhillyBooster Posted: June 16, 2004 at 05:56 PM (#679982)
Is that Ryan 12, VH 13? If not, is a tie allowed? I was under the impression it was not except for the 15th slot, though I haven't looked it up.

We have had non-15th-place ties before, but not frequently.

Each should be awarded 8.5 points here.
   53. Michael Bass Posted: June 16, 2004 at 05:59 PM (#679990)
Gotcha. I assume we're reading that as a tie, then?
   54. Jim Sp Posted: June 16, 2004 at 06:06 PM (#680003)
Tempting to put Joe Wood on the ballot, but no.

Baker I think clearly belongs, after that it’s a muddle. I recognize that there’s a pretty decent argument against everyone on my ballot, but that’s the way it goes for a few years. I have Childs at #16 because of a strong discount on his 1890 AA season.

1)Baker--Surprised that Baker isn’t more popular. Career was short, but not that short. Great hitter, good defender at a premium defensive position.
2)Doyle— Compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. 2B became a predominantly hitters position in the 20’s and 30’s, not the teens. Doyle’s 126 OPS+ at 2B is only exceeded by Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, Morgan, Robinson, Richardson, and Dunlap. #19 all time in innings at 2B, how bad a fielder could he have been? Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
3)Beckley—I’m no longer Beckley’s best friend, but close. Keeler’s election convinced me to stop downgrading Beckley. Beckley is the better fielder, about the same as a hitter for his career, and at an underrepresented position that with more defensive value. Behind the big 3, much better than any other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production.
4)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, striking out people at rate that is extremely high for the era. Each year allowing at least 20% fewer runs than an average pitcher, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. 134 ERA+ in 3000 IP is worthy, his W/L record isn’t impressive because his run support wasn’t impressive. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
5)Wallace—long career, good hitter, played shortstop well, and gets a boost for his pitching. A shortstop with a long career who can hit belongs in the HoM.
6)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
7)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
8)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so that hurts him a bit.
9)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.
10)McGinnity—Win Shares NL best pitcher in 1900, 1903, and 1904. Terrible hitter.
11)Lave Cross—great fielder. Caught some too. Only hit well in weak leagues, but still that’s a lot of career value…2645 career hits with a lot of defensive value. All time leader in Win Shares / 1000 innings at 3B.
12)Joss—Comp is Koufax…a terrible hitter.
13)Pearce—placement is quite subjective, putting him above Childs and McGraw feels right.
14)Welch— Better than Galvin. His 1885 season (44-11, 1.66 ERA, 492 IP) is a great peak year, he had 3 other great years (1884, 1888, 1889) plus another 6 good seasons. Welch played every year in the toughest league. He could hit a little (68 OPS+). Career 307-210…he deserves some of the credit for that.
15)Leach--Great fielder at both 3B and CF. Historically a unique player, if only he hit a little better. Or had stayed at 3B.

Sam Thompson—short career hurts him, but the man could hit.
Bob Caruthers— Short career, and AA discount hurts him. See also Tony Mullane, Silver King, Guy Hecker, Jack Stivetts, Dave Foutz, and Will White.
Sheckard--Not quite. On the top of the outfield glut, just off the ballot.
Lip Pike-- The quality of competition was not good. I think we’ve taken enough of the 1870’s crowd.
Van HaltrenGood player, part of the OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
RyanI place him equal with VanHaltren, which puts him off the ballot.
   55. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: June 16, 2004 at 06:28 PM (#680045)
Chris, which one is Ringo?

Mordecai Brown. He's the only one with a nickname. Ringo's fame & fortune was based on George, John, & Paul while Brown's numbers are largely due to John, Joe, & Jimmy. That's not really fair as Brown was a heckuva pitcher, but then again Ringo was a heckuva drummer.

Frank Chance = Brian Epstein. He was the Peerless Leader, after all.
Jimmy Sheckard = George Harrison. Nice, likable guy who was productive a lot longer than anyone else.
Johnny Evers = John Lennon. Evers was supposed to be a hard teammate to get along with, & Lennon seems like he could be a real pain in the butt, especially when he started bringing Yoko in the studio with them.
Joe Tinker = Paul McCartney. He feuded with Evers just like Lennon & McCartney did. After the glory days he did nothing, while McCartney reportedly had his brains stolen by aliens from the planet Twinkie in 1971.
Clark Griffith = Pete Best. Really not fair, but they only got great after he left. Could also go with Stu Sutcliffe, but he lived. If the other Jack Taylor had died young, he'd be Stu Sutcliffe.
Heine Zimmerman = Yoko Ono. Barely there when the won it all, but was around as they fell apart. Also has a silly sounding name. I bet he couldn't sing either.
   56. jimd Posted: June 16, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#680283)
LOL - Thanks Chris.
   57. Brad G. Posted: June 16, 2004 at 08:53 PM (#680334)
I gotta be brief this go-around, cause I'm off on VAC for the next week 1/2. Sorry for the re-hashed notes!

1928 Ballot:

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

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

3.Frank Baker- Maybe three is too low, but I’m starting conservative on him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.Larry Doyle- I see him as the best eligible 2B.

15.Rube Foster- I get the nagging feeling his pitching ability is being way undervalued here.

16-20: Leach, Browning, Monroe, Griffith, Cicotte
   58. Howie Menckel Posted: June 16, 2004 at 10:50 PM (#680464)
re, the dates section of Baker's bio....

February 16, 1915: Home Run Baker, 28, announces retirement following a contract dispute with Connie Mack. He will sit out the 1915 season. Mack will also have salary problems with Chief Bender, Eddie Plank, and Jack Coombs, and rather than compete with the Federal League, he releases the stars.
   59. karlmagnus Posted: June 16, 2004 at 11:00 PM (#680473)
I have to say I don't think Baker should get extra credit for '15. Mack wasn't Comiskey, and retiring in a huff at 28 shouldn't get you an extra bonus. That whole episode is very odd -- DID the A's throw the '14 Series?
   60. DavidFoss Posted: June 17, 2004 at 12:46 AM (#680717)
I have to say I don't think Baker should get extra credit for '15. Mack wasn't Comiskey, and retiring in a huff at 28 shouldn't get you an extra bonus. That whole episode is very odd -- DID the A's throw the '14 Series?

Mack was just as cheap as Comiskey... maybe even cheaper. He almost completely sold off his 1914 team and the team finished last for seven straight years after that.

Why the sell-off? Attendance was down considerably. The A's drew only 350k in attendance 1914, their lowest number since 1901 by quite a bit. No FL team in Philadelphia either. The players on his team were established stars and warranted large contracts that he could not afford.

Did they throw the 1914 series? I can't be certain, but I doubt it. They lost games 2 & 3 in the last inning by one run... game 3 in extra innings. That sounds a bit too close for a thrown game. No margin for error. Plus, the Braves may have been flukey, but they were white hot. They finished the season on a 66-19 tear.

My question is why he didn't sell off Baker like he sold off everyone else? Baker fetched the A's $37,500 the next spring. Why not just deal him the year before. Makes no sense to me.

Of course, Baker had a right to be upset. Like if the 1998 Marlins had kept just one of those veterans from the year before.

For what its worth, Baker doesn't need the extra credit in my opinion.
   61. Patrick W Posted: June 17, 2004 at 01:30 AM (#680952)
It won’t be long til my ballot could be 67% PHOMers.

1. Bobby Wallace (1), StL. (A), SS (‘94-‘14) (1920) – Peak/Prime is not MVP-quality, but it’s just below that echelon and not a detriment to his worthiness.
2. Sam Thompson (3), Phila.(N), RF (‘85-‘98) (1902)
3. Jimmy Ryan (4), Chic.(N), CF / RF (‘85-‘03) (1926)
4. Jimmy Sheckard (5), Bkn.–Chic. (N), LF / RF (‘97-‘13) (1919)
5. George Van Haltren (6), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – Decided that offense should be the tiebreaker for these three. They’re all in my HOM, so the order doesn’t mean that much to me.
--. Harry Stovey, Phila. (AA), 1B / LF (’80-’93) (1928) Woo Hoo!! Any chance I get a bonus point on my consensus score this year?
6. Frank Baker (n/a), Phila. (A), 3B (’08-’22) (1928) – Would surpass Jimmy Collins in my overall ranks if not for 1915. Appears to have lost a step for missing out that year as well. Peak considerations get him in on the first try, in spite of my disdain for electing ‘not sure things’ in Year 1. But the backlog has better candidates available.
7. Fielder Jones (11), Chic.(A), CF / RF (’96-’08) – Rethinking the middle of the ballot
8. Jake Beckley (10), Pitt. – Cinc.(N), 1B (’88-’07) –
--. Sherry Magee, Phila. (N), LF (’04-’19) – Lil’ bump from last year for the Win Share pts..
9. Bill Monroe (8), Phila. – Bkn. (--), 2B / 1B (‘96-‘14) –
10. Eddie Cicotte (9), Chic. (A), SP (’08-’20) –
--. Mordecai Brown, Chic. (N), SP (’03-’16) –
--. Joe Start, Atlantic-Bkn (NABBP)-N.Y.Mut.(NL), 1B (‘60-’86) –
11. Clark Griffith (12), Chic. (N) - NY (A), SP (’91-’14) – Looking at McGinnity, I see Griffith as the better of the two. I was overlooking the hitting stats earlier - Griffith wasn’t killing his team at the plate like the other two, so he becomes the 2nd best pitcher on the ballot.
12. Cupid Childs (13), Clev. (N), 2B (’90-’01) – Looks good under peak, even with fielding discount.
14. Rube Waddell (15), Bost. (N), SP (’97-’09) – In my opinion, Rube was the best pitcher among the eligible in terms of preventing runs, but because he didn’t last as long as the others Cicotte & Griffith & pass him in overall value.
13. Joe McGinnity (14), NY(N), SP (‘99-‘08) – Y’all gonna put him in, or not?? All I ask is that you look at the above pitchers one more time before you do.
15. Lave Cross (--), Phila.(N,A), 3B (’87-’07) – Luv those fielding runs. Just beats out Long.

Bob Caruthers – Same reason as last time.

Dickey Pearce – Same reason as last time.

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

Caruthers, Pearce & Pike are in last year’s top ten, but not in my top 15.
   62. Patrick W Posted: June 17, 2004 at 01:32 AM (#680962)
Try it again...

13. Rube Waddell
14. Joe McGinnity
15. Lave Cross
   63. Brad Harris Posted: June 17, 2004 at 07:56 AM (#682052)
If there's a problem with my Ryan/VH tie, then I suppose put Jimmy ahead of George and I'll switch them back around again next time. *lol*
   64. Rusty Priske Posted: June 17, 2004 at 12:42 PM (#682065)
No need. Ties are allowed.
   65. Michael Bass Posted: June 17, 2004 at 01:36 PM (#682078)
Yeah, please don't take my question as anything. I had no idea. :)
   66. Max Parkinson Posted: June 17, 2004 at 02:31 PM (#682116)
My 1928 Ballot, with congratulations going out to Frank Baker and Buck Ewing on their inductions to the MP HoM...

1. Hughie Jennings – still the only eligible player to be the best player in the game. The arguments against giving him this credit rest on Ed Delahanty being a better hitter than Jennings, ignoring that Jennings was the best defensive SS in the world, and Delahanty was an adequate corner outfielder. Craig B used to post about the Orioles fantastic runs against numbers year in and year out during the ‘90s, and their decidedly average pitching. Infield defense had to play a pretty large role, no?

2. Bob Caruthers – flipping back and forth with Thompson at 2/3. I think that discussion here has passed the point where I can be useful…

3. Sam Thompson – The best hitter on the board.

4. Jimmy Sheckard – The good bat, great glove man. Lots of bags in the aughts, when that was oh so important, and could still belt the ball enough to finish on power leaderboards.

5. Frank Baker - He's a first-balloter for me without any kind of extra credit (which I am loathe to give in cases of holdouts. Less so in the cases of blacklists...)

6. Dickey Pearce – This position is my best compromise between my two prevailing opinions on him: 1. He was one of the best players in the world for damn near a decade. 2. He still wasn’t as good a player as most of the others on this ballot.

7. Bobby Wallace – Poised for a decade-long run as the best shortstop in the game, and then Pittsburgh converted their right fielder to the middle…

8. Lip Pike – We’ve elected everyone better than him from the NA (and a couple who weren’t as good). Are we done with ‘70s players?

9. Ed Cicotte – The IP lists that have been posted have given me comfort that I elected the right player last year. As I don't penalise his 1919 or 1920 regular seasons - he gets no credit for the '19 series, obviously - Cicotte is a horse for 15 years. He's definitely below the Matty and Pete class, but he's right at the top of the next tier.

10. Fielder Jones – The best defensive outfielder that the game saw until Speaker, and a pretty good hitter in his own right.

11. Jim McCormick – Again, I’ll take the player who has the legitimate claim as Best in the Game ahead of the player that doesn’t, in this case McGinnity and Griffith.

12. Clark Griffith – The fourth best pitcher of the ‘90s just ekes out… (please skip GVH for remainder of comment)

13. George Van Haltren – A long and good, if rarely great, career in centre, with some pretty good pitching to boot.

14. Joe McGinnity – the fourth best pitcher of the ‘00s. The other 5 (Young counts twice) are all automatics, and Griffith has already made my personal HoM. McG has a pretty good shot to get in before 1933.

15. Tommy Bond - As others have noted, he was the best pitcher in the game for a few years. The only question is how valuable a pitcher was at the time...

16-20. Beckley, Monroe, Nash, Ryan, Whitney
21-25. Williamson, Cross, Foster, Buffinton, Konetchy
26-30. McGraw, Waddell, King, Seymour, Long
31-35. Force, J. Williams, Childs, Duffy, Willis
36-40. Tannehill, Tenney, Doc White, Breitenstein, Griffin

The players for whom an explanation is required are Beckley and Ryan. As you can see, it is not a case of ignoring their merits, it is simply the backlog that keeps them just off the ballot.

Now if you all would just hurry and elect the guys that made my personal Hall anywhere from 5-25 years ago, they would both have their deserved low ballot spots...
   67. Brad Harris Posted: June 17, 2004 at 03:02 PM (#682164)
I just looked and, coming into this election, exactly half of our 50 inductees have been "freshmen" on the ballot at the time of their election. Which side of the fence will Baker's candidacy push us over? Hmm...

Incidentally, here are the top ten inductees for most years on ballot before finally getting elected:

23 Charlie Bennett
18 Frank Grant
18 Harry Stovey
17 Cal McVey
15 Joe Start
13 Pud Galvin
11 Ezra Sutton
9 Bid McPhee
9 Al Spalding
8 Jimmy Collins
8 Old Hoss Radbourn
8 Hardy Richardson
   68. OCF Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:16 PM (#682305)
1928 ballot.

1. Frank Baker (new) A peak, not career, choice, and the beneficiary of a position bonus. I'm comfortable putting him here and I think he should be elected this year. It's also proper that he not be unanimous.
2. Jimmy Sheckard (4, 3, 3, 2, 2) Who else has 320 Win Shares?
3. Larry Doyle (---, 3, 3) The Hall of Fame's systematic errors include overvaluing pitchers from low-scoring times and overvaluing hitters from high-scoring times. We should for our sake take seriously the hitters in low-scoring times (and the pitchers in high-scoring times). Why Doyle and not Childs? Because I'm convinced he was a much better hitter. I know there are defensive problems, but I think WARP overdid it.
4. Bobby Wallace (9, 5, 4, 4, 4) He's got the long career that Jennings doesn't have, and his hitting is quite a bit better than Long. Not historically unique - we'll see plenty of other shortstops quite a bit like him.
5. Joe McGinnity (6, 7, 7, 6, 6) RA+ PythPat of 227-155, equivalent to 206 FWP. Some great individual seasons.
6. Rube Waddell (14, 10, 9, 9, 7) RA+ PythPat of 200-129, equivalent to 191 FWP. Those of you who downrate him because he allowed a lot of unearned runs - take note that I've always used RA, not ERA, and he still ranks up here.
7. Jimmy Ryan (10, 11, 10, 10, 8)
8. Hugh Duffy (11, 12, 11, 11, 9)
9. George Van Haltren (12, 13, 12, 12, 10) Creeping up by attrition from above.
10. Roger Bresnahan (13, 14, 13, 13, 11) Maybe he doesn't deserve a lot of special credit for being a catcher, but he's still a terrific ballplayer.
11. Gavy Cravath (---, 8, 12) Cravath's top 5 adjusted RCAA years: 80, 62, 54, 51, 42. All Sisler has on him is a little career bulk. Hard to compare to anyone.
12. Vic Willis (16, 15, 14, 14, 13) Benefited from great Beaneater defenses, as Brown benefited from great Cub defenses. But adjust for that, and he's still adjusted RA+ PythPat 248-196, equivalent to 192 FWP.
13. Mickey Welch (--, 15, 15, 14) Maybe he is really a 300-game winner.
14. Johnny Evers (8, 16, 16, 16, 15) Adjusted RCAA shows his overall offensive value closely resembling Bresnahan's.
15. Frank Chance (15, 17, 17, 17, 16) Too little playing time, but what there is is wonderfully effective. We've been arguing first basemen over on the discussion thread; here's my favorite.
16. Roy Thomas (19, 18, 18, 18, 17) I'm still trying to be the friend of leadoff hitters.
17. Clark Griffith (18, 8, 5, 5, 18) RA+ PythPat of 203-146, equivalent to 175 FWP. My previous high rankings were based on a computational mistake.
18. Joe Tinker (18, 20, 19, 19, 19)
19. Jake Beckley (21, 20, 20, 20, 20)
20. Sam Thompson (22, 21, 21, 21, 22) Not a great defender, but better at that than Tiernan.
21. Andrew Foster (23, 22, 22, 22, 23) Strictly as a pitcher, best guess is somewhere on the McGinnity-Waddell-Chesbro scale. Effective career seems to be brief. As an owner/organizer, has great value.
22. Hughie Jennings (24, 23, 23, 23, 24) If I completely trusted his defensive stats, I'd have him higher.
23. Bob Caruthers (----, 24, 24, 25)
24. Tommy Leach (-----) Did several different things well.
25. Herman Long. (24, 24, 25, 25, -) Deserves some of the credit originally assigned to Kid Nichols, and some of Vic Willis's credit as well.
   69. robc Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:30 PM (#682341)
I didnt post on the discussion thread this week, so I included my 16-30 here. My baseline rating is career WARP3 + peak WARP3(best 5 non-consec). Basically, the five best years count twice. I then make approximately 10 bajillion other tiny adjustments plus some bs dump for players I want to put somewhere else. One of my other adjustments makes a difference this year, I give a small boost to best eligible at significantly underrepresented positions. Lave Cross falls past a clump of players this week due to some other 3B on the ballot.

1. Bobby Wallace - Some think his defensive cant be good enough to get him this high. Just wait until you see how far Maz's defense gets him.
2. Jimmy Sheckard - I didnt think there would be an OF glut problem. But, maybe the votes are getting split. 4 of my next 5 are OFs - I think they all belong but none belong before the really strong candidates. Hopefully we will elect these guys before we get those again.
3. Sam Thompson
4. George VanHaltren
5. Frank Baker - In the mix with the OFers. We need more 3Bs so it doesnt matter to me if he goes in before the OFs.
6. Jimmy Ryan - 2 thru 6 are very close on my ballot, there is a big drop here.
7. Jake Beckley - Racked up the career numbers, but I do like to see some peak.
8. Cupid Childs - I like him much better than Doyle. I like Dunlap much better than Doyle.
9. Hughie Jennings - See Beckley, only reverse it.
10. Bob Caruthers - This is the end of the players I would like to see elected.
11. Herman Long
12. Joe McGinnity
13. Lave Cross - exception here. I would like to see more 3B elected, If we continue to not find 3Bs worthy, Cross will move back into my should be elected group.
14. Fielder Jones
15. Jimmy Williams

16. McCormick
17. Konetchy
18. Waddell
19. Tiernan
20. Griffin
21. Pearce - Stength of competition. In "HoM2 - This Time We Start Voting Early", him and Pike probably get elected.
22. Griffith
23. Pike - see Pearce.
24. Mullane
25. Nash
26. McGraw
27. Willis
28. Selbach
29. Leach
30. Bresnahan
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:37 PM (#682362)
Who else has 320 Win Shares?

Nobody, but Harry Hooper and Amos Otis have 1 more. Do I win a prize? :-)
   71. KJOK Posted: June 18, 2004 at 12:18 AM (#683679)
Actually, I think Barry Larkin had 320 win shares before last year....

Willie Davis 322
Red Ruffing 322
Graig Nettles 321
Vada Pinson 321 (good comp?)
Harry Hooper 321
Alan Trammell 318
Stan Hack 316
Jack Clark 316
Norm Cash 315
Joe Torre 315
Ted Simmons 315

Doesn't exactly scream out "elect me" because he has 320 Win Shares...
   72. Sean Gilman Posted: June 18, 2004 at 01:56 AM (#683950)

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

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

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

4. Frank Baker (-)--Difference between him and Wallace is career length

5. Joe McGinnity (4)--A lot like Browning: big peak, not so much career value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. George Van Haltren (15)--Just when I thought I was rid of the dreaded Outfielder Glut. . . .

15. Sam Thompson (16)--Hasn’t been on my ballot since 1915.

16. Larry Doyle (17)
17. Jimmy Ryan (18)
18. Ed Williamson (19)
19. Gavy Cravath (20)
20. Rube Waddell (21)
21. Rube Foster (-)
22. Jake Beckley (22)
23. Herman Long (-)
24. Jim McCormick (23)
25. Mike Tiernan (24)
   73. KJOK Posted: June 18, 2004 at 02:19 AM (#684077)
Using OWP, playing time, and defense (Win Shares/BP) for position players, applied to .500 baseline. Using Runs Saved Above Average and Support Neutral Fibonacci Wins for Pitchers.

1. JOHN McGRAW, 3B. .727 OWP. 459 RCAP. 4,909 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Was CAREER ALL-TIME OBP% leader until Ruth qualifies in 1923, EVEN adjusting for League, and is STILL #3 behind Williams and Ruth. AND he played 3B, where offensive output was generally very low.

2. PETE BROWNING, CF/LF. .745 OWP. 478 RCAP. 5,315 PAs. Def: POOR. Baseball’s premier hitter in the 1880’s. Much better hitter than Thompson.

3. FRANK BAKER, 3B. .653 OWP. 364 RCAP. 6,659 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Best 3rd baseman to come along since John McGraw.

4. HUGHIE JENNINGS, SS. .607 OWP. 263 RCAP. 5,650 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Best SS of the 1890’s. Great offensively and defensively.

5. ROGER BRESNAHAN, C. .651 OWP. 282 RCAP, 5,373 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Best Catcher between Ewing and Cochrane/Dickey.

6. RUBE WADDELL, P. 254 RSAA, 222 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 134 ERA+ in 2,961 innings.

7. JOE McGINNITY, P. 238 RSAA, 208 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 121 ERA+ in 3,441 innings.

8. FRANK CHANCE, 1B. .720 OWP. 308 RCAP. 5,099 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Excellent hitter and good fielder back when 1st base was more important defensively. Leader of one of the greatest teams in history, and the next inductee from that team should be Chance.

9. CUPID CHILDS, 2B. .609 OWP. 354 RCAP. 6,762 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Best 2nd baseman of the 1890’s. Best remaining 2nd baseman.

10. BOBBY WALLACE, SS. .522 OWP (.546 thru 1910). 195 RCAP (211 thru 1910). 9,612 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Hung around ala Pete Rose after 1910. Also outstanding defensive 3B in the 2 years he played there. Not quite the player Jennings was.

11. TOMMY LEACH, CF/3B. .552 OWP, 121 RCAP, 9,051 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT – 3B, VERY GOOD – CF. Just slightly below Collins defensively, and he played longer. Basically did everything well, but doesn’t have the one outstanding area to get noticed.

12. LARRY DOYE, 2B .632 OWP, 273 RCAP, 7,382 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Best hitting 2B between Lajoie and Hornsby. Won MVP in 1912, finished 3rd in 1911. Finished in Top 10 in OPS+ 8 times.

13. BOB CARUTHERS, P/RF. 179 RSAA. 177 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, 123 ERA+. .668 OWP. 243 RCAP. 2,906 PAs. Only shortness of career keeps Caruthers from being an “inner circle” superstar.

14. SAM THOMPSON, RF. .684 OWP. 387 RCAP. 6,510 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Not the hitter Browning was, but still an offensive force.

15. DICKEY PEARCE, SS. He WAS basically, along with Harry Wright, the old guy in the league 1871-1877, and his fielding was still league average, but didn’t hit nearly as well as Harry (who played CF). May have been Ozzie Smith, but hard to tell for certain. However, I’m finally convinced there is enough evidence to place him in the top 15.

JIMMY SHECKARD, LF. .626 OWP. 135 RCAP. 9,117 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Another player who was good but not great offensively, played a long time. Don’t see why so much love for him. He was a great defensive LFer, but in era with fewer fly balls. Similar to Hugh Duffy.
TONY MULLANE, P. 241 RSAA, 240 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 118 ERA+ in 4,531(!) innings. AA discount puts him off ballot until I finally get around to my AA vs. NL study.
LIP PIKE, CF. Perhaps best hitting CF of the 1870’s, but short career puts him off ballot.
JAKE BECKLEY, 1B. .596 OWP. 245 RCAP. 10,492 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Another good for a long time player who is just below elite status.
GEORGE VAN HALTREN, CF. .620 OWP. 167 RCAP. 8,992 PAs. Def: FAIR. A notch below the elite OF’ers both offensively and defensively.
JIMMY RYAN, CF/RF. .609 OWP. 205 RCAP. 9,114 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Not quite up to top OF hitters, and only average defense won’t move him up.
CLARK GRIFFITH, P. 256 RSAA, 199 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, and 121 ERA+ in 3,385 innings. He’s really not all that far away from McGinnity, but not that far from Silver King either.
   74. Al Peterson Posted: June 18, 2004 at 12:16 PM (#684683)
1928 ballot. When trying to come up with 15 for the ballot I include WS, WARP, OPS+, ERA+, and other metrics to varying degrees. Some subjective analysis is added to include those who have less documented play.

1. Frank Baker (-). This surprised me a little but he showed well in many measures. Shortish career wasn't too short to take away from legitimate greatness at the hot corner.

2. Sam Thompson (2). Patiently waiting his turn. During 10 year period (1886-1895) was top 10 in league in total bases 9 times. .308 EQA, .684 OWP, man could hit a little. OF defense is questioned whether good or bad so I split the difference on that.

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

4. Jimmy Ryan (4). Giving credit of CF being more valuable than LF in terms of defensive spectrum. Being very good for long periods of time gets some points from me. Interesting note: was tried at SS for Chicago in 1889 after Ed Williamson flamed out.

5. Jimmy Sheckard (5). Another well-rounded player, successful for the great Cub teams. Close to Ryan when numbers were crunched.

6. Rube Waddell (6). Won six straight strikeout titles - dominance you don't get everyday. His 1902 season: 12-8 out in LA to start season, brought back to Philly by Connie Mack in June and went 24-7. That's a lot of pitching. Unique in that he controlled the game at a time when the ball was put in play during the dead-ball era.

7. George Van Haltren (8). Similar arguments to Ryan, just a little less to them.

8. Pete Browning (9). If we're looking for an 1880s ballplayer this could be your man. Even with league discounts he swung some mean lumber. Career OPS+ = 162 which puts him in company with names like Foxx, McGwire, Frank Thomas. Discount it because of AA play? At the OPS+ = 147 level you're talking Heilmann, McCovey, and Schmidt. That's some pretty lofty company. Batting Average Placement within league 1882-1891: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, -, 1, 3. Had a career .341 average in a league environment of .257 . Offensive Winning Percentage - .745. His guy was a WOW when hitting. He might not be the ideal multi-dimensional player but when you are this much an outlier at part of the game its going to get a bonus from me.

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

10. Cupid Childs (17).
He's always bounced between being on the ballot and off. I'm keeping a gap between him and Doyle as I feel he was the better of the two.

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

12. Jake Beckley (12).
Tougher and tougher to ignore with dearth of 1B for a number of years; career totals eventually add up to quite the player despite lack of peak. Not being one of the ABC trio at 1st base doesn't mean you were bad.

13. Dickey Pearce (14).
Impressed by the fact he was a regular in the NA at an age that was very old compared to most players. Still unsure as to career arc - was he a Cal Ripken, Alan Trammell, Dave Concepcion, none of the above? The reviews from early baseball are glowing - the issue of competition level at an unorganized, evolving time is frustrating. I consider the game before 1865 questionable to say the least.

14. Hugh Duffy (13).
Couple of great spikes to go with other uneven performances. Gets bump based on contemporary opinion as being one heck of a ballplayer. Win Shares love the D.
15. Gavvy Cravath (15). Get's a lift from noteworthy performance in minors between stints in the majors to go along with peak achievement at the major league level at an advanced age. Ten years too early to reap benefits of the lively ball.

1927 ballot also rans:

16. Tommy Leach. 17. Hughie Jennings.
18. Bobby Wallace. Career is long, not enough peak to make the top candidate. We've have plenty of SS to like and Wallace doesn't do as much for me. Similar to Beckley so they both fall in the 10-20 range.
19. Tony Mullane. 20. Roger Bresnahan. 21. Clark Griffith. 22. Larry Doyle.
23. Rube Foster. 24. Mickey Welch. 25. Ed Ciccotte. 26. Charley Jones. 27. Fielder Jones.
28. Lip Pike. For the time of baseball before 1885 I'd prefer Pearce or Charley Jones over the Lipster. Maybe even Harry Wright if push came to shove.
29-35: Willis, Tiernan, McCormick, Chance, Evers, Konetchy, Long
   75. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 01:08 PM (#684710)
Excellent comments on Browning, Al. I agree.
   76. Philip Posted: June 18, 2004 at 03:21 PM (#684942)
1928 ballot:

1. Baker (new) – Finally another 3rd baseman! Great peak!
2. Pike (3-2-1-1-1) – I hope Pike’s support is finally gaining momentum and that newcomers value him as one of the premium players of the early years. He should appeal to both peak and career voters. Especially his peak is one of the highest of this group. And his 13 year career should not be considered short for the early days (longer than Thompson and effectively just as long as Duffy and Stovey). Also, he shouldn’t be considered part of the outfield glut since half his value comes at second base. Pike has been sitting in my HOM since 1908 and is now the only player left who is been on all my ballots since 1898.
3. Wallace (8-7-5-4-2) – Exceptional career value. Maybe a little overrated by WARP, but not too shabby win share totals either.
4. Pearce (6-5-3-2-3) – MVP of the 1860’s. Highest placement on my ballot to date.
5. Sheckard (9-8-6-5-4) – Good in all categories without excelling in one. Best of the Cubs’ position players .
6. McGinnity (11-10-8-6-6) – Great, albeit short, peak and compiling many win shares along the way.

Not to be overlooked:
7. Griffith (12-13-11-11-10) – I think he is underrated by this group. Maybe he is too all-round, not really excelling in either career or peak. Rating just as high in peak, prime and career in my system, mr. Consistent has never ranked higher than 10th or lower than 14th on my ballot.
8. Bresnahan (30-28-27-26-12) – Climbing hard. So difficult to rank catchers, but giving him some new credit he lands on my ballot for just the second time.
9. Jennings (14-14-15-13-9) – Collected enough career value in his short peak to finally reach my top 10 again.
10. Foster (21-32-25-24-21) – I believe I’ve been underrating him.
11. Van Haltren (16-16-11-9-8) – Benefits as I lean a little more toward Win Shares rather than WARP.
12. Ryan (18-18-12-10-9) – As always, one spot behind Van Haltren. A bit higher, but shorter peak.
13. Monroe (20-24-16-15-11) – I’m convinced he deserves to be on the ballot.
14. Leach (29-27-23-22-15) – Look, another third baseman!
15. C Jones (15-15-9-7-16) – May make another climb, as I’m now evaluating depth per era.

16. Childs – May soon make my ballot for the fist time since 1912.
17. Long (13-13-11-18-17) – I think he’s underrated, although I no longer think he will make my personal HoM. Both WARP and win shares like him. Maybe his lack of a great peak hurts him but most of his value came from playing defense, which is generally more constant from year to year. I don’t believe it’s wrong to have a high percentage of shortstops in the hall, after all it’s the toughest and most important defensive position to play (just like there are more QB’s, centers and strikers considered the best players in their respective sports).
18. Caruthers
19. Duffy
20. Williamson
   77. Chris Cobb Posted: June 18, 2004 at 04:57 PM (#685154)
1928 Ballot

1. Frank Baker Possibly best third baseman ever in 1928. Ezra Sutton had more career value, but Baker’s peak was just outstanding. His serial retirement habit diminished his career from what it could have been, but less than the more severe career-reduction activities of certain recent electees. 337 career win shares, 96 total peak, peak rate, 09-14 = 37.68 ws/162
2. Joe McGinnity (2) Dave Rosenheck's results reconfirm McGinnity as top eligible pitcher, if peak value is given weight.
3. Jimmy Sheckard (3)
4. Dickey Pearce (4) Data provided by DavidFoss shows Pearce as a consistently above-average hitter during the 1860s while playing key defensive positions (which, by reputation and 1870s evidence, he played very well). He was therefore surely among the best players on his teams every year for over a decade. There’s no evidence of a great peak of the G. Wright or Barnes variety, however, which would be a clear indicator of greatness against this level of competition. His pro-rated numbers are very close to Bobby Wallace’s, and his impact in context was so much greater than Wallace’s, that I place him here.
5. Bobby Wallace (5).
6. Clark Griffith (8) Fourth-best pitcher of the 1890s. Dave Rosenheck's examination of pitchers leads me to boost him above Welch and Pike this year.
7. Mickey Welch (6) Deserving of election. He ranks third among 1880s pitchers, behind Galvin and Radbourn. Any spot between here and the top of the ballot would be justified by his numbers. I'm keeping him fairly low because 1880s are heavily represented, but he should definitely be elected at some point.
8. Lip Pike (7) Data provided by DavidFoss show that Pike was a great player in 1869 and 1870 against professional competition, and a good player before that. This info confirms his worthiness.
9. Hughie Jennings (9) sixth-best 1890s infielder, with one of the best peaks on record. Among position players eligible through 1927, only Barnes, G. Wright, Wagner, and Lajoie have higher peak rates than Jennings. During his 1894-1898 peak, he was the best player in baseball, and better than a pair of contemporary first-ballot HoMers, Billy Hamilton and Ed Delahanty, who were also at their peaks during these years.
10. Rube Foster (10) Foster's career: ML-avg. pitcher in 1902, six-year peak, 1903-08, excellent in 1909 before breaking his leg, slightly above avg. ML pitcher in 1910-11, and a somewhat below-avg. ML pitcher in 1912-14. He places on my ballot about where Walsh and Brown would be.
11. Hugh Duffy (11)
12. George Van Haltren (12)
13. Tommy Leach (13).
14. Bob Caruthers (14)
15. Roger Bresnahan (16) Makes my ballot for the first time since 1924. High-impact player but just didn’t play enough after he started managing. Better, I think, than Bruce Petway but not as good as Louis Santop. He ranks here with a catcher bonus.

1928 Off Ballot

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

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

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

Jake Beckley – utter lack of peak hurts him in my system, which treats career and peak about equally. I’m looking again at first-base defense 1890-1920, but at present I am unconvinced by arguments that it was a more demanding and valuable defensive position than were left field and center field. A massive change in defensive value would of course benefit Beckley greatly, since it would affect so many of his seasons.
   78. jimd Posted: June 18, 2004 at 05:01 PM (#685165)
Who else has 320 Win Shares?

I normalize WS to 162 game schedules before doing those comparisons.

Because Sheckard played a number of 140 game seasons during his peak, this boosts his adjWS to 368. Between Beckley (364) and Magee (372) (all numbers adjusted to 162 games schedules), with a peak slightly higher than Magee (33 to 32).

He doesn't belong in the same grouping as those guys from the 1970's/80's. The players who adjust up to that list career-wise are guys like Baker (323, though with a 37 peak), Willis (321), Cross (318), and Griffith (318).
   79. Dolf Lucky Posted: June 18, 2004 at 07:41 PM (#685601)
1 (-)Frank Baker--Very good career and peak numbers, all while playing an important defensive position.

2 (1)Sam Thompson--Still here. His WARP numbers are comparable to Baker, who will breeze into the HoM. Plus his counting numbers are without par.

3 (3)Bob Caruthers--At his peak, likely the most dominant player on the board. Packed more into a given season, so it doesn't seem right to knock him for a short career.

4 (-)Donie Bush--This'll raise some eyebrows, but in comparing him to my two other shortstops on the ballot, I see Bush as having a better career than Jennings (with a much lower peak), and as having a better peak than Wallace (with a much lower career value). The one thing that pops up from BP's numbers is that Bush's defensive peak coincided with his offensive peak, so that for a 5 year prime, he was pretty darn good. Couple that with what was a pretty decent career, and the intangibles of being a strong leadoff type (always leading lead in walks), and I've got him up here for now.

5 (4)Bobby Wallace--See above. Clearly the best career guy on the board, but you'd never win a pennant with this guy as your best player. Maybe even if he's your 2nd best player.

6 (5)Jimmy Sheckard--A complete player who was just one or two "wow" seasons away from being a sure thing.

7 (6)Eddie Cicotte--Of the eligible pitchers, Cicotte has the highest career WARP score by a significant margin. Peak was pretty good, to boot.

8 (7)Hughie Jennings--The peak stud. Not quite long enough of a career.

9 (8)Joe McGinnity
10 (9)Rube Waddell--Joe and Rube locked together again. One's got the better career, one's got the better peak, and one's a lot closer to induction.

11 (11)Jimmy Ryan--Sheckard lite.

12 (12)Cupid Childs--Hanging around from the days that lots of 2nd basemen got props. Not really good enough to be hall-worthy

13 (14)Jim McCormick
14 (15)Silver King--I know that "everybody" did it, but I've got a thing for these pitchers who threw all the time, then exploded into oblivion. McCormick netted 265 wins in basically 9 years. King's 1888 may be the best season on the board.

15 (13)George VanHaltren--Ryan lite. Actually, that's not entirely true, but VanHaltren's peak was pretty weak for an outfielder.

Dropped out: Herman Long

Top 10 ommissions: Dickey Pearce and Lip Pike--I've written in more detail about my feelings elsewhere. Bottom line, I don't have the confidence to extrapolate and project they way others do. That, coupled with timeline issues means these guys aren't making my ballot right now.

Jake Beckley--Not for a long, long time. His peak is so low, it might as well be negative. The much-maligned Tony Perez blows him away for peak/prime numbers (not that we know who Perez is...better example = Miller Huggins).
   80. karlmagnus Posted: June 18, 2004 at 07:46 PM (#685615)
As of today (1928), Beckley has the fifth highest hits total for any HOM-eligible player (Cobb and Speaker have moved ahead of him, but I'll bet Ruth doesn't.) That's not Miller Huggins, or even Perez; the equivalent looking from the far future of 2004 would be Stan Musial (ducks behind parapet to avoid missiles! :))
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#685634)
This'll raise some eyebrows,

Yup. :-)
   82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2004 at 07:58 PM (#685678)
As of today (1928), Beckley has the fifth highest hits total for any HOM-eligible player

If Anson, Start and O'Rourke had played with the same schedule, they would have easily moved ahead of Beckley. I'm not sure about D. White or Hines, though.
   83. karlmagnus Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:15 PM (#685720)
Anson's one of the 5 (sorry, Beckley's sixth -- Anson, Wagner, Nap, Crawford, Keeler ahead of him, the last 2 only marginally.) Walsh is only 9th pitcher on the same basis, which is why in 1929 I shall have Beckley 2 and Walsh 3.

O'Rourke would have moved ahead on a modern schedule, but only just (you have to adjust Beckley too -- he gets 3200+ on a 154 game schedule) Start only moves ahead if you extend the modern schedule back to 1865 and make some pretty hairy assumptions. Even so, it's a VERY distinguished ranking; he shouldn't need a positional boost to be HOM-worthy, but 1B was at least CF in his time, and arguably ahead of any outfield position.
   84. karlmagnus Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:19 PM (#685729)
for Walsh read Welch, sorry
   85. Kelly in SD Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#685752)
When is ballotting over? I'm away from my home terminal and numbers and probably won't be able to post until Monday morn. Thanks.
   86. ronw Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#685753)
Donie Bush--This'll raise some eyebrows

My eyebrows are raised not only because of high ranking of Bush, but because he's technically not eligible yet. (See the end of the eligibility list for more details)

Scanning the eligibility thread, I realized that we haven't received anything from Paul Wendt since the conversion.

Maybe a Donie Bush question will lure him into the discussion again. Who were the Tigers' leadoff hitters during their pennant-winning 1907-1909 seasons?
   87. DavidFoss Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:39 PM (#685801)
Well, they have box scores for the World Series games at retrosheet:

Looks like the LF led off for Detroit in those games. Jone in '07, McIntyre in '08 and DJones in '09.
   88. karlmagnus Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:41 PM (#685809)
Balloting now ends at 5pm Pacific Time Monday (change from 5pm EST by decision of Joe D in 1927 -- means 8pm by the clock on this blog)
   89. Michael Bass Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:42 PM (#685812)
Kelly - Monday is the deadline, 5 PM Pacific, I think. Or Eastern. I got confused last ballot. :)
   90. Michael Bass Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:06 PM (#685900)
Ruling on Bush? I did consider him for this year, but he was nowhere near my ballot anyway. The eligibles thread is easy to miss, because it doesn't show up on Hot Topics...
   91. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:16 PM (#685931)
Anson's one of the 5 (sorry, Beckley's sixth -- Anson, Wagner, Nap, Crawford, Keeler ahead of him, the last 2 only marginally.)

My list didn't include Anson's NA work, so that's why I had Beckley ahead of Cap.

O'Rourke would have moved ahead on a modern schedule, but only just (you have to adjust Beckley too -- he gets 3200+ on a 154 game schedule) Start only moves ahead if you extend the modern schedule back to 1865 and make some pretty hairy assumptions. Even so, it's a VERY distinguished ranking; he shouldn't need a positional boost to be HOM-worthy, but 1B was at least CF in his time, and arguably ahead of any outfield position.

Obviously, Beckley has a good career argument. It's the peak part that is relatively small. He may make my ballot again next "year," however.
   92. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:21 PM (#685943)
I did consider him for this year, but he was nowhere near my ballot anyway.

In no particular order, I would take Pearce (Mark obviously doesn't have his era on his radar), Long, Wallace, Jennings, Tinker, Fletcher and possibly McKean before Bush. Not that Donie wasn't a good player - he was.
   93. mbd1mbd1 Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:32 PM (#685980)
1928 ballot, short version, because I have barely been able to sit down this week!

1. Bobby Wallace (8) - I did some tweaking with my methods this week, including some positional consideration. Wallace lands here.
2. George Van Haltren (1) - Last week I wasn't confortable with him at the top.
3. Jimmy Sheckard (2)
4. Jimmy Ryan (5)
5. Bob Caruthers (6)
6. Frank Baker (NA) - Baker was very, very good, but he only picked up 6600 PA's. He'd probably be on top of my ballot if he'd played two more years. about 1915 and 1920?
7. Jake Beckley (3) - victim of methodological changes
8. Hugh Duffy (10)
9. Sam Thompson (7) - Poor Sam's been all over the place on my ballot.
10. Vic Willis (11)
11. Joe McGinnity (4) - Willis has an edge in IP and WS.
12. Tommy Leach (NA)
13. Rube Foster (NA) - Leach and Foster make it on my ballot for the first time after hovering in purgatory.
14. Mickey Welch (14)
15. Eddie Cicotte (15)

next 5: Griffith, Waddell, Doyle, Childs, Konetchy.

Pearce and Pike I commented on in my 1926 ballot.

Have a nice weekend, all.
   94. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:43 PM (#686025)
4 (-)Donie Bush--This'll raise some eyebrows, ...

{ :-)
   95. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:45 PM (#686031)
Scanning the eligibility thread, I realized that we haven't received anything from Paul Wendt since the conversion.

He's been reading along since the conversion. I know only because he sent me an e-mail about something.
   96. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:49 PM (#686040)
I would take Pearce (Mark obviously doesn't have his era on his radar), Long, Wallace, Jennings, Tinker, Fletcher and possibly McKean before Bush.

I would take Pearce, Jennings and Long (tied), Wallace, Tinker and Fletcher before Bush (in that order).
   97. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:32 PM (#686111)
I would take Pearce, Jennings and Long (tied), Wallace, Tinker and Fletcher before Bush (in that order).

Actually, comparing Tinker with Bush, I'd probably take the latter (surprisingly!). It's close enough to argue, though.
   98. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:55 PM (#686151)
Actually, comparing Tinker with Bush, I'd probably take the latter (surprisingly!).

They're pretty similar by most measures, but Tinker has distinct advantage in WS, winning all of the following tests by a significant margin: 3 year peak; 5 year consecutive peak; 7 year peak; per/162 games; career; fielding WS/1000 innings.

So I give Tinker the nod, but I think we agree that neither is a HoMer. :)
   99. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2004 at 11:02 PM (#686167)
So I give Tinker the nod, but I think we agree that neither is a HoMer. :)

Now, what gave you that impression? :-D
   100. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 19, 2004 at 06:22 AM (#687441)
I don't have to justify leaving anyone off. Yippee! (Although I was tempted to stick Mike Griffin at 15 to mess with my consensus ranking.) BTW, I'm heading out on vacation in the morning (NJ-Lansing via Scranton, Binghamton and Toledo), so if I mess something up take your best guess. Home Run Baker and Miner Brown make my PHoM this year. Any accusations that Brown passed Caruthers because I'm still not really sure if I want Bob in the PHom are, um, unprovable.

1. Home Run Baker (new) Yes, the numbers are similar to Jackson's, but maintained his top level a little longer, was a more well-rounded player, and is far ahead of anyone else at his position. Not a runaway #1, but tops.

2. Lip Pike (1) He was one of the five or six best players of the '71-'77 era, combined power and speed, and played important defensive positions. The new information from Marshall Wright via David Foss compares him favorably to his compatriots already enshrined. Made my PHoM in 1919.

3. Dickey Pearce (2) Actually may have a more solid argument than Pike for induction, unless you don't value pre-1869 baseball at all. It's clear from the Wright info that he was the best player of his time. His NA numbers are not worthy of induction, but they aren't inconsistent with his being a great player earlier in his career. Made my PHoM in 1920.

4. Bobby Wallace (4) I don't buy the Beckley comparisons; he was never great but consistently very good. An excellent fielder and a servicable hitter who played for a very long time. Not the best SS of his era, but he had a pretty darn good peer group. Made my PHoM in 1925.

(4A Miner Brown)

5. Bob Caruthers (5) As always with Freedom Bob, this could change dramatically in the coming years. For now, I think he was more dominant at his peak than any other pitcher on the ballot.

(5A Pete Hill, 5B Sherry Magee)

6. Jimmy Sheckard (6) Had an odd career path and much of his value is hidden, but he was a quality player. A lot of defensive value for a corner OF.

7. Joe McGinnity (8) He still doesn't have a strong career argument in this group, but there's no measurement where he does particularly bad.

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

9. Cupid Childs (11) He could hit the ball pretty good for a 2B and his defense was decent. If the 1890s are lacking in a position (besides pitchers), it's IF, not OF. Unless I'm sure the OF were better, I'm going to support the infielders.

10. Hughie Jennings (9) Still a more impressive peak than anyone else on the ballot. Some weeks that's more important to me than others.

11. Jimmy Ryan (12) A little more impact as a hitter - makes the top 10 OPS+ rankings 7 times to Van Haltren's 3

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

13. Clark Griffith (17) The DERA numbers help a little, but he doesn't have one strong argument. Just not sure he was ever great.

14. Jim McCormick (15) OK, he probably was great, but not for long enough, and I'm really uncertain about adding more 1880s pitchers.

15. Sam Thompson (14) Short career, hitter's parks, lousy fielder. I don't find his numbers that convincing. They look nice, though.

Off ballot:
16-20: Leach, Doyle, Griffin, C. Jones, Welch
21-25: Long, Beckley, Waddell, Browning, Foster
26-30: Duffy, Bresnahan, Cross, Joss, Chance

Oh, and because I feel like it, my current cumulative voting totals:

1. LIP PIKE (430)
3. Charlie Bennett (398)
4. Joe Start (237)
6. Frank Grant (233)
7. Cal McVey (219)
8. Harry Stovey (214)
9. Ezra Sutton (207)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics


Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats





Page rendered in 1.5082 seconds
49 querie(s) executed