Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, June 07, 2004

1928 Ballot Discussion

1928 (June 20)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

301 80.9 1909 Frank Baker-3b (1963)
266 66.1 1907 Clyde Milan-CF (1953)
232 68.0 1909 Donie Bush-SS (1972)
218 57.5 1909 Art Fletcher-SS (1950)
193 55.6 1909 Joe Wood-P/RF (1985)
161 41.9 1911 Burt Shotton-CF/LF (1962)
143 40.9 1909 Jimmy Austin-3B (1965)
137 33.4 1910 Jack Graney-LF (1978)

Negro Leaguers
1928 (June 20)—elect 2
HF% Career   Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star
00% 1907-22 Sam Mongin-3B (1884) - 0 - 1*

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 07, 2004 at 08:15 AM | 278 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. PhillyBooster Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:00 PM (#663101)
Let's talk third basemen.

We've got a new one, and he's good. The HoM's third base wing so far only include Jimmy Collins and Ezra Sutton (and part of Deacon White). That's not much.

I've got Ed "Home Run" Williamson on my ballot. Others seeme enamored with 3B/CFer Tommy Leach. John McGraw gets an annual first place vote. A few fans of Lave Cross think defense alone is enough for their candidate.

So right now my 1928 ballot will have only Baker and Williamson on it. I'd like to hear some cases that I've got the wrong two, or that it should really be three, or (as many ballots claim) that no other third basemen is ballot-worthy.
   2. karlmagnus Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:11 PM (#663115)
Splendid, got it to work.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:12 PM (#663121)
I'm going to have Baker somewhere between 3 and 8. I haven't figured out where exactly, though he should be in my top five. The shortness of his career hurts him somewhat, but what an amazing peak for a third baseman. The most impressive third base candidate since Sutton was elected.

He'll be the only new guy on my ballot this year.
   4. karlmagnus Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:15 PM (#663126)
I don't like short careers that don't knock yoyur socks off, and Baker's, surprisingly, doesn't. About #10, depending on who we elected in '27.
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:15 PM (#663129)
So right now my 1928 ballot will have only Baker and Williamson on it. I'd like to hear some cases that I've got the wrong two, or that it should really be three, or (as many ballots claim) that no other third basemen is ballot-worthy.

I won't have Williamson on my ballot, but I think he's the second best candidate at the position, too (though McGraw, Nash and Cross are not that far off).
   6. PhillyBooster Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:31 PM (#663167)
I agree that Home Run Baker is no Home Run Johnson, but on a ballot with candidates like "Triples" Beckley and "Doubles" Wallace, I don't see how he could be too far from the top -- especially considering his defense was none-to-shabby.

Bill James has him ranked the #5 third baseman (behind only Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, and Boggs). This is the highest eligible at any position that we've considered, I think. Since Schmidt, Brett, and Boggs will not become eligible until 1995 or after, it will be a lonely century for Sutton and Collins if we don't get them some company.

On the other hand, his "most similar" list includes a bunch of guys I hadn't heard of (including, I hesitate to admit, Hall of Famer Freddie Lindstrom). Jimmy Collins and Hardy Richardson make the list, with is reassuring, so do Pinky Whitney and Joe Vosmik.

In the end, I can't see Baker falling outside the Top 5, but I'm not terribly happy about it either.
   7. PhillyBooster Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:43 PM (#663208)
I think what it comes down to for me is the tug between wanting to compare Ed Williamson favorably to Ezra Sutton, and the countervailing urge to compare him negatively to Carney Lansford.
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:48 PM (#663224)
This is the highest eligible at any position that we've considered, I think.

Well, there was this shortstop... :-)
   9. TomH Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:49 PM (#663227)
I haven't slotted Frank Baker into my ballot yet, but 2 items we oughta consider:
1. World Series performance. The man drove in 18 runs in 91 ABs, and was a MVP candidate on all three consecutive winners in Philly 1911-12-13. He slugged over .550 lifetime in WS play, and hit some very timely dingers. His .250 avg in the 1914 series loss ain't that great, but the rest of the team hit .170, and he did lead the team in RBIs with two.
2. Adaptation to live-ball; Baker led the league in home runs four times (in a row), and banged lots of 2B and 3B too. Methinks he would have been a monster had he played in the Gehrig or Williams or Aaron or Bonds eras.
   10. andrew siegel Posted: June 07, 2004 at 03:59 PM (#663250)
Baker appears to have put up almost exactly as much value as Jackson in almost exactly as much playing time at almost exactly the same time. For those who aren't penalizing Jackson for 1919-1920 or rewarding him significantly for the 1918 War year, I think Baker should slot in almost exactly where you had Jackson the previous year. Therefore, he will be number 1 on my ballot.

Look at their careers, best season to worst, first in WARP:

Jackson/Baker
13.4/13.2, 13.1/11.0. 11.6/11.0, 10.0/10.9, 9.9/10.1, 9.1/9.4, 7.9/8.3, 7.3/7.2, 5.9/6.6, 2.0/5.6, 1.4/4.4, -0.1/1.5, -0.3/0.5

Now in WS:
39/39, 37/38, 37/35, 36/35, 34/27, 32/25, 31/23, 20/21, 18/20, 6/17, 4/12, 0/7, 0/2

Some (interesting) small discrepancies between the two systems: WARP has Jackson having the best few seasons but has Baker ahead marginally for seasons 4-7 and 9-13; WS has them effectively even through their top four seasons, has Jackson having much stronger 5th-8th best seasons, and has Baker making up ground at the end of their careers.

Still, the systems agree on the big picture: they are two contemporaries who had truly outstanding peaks and put up approximately 300 WS/ 100 WARP in artifically short careers.

Because of position scarcity and concerns that WS still underrates defense a little bit 1910-1920, I'd probably have Baker fractionally ahead of Jackson if they were on the same ballot, but they would certainly be back to back. Since I had Jackson number 1 last time, I'm going to put Baker there this time.
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 07, 2004 at 04:03 PM (#663264)
Tom, Baker definitely deserves credit for your first point (though I would use it as a tie-breaker), but your second one means nothing to me. I would assume there are quite a few players today who wouldn't be as great playing during the Deadball Era as they did in their own time, but the only thing that should matter is what they did in their own time. It is a fun game playing "what if", though.
   12. dan b Posted: June 07, 2004 at 04:04 PM (#663270)
By my rankings using WS (4 parts career, 3 parts peak and 1 part rate), here is my All-Time All Star team for players eligible to date (positions per NHBA):

1B – Connor (a near 3-way dead heat with Anson and Brouthers)
2B – Lajoie
3B – Baker
SS – Wagner
C – Ewing
LF – Delahanty (A fuzz ahead of Burkett)
CF – Hamilton
RF – Crawford
RHP – Young
LHP – Plank

Peaking ahead, only Wagner stands up as the all-time best at his position. Since I don’t see anyone knocking Baker off of third before either Ray Dandridge or Eddie Mathews, he will be the last of the others to drop off. Baker will get my 1st place vote.
   13. PhillyBooster Posted: June 07, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#663319)
Meanwhile, will the electorate give any love to Smokey Joe Wood?

#3 all time in ERA+ with a career OPS+ of 110. Only 1400 innings, which makes him about half of Bob Caruthers. Still, probably worth about two Mariano Riveras.
   14. ronw Posted: June 07, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#663327)
Baker, Frank – In the opinion of many, including me, the best 3B in history until Eddie Mathews. With the relatively weak class, he will be on the top of my ballot in 1928. MVP dandidate 1911-1914, All-Star candidate 1909-1910, 1916-1919. (10 HOM seasons)

No other newly eligible player will probably ever appear on my ballot. Others:

Fletcher, Art – Consistent throughout the teens. Either he or Milan is the most underrated player on the ballot. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1911-1920 (10 HOM seasons)

Milan, Clyde – Played in the eclipsing AL shadow of Cobb and Speaker. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1908, 1910-1918 (10 HOM seasons)

Shotton, Burt – Also eclipsed by the AL CF giants, and by Milan. Never MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1912-1916, 1918 (6 HOM seasons)

Wood, Joe – His 1912 season is one of the top pitching performances ever. It is a shame his arm died the very next year. MVP candidate 1912, All-Star candidate 1911, 1915, 1918. (4 HOM seasons)

Mongin, Sam – I don’t know much about Sam, but he seemed to last for a decent amount of time. Never mentioned among the all-time greats.

And thus ends my consideration list. The rest:

Graney, Jack – A decent player. I don’t have much else to say about him. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1913, 1916-1917, 1919 (4 HOM seasons)

Austin, Jimmy – Gave a great interview in The Glory of Their Times, which is even better in the audio version. Must have had a lot of pep, because he did not last many years through his playing ability. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1911, 1913. (2 HOM seasons)

McHenry, Austin – I used to see this name on the previous lists, and I know he played his last year in 1922. In honor of OCF, I will mention that Mr. McHenry had one All-star candidate season, in 1921, and then passed away the next year. At the time of his passing, he was merely an opponent of Frankie Frisch, so he was never elected to the HOF.

I don't think anyone is eligible for war credit this year. I define war credit as mandated time off (whether or not actually serving in the military) despite the ability to play in MLB. If anyone wants to give only credit for people who actually served, pay particular attention to Purple Heart honoree Spots Poles next year.
   15. DavidFoss Posted: June 07, 2004 at 04:27 PM (#663348)
Baker's similarity scores suffer from lack of era adjustment in the similarity score algorithm.

Pinky Whitney has a career OPS+ of 97... only by playing in a much more offensive era does he become in any way 'similar'.

I knew about him sitting out 1915 because of a holdout (why didn't Mack make him part of the big fire sale?). I did not know that he missed 1920 to look after his kids because of his wife's death.
   16. OCF Posted: June 07, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#663372)
I've got a computation with my own version of context-adjusted RCAA. There are three columns: RCAA, a "big years" bonus column that, year-by-year, is proportional to the square of RCAA, and an RC above 80% of average column. The thee columns give me profiles and shapes for candidates. There is one other candidate who resembles Baker quite closely: Frank Chance. That's not a slam on Baker - it's an indication of how good Chance was as an offensive player. I have Baker slightly ahead of Joe Kelley in RCAA, slightly behind on RC/80%, and well out in front of Kelley on big years bonus. I have him ahead of Keeler on everything except the RC/80%. I have Baker clearly ahead of Sisler in all three columns. He's behind Zack Wheat in the first and third column, but still ahead for the big years bonus. I have him ahead of Larry Doyle all the way across, and I voted Doyle #3 last tlme. He doesn't match up to Flick or Jackson, but there's no shame in that.

That last paragraph was entirely about offense, and heavy with outfielders on the comparisons. As dan b says, he's our all-time third baseman. My gut instinct with a list like dan b's post would be to expand it to include active or recently retired players. Do that, and we replace at least four of those players: Collins at 2B, Cobb at CF, Ruth at RF (the Babe could retire now and we've seen enough), and Johnson at RHP. Gehrig and Grove have just three years each in the majors, so it's too early to pass judgement, but Gehrig just won the MVP and Grove was an IL legend, so we're watching. There's no third baseman that we're watching in that way.

Baker will debut at #1 on my ballot.
   17. mbd1mbd1 Posted: June 07, 2004 at 05:20 PM (#663451)
A first pass puts Baker in the neighborhood of 3-7 on my ballot depending on who goes in in 1927. Milan and Bush are in the 20-25 range. No one else is within shouting distance.
   18. robc Posted: June 07, 2004 at 05:51 PM (#663475)
Baker should be somewhere between 3rd and 6th on my ballot, depending on who was elected. I dont see him being around on ballots for too many years. 3rd base definately needs some inductees.
   19. Brad G. Posted: June 07, 2004 at 06:04 PM (#663487)
Looks like Baker'll be the only new guy on my ballot, being the best 3B eligible... not sure where yet (probably #1-3). Wood comes out close to Hippo for me, and Bush will be the #2 or 3 eligible SS, depending on whether one gets inducted in 1927 or not... Jennings will probably make my ballot, but not Bush.
   20. Brad G. Posted: June 07, 2004 at 06:07 PM (#663491)
Actually, Bush will be behind Long (now that I've taken another glance)... that "C" in Defensive Win Shares is glaring.
   21. Brian H Posted: June 07, 2004 at 07:24 PM (#663577)
Hello guys (I recall all of the voters being male):

I haven't voted in a few "years" -- actually since the web-site reformatting. Are there any hoops I need to jump through or can I just post my ballot with the usual explanations about who I have chosen and why (and who I haven't chosen among the top 10 vote getters) ?

Hopefully I'll be able to post a provisional "draft" ballot on this thread before the actual voting begins.

Please let me know.

Brian H.
   22. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 07, 2004 at 07:26 PM (#663581)
Is there any way to find out the standard deviations in OBP and SLG for each year in each league?
   23. karlmagnus Posted: June 07, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#663588)
Brian H, you need to register to post anything, but there are no more formalities than there were and the rules haven't changed (though the website imposes a limit of 5000 characters so you may have to post in 2 or 3 parts.)
   24. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 07, 2004 at 08:14 PM (#663613)
Looking at the newbies:

Frank Baker. Great prime. Some solid year after it to help flesh out his career, but overall his career numbers are lacking. I'll put him over Leach in part because of the prime & in part because Leach spent half his time in the OF. Is he like Joe Jackson? Joe's OPS+ is 35 points higher than Frank's. Even with the positional adjustment, that's impressie. Baker will be on my ballot, but not near the top.

Clyde Milan. A 109 OPS+? You think Beckley had no peak? Clyde had one year with an OPS+ as high as Jake's career mark. SBs are nice, but he's not even close to making my ballot.

Smokey Joe Wood. Makes Hughie Jennings look like Bobby Wallace. Great season, but not enough to even rate an off-ballot placement.

Donie Bush. 91 OPS+ & Win Shares gives him a C on defense.

Art Fletcher. Perennial member of the Don Baylor All-Starw who played great defense, but there's no way he's getting serious consideration.

Baker & forgetaboutit.
   25. Daryn Posted: June 07, 2004 at 10:32 PM (#663746)
I have Milan at 24 -- nice Willie Wilsonesque career. Baker is in at 12, could be as high as 9. He's not a Joe Jackson in my mind. Oh yeah, please put McGinnity out of hs misery.

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. Baseballreality.com 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.

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.
   26. Kelly in SD Posted: June 07, 2004 at 10:38 PM (#663751)
Frank Baker:

Rank by Position
1908: 2 WinShares
1909: 27 WS. #1 3B in American League #1 3B Major Leagues.
1910: 25 WS. #1 3B in AL. #2 ML 3B to Byrne of Pittsburgh who had 29.
1911: 35 WS. #1 in AL/ML. #3 position player in all ML to Cobb 47, Jackson 39.
1912: 39 WS. #1 in AL/ML. #3 position player in all ML to Speaker 51, Cobb 40.
1913: 38 WS. #1 3B in AL/ML. #2 position player in all ML to Collins 39.
1914: 35 WS. #1 3B in AL/ML. #3 position player to Speaker 45 and Collins 43.
1915: DNP b/c of salary dispute with Connie Mack.
1916: 17 WS. #3 3B in AL behind Gardner 27 and Vitt 21.
1917: 21 WS. #1 in AL (tied with Buck Weaver). #4 in ML behind Groh 37, Zimmerman 26, and Smith 22.
1918: 23 WS. #1 in AL. #2 in ML behind Groh 28.
1919: 20 WS. #1 in AL (tied with Weaver & Gardner). #3 in ML behind Groh 30 and Hornsby 26.
1920: DNP - wife died and he took care of children.
1921: 12 WS. #4 in AL behind Gardner 23, Shanks 21, and Foster 13. #8 in ML.
1922: 7 WS. Retired after season.

So: 9 times best in his league in 10 years he played. 5 times best in both leagues. 4 times top 3 in all position players in both leagues.
He had the 5th most WinShares in the teens behind Cobb, Speaker, Collins, and Jackson. (7th if include pitchers - Johnson and Alexander).

For his career he has more career WS, over 3-yr consecutive, and per 162 than the other HoM 3Basemen.
In fact, if I figured this right, among eligible and elected position players, only Honus Wagner has a higher 3-yr peak than Baker's 112. He had a 149.

Also had an OPS+ of 135. Current HoM 3Bers have 113, 119, 126 OPS (Collins, Sutton, White).


Defensively: 4.71 WS/1000 innings is 12th all-time of the 63 thirdbasemen who played 10,000+ defensive innings. 4 WS Gold Gloves.

Just some info to get the ball rolling.
   27. Kelly in SD Posted: June 07, 2004 at 10:44 PM (#663754)
Finally finished a lot of stat work on lots of players. It was too late for the 27 election, but look forward to actually voting for the first time.
   28. Brad Harris Posted: June 08, 2004 at 06:22 AM (#664022)
Baker has to rate at or very near the #1 spot. No one else on the ballot has nearly as complete or compelling a case for election.

Wood just doesn't have the innings, but I'm curious how he stacks up against other deadball short-career pitchers Joss and Waddell.

No one else comes remotely close to consideration.

Looks like something of a "catch up" year at the ballot box.
   29. Daryn Posted: June 08, 2004 at 06:29 AM (#664023)
Based on Kelly's work I'm moving Baker from 12 to 8. Behind 4 pitchers, Beckley, Thompson and Pearce.
   30. Kelly in SD Posted: June 08, 2004 at 08:02 AM (#664033)
I have come upon a philosophical problem and was hoping people could help me out.
Do you compare the eligible players only to other eligible or also to the HoM members? I ask because there may be a player who is one of the top of the eligible contingent, but when compared to either all HoMers or HoMers at his position, he doesn't meet the "established standards?" Then what do you do?

Any input is very welcome.
   31. Kelly in SD Posted: June 08, 2004 at 08:53 AM (#664038)
How about some Tommy Leach fun info:
1898: 0 WS
1899: 13 WS as 3B. 7th out of 12 in NL.
1900: 3 WS
1901: 17 WS as 3B. 3rd out of 8 in NL behind Strang and Krueger. 7th out of 16 in ML.
1902: 27 WS as 3B. 1st out of 8 NL, 1st in ML. 5th best position player in ML behind teammates Wagner 35, Beaumont 31, Clarke 29 and Delahanty 31.
1903: 21 WS as 3B. 1st in NL tied with Steinfeldt. 3rd out of 16 in ML behind Bradley 29 and Collins 26.
1904: 25 WS as 3B. 1st in NL tied with Devlin. 3rd out of 16 in ML behind Bradley and Collins 28 ea. 16th overall ML position player.
1905: 17 WS as OF. 13th OF in NL.
1906: 19 WS as 3B. 3rd in NL behind Devlin 36 and Steinfeldt 33. 3rd 3B in ML.
1907: 29 WS as OF. 2nd in NL behind Magee 38, tied with F. Clarke. 5th in ML OF behind Magee, Cobb 41, Flick 37, and Crawford 36. 3rd best position player in NL, 7th in ML.
1908: 31 WS as 3B. 2nd in NL behind Lobert 32. 2nd in ML. 4th best position player in NL behind Wagner 59, Lobert and Tinker 32. 9th best in ML behind Wagner, Cobb 36, McIntyre 33, Crawford, Jones, Lajoie, Lobert, Tinker 32.
1909: 26 WS in OF. 4th in NL behind Clarke 31, Mitchell 28, Hofman 27. 7th in ML behind Cobb 44, Speaker 34, Crawford 32 and NLers.
1910: 16 WS in OF. 15th in NL.
1911: 10 WS in OF.
1912: 14 WS in OF. 15th in NL.
1913: 24 WS in OF. 2nd in NL to Cravath 29. 7th in ML. 4th best position player in NL behind Cravath, Saier 26, Zimmerman 25. 12th best position player in ML.
1914: 27 WS in OF. 4th in NL to Burns 31, Magee 29, and Cravath 28. 7th in ML to Speaker 45, Crawford 31, Walker 28 and NLers. 4th best position player in NL and 9th in ML behind above and Collins and Baker.
1915: 7 WS
1918: 2 WS

Best 3B ML 1902, Best 3B NL 1903, 1904. Top 3 OF NL 1907, 1913.

Ninth most WS (position players) in 19oughts: Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford, Fred Clarke, Flick, Roy Thomas, Sheckard, and Fielder Jones.

OPS+: 109 would be the lowest at either position among current HoMers.
BUT: his 25 WS/162 games is comparable to current HoM 3Bers Collins (25.6), Sutton (24.7), and White (23.8).

His teams finished (starting in 1899): 9, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2 teams 1912, 3, 4, 4, and 4. Only 2 teams had losing records: 1899 Lou 75-77 and 1915 Chi 73-80.

Defensively: WS A+ at 3rd and OF. WS Gold Glove at 3rd in 1902 and 1904. WS Gold Glove in OF in 1907, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1914.
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:19 AM (#664041)
"Do you compare the eligible players only to other eligible or also to the HoM members? I ask because there may be a player who is one of the top of the eligible contingent, but when compared to either all HoMers or HoMers at his position, he doesn't meet the "established standards?" Then what do you do?

Any input is very welcome."

Glad to see you are finally going to vote Kelly!

Interesting question. I'd say that you should just rank the players on the ballot in the order you think they are worthy - who'd you'd send if you could only send one should be first, etc..

Generally that means comparing the players on the ballot. The 'standards' shouldn't matter. Suppose Cy Young was the only pitcher in after 1 year (say we started voting in 1916). Does he become the standard? The standards will take care of themselves, as we vote the most deserving players in.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote a catcher or relief ace in ahead of a player with more 'raw' value. I realize those careers are shorter/less valuable for a number of reasons, but someone has to do those jobs and they should be honored here too - so I make a subjective adjustment for those guys based on the fact that someone has to do their jobs. With relief aces it will be easy actually, IP*1.9 will give a starter equivalent career length, because relief innings have more leverage.

For catchers it's a little tougher, but generally if their career is 'long for a catcher' I treat them as if they had a long career - because I believe that equivalent 'raw' value from a catcher is actually more valuable than from an outfielder - if that makes any sense - it's kind of hard to explain, but the concept works in my head.

Does that help at all? Or does it just make your head hurt more reading it?
   33. EricC Posted: June 08, 2004 at 11:42 AM (#664058)
Donie Bush trivia.

Donie Bush had more plate appearances from 1909 to 1921 than any player up to then had had over a 13 year stretch.

Donie Bush led the AL in walks 5 times, and came close to breaking then-record-holder Billy Hamilton's career walks record.

On the other hand, he didn't hit for average, didn't hit for power, and was at best a "C" shortshop defensively. He won't be making my ballot.
   34. Rusty Priske Posted: June 08, 2004 at 12:27 PM (#664069)
Prelim.

I also have Baker as close to Jackson. However, I didn't have Jackson at #1 and I won't have Baker at #1 (though they are my PHoM inductees this year.)

1. Bobby Wallace (1,2,2)
2. Jimmy Sheckard (2,3,3)
3. Bob Caruthers (4,5,5)
4. George Van Haltren (3,4,7)
5. Jake Beckley (9,7,10)
6. Mickey Welch (5,9,9)
7. Lip Pike (x,x,x)

I have read the arguments and reevaluated my stance on Pike.

8. Jimmy Ryan (10,10,11)
9. Rube Foster (9,11,13)
10. Dickey Pearce (7,8,12)
11. Bill Monroe (13,14,x)
12. Frank Baker (new)
13. Joe McGinnity (12,12,14)
14. Tommy Leach (15,13,15)
15. Hugh Duffy (14,14,x)

16-20. Powell, Griffith, Mullane, Doyle, Childs
21-25. McCormick, F.Jones, Thompson, Willis, White
26-30. Waddell, Konetchy, Gleason, Cross, Milan
   35. EricC Posted: June 08, 2004 at 12:51 PM (#664092)
Other notable newbies:

Frank Baker. A great player on a ballot of borderline candidates. Will be #1 on my ballot.

Clyde Milan: OF at this level are way too historically common to deserve a place in a 200-odd member HoM.

Art Fletcher: Great defensively, but not enough overall to put him among the all-time shortstops.

Smokey Joe Wood: Peak alone comes close to putting him in my top 30, but peak didn't last long enough.
   36. PhillyBooster Posted: June 08, 2004 at 01:30 PM (#664129)
In my mind, especially after 50+ years of players, I try to compare the top player available at a position to the second best player, under the theory that the most worthy will be those who separate them from the pack by the widest margin.

That is why I have Bresnahan on my ballot while many have no catchers at all. He does not have a large absolute value, but compared to the other catchers (Clements, McGuire, . . .) he stands out a lot more than, say, Sheckard stands out over Charlie Jones.

It's not quite a positional quota, because if Bresnahan gets inducted next year (big if!) the position of catcher would still be underrepresented, but if you look at the best available catcher excluding Bresnahan (Clements), he simply does not tower over the other eligibles.

To me, the greats stand out, and have to be considered on their own scales.
   37. karlmagnus Posted: June 08, 2004 at 01:35 PM (#664133)
McGuire, a catching Beckley, should also be considered in the catching discussion, and was more Meritorious than Bresnahan, IMHO.
   38. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 08, 2004 at 02:18 PM (#664193)
Provisional ballot, the long version, part I:

Done some tinkering, especially with some off-ballot players:

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. This may be too low.

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

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

10 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.

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.
   39. DanG Posted: June 08, 2004 at 02:18 PM (#664195)
Players Passing Away in 1927

HoMers
Age Elected

84 1912 Joe Start-1B
72 1921 Charlie Bennett-C

Candidates
Age Eligible

70 1897 Pop Smith-2B
68 1900 Jerry Denny-3B
67 1904 Tom Brown-CF
64 1904 Germany Smith-SS
61 1913 Lave Cross-3B

Upcoming Candidate
30 1932 Ross Youngs-RF
   40. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 08, 2004 at 02:19 PM (#664196)
Off-ballot:

16 Larry Doyle (18,18). Don't have much time this or next week to take a closer look, so I'm leaving him here - he could move up when I have the time to really look at him more.
17 Charlie Jones (19,19). Great hitter for a while. First really good Deep Southerner (first Deep Southerner of any type?) I get the feeling he would have been an NA standout from 1871/2 if he'd been born in Pennsylvania.
18 Herman Long (16,17). Only SS whose glove rivals Tinker's.
19. Gavvy Cravvath (20,20). Toughie to figure. The late start of this CAer reminds me of the late start of the above NCer. Gets some minor league credit, but loses some due to park factors (a homer champion hitting all his homers at home? Sure you could argue that it shows he's really taking full advantage of his home park, but I'd like to see my sluggers be able to hit the ball in other parks also.
20. Tommy Bond (21,21). With pre-93 pitchers, I'm willing to look more at peak, because I worry that a guy with better career numbers might just be some rubber-armed Steve Traschel (like Bobby Mathews). Best remaining player from the 1870s.
21. Silver King (22,22). Another pre-'93 pitcher with a strong peak/primer.
22. Bill Monroe (23,23). A see more sizzle than steak, but he seems to have been a good player.
23. Pete Browning (24,24). Could freakin' hit. But not long enough.
24. Addie Joss (25,25). Could freakin' pitch. But not for enough innings.
25. Ed Williamson (26,26). Very good third baseman. Similar, though clearly inferior, to Jimmy Collins.
26. Rube Waddell (30,27). The king of unearned runs - & considering how important his ERA+ is to his candidacy, that really hurts. Entry of Vaughn & Cicotte helps him.
27. Hugh Duffy (31,32). Needs either better rate stats or more games. He's a tweener - in a bad way. Periodic re-evaluation boosts him a little.
28. Eddie Cicotte (28). Decent prime, but not as good as Waddell, with only a slightly longer career & similar RA+s.
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.
30. Johnny Evers (27,29). Another of those Cubs whose career fizzled out too soon.
31. Jack Clement (28,30). My choice for best cather available. Bresnahan was a better hitter, but Clement did more hitting at catcher.
32. Rube Foster (29,31). He turned into the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man too quickly for me to see him as a HoMer.
33. Hippo Vaughn (33). Nice prime, but that's it, & it wasn't a great prime.
34. Ed Konetchy (34). Jake Beckley-lite, which is a serious problem because Beckley's entire candidacy rests on the fact he's Jake Beckley-heavy. Not enough career nor peak nor prime. Nice fielder.
35. Charlie Buffinton (32,35). A very good pitcher during his time.
36. Roger Bresnahan (33,36). Not enough games at catcher to get in as a catcher & not nearly enough games to get in as anything else.
37. Lave Cross (34,37). OK for a long time. Great defense, but banal offense.
38. Harry Davis (35,38). My choice for best 1Bman from the 1900's.
39. John McGraw (37,40). Great peak, but not nearly enough games.
40. Tony Mullane (38,41). Very good in a weak league. Never dominated. Voluntarily sat out a year so gets no bonus points for that from me.
41. Hughie Jennings (39,42). Five great years & not much else - lands you this low on my ballot.
42. Frank Chance (40,43). Best peak of any 1Bman between ABC & Sisler.
43. Roy Thomas (41,44). There was an OBP God & he lived in Philly, but not for long enough.
44. Jim McCormick (42,45). Good pitcher for a while.
45. Vic Willis (43,46). Banal W/L record despite average run support & some very good defensive support.
   41. andrew siegel Posted: June 08, 2004 at 03:03 PM (#664243)
Joe--

You had Ryan 3rd last year and Van Haltren 22nd. I tried the BRARP+FRAA+PRAR metric on the two of them and they come out as close as they do under all the other metrics. Below I give data on a year by year basis, but the bottom line works out to Van Haltren putting up nine more Joe-Adjusted Runs Above Actual Replacement (JARAAR) in a slightly shorter career. Of course, VH had one year in the AA, had an ever-so-slight games available advantage, and had a lesser peak. Therefore, if the baseballprospectus numbers were my only guide, I'd probably have Ryan one spot ahead of VH in my rankings. Still, it's pretty much a dead-even tie. So, what justifies the 19 spot gap?

Age 21: VH 16/ R DNP; VH +16 (total VH +16)
Age 22: VH 34/ R 1; VH +33 (+49 total)
Age 23: VH 41/R 26; VH +15 (+64 total)
Age 24: VH 50/R 32; VH +18 (+82 total)
Age 25: R 74/ VH 35; R +39 (VH +43 total)
Age 26: R 60/VH 39; R +21 (VH +22 total)
Age 27: R 47/VH 41; R +6 (VH +16 total)
Age 28: R 36/ VH 20; R + 16 (EVEN total)
Age 29: R 50/ VH 30; R +20 (+20 total)
Age 30: VH 61/ R 18; VH +43 (+23 total)
Age 31: VH 43/ R 32; VH +11 (+34 total)
Age 32: R 23/ VH 19; R +4 (VH +30 total)
Age 33: VH 32/ R 14; VH +18 (+48 total)
Age 34: VH 33/ R 29; VH +4 (+52 total)
Age 35: VH 42/ R 38; VH +4 (+56 total)
Age 36: R 15/ VH 7; R+8 (VH +48 total)
Age 37: R 0/ VH -7; R+7 (VH +41 total)
Age 38: DNP/DNP
Age 39: Ryan +28/ VH DNP; R +28 (VH +13 total)
Age 40: Ryan +4/ VH DNP; R +4 (VH +9 total)
   42. DanG Posted: June 08, 2004 at 03:06 PM (#664248)
A brief look at current candidates with regards to their outfield position.

Who Was a Center Fielder?

CarG %R+L %OthPos
1511 96.6% 1.4% 2.3% Griffin
1982 82.5% 13.6% 0.0% Milan
1788 70.2% 29.1% 0.1% F.Jones
1984 69.2% 23.2% 9.2% Van Haltren
0425 55.3% 22.4% 27.8% Pike

Who Was a Corner Outfielder?
CarG %R+L %OthPos
1407 0.1% 99.8% 0.1% Thompson
2122 1.0% 96.9% 1.3% Sheckard
0963 3.5% 96.6% 0.0% York
1476 10.0% 90.0% 0.3% Tiernan
1220 3.3% 86.5% 0.4% Cravath
0894 27.6% 72.0% 1.5% C.Jones
1737 38.9% 58.2% 2.6% Duffy

Who Was a Bit More Corner than Center?
CarG %R+L %OthPos
2012 47.5% 49.7% 4.8% Ryan
1183 41.4% 43.3% 16.5% Browning

A Couple Other Candidates
CarG %R+L %OthPos
2156 46.2% 4.0% 47.9% Leach
1446 15.3% 4.1% 75.7% Bresnahan
   43. andrew siegel Posted: June 08, 2004 at 03:07 PM (#664249)
To put that a slightly different way, Ryan's best, 2nd best, 3rd best, and 4th best seasons beat VH's, but VH wins seasons 5-16. (Ryan does come back to win season 17, though.)
   44. jhwinfrey Posted: June 08, 2004 at 03:14 PM (#664254)
Bill Dahlen finally makes it into my PHoM this year, along with Bob Caruthers. Here's my provisional ballot--hopefully two of these guys went in in the '27 vote.

1.“Smiling Mickey” Welch (1, 1)
2.Joe McGinnity(3, 2)
3.Jake Beckley (6, 3)
4.Dickey Pearce (7, 4)
5.Bob Caruthers (4, 5)
6.Big Sam Thompson (8, 6)
7.Pete Hill(ne, 7)
8.Rube Waddell(5, 8)
9.Addie Joss (10, 9)
10.Joe Jackson—(bc, 10)
11.Roger Breshnahan (9, 11)
12. Frank Baker: (ne)
13.Pete Browning (11, 12)
14.Tony “The Count” Mullane (12, 13)
15.Lip Pike (13, 14)

16-20: Van Haltren, Monroe, Willis, Duffy, Cicotte
21-25: Ryan, Griffith, Jennings, Vaughan, Wallace
26-30: Sheckard, Doyle, Cravath, Foster, Sallee
31st would be Clyde "Deerfoot" Milan, who ranks quite a bit higher on my all-nickname ballot.

In addition to voting here in the HoM I'm also a charter member of the Baseball Fever HOF voting. (http://www.baseball-fever.com) It makes for an interesting contrast, since BBF is tackling all eras at once (just list the top 25 unelected candidates on your ballot) as opposed to going chronologically. Over there we've elected 50+ players after 8 monthly ballots. Each process has helped me think about the other.
   45. OCF Posted: June 08, 2004 at 03:47 PM (#664299)
Brad Harris asks:

Wood just doesn't have the innings, but I'm curious how he stacks up against other deadball short-career pitchers Joss and Waddell.

Here are my (support-neutral) PythPat RA+ career records:

200-129 Waddell
161-098 Joss
099-060 Wood
080-055 Babe Ruth

Wood's top year by this was 1912: 344 IP at a RA+ of 170, for an equivalent record of 27-11. He also has 1915: 157 IP at a RA+ of 211, for an equivalent record of 14-4.

I've got Wood's equivalent winning percentage at .623, which is essentially tied with Joss. The only higher ones among 1893-1935 pitchers that I know of are Grove, Johnson, Alexander, Walsh, Brown, and Mathewson - and not the defense-adjusted version of Brown.

As an outfielder, his RCAA resembles - well, I'm not really in the business of figuring the stats of people it would resemble. Joe Tinker, maybe, or maybe Owen Wilson.

Put it all together, and it's not enough. Wood won't be in my top 25.
   46. Guapo Posted: June 08, 2004 at 04:00 PM (#664326)
In response to people who say Frank Baker's career was too short, here are the all-time leaders at games played at third, for all players retired through 1928:

1. L. Cross- 1721
2. J. Collins- 1683
3. L. Gardner- 1656
4. A. Latham- 1571
5. F. Baker- 1548
   47. dan b Posted: June 08, 2004 at 04:10 PM (#664344)
Two questions:

1) If Frank Baker isn’t at the top of your ballot, will Mike Schmidt be the next third baseman to garner your 1st place vote? (It probably won’t be Eddie Mathews as he and Mantle retired the same year, but both should be elected in their first year of eligibility.)
2) Looking at the 1926 vote tally, Roger Bresnahan appeared on 24 of 50 ballots. No other catcher received a single vote. If Bresnahan is not a HoMer, will we have a hole at that position stretching from the end of Buck Ewing’s career in 1897 to the beginning of Mickey Cochrane’s career in 1925?
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 08, 2004 at 04:11 PM (#664348)
1. L. Cross- 1721
2. J. Collins- 1683
3. L. Gardner- 1656
4. A. Latham- 1571
5. F. Baker- 1548


The problem with this list is that it favors the longer schedule guys. Ezra Sutton would be high on the list with the proper adjustments.
   49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 08, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#664360)
1) If Frank Baker isn’t at the top of your ballot, will Mike Schmidt be the next third baseman to garner your 1st place vote?

Good question. I like Groh, Hack, and Traynor and will have them on my ballot, but I'm not sure they are #1s.

Obviously, Mathews is a top-tier third baseman. Playing second fiddle to Mickey Mantle doesn't lessen Eddie's achievements, but highlights Mantle's to a greater degree.
   50. Guapo Posted: June 08, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#664384)
Ezra Sutton "only" played 880 games at 3B, but even if you give the short schedule guys a bump, or the guys who split their time between 3B and 2B a bump, that doesn't disprove the point I was trying to make, which was:

Baker has had one of the longest careers of any third baseman "to date".
   51. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 08, 2004 at 05:09 PM (#664437)
Baker has had one of the longest careers of any third baseman "to date".

My point was that Baker would be further down the list if the shorter schedule guys had their games played at the position adjusted.
   52. Kelly in SD Posted: June 08, 2004 at 07:24 PM (#664669)
Joe D and Philley, thank you for your comments.

Re: Baker and time at 3rd. I did not include 1908 as it looks like he was a late-season call up.
Year TmG Baker3BG
1909 153 146
1910 155 146
1911 152 148
1912 153 149
1913 153 149
1914 158 149
1916 156 96
1917 155 146
1918 126 126
1919 141 141
1921 153 83
1922 154 60

Total: 1809 team games 1539 3B games. So he played in 85% of his team games since he became a regular, inlcuding a decline phase.

In comparison to Sutton:
Year TmG Sutton3BG
1871 29 29
1872 21 21
1873 51 44 (7 SS, 1 2B)
1874 56 36 (20 SS)
1875 73 73 (1 OF, 1 1B)
1876 60 8 (29 1B, 15 2B, 4 OF)
1877 61 22 (36 SS)
1878 60 59 (1 SS)
1879 84 33 (51 SS)
1880 86 37 (39 more at SS)
1881 83 81 (2 SS)
1882 85 77 (4 SS)
1883 98 93 (1 SS, 1 OF)
1884 116 110
1885 113 91 (16 more at SS, 2 2B, 1 1B)
1886 118 28 (43 OF, 28 SS, 18 2B)
1887 127 11 (37 SS, 18 OF, 13 2B)
1888 137 27 (1 SS)

Total: 1458 team games, 882 G at 3B, 243 at SS, 67 OF, 50 2B, 31 1B. Sutton played 60% of team games at 3B, 17% of team games at SS.

(N)ed Williamson
Year TmG 3BG
1878 63 63
1879 83 70 (6 1B, 4 C)
1880 86 63 (11 C, 3 2B)
1881 84 76 (4 2B, 3 P, 2 SS, 1 C)
1882 84 83 (1 P)
1883 98 97 (3 C, 1 P)
1884 113 99 (10 C, 2 P)
1885 113 113 (2 P, 1 C)
1886 126 0 (121 SS, 4 C, 2 P)
1887 127 0 (127 SS, 1 P)
1888 136 0 (132 SS)
1889 136 0 (47 SS)
1890 138 52 (21 SS)

Team Games: 1387. Williamson 716 3B, 450 SS.
Team Games when he was regular 3B: 862. He played 83% of team games when a 3B.
Team Games when he was regular SS: 525. He played 427 games or 81% of team games when a SS.

Jimmy Collins in summary form: Approx 2038 team games (fuzzy b/c 2 yrs he played for 2 different teams) and 1685 3B games or 83%.

Jerry Denny (1881-91, 93-94): 1544 tm games. 1109 3B games. 72% team games played. The figures before his one year break are: 1288 tm games and 1049 3b games for 81%.

It appears Baker was consistent in the %age of team games he played in comparison to a group of earlier good 3Bmen. Sutton does not meet the low 80s mark as he split time at the more defensively demanding SS in 7 seasons and was able to play the OF.
   53. DavidFoss Posted: June 08, 2004 at 07:39 PM (#664688)
Great stuff Kelly... could you translate those numbers into team seasons?
   54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 08, 2004 at 08:22 PM (#664750)
It appears Baker was consistent in the %age of team games he played in comparison to a group of earlier good 3Bmen.

Good job, Kelly!

It appears that I was wrong about Sutton. Latham would move up much higher by your analysis. Billy Nash would probably go past Baker. I'm not sure about George Pinkney or Hick Carpeneter.

Since I am going to place Baker no lower than #4, it's not like I'm an enemy of him anyway. :-)
   55. andrew siegel Posted: June 08, 2004 at 08:45 PM (#664792)
Current preliminary thinking with some minor shakeups (Ryan, Thompson, Griffith benefit; Jennings, Williamson, Monroe hurt).

(1) Baker (new)
(2) Sheckard (3rd)
(3) Childs (4th)
(4) Van Haltren (5th)
(5) Wallace (7th)
(6) Ryan (9th)
(7) Jennings (5th)
(8) Jones (8th)
(9) Pike (10th)
(10) McGinnity (11th)
(11) Caruthers (12th)
(12) Thompson (unranked)
(13) Williamson (13th)
(14) Bresnahan (unranked)
(15) Griffith (unranked)
   56. Kelly in SD Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:06 PM (#664823)
David, this may be a dumb question, but what do you mean by team seasons?
   57. DavidFoss Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:18 PM (#664848)
Sorry... I suppose I could figure it out from your numbers above, but I'm away from my standard work area.

Its a way of stating how long a career is but not depending on season varying season lengths. (At least that's how it works inside my head :-)).

Year One: 10 of 40 team G's == 0.25 Team seasons
Year Two: 30 of 60 team G's == 0.5 Team seasons
Year Three: 90 of 100 team G's == 0.9 Team seasons

Total: 130 of 200 team G's == 1.65 team seasons

Contrast with this player:

Year One: 40 of 40 team G's == 1.0 Team seasons
Year Two: 30 of 60 team G's == 0.5 Team seasons
Year Three: 60 of 100 team G's == 0.6 Team seasons

Total: 130 of 200 team G's == 2.1 team seasons

Season lengths changed dramatically in the 70's and 80's... figuring out percentages in each season instead of at the end of the career could make a big difference.

I think this type of thing has already been done in some of the inductees-by-position tables that used to be posted before the site change.
   58. OCF Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:50 PM (#664908)
7.Pete Hill(ne, 7)
...
10.Joe Jackson—(bc, 10)
...
16-20: Van Haltren, Monroe, Willis, Duffy, Cicotte


jhwinfrey, I guess we should find out what order the ones you list as "16-20" actually fall into, because two of them belong on your ballot.

If I put Baker at the top and otherwise just list players in the order I had them last year, I get the following, which I might change a little by next week.

1. Baker
2. Sheckard
3. Doyle
4. Wallace
5. McGinnity
6. Waddell
7. Ryan
8. Duffy
9. Van Haltren
10. Bresnahan
11. Cravath
12. Willis
13. Welch
14. Evers
15. Chance

I know exactly how this could be criticized, but the positional balance isn't too bad. In the first 10, I've got a RHP, a LHP, and all the everyday positions covered except 1B and RF - with enough extra outfielders that I wouldn't worry too much about RF. And a RF pops up at #11 and a 1B at #15.
   59. Kelly in SD Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:55 PM (#664915)
John,
Here is some info about Latham, Nash, and Carpenter.

Latham: 1880, 1883-96,99, 1909. 96, 99, and 09 are not included in the calculation as he only played 18 games in the 3 yrs.

year tmG 3BG
1880 85 0 (SS 12, OF 10, C 1)
1883 98 98 (C 1)
1884 110 110 (C 1)
1885 112 109 (C 2)
1886 139 133 (2B 1)
1887 138 132 (2B 5, C 2)
1888 137 133 (SS 1)
1889 141 116 (2B 3)
1890 136 96 (OF 1)
1891 138 135 (C 1)
1892 155 142 (2B 9, OF 1)
1893 131 127
1894 132 127 (2B 2)
1895 132 108 (1B 3, 2B 1)

total TmG: 1684 Total 3BG: 1566 or played 3B in 93% of TmGs

Nash: 1884-1898

Year TmG 3BG
1884 46 45
1885 113 19 (2B 8)
1886 118 90 (SS 17, OF 2)
1887 127 117 (OF 5)
1888 137 105 (2B 31)
1889 133 128 (P 1)
1890 130 129 (P 1)
1891 140 140
1892 152 135 (OF 1)
1893 131 128
1894 133 132
1895 132 132
1896 130 65
1897 134 79 (SS 19, 2B 4)
1898 150 20

TmG: 1906 3BG: 1464 or played in 77%, though up through 1895 the totals would be 1492 TmG and 1300 3BG or he played in 87%.


Carpenter: 1879-1889, + 1 g in 1892

Year TmG 3BG
1879 71 18 (1B 34, OF 11, 2B 3)
1880 83 67 (1B 9, SS 1)
1881 83 83
1882 80 80
1883 98 95
1884 112 108 (OF 1)
1885 112 112
1886 141 111
1887 136 127
1888 137 136
1889 141 121 (1B 2)

Total TmG: 1194 Total 3BG: 1058 or played in 89% of team games.
   60. Kelly in SD Posted: June 08, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#664922)
David,
That's what I thought you meant. I'll see what I can do.
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:13 PM (#664937)
Even though you didn't have to do it, Kelly, thanks again for the new numbers!
   62. favre Posted: June 08, 2004 at 10:26 PM (#664955)
"Looking at the 1926 vote tally, Roger Bresnahan appeared on 24 of 50 ballots. No other catcher received a single vote. If Bresnahan is not a HoMer, will we have a hole at that position stretching from the end of Buck Ewing’s career in 1897 to the beginning of Mickey Cochrane’s career in 1925?"

Don't forget about the Negro Leagues. Louis Santop had a long career (1909-1926) and seems to have been an excellent hitter, especially for a catcher. I assume he will receive a good deal of support.

Using Integrated 9's (with all the difficulties that entails), it also seems, at first glance, that Bruce Petway had a similar career Bresnahan. Petway didn't get into many games, but he was a good hitter when he did, and had a reputation as an excellent fielder. This is all preliminary, of course, but it's quite possible that the two best catchers in baseball between Ewing and Cochrane/Hartnett were not allowed to play in the majors.
   63. ronw Posted: June 08, 2004 at 11:52 PM (#665060)
Also, don't forget about Ray Schalk, who will get some support, and Wally Schang, who I think will get a great deal of support.
   64. Michael Bass Posted: June 09, 2004 at 12:24 AM (#665156)
Several varied notes....

One of the downsides to coming in late is that it's difficult to consider everyone you probably should be in your first ballots. For this year, I've added quite a few players to my consideration set. None will be on the ballot this season, but several did quite well. Roy Thomas and Jim McCormick jump into my top 25, and Mike Griffin is now ranked 17th, and probably will eventually appear on one of my ballots.

---------------------------------------

Along with this effort, I did a reconsideration of the older guys. The main 3 that interested me for the purposes of this were Pike, Pearce, and Tommy Bond. I came to a few conclusions:

1) There was little if any justification for the huge value gap I had between Pike and Bond.

2) As a career voter, Pearce almost certainly had more value than Pike.

The excellent stats provided in the last discussion helped my thinking with Pearce. He moves up, and is now 16th, nearly certain to get on my ballot very soon. Pike falls off my ballot, down to the 25 range. Bond moves up, but is still nowhere near a ballot position.

----------------------------

Newcomers...

Baker does pretty well, but not overwhelmingly so in my system. He will, fortunately, break up my OF run, which was getting ridiculous there for a while. He'll rank 6th. Just not quite enough career wise to go higher.

Milan and Bush do very little for me, and are in the very bottom of my consideration set.

Wood, I like. Not enough to get him on my ballot now or in the future, but he slots in 23rd. Guys like him and Caruthers do very well in the system I use, but he needed another year or two at a high level.

Should I assume there's no particular reason to worry too much about Mongin? Doesn't have even borderline HOM feel to me, but I just want to make sure.

-------------------------

Prelim top 15

1. Wallace
2. Caruthers
3. Van Haltren
4. Sheckard
5. Ryan
6. Baker
7. Thompson
8. F. Jones
9. Griffith
10. Foster
11. Childs
12. Monroe
13. Leach
14. Beckley
15. Waddell

16-20: Pearce, Griffin, Willis, Mullane, McCormick
21-25: McGinnity, Pike, Wood, Thomas, Jennings
26-30: McGraw, Bresnahan, Joss, Evers, Cicotte
   65. dan b Posted: June 09, 2004 at 02:24 AM (#665533)
This is all preliminary, of course, but it's quite possible that the two best catchers in baseball between Ewing and Cochrane/Hartnett were not allowed to play in the majors.

Also, don't forget about Ray Schalk, who will get some support, and Wally Schang, who I think will get a great deal of support.

I would agree that Petway and Santop may have been the 2 best catchers during the 25 year period between Ewing and Hartnett, but that is a long stretch for us to ignore any position in <u>MLB</u> history. Using WS, Bresnahan holds a sizable lead over both Schang and Schalk in WS/162 and 3-year, 5-year and 8-year peaks. Schang has a small career edge, but not near enough to make me see him as more worthy than Bresnahan.
   66. KJOK Posted: June 09, 2004 at 02:35 AM (#665599)
The SABR Deadball Era Committee recently voted for a "Top 50 Honor Roll" of players from 1901-1919, and the list includes many players we're discussing.

For a look, go here:

http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/honor.roll.html
   67. KJOK Posted: June 09, 2004 at 02:36 AM (#665603)
   68. KJOK Posted: June 09, 2004 at 02:38 AM (#665609)
Deadball Committee Top 50

This link should work finally...
   69. Dolf Lucky Posted: June 09, 2004 at 02:46 AM (#665649)
To John Murphy--

I want to follow up on your question at the end of the 1927 ballot thread, regarding Dickey Pearce. I haven't been ignoring you, just don't have the time to engage in rapid-fire discussion...

Anyways, your question was in reference to Pearce's absence from my ballot, and you had wondered if it would make Barry Bonds any less great if he played among semi-pro players instead of the best in the world. Or something along those lines.

I guess my response would be that Bonds's metaphysical greatness would be unchanged, but our ability to measure it would be greatly reduced. We don't have any idea if we're electing the greatest hitter of his generation, or just someone who is good enough to dominate a group of semi-pro players (e.g. Rey Ordonez). The "terminal dominance" of baseball would make it tough to distinguish between the two.

Bottom line, what we know is that Pearce was among the best of a weak lot. You have to determine whether or not that necessarily carries "merit". For me it doesn't. Too much doubt as to the actual quality of Pearce.
   70. KJOK Posted: June 09, 2004 at 03:23 AM (#665756)
Frank Baker:

His offense looks very close to Sam Thompson's, and he played 3B as a very good fielder in a era where 3B was on the left side of the defensive spectrum, almost as valuable as C and SS. Looks like he'll make my top 3 on the ballot.
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 09, 2004 at 03:39 AM (#665792)
I want to follow up on your question at the end of the 1927 ballot thread, regarding Dickey Pearce. I haven't been ignoring you, just don't have the time to engage in rapid-fire discussion...

That's understandable Mark/Dolf. I sometimes take a few days before I post something that requireS a little more thought than normal.


Bottom line, what we know is that Pearce was among the best of a weak lot. You have to determine whether or not that necessarily carries "merit". For me it doesn't. Too much doubt as to the actual quality of Pearce.

That's fine with me. Okay, it's not fine because I don't agree with you, but you know what I mean. :-D
   72. DavidFoss Posted: June 09, 2004 at 05:02 AM (#665985)
Preliminary ballot:

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.
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) -- Plank's ERA+ without the career length and Brown's W/L record without his ERA+. Joe had some great teammates as well.
5. Jimmy Sheckard (13-9-8-7-5) -- I was leaning towards placing him with the 90s OF glut, but has a higher peak than Van Haltren / Ryan and arguably Duffy with roughly equal career rates and value.
6. 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. But, gosh... he played a long time...
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. Short career is keeping him from climbing up the ballot like the others are doing.
9. Gavvy Cravath (ne-11-10) -- Very good five year peak.
10. 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.
11. 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 this week.
12. 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.
13. Bob Caruthers (nr-14-15-15-14) -- His peak value is becoming too hard to ignore, especially on a ballot this thin.
14. Clark Griffith (nr-15)-- I took a second look at him and he compares well to McGinnity.
15. Larry Doyle (nr) -- Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak, short career keeping him this low.
16. Mickey Welch (nr) -- 300 game winner. Played for great teams in an easy era to win games. Meager 113 ERA+ is keeping him low on the ballot.
17. Roger Bresnahan (15-15-nr-nr) -- Great five year peak at C. 126 OPS+ is OBP-heavy. Didn't appear to play full-time outside his peak though... even accounting for lower playing time of the catcher position.
18. Pete Browning (nr)-- The man could hit. His 162 OPS+ is partly inflated by his great early AA numbers, but his great PL season almost makes you want to ignore the discount. His durability becomes an issue starting in '88.

Next group... Van Haltren, Leach, Childs, Joss
   73. DavidFoss Posted: June 09, 2004 at 05:04 AM (#665990)
Depending on positional need, I may downgrade short-career outfielders and boost of infielders and Breshnahan.
   74. DavidFoss Posted: June 09, 2004 at 05:29 AM (#666037)
OK Kelly... I did Baker & Sutton

Baker:
1909 153 146.954
1910 155 146.942.
1911 152 148.973
1912 153 149.974
1913 153 149.974
1914 158 149.943
1916 156 96.615
1917 155 146.942
1918 126 1261
1919 141 1411
1921 153 83.542
1922 154 60.390
10.249 seasons at 3B (none elsewhere)
------------------
Sutton
1871 29 291
1872 21 211
1873 52 43 (8 SS, 2 2B).827
1874 55 36 (20 SS).655
1875 77 73 (1 OF, 1 1B).948
1876 60 8 (29 1B, 15 2B, 4 OF).133
1877 61 22 (36 SS).361
1878 60 59 (1 SS).983
1879 84 33 (51 SS).393
1880 86 37 (39 more at SS).430
1881 83 81 (2 SS).976
1882 85 77 (4 SS).906
1883 98 93 (1 SS, 1 OF).949
1884 116 110 .948
1885 113 91 (16 more at SS, 2 2B, 1 1B).805
1886 118 28 (43 OF, 28 SS, 18 2B).237
1887 127 11 (37 SS, 18 OF, 13 2B).087
1888 137 27 (1 SS).197
11.835 seasons at 3B... + time elsewhere


Its a bit informal... I should be trying to correct for multi-position games somehow and should have added Sutton's other positions in.

I can't believe I don't have Excel installed on my PC... I'm going to have to do something about that.
   75. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 09, 2004 at 06:59 AM (#666243)
Andrew, I'll have to look into it. I had them closer, and comparisons with Thompson had me move Ryan up. Perhaps I should've done the same with Van Haltren and it slipped through the cracks. I know I've always thought more of Ryan because of his stronger peak.

All of the pennants added formats have Ryan ahead of Van Haltren too, but as you say it's close. I've got Ryan slightly ahead on career value and significantly ahead on peak. I can't see any way to justify Van Haltren ahead of Ryan, but I should probably have them closer. This ballot is so tight though that there isn't much difference between #3 and #19.
   76. Guapo Posted: June 09, 2004 at 04:59 PM (#666696)
I dropped Dickey Pearce from my final ballot in 1927. baseball fan asked me:

What changed your mind, Guapo? If anything, there has been more evidence (thanks to David Foss) that he was a terrific batsman for the position. I hope you reconsider since you appear to respect that era of baseball.

In looking at the incredibly helpful "Foss Numbers," I was a little disappointed with regard to Pearce. Based on those numbers, he looked like he was usually about the third best offensive player on his team. Reflexively, that doesn't sound like a HOMer to me. Now, in thinking about it, I probably allowed my disappointment to affect my judgment and didn't give him enough credit for his defense, so I probably should have left Pearce on my ballot, but at this point I can't see him higher than 14-15.

The question is: Am I not reading these numbers correctly? Is there an interpretation that indicates that Pearce was one of the best offensive shortstops in his leagues, or (even better) one of the best offensive players in the game? Specifically, I don't know what the size of the player pool was like during the period covered by the Foss Numbers.

Any input would be welcomed.
   77. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 09, 2004 at 05:33 PM (#666787)
Based on those numbers, he looked like he was usually about the third best offensive player on his team. Reflexively, that doesn't sound like a HOMer to me.

Your standard is too high, IMO. Where have HoF shortstops historically placed offensively on their teams? Rarely were they their teams' top offensive forces due to the requirements of the position. Since Pearce also did some catching, third on a powerhouse team is impressive.
   78. DavidFoss Posted: June 09, 2004 at 05:51 PM (#666828)
Well, again I should repeat that the data comes from Marshall Wright's "National Association of Base Ball Players 1857-1870". I just typed it in. Others are welcome to buy the book to ensure I am not putting some weird slant on the numbers when I reported them.

Ok... that disclaimer is now out of the way... The numbers are nice in that they show that the game was indeed played pre-1870. The teams and players are by no means mythical. The association held national meetings every spring and the game gradually expanded until the NA formed in 1871. The players of the NA were basically the same players who played in the NABBP in 1870.

I understand your disappointment with Pearce. His numbers didn't floor me like GWright's (or even JStart's) did.

His peak appeared to be in the 1859-1864 period where he was the best hitter on the Atlantics most years and the Atlantics either the top team or second to the Eckfords. He could reasonably be the NABBP MVP in some of these years.

A SS-C with a 6 year peak like that and a 20 year career would probably be an easy inductee for these late 1920's ballots, but there are reasons why people might have reservations. Schedules were short and mainly NYC/NJ only in the late 1850's. There were signs of expansion leading up to the Civil War, but the war was a big setback in the growth of the NAABP... the number of teams shrank... schedules were shorter. By the time that the schedules expanded, the geographical team pool expanded and hits/TB data become available, Pearce's peak was over. He was no slouch in 67,68 & 70 but nothing to jump up and down and scream about.

I can understand the guys who have him first on their ballot, I can understand the guys who have him off the ballot. I've got him 6th right now and rank him ahead of fellow SS Wallace. Would rank him behind Wagner, GWright, Dahlen, Davis... I joined late, so I hadn't thought about Glasscock.
   79. PhillyBooster Posted: June 09, 2004 at 05:52 PM (#666833)
In looking at the incredibly helpful "Foss Numbers," I was a little disappointed with regard to Pearce. Based on those numbers, he looked like he was usually about the third best offensive player on his team.

Assuming Pearce was the best SS of his era, the best shortstop after Pearce was George Wright.

Here is how he rates on his team in batting average in the 1870s.

1871: 2nd (after Cal McVey)
1872: 2nd (after Ross Barnes)
1873: 3rd (after Barnes and Deacon White)
1874: 2nd (after Barnes)
1875: 4th (after White, McVey, and Barnes)
1876: 2nd (after O'Rourke)
1877: 7th (after everyone except the battery)
1878: 7th (ditto)
1879: 7th (beat only catcher and 3rd baseman)
1882: 9th (dead last)

The progression seems pretty similar to Pearce's, although the peak is a bit higher. Being third best hitter likely makes you the best player if your defense is good #1 and #2 don't play important defensive positions.
   80. OCF Posted: June 09, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#667001)
This is odd. I have the complete 1928 discussion thread through post #79, then a comment box, then a new header, then another thread which may or may not be the same, in which the only visible thing are the names of the posters and any links that have been posted - that is, just the stuff underlined in blue. And then another comment box.

I just tried posting something in that second comment box and it didn't seem to take. Here's trying this one to see where it leads.
   81. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 09, 2004 at 08:40 PM (#667344)
The old pitchers thread don't exist no more, so here's Smokey Joe Wood's RSIs & Adjusted W/L marks:

1908..127...1-1
1909..94....11-7
1910..95....12-13
1911..104...22-18
1912..120...31-8
1913..145...9-7
1914..112...8-4
1915..116...14-6
1917..77....0-1
Total: 112.39 RSI w/ an adjusted record of: 108-65 (.624 Pct). That's 110 FWP - putting him in a tie with Doyle Alexnader for 157th out of the 191 pitchers I've got in. They're just behind Joe Niekro (111) & ahead of Bob Forsch (109).

The winning percentage is between Curt Schilling & Cy Young for 19th place.

Of course, as a very goot hitter, this underestimates him.
   82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 09, 2004 at 08:43 PM (#667353)
Would rank him behind Wagner, GWright, Dahlen, Davis... I joined late, so I hadn't thought about Glasscock.

I don't disagree with this. I think he had a fine peak (very good, but not great bat plus excellent defense), but I'm not confident that it was of historical greatness. I certainly wouldn't place him above the inner circle guys of the 20th century guys (even without using a timeline). What pushes him high on my ballot is the combination of his peak and his long career at the difficult (physically and on the body) position.
   83. Chris Cobb Posted: June 10, 2004 at 02:39 PM (#668703)
1928 Prelim Ballot

A quiet year on the boards. Frank Baker the only new candidate of any substance from black or white baseball, and he’s easy to place. Since last years’ electees were at #1 and #15 on my ballot, just about everybody stays put.

1. Frank Baker (n/e) 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. Comparisons to Jackson's value are apt, but Baker's value is greater because of his position. Jackson would have ranked #6 on this ballot without game-throwing deductions; Baker's positional bonus garners him the top spot. 337 career win shares, 96 total peak, peak rate, 09-14 = 37.68 ws/162
2. Joe McGinnity (2)
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. Mickey Welch (6) Not electing Welch as a major oversight. He ranks third among 1880s pitchers, behind Galvin and Radbourn. Any spot between here and the top of the ballot would be justified by his numbers.
7. Lip Pike (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.
8. Clark Griffith (8) Fourth-best pitcher of the 1890s. Being underrated by the electorate, except for TomH.
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.

Other new eligibles worthy of note:

Clyde Milan – a fine ballplayer, but places 51st among eligible players in my rankings. A couple of outstanding seasons, but would have needed to sustain his peak value for three more years to become a serious candidate. 297 career win shares; 39 total peak; peak rate, 10-15 = 29.17 ws/162 games

Sam Mongin – Another good player, but has no HoM case. Worth a mention as the best Negro-League third baseman of the teens, but that’s about it.
   84. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 10, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#668817)
Those of you that vote for Fielder Jones, why not Roy Thomas? Thomas played two fewer seasons, but he was vastly superior on offense, and a star centerfielder defensively himself. That one puzzles me.
   85. Michael Bass Posted: June 10, 2004 at 03:55 PM (#668854)
Well, for a career voter, "two fewer seasons" isn't a minor thing. Moreover, Thomas's defense is not exactly unquestioned:

FRAA

Thomas: -12
Jones: +99

And longer career isn't the only thing Jones has over Thomas

Best 3 seasons by WARP3

Jones: 9.8, 9.0, 8.6
Thomas: 8.5, 8.4, 8.3


Now, Win Shares disagrees with the poor assessment of Thomas's defense (A- vs. Jones' A+), and with the better peak (Win Shares has them about even: 31, 30, 28 for Thomas 32, 29, 27 for Jones), so I understand how one might rank them closer than I do if you tend to lean more on WS than WARP.
   86. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 10, 2004 at 04:26 PM (#668899)
so I understand how one might rank them closer than I do if you tend to lean more on WS than WARP.

Using WS, I have Thomas slightly ahead of Jones, but it's close.
   87. jimd Posted: June 10, 2004 at 05:33 PM (#669070)
Win Shares disagrees with the poor assessment of Thomas's defense (A- vs. Jones' A+),

Not necessarily; WS and WARP judge from different premises. Win Shares says that Thomas was A- as an OUTfielder; BP says that Thomas was average as a CENTERfielder.

Note: A potential problem for Joe (when implementing Tango's FRAA suggestion) is to determine whether BRARP incorporates sufficient credit for being a CF to offset the lost (FRAA-FRAR) when comparing CF's and OFCorners.

Another (and more controversial) issue in the comparison of Jones and Thomas is the league quality one. Was the AL as superior to the NL during the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's as BP indicates?

Also, subjectively, Thomas played until he couldn't play anymore; Jones walked away from a salary dispute with Comiskey. Like Jackson, you're left with the feeling there was more to come.

All of these things combine to put Jones near the bottom of my ballot, Thomas in the high 20's. I don't think either are HOMers (but future ballots may get thinner than I expect).
   88. Kelly in SD Posted: June 10, 2004 at 09:02 PM (#670018)
Sam Thompson team seasons (see posts in the 50s for 3B stuff):

age year tmG ofG %
025 1885 098 062 .57
026 1886 126 122 .97
027 1887 127 127 1.00
028 1888 134 056 .42 (injured?)
029 1889 130 128 .98
030 1890 133 132 .99
031 1891 138 133 .96
032 1892 155 153 .99
033 1893 133 131 .98
034 1894 129 099 .77 (injured?)
035 1895 133 118 .89
036 1896 130 119 .92
037 1897 134 003 .02
038 1898 150 014 .09

For the first 12 years he played in 10.44 team seasons or figured by total games, he played in 90%.
Does anyone have some comparable info about other HoM outfielders of the period? Among outfield eligibles I figured the percent of total team games played in, not per season. I did not count end of or beginning of career, appear in a few games, seasons (anything less than 10-15% of team games I did not include). I came up with:

Browning 80%
Cravath 82% (did not include 1909)
Duffy 95%
C. Jones 93%
Ryan 88%
Sheckard 89%
Van Haltren 88% (outfielder years only)

I might get team season numbers up soon.
It does not look like Thompson missed a higher percentage of games for injuries than his competitors, but someone may know if he missed most of 97 and 98 b/c of them.
Any further info and comments are welcome. YMMV
   89. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 10, 2004 at 10:22 PM (#670126)
Prelim:

1) Pearce
2) Childs
3) Baker
4) Pike
5) C. Jones
6) York
7) Willis
8) Konetchy
9) McGinnity
10) Bresnahan
11) Monroe
12) Duffy
13) Chance
14) Waddell
15) Caruthers
   90. karlmagnus Posted: June 10, 2004 at 10:41 PM (#670151)
John, looks good, but sudden discovery of Benny Kauff or Alfred E Neuman to drop 15 to 16 will cause teeth grinding from this direction :))
   91. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 10, 2004 at 10:46 PM (#670155)
John, looks good, but sudden discovery of Benny Kauff or Alfred E Neuman to drop 15 to 16 will cause teeth grinding from this direction :))

LOL

I don't think you have anything to worry on that front, karlmagnus (though Neuman has a very strong case :-)
   92. BBJRBB Posted: June 11, 2004 at 04:48 AM (#671016)
Congratulations to Frank Baker. Tonite he was named the first member of the Pioneer wing of the Reading Pa. Baseball Hall of Fame, (now in its 18th year). Baker hit .299 for the Reading Pretzels of the Tri-State League in 1908. Interestingly, his__daughter-in-law__ was on hand to accept the award and make a nice little acceptance speech. This reminds us that the HOM can still have an impact on the families of some long-ago baseball stars.
   93. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 11, 2004 at 06:05 AM (#671069)
Thanks for the tidbit BBJRBB, pretty cool.

I've said in the past I think it would be really cool to somehow get in touch with the first living HoM electee that isn't in the Hall of Fame.
   94. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 11, 2004 at 08:26 AM (#671088)
Question - why would I include fielding runs for pitchers in my evaluation? Isn't the pitcher's fielding already accounted for in his runs allowed and ERA? Has anyone proven they can reliably evaluate pitcher fielding without play-by-play data? Bill James didn't even attempt to do this in Win Shares . . .
   95. DanG Posted: June 11, 2004 at 01:48 PM (#671138)
I've said in the past I think it would be really cool to somehow get in touch with the first living HoM electee that isn't in the Hall of Fame.

On a related note, I think I've uncovered the first living "ballot worthy" MLB player we'll see: Gus Suhr, born 1/3/06, elgible in 1946.

After that I have Billy Werber, Elden Auker and Harry Danning coming on in 1948.
   96. TomH Posted: June 11, 2004 at 01:58 PM (#671144)
data request -
I'm attempting to compile data on our top returning pitchers
can someone re-post the RSI W-L records for McGinnity, Caruthers, Waddell, Griffith, and Welch, or at least link me to where the info can be found?

also, does anyone have Mickey Welch's Wins Above Team calculation?
   97. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 11, 2004 at 03:15 PM (#671227)
I'm attempting to compile data on our top returning pitchers
can someone re-post the RSI W-L records for McGinnity, Caruthers, Waddell, Griffith, and Welch, or at least link me to where the info can be found?


Not at the moment, but I'll try to get that later.
   98. DanG Posted: June 11, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#671387)
On a related note, I think I've uncovered the first living "ballot worthy" MLB player we'll see: Gus Suhr, born 1/3/06, elgible in 1946.

Hey, doofus. Suhr is dead, January 15 this year.

Thanks loads, BB-Ref. It might help if you updated biographical info more than annually. BB-Almanac tipped me off on Suhr.
   99. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 11, 2004 at 05:53 PM (#671529)
Joe McGinnity
1899..102..28-16
1900..114..26-10
1901..94...27-19
1902..103..21-18
1903..96...32-19
1904..110..34-9
1905..112..20-16
1906..112..25-14
1907..120..16-20
1908..117..10-8
Total: 106.75. W-L: 239-149

Bob Caruthers (remember RSI will ignore his contributions as a hitter):
1884..118..7-2
1885..108..38-15
1886..107..29-15
1887..119..26-12
1888..113..27-17
1889..122..36-15
1890..112..21-13
1891..109..17-15
1892..58...3-9
Total: 111.34 RSI. 204-113

Rube Waddell
1897..18...1-0
1899..104..7-2
1900..99...8-13
1901..102..13-17
1902..98...24-7
1903..82...24-13
1904..98...26-18
1905..105..26-11
1906..75...18-14
1907..103..19-13
1908..102..19-14
1909..84...13-12
1910..117..3-1
Total: 94.50. 201-135.

Clark Griffith
1891..117..13-10
1893..115..1-2
1894..117..19-16
1895..100..26-14
1896..98...24-10
1897..92...22-17
1898..110..23-11
1899..124..19-17
1900..79...17-10
1901..141..20-11
1902..106..14-10
1903..77...17-8
1904..115..7-5
1905..77...10-5
1906..149..1-3
1909..28...0-1
Total: 108.61. 233-150

Mickey Welch:
1880..99...34-30
1881..87...24-15
1882..100..14-16
1883..100..25-23
1884..106..38-22
1885..124..39-16
1886..94...35-20
1887..97...22-15
1888..100..26-19
1889..117..25-14
1890..100..17-14
1891..107..5-9
1892..180..0-0
Total: 102.79. 304-213
   100. OCF Posted: June 11, 2004 at 08:24 PM (#671786)
As long as Chris J.'s going to do that, I might as well provide my update on RA+ PythPat equivalent records. I don't have this for any pre-1893 pitchers, so no Caruthers or Welch. I've fixed a couple of little mistakes in some cases, and a big mistake in Griffith's case. The ranking is by FWP on the resulting record. A number of not-yet-eligible currently active or recently retired pitchers are included.

427-230 Johnson
369-208 Alexander
332-199 Mathewson
303-197 Plank
210-119 Walsh
227-155 McGinnity
209-134 Covaleski
275-224 Rixie
255-199 Faber
201-129 Vance
211-143 Brown (defense-adjusted)
248-196 Willis (defense-adjusted)
200-129 Waddell
201-132 Adams
209-149 Cicotte
220-166 Cooper
263-225 Powell
203-146 Griffith
181-117 Shocker
178-115 Reulbach
179-117 Leever
161-098 Joss
(from here down I'm sampling the list; there are others)
182-140 Chesbro
174-129 Vaughn
156-108 Rucker
099-060 Wood
080-055 Ruth
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9978 seconds
49 querie(s) executed