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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. DavidFoss Posted: June 17, 2004 at 03:59 PM (#682270)
PhillyBooster #95 --

Nice position list format! That type of format looks like it will be very useful in future years as the backlogs get larger and I can no longer keep everything straight in my head at once.
   202. DavidFoss Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:00 PM (#682272)
Eek... that's #95 from page 2 that I was raving about.
   203. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:12 PM (#682297)
I'm going to have enough problems with dispassionate analysis when the time comes; I'm sure not going to engage in it early.

That's good. We don't want you to start crying yet, anyway. :-)
   204. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:15 PM (#682302)
I'm getting...oh...50 years off topic here, but am I the only one who doesn't think Brock will be a lock (at least on the first ballot)?

I promised OCF not to engage in that debate yet. :-D
   205. Michael Bass Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:20 PM (#682314)
Sorry, I'm stubborn on arguments like that. I'll be good for another 20-30 years. :)

Back on topic, I like the format of Philly's list; does that mean that Pike and Ryan (two I noticed, there may be more) aren't in your consideration set at all? On one hand, we are pretty deep in CF right now, so I guess you could say if they aren't in the top 5 at their position, they aren't gonna make the top 15 overall. On the other hand, though, I think both are pretty clearly superior to some of the other players from weak positions (at the time).
   206. Michael Bass Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#682317)
EDIT: I'm an idiot and missed Pike at the top of your CF list. Question stands for Ryan.
   207. Michael Bass Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:22 PM (#682319)
Oops, I'm an idiot and missed Pike at the top of your CF list. Question stands for Ryan, though. :)
   208. PhillyBooster Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#682360)
Thank you for the format approval.

Actually, Ryan was my #5 CF when I put them in the positional threads, but then it was pointed out to me that -- following Bill James -- I had put Fielder Jones in RF instead of CF. That bumped Ryan down to 6th and off of that list. I actually had a Top 10 at each position in the positional threads, but 6-10 were so weak in most of them that I didn't feel the need to continue keeping track of them.

My idea was, if there is already a candidate on the list (F. Jones) that I'm not voting for, why bother with whomever finishes below him? If I ever find myself with all five guys at a position in the Top 30, I'd add a sixth place, but that hasn't been necessary except for pitchers. CF is an under-represented position, so it makes sense that the #6 guy there would be particularly strong.
   209. PhillyBooster Posted: June 17, 2004 at 04:42 PM (#682386)
In terms of comparative rankings through, I would have every one of Browning, Duffy, F. Jones, and Ryan (CF #3-6) all ahead of Mike Tiernan (RF #3).
   210. KJOK Posted: June 18, 2004 at 12:10 AM (#683663)
I apologize if this has been posted, but with Baker being the new boy, here is his year by year Fielding Win Shares:

1908 0.8
1909 5.5
1910 6.9
1911 7.3
1912 7.1
1913 4.7
1914 6.8

1916 3.9
1917 5.9
1918 4.6
1919 5.1

1921 4.3
1922 2.3
TOTAL 65.3
   211. robc Posted: June 18, 2004 at 01:39 AM (#683871)
OCF,

Ill trade you a vote for Brock for a vote for Comcepcion. :)

Hmmm... I wonder if I can get all the big red machine on my ballot... I dont think I could ever justify Cesar Geronimo.
   212. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 18, 2004 at 03:53 PM (#685025)
Well, over at my new site I've dumped in the season-by-season RSIs & adjusted W/L records for every HoM eligible pitcher that I have RSId. A little over 50 of them in total. FYI.
   213. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 18, 2004 at 06:03 PM (#685376)
Could people post what discounts they use for the American Association year-by-year? I am particularly having some trouble with Browning and Caruthers...Browning's 1882 (rookie) season, on paper, is one of the greatest years in major league history. Playing half the season at 2nd base with meaningful time at third and short, he generated 8.59 XR per 27 outs, while the league was at 2.95 and even lower for middle infielders. BP has him as a league-average fielder (33 FRAR), and WS gives him 3.5 fielding WS in 69 games, which translates to a strong 6.75 fielding WS over a 162 game season (in which he'd play 133). All in all, this adds up to 14.3 WARP straight-line adjusted for season by my system. BP's WARP1 likes it even more--10.5 WARP1 in 69 games comes out to over TWENTY WARP1, projected to a 162 game season where he'd play 133. Yet BP's AA adjustment is so harsh that Browning is only credited with 4.3 WARP3!
I can see where they're coming from...the 1882 AA was a six-team league, where only the immortal Ed Swartwood joined Browning above the .800 OPS level, and only Hick Carpenter and Jack O'Brien (huh?) topped .750. It does seem like my grandmother could have dominated that league. So how much do you discount it? I don't know how to approach this.
   214. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 18, 2004 at 06:32 PM (#685422)
Also, I'm having trouble estimating Caught Stealing. I have just been using a deadball average of CS = .786*SB, but as that is below a break-even success rate, the more bases a player stole, the worse he comes out in my system. Is there a better way to do this?
   215. PhillyBooster Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:36 PM (#685782)
On the one hand, 1881 NL Hick ".216 BA" Carpenter became 1882 AA Hick ".342 BA" Carpenter and Will White's ERA+ went from 117 in 1880 to practically out of baseball in 1881 to 171 in the 1882 AA.

So, it's easy to say that 1882 stats mean "Nothing."

On the other hand, the league got better, and by 1885 Will White's ERA+ was back unde 100 and Hick Carpenter was back in the low .220s by 1886. Pete Browning was at least as good, if not better, in the late 1880s than he was in 1882-3.

My view is that the worse you are, the more a league adjustment helps you.

Generally, replacement level hitters improve 15% in AAA. But that doesn't mean that Barry Bonds would have hit over 80 homers if he had played in the minors. When you are not playing against the top competition, it is difficult to distinguish talent. I use surrounding years as a reference point. That means that I give Browning more credit for what he accomplished in 1882 than I give Swartwood or Carpenter.
   216. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 18, 2004 at 08:49 PM (#685838)
Thanks...so what WARP/WS discount would you apply?
   217. jimd Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:20 PM (#685937)
Note: Originally published in the 1901 discussion thread (though that post was truncated in the site transition). Sampling indicates that the WARP revisions of last fall/winter cut these numbers in half (approximately).

***

The following percents are derived from the Davenport DERA offset.

NL dominance over AA (1882-1891)
30, 20, 13, 9, 7, 9, 6, 8, 15, 11

AL dominance over NL (1901-1930):
-6, 8, 7, 5, 5, 4, 6, 3, 5, 3 (oughts)
3, 0, -1, 0, 1, 4, 5, 3, 5, 4 (teens)
5, 7, 6, 7, 7, 5, 3, 1, 3, 0 (twenties)

NL dominance over AL (1931-1990):
5, 6, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 0, 2, 4 (thirties)
-2, 4, 3, 4, 4, -2, 0, -1, 1, -1 (forties)
-3, 0, 0, 3, 3, 6, 5, 8, 5, 4 (fifties)
6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 4 (sixties)
3, 3, 2, 4, 1, 0, 3, 2, 3, 5 (seventies)
3, 3, 3, 0, 0, 1, 1, 4, 3, 1 (eighties)

AL dominance over NL (1991-to date)
2, 6, 3, 2, 5, 6, 6, 8, 1, 3 (nineties)
1, 1

NL over UA 1884: 25

PL over NL 1890: 3

AL over FL 1914-1915: 13

This puts the AA vs NL numbers in perspective.
   218. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:34 PM (#685987)
Could people post what discounts they use for the American Association year-by-year?

I did some analysis of standard deviations of OPS and other things (like 2OPS and RC/27) for the NL and AA (and surrounding years) to try to come up with a reasonable discount. The analysis isn't worth publishing, because like most of the analyses in this area, it has flaws and doesn't produce anything translatable into a quality discount. There's even a year in there where the AA is slightly better. I wish we knew how BP arrived at its adjustments.

I also compared stats for the whole group of regulars who played in both leagues to try to come up with the "right" numbers based on performance differences. It revealed that overall the AA was weaker during its run, but the sample size of players seasons is way too small to produce a discount number on a per-year basis.

The latter study covered player seasons between 1879-1892. The 1892 boundary was suggested by Joe Dimino because of the pitching rule change in 1893. This produced 541 AA seasons and 529 NL seasons, which is a pretty good match, and the average age of the players in those AA and NL seasons is 27.1 for both (although the std deviation of the ages is a little higher for the AA). Based on OPS+, the AA was about 5% easier to hit in.

But of course, that's really a weighted average over the league's life, and not evenly weighted by year. And the sample sizes are still pretty small.

So I more or less gave up trying to come up with the perfect number and instead created some un-scientific numbers that I felt represented the trends I saw. I apply the following discounts to the AA:

1882:.....17%
1883:.....11
1884:......6
1885:......5
1886:......0
1887:......0
1888:......0
1889.......5
1890......16
1891......24 (everything was falling apart at this point)

I discount the UA 1884 season by 30%, and for a while, gave a 5% bonus to the PL 1990 season, but I no longer do that -- I think the PL was stronger, but it isn't really worth the effort.
   219. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 09:41 PM (#686014)
Contrary to the numbers that appear in post #17, I think the AA was quite a bit weaker at the end of its life (relative to the NL) than at the beginning. Apart from just looking at the numbers, I think that makes some conceptual sense. Good players are apt to jump at new leagues because of money (and because the grass is always greener on the other side) but are often quick to see when something is falling apart and should be abandoned.

Interestingly, the overall quality of the NA appears to dip significantly at the end also.

There are probably a number of things (including a psychological component) that occur when a league falling apart. The schedule is less organized. Management is nervous. Maybe attendance is down or paychecks are a few days late, etc. (Just talking off the top of my head here).
   220. DavidFoss Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:08 PM (#686072)
Good players are apt to jump at new leagues because of money (and because the grass is always greener on the other side) but are often quick to see when something is falling apart and should be abandoned.


Except I don't see any NL-ers that jumped. The stars of the 1882 AA were all rookies or guys that simply weren't very good in their last NL season (which was often a few years before). Where was Charley Jones in 1882? You'd he'd be itching for a second league to open.

This league does not appear to be one that jumped out of the gate trying to rival the NL. A few years later, it becomes a significant rival, but not in 1882. It looks to be a major league in 1882 simply by extrapolating backwards from its big seasons.

It is interesting that the 1882 AA gets a bigger discount than the UA.
   221. jimd Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:27 PM (#686102)
Given that the numbers I posted should be cut in half, there is pretty fair agreement between them for half of the AA's lifetime.
30, 20, 13, 9, 7, 9, 6, 8, 15, 11 Original BP
15, 10,  6, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4,  7,  5 Cut in half, dropping fraction
17, 11,  6, 5, 0, 0, 0, 5, 16, 24 Jeff M
-2, -1,  0,-1, 3, 4, 3,-1, -9,-19 BP/2 - JeffM

You rate the AA as reaching parity 86-8; BP says not quite but still major league.

The big difference is 1890-1. In 1890, the AA is real bad, with four minor league teams added to replace lost and bankrupt teams plus many player defections to the Player's League; I can see an argument that BP is maybe overrating the AA, but OTOH, the rest of the talent is also spread thinly over the NL and PL.

1891 is where we disagree. The AA got much of it's talent back (some had signed with the NL and would not come back), plus it got 1-2 teams worth of aging talent from the Player's League; disgruntled stars that refused to go back to the NL. (See the rosters of the Boston Reds and Kelly's Killers; Cincy doesn't have many stars but they are mostly PL refugees). I just don't see that steep of a decline there.
   222. Michael Bass Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:31 PM (#686110)
Quick question based on the ballot thread....

How many WARP3 did Browning's "pitching" cost him? I want to make that adjustment.
   223. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:45 PM (#686129)
Except I don't see any NL-ers that jumped.

Looking back, you are right. Some of the good players in the AA's early years were starting out in the AA, not jumping (e.g., Bid McPhee).
   224. DavidFoss Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:46 PM (#686130)
Pete Browning -- 1884

BRAR BRARP FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP1
62 58 15 -15 -37 4.4

BRAR BRARP FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP2 WARP3
30 25 -19 -32 -37 -2.4 -2.5


That's pretty harsh for facing five batters. He gave up 3 R (2ER), it would be pretty interesting to see how a replacment level pitcher could do 37 runs better than that! :-)

Five batters faced, 1 HBP, 2 BB, 2H... looks like his only out must have occurred on the bases somewhere.
   225. jimd Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:50 PM (#686135)
David, see this early post from 1901. The AA was the first league that started in rivalry with the NL and it most emphatically did not engage in player raiding. I think it intended to grow into parity by signing young players; it was in non-overlapping (and superior) markets so there was no competition with the NL for customers, just for talent.

After the AA founding, MLB has always occupied the largest markets, so any new "major" league has had to invade their markets and engage in direct competion for customers, necessitating player raiding to obtain talent quickly. So we assume the AA had to do the same, but, not true in 1882.

I doubt if the AA of 1882/83 was as good as the AL of 1900 (which signed many of the contracted players from the NL of 1899). The UA was definitely worse in absolute quality (few of it's players ever played in the other two leagues), but that's due to the extreme overexpansion of adding a third league to a situation which is still trying to assimilate the second one (imagine the Federal League launching a dozen years earlier) and the UA's incompetence.
   226. Jeff M Posted: June 18, 2004 at 10:59 PM (#686162)
I just don't see that steep of a decline there.

You may be right. I find the raw data confusing so I don't claim my numbers are spot on. Fortunately, there's only a significant disparity in that one year (as you said) and it doesn't have much ultimate significance for the eligible players (i.e., I don't think my larger discount in 1891 would change any of my votes).
   227. DavidFoss Posted: June 18, 2004 at 11:10 PM (#686185)
Thanks jimd... very informative!

The lesser discount on the UA makes sense now. It was a lesser discount, but on expansion leagues. The folding of Troy and Worcestor had allowed Stovey and Keefe to jump leagues by 1883, CJones had joined that year too. And yes, there were a lot of great rookies in the AA in Browning, Hecker, McPhee and near-rookies like Mullane.

Wow... I really like that I-90 league! A turn onto the I-95 at the eastern end to get Providence and a little detour up I-75 and back down I-94 to sneak Detroit in between Cleveland and Chicago.

Also explains why Troy and Worcester were able to be in the league for a while. I went to school in Troy and I know the city did have its heydey at one time in the last century, but it was awfully hard to picture MLB played there (or where in town that would have happened).
   228. jimd Posted: June 18, 2004 at 11:23 PM (#686214)
Actually, Keefe didn't jump. The same New York backers obtained franchises from both leagues for 1883. They bought the Troy NL team (which had been revoked) and assigned players to their two new teams as they saw fit; pitchers Welch to NL, Keefe to AA; catchers Ewing to NL, Holbert to AA; and so forth, and then went about signing more players. A couple of years later, they consolidated their talent onto the Giants in 1885 and used the Mets as a "farm" team.
   229. EricC Posted: June 18, 2004 at 11:58 PM (#686277)
Hick Carpenter was back in the low .220s by 1886. Pete Browning was at least as good, if not better, in the late 1880s than he was in 1882-3.

Yes, but Carpenter was (7/1 age) 26 in 1882 and Browning was 20. Players tended to peak about age 26 in the 19th century. When you take this into account, the subsequent career progession of the two actually reflects similarly on the progession of AA quality.

I'm open to the hypothesis that "great talent can't take full advantage of inferior competition". But the record of Fred Dunlap in the UA and the stats of the Negro League superstars tend to refute this hypothesis.

As for AA quality, I'm one of the big proponents of AA inferiority, even in its best years. If the NL and AA were equal in 1886-1888, then why did the NL stars of this period go on to have longer careers than the AA stars of this period?
   230. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 02:18 AM (#686622)
If the NL and AA were equal in 1886-1888, then why did the NL stars of this period go on to have longer careers than the AA stars of this period?

Is this empirically true? I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying I've never seen a comparison of the AA stars average career lengths vs. the NL stars average career lengths. And would there be enough data to constitute a sufficient sample size to draw conclusions?
   231. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 02:42 AM (#686732)
I just took a quick look at the "stars" of 1886 AA and NL.

Here is the AA group I included: Browning, Orr, Jones, Caruthers, O'Neill, Latham, McPhee, H. Larkin, Pinckney, McClellan, C. Welch, Stovey, Foutz, Hecker, Galvin, Ramsey, Morris and Mullane.

Average career is 11.05 years and average retirement age is 33. For hitters (including Caruthers and Foutz), it is 11.5 years and age 33.8. For pitchers (including Caruthers and Foutz) it is 10 years and age 31.2.

I didn't include the three years that Jones was blackballed. We also have Orr, who's career was ended by a stroke at age 30. If Orr played another three years, then a Jones/Orr adjustment would add roughly .33 years to the overall career length and .50 years to the hitters career length.

Here is the NL group I included: Kelly, Brouthers, Connor, Richardson, Gore, Pfeffer, Thompson, Rowe, Ward, Boyle, Ferguson, Baldwin, Clarkson, Keefe and McCormick. I intentionally omitted Anson, because he was a freak. I also omitted Flynn, who was a star that year but never pitched again in any major league.

Average career is 12.6 years and average retirement age is 33.8. For hitters, it is 15.4 years and age 36.2. For pitchers, it is 8.5 years and age 30.1.

As far as I know, the NL group didn't have any bizarre career-shortening akin to that of Jones and Orr (just normal baseball injuries).

Maybe it's a coincidence or maybe NL stars did have longer careers.
   232. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 19, 2004 at 05:04 AM (#687318)
Just some info on the early AA:

According to David Nemec's The Beer and Whiskey League, which I'm in the middle of reading, Louisville, St. Louis and Philadelphia were supposed to be new versions of existing semipro teams, which may explain why some of the players had not been in the NL. (For example, Browning had been playing for the Eclipse since 1877. If he had wanted to move away, he might have been in the NL a couple of years earlier.)

Charley Jones was signed by Cincinnati in 1882, but then the AA decided to honor the blacklist. (So, of course, he sued them.) Before things broke up, he was sent out to sign up some players and came back with Bid McPhee.

The only NL player on a reserve list who jumped was Pop Snyder. Supposedly, Will White had come down with a sore arm the year before, which may explain some of his huge rebirth (and it doesn't seem too odd for me for a pitcher who started in 1877 to have his career run out by 1885, with the way the game was evolving).

Speaking of Nemec's book, it's very good if you want info on the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, and it has a TON of photos. It seems like just about all the players who've come up in HoM discussions from this era are in here somewhere, whether they played in the AA or not.
   233. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 19, 2004 at 05:20 AM (#687397)
Another pitching stat. This one I mentioned a ways back but I'm betting money that it got gutted in the transfer. Besides, I've done more work on it over the last few days.

This one involved defense: see how much a pitcher was affected by the defense. The stat's fairly easy to figure: it's a comparison of 2 things.

Thing One: figure out the total Defensive WS in a given league for a season & divide it by total IP for that league & multiply the results by a pitcher's personal IP. That's how many DWS he should have behind him if he had league average defense.

Thing Two: pitcher' IP divided by his team's IP times team DWS. This is approxiametly how many DWS the pitcher had when he was pitching.

Now just subract one from the other & you have the best guesstimater I can come up with WRT what sort of defenive support each pitcher had. I've done it now for 49 pitchers who are eligible for the HoM or already in. (Note: I can't do it for the NA because the book doesn't give team DWS for those seasons. Here's the pitchers, from best to worst:

1. Kid Nichols +36.5
2. John Clarkson +29.9
3. Cy Young +19.5
4. Tony Mullan +17.5
5. Jim McCormick +16.7
6. Bob Caruthers +16.6
7. Jack Stivetts +16.0
8. Old Hoss Radbourn +15.7
9. Mordecai Brown +15.4
10. Tim Keefe +15.1
11. Eddie Plank +14.3
12. Ed Reulbach +14.1
13. Joe McGinnity +14.0
14. Tommy Bond +14.0 (not including NA stuff)
15. Sam Leever +14.0
16. Deacon Phillippe +13.8
17. Charlie Buffington +11.9
18. Silver King +11.5
19. Ed Walsh +11.3
20. Christy Mathewson +10.7
21. Eddie Cicotte +9.8
22. Doc White +9.6
23. John Ward +9.5
24. Chief Bender +9.2
25. Rube Waddell +9.1
26. Vic Willis +8.8
27. Will White +8.5
28. Bill Hutchinson +6.8
29. Clark Griffith +6.3
30. Jack Chesbro +5.7
31. Mickey Welch +5.4
32. Addie Joss +5.3
33. Smokey Joe Wood +5.0
34. Jesse Tannehill +4.7
35. Adonis Terry +3.9
36. Hippo Vaughn +3.6
37. Gus Weyhing +3.2
38. Pink Hawley +3.2
39. Jack Powell +1.9
40. Wild Bill Donovan +1.8
41. Ted Breitenstein -0.3
42. George Mullin -0.4
43. Nap Rucker -0.5
44. Jim Whitney -2.2
45. Amos Rusie -2.7
46. Bobby Mathews -4.3 (not including NA stuff)
47. Al Orth -6.2
48. Pud Galvin -7.7 (not including NA stuff)
49. Chick Fraser -21.6

As a whole, these guys are +413.0 (averages to +8.4 per pitcher). That can't be a coincidence. Says something about either win shares or the relationship between pitching & fielding - especially in the pre-1893 years when something was really up.

Fun fact: John Clarkson loses 19 wins when I adjust his run support, & figuring that 3 WS = 1 win, he'd lose another 10 here. Only 1 other pitcher (Will White) loses more than 20 when combining fielding & hitting adjustments. Also, Clarkson then ends up with 299 adjusted wins.
   234. EricC Posted: June 19, 2004 at 10:47 AM (#687472)
I need to clarify my statement about great players and weak competition. While I claim that great players take advantage of weak competition as much as any other player (to a good approximation), this statement applies only to league factor methodologies based on a replacement-level offset.

In other words, if players A, B, and C earned 40,20,and 10 WS in equal playing time in league X, then, in a somewhat stronger league Y, they might have earned, say, 36,16, and 6 WS. As a percentage of performance (whatever that means), superstar A loses 10 percent, B 20 percent, and C 40 percent.

It is not fair to apply the same percentage discount to all players. This discounts the great players too much. If this is what is meant by the statement "great players can't take full advantage of weak competition", then I agree.
   235. EricC Posted: June 19, 2004 at 11:13 AM (#687473)
[If the NL and AA were equal in 1886-1888, then why did the NL stars of this period go on to have longer careers than the AA stars of this period?]

Is this empirically true?

At one time, I created 1886-1889 "all star teams" for the AA and NL. The players that made the cut were:

NL position players (in alphabetical order): Cap Anson, Charlie Bennett, Dan Brouthers, Fred Carroll, Roger Connor, Jerry Denny, Buck Ewing, Jim Fogarty, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, King Kelly, Billy Nash, Jim O'Rourke, Hardy Richardson, Jimmy Ryan, Sam Thompson, Mike Tiernan, Monte Ward.

NL pitchers: Charlie Buffinton, Dan Casey, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Mickey Welch.

AA position players: Pete Browning, Oyster Burns, Hub Collins, Frank Fennelly, Dave Foutz, Henry Larkin, Arlie Latham, Denny Lyons, Bid McPhee, Jocko Milligan, Darby
O'Brien, Tip O'Neill, Dave Orr, George Pinkney, Yank Robinson, Harry Stovey, Tommy Tucker, Curt Welch.

AA pitchers: Bob Caruthers, Elton Chamberlain, Matt Kilroy, Silver King, Tony Mullane, Toad Ramsey, Gus Weyhing.

As I recall, the NL players had a dramatic advantage in career length.
   236. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2004 at 01:22 PM (#687484)
1882-91 AA HOMers

1882 McPhee
1883 Keefe, McPhee, Stovey
1884 Keefe, McPhee, Stovey
1885 Galvin, McPhee, Stovey
1886 Galvin, McPhee, Stovey
1887 McPhee, Stovey
1888 Hamilton, McPhee, Stovey
1889 Hamilton, McPhee, Stovey
1890 none
1891 Hines*, Kelly*, Brouthers, Richardson
*part-season

UA HOMers
1884 Glasscock*
*part-season

1890 breakdown:
PL (14) White, Gore, O'Rourke, Kelly, Ward, Keefe, Brouthers, Ewing, Connor, Radbourn, Richardson, Delahanty, Galvin, Stovey
NL (12) Hines, Clarkson, Anson, Glasscock, Rusie, Hamilton, Nichols, Burkett, McPhee, Davis, Young, Bennett
AA (0)
Negro Leagues (1) Grant
   237. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 04:15 PM (#687523)
ChrisJ,

Here are the defensive WS I calculated for the NA 1871-1873 and for half the teams in 1874. I never got around to doing finishing 1874 or the final year...it's a helluva lot of work to do WS for every player.

I'll look back at the spreadsheet and see if I can calculate the missing defensive splits for you (a lot easier than doing the WS for individual players).

1871
Boston........31.05
Chicago.......32.52
Philly........22.66
Washington....25.83
NY............28.53
Troy..........12.68
Ft. Wayne.....14.52
Cleveland.....14.31
Rockford...... 8.43

1872
Wash. Oly..... 9.26
Middletown.... 3.93
Brook Eck..... 9.00 (no batting WS)
Wash. Nat..... 0.00 (didn't win any games)
Boston........59.72
Philly........43.12
Baltimore.....53.91
NY............56.91
Troy..........23.24
Cleveland..... 8.53
Brook Atl.....16.82

1873
Boston........58.15
Phil Whites...55.96
Balt. LB......46.53
Phil A's......49.26
NY............53.64
Brook Atl.....34.01
Wash BL....... 9.92
Elizabeth..... 0.00 (all hitting)
Balt. Mary.... 0.00 (didn't win any games)

1874
Boston........69.01
NY............69.33
Phil A's......53.22
Brook Atl.....40.96
   238. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 19, 2004 at 04:29 PM (#687531)
49. Chick Fraser -21.6

That should say -12.6.
   239. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 04:49 PM (#687533)
The rest of 1874's defensive WS by team:

Phil Whites....45.59
Chicago........43.25
Hartford.......23.92
Balt LB........ 9.83
   240. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 05:27 PM (#687559)
1875 defensive WS by team:

Hartford......89.10
Boston........91.35
Phil A's......69.95
Stl Browns....69.76
Phil Whites...60.22
Chicago.......54.54
NY............65.62
Keokuk........ 2.79
New Haven..... 8.96
Stl Reds......11.72
Phil Cents.... 0.00
Brooklyn...... 5.36
Washington....15.00 (no batting WS)
   241. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 08:20 PM (#687820)
Now just subract one from the other & you have the best guesstimater I can come up with WRT what sort of defenive support each pitcher had.

Chris, isn't it problematic that the defensive WS you are using include the pitcher's pitching WS (and every other pitcher's pitching WS)? It's mixing actual pitching performances into what you want to be a measure of fielding support.

Maybe this method makes more sense if you use fielding WS, not defensive WS.
   242. Jeff M Posted: June 19, 2004 at 09:00 PM (#687952)
To compare Chris J's method, I went to BP and looked at DERA and NRA for many of the pitchers on the list. Recall that if DERA is higher, BP says that means the pitcher pitched in front of an above average defense.

So for the heck of it I divided DERA by NRA to get a percentage by which a pitcher's ERA was helped, or hurt, by the defense behind him. I then multiplied this percentage (inverted) by his pitching WS for the year to find how much his might have been boosted by the above-average defense (or how many WS were lost due to below-average defense).

I omitted some of the pitchers in Chris J's study because I didn't already have their DERAs and NRAs typed in (guys like Donovan and Breitenstein, etc.), but all the serious candidates were included.

Although the numerical adjustments to WS come out quite a bit different than Chris J's, the pitchers are roughly clustered the same way. The significant exceptions were:

MCCORMICK, WALSH, BUFFINGTON & CICOTTE, which this method would move down the list to the Donovan/Breitenstein group as pitchers neither significantly helped or hurt by the defense.

PLANK, MCGINNITY, LEEVER & PHILLIPPE, which this method would move down the list to approximately where Griffith is.

BOND, KING, WILLIS & WHITE, which this method would move up the list into the top 10, showing they were significantly helped by an above average defense.

Like Chris' list, this showed very few of our candidates playing with a below-average defense behind them. Nichols was far and away the beneficiary of the most help by this method (64.3 WS).
   243. OCF Posted: June 20, 2004 at 01:04 AM (#688462)
Nichols was far and away the beneficiary of the most help by this method (64.3 WS)

Nichols belongs in the HoM anyway - we made no mistake there. The real issue this raises is this: even though Herman Long lags well behind such other shortstop candidates as Wallace on offense, did he accumulate enough value on defense alone to be taken seriously?
   244. Jeff M Posted: June 20, 2004 at 03:08 AM (#688751)
Nichols belongs in the HoM anyway - we made no mistake there.

No question about that, and I didn't mean to indicate otherwise. I was just commenting on Chris J's post.

The real issue this raises is this: even though Herman Long lags well behind such other shortstop candidates as Wallace on offense, did he accumulate enough value on defense alone to be taken seriously?

Sure. Sort of.

First, I don't agree that Long "lags well behind such other shortstop candidates as Wallace on offense." That statement is true for career, but Long beats Wallace on all the peak measures in WS (including the longer 7 year peak measure), and essentially is tied with Wallace on all the peak measures in WARP1 (adjusted for season length). Long also comes out ahead on a per 162 games basis in WARP1.

To me, that's plenty of evidence that he is at least as good a hitter as Wallace -- probably better, just not for as long (no pun intended).
But a 15 year career is nothing to scoff at.

Second, Long's defense appears to be quite a bit better. In WS, he gets an A+ while Wallace gets a B. But even beyond that, if you compare their WS per 1000 innings to other shortstops actually in the Hall of Fame, Wallace becomes very average among that group while Long remains high among the group. In WARP, they are about even on career fielding, despite Wallace playing an additional 10 years.

I've got Long 17th and Wallace 20th, and next year it looks like Long will sneak back on the ballot at 15th.

If someone is a career voter and a timeliner (e.g., WARP3), I can see putting Wallace ahead by a signficant margin. Otherwise, how can Long NOT be taken seriously if Wallace is being taken seriously? Yet Wallace is consensus 4th and Long is consensus 37th!
   245. robc Posted: June 20, 2004 at 02:06 PM (#688863)
Jeff M,

Im primarily a career voter and I mostly use Warp3, and I dont see the huge difference between Wallace and Long. I have Wallace #1 and Long #11 on my ballot.

I think many are underrating fielding as a whole, but then giving Wallace a boost for career numbers.

Here is the question I have, if Wallace was an average shortstop but had 3000 hits, would he already be in the HoM? Because just looking at raw range factor, thats what he would be if you took his hits saved and added them on to his career hit total.
   246. Jeff M Posted: June 20, 2004 at 03:03 PM (#688871)
I'm primarily a career voter and I mostly use Warp3, and I dont see the huge difference between Wallace and Long.

That's good. Maybe that means the loophole I acknowledged for career and timeline voters is now closed on this issue.

:-)

...if Wallace was an average shortstop but had 3000 hits, would he already be in the HoM?

My hunch is that the consensus would have him in (we almost do anyway) because of the psychology of 3,000 hits. I don't think it would change my ranking, though it's hard to tell because it depends on the character of the hits and we'd have to do the same thing for Long.
   247. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 20, 2004 at 05:22 PM (#688913)
My hunch is that the consensus would have him in (we almost do anyway) because of the psychology of 3,000 hits. I don't think it would change my ranking, though it's hard to tell because it depends on the character of the hits and we'd have to do the same thing for Long.

I agree with everything said there.
   248. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 20, 2004 at 05:28 PM (#688919)
JeffM - first, thanks for the feedback & info on the NA. Haven't used it yet, but I will eventually.

Chris, isn't it problematic that the defensive WS you are using include the pitcher's pitching WS (and every other pitcher's pitching WS)? It's mixing actual pitching performances into what you want to be a measure of fielding support.

Maybe this method makes more sense if you use fielding WS, not defensive WS.


I think the difference here is purely one of semantics. My copy of WS divides team win shares into three different categories: pitching, hitting, & the one I'm using - I'm calling it defensive & you're calling it fielding. At least I'm assuming that's how it's working.

More pitchers I've figured for over the last few days:

1. Lefty Grove +15.0
2. Pete Alexander +12.2
3. Wilbur Cooper +11.1
4. Dolf Luque +9.0
5. Eppa Rixey +8.6
6. Walter Johnson +8.0
7. Urban Shocker +5.5
8. Stan Coveleski +4.8
9. Burleigh Grimes +4.1
10. Carl Hubbell +3.6
11. Red Faber +2.9
12. Dazzy Vance -1.5
13. Bobo Newsom -4.2

Of the 62 guys I've done, 40 are +5 or more but only three are -5 or more.
   249. Jeff M Posted: June 20, 2004 at 05:57 PM (#688953)
My copy of WS divides team win shares into three different categories: pitching, hitting, & the one I'm using - I'm calling it defensive & you're calling it fielding.

The book's terminology is actually "Offensive WS" and "Defensive WS". It then splits "Defensive WS" into "Pitching WS" and "Fielding WS".

Following the terminology of the book, I gave you team "Defensive WS", which includes both "Pitching WS" + "Fielding WS". So, the numbers I produced (and time I spent on 1874 and 1875) are useless for your study. Oy vey. I should have asked.

If I get time, I'll try re-running them for "Fielding WS," which is what you really need.
   250. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 20, 2004 at 06:34 PM (#689014)
My copy of WS divides team win shares into three different categories: pitching, hitting, & the one I'm using - I'm calling it defensive & you're calling it fielding.

The book's terminology is actually "Offensive WS" and "Defensive WS". It then splits "Defensive WS" into "Pitching WS" and "Fielding WS".


Oh. In that case I used the wrong word. I meant Fielding WS, not defensive.
   251. Jeff M Posted: June 20, 2004 at 07:32 PM (#689110)
Chris,

Here are the team fielding WS I calculated for the NA:

1871
Boston........ 9.1
Chicago....... 9.1
Philly........ 8.0
Washington.... 9.0
NY............ 9.9
Troy.......... 4.6
Ft. Wayne..... 4.9
Cleveland..... 6.1
Rockford...... 4.1

1872
Wash. Oly..... 2.9
Middletown.... 3.9
Brook Eck..... 4.8
Wash. Nat..... 0.0 (didn't win any games)
Boston........15.2
Philly........14.2
Baltimore.....17.5
NY............17.5
Troy.......... 8.1
Cleveland..... 3.6
Brook Atl..... 6.1

1873
Boston........19.1
Phil Whites...17.2
Balt. LB......16.6
Phil A's......16.5
NY............17.2
Brook Atl.....10.8
Wash BL....... 6.4
Elizabeth..... 0.00* (all hitting)
Balt. Mary.... 0.00 (didn't win any games)

1874
Boston.........22.7
NY.............21.0
Phil A's.......17.8
Brook Atl......13.2
Phil Whites....15.0
Chicago........15.3
Hartford....... 8.7
Balt LB........ 7.7

1875
Hartford.......26.5
Boston.........25.6
Phil A's.......23.6
Stl Browns.....22.0
Phil Whites....21.0
Chicago........20.3
NY.............21.7
Keokuk......... 2.1
New Haven...... 7.7
Stl Reds....... 4.0
Phil Cents..... 0.0* (all hitting)
Brooklyn....... 1.2*
Washington..... 5.3

*The starred teams violate the Bill James fielding WS floor, which says fielding WS can be no less than .16375 * team games, which means you can't have 0 fielding WS unless the team has 0 total WS. In many cases, particularly with teams that couldn't play, this doesn't work. If the floor applied to the 1875 Centennials, for example, they would get 2.3 fielding WS, even though the fielding actually was a negative number.

Even worse is the 1875 Brooklyn Atlantics. Since the team played 44 games, the floor comes into effect to produce 7.2 fielding WS. Trouble is, that's technically impossible b/c the team only won 2 games (and only has 6 total WS). So I guess you'd allocate all 6 to fielding if you applied the floor, but I don't think that makes any sense (particularly since hitting was their strongest suit).
   252. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 01:08 AM (#689610)
I didn't get any response to this question, but I really need help with it:

How should I estimate caught stealing for years it wasn't recorded? Since the league average SB rate was below break-even, the more bases a player stole, the worse he is coming out in my system. Should I just set all CS to zero?
   253. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 02:23 AM (#689941)
Dan: Didn't see your question the first time, and I don't have a great answer. But I have a possible suggestion.

Could you get an answer by reverse engineering some of the RC formulas developed for years in which CS was not recorded?

Y'know there are something like 27 RC formulas depending on what data is available. It seems like James would have recognized that if he's going to include SB in his formulas without including CS (since not available), he had to apply some discount to the SB to account for that. I know he uses different SB factors depending on the era, so I'm assuming he studied it a bit.

Of course, in the early years SB are a serious problem because they sometimes included taking the extra base on a hit.
   254. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 04:17 AM (#690144)
"Well, I'm using first principles to try and remember why OBP has a higher weight."

OBP has a higher weight because not making outs is more important than advancing runners. They aren't equal in terms of contribution to offense.

Dan Rosenheck - Great stuff! Chris/Dan, would it work if I gave you each your own thread for posting stuff related to your numbers? Anything else like that that I can do to facilitate the spread of information?

Agreement with DavidFoss (#201), I like Philly Booster's format from post #195.

"How many WARP3 did Browning's "pitching" cost him? I want to make that adjustment."

I treated that as -2.75 R, as opposed to -37. It costs him 5.6 wins, but I adjust for season length. So that makes it 3.8 WARP1. It also costs him 5.6 WARP2 (WARP3 without their schedule adjustment) with my schedule adjustment, so I'd say it works out the same, roughly 4 WARP3.

Wallace vs. Long:

BRARP - adjusted for season length:

Wallace: 55, 49, 41, 39, 37, 37, 36, 33, 32, 29, 28, 26, 25, 14, 13, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -4
HerLong: 57, 41, 39, 37, 31, 27, 26, 26, 24, 16, 14, 13, 6, 0, -5, -12

Long was not the hitter Wallace was. His best year was 2 runs better than Wallace's, and Wallace beats him every other year as a hitter.

Long was a better fielder, but not by a ton. Peak, I'd give Wallace a slight edge (because his peak was a lot longer), career they aren't close.

They should probably be closer than 4 vs. 37, but they aren't that close. It's the difference between Alan Trammell (my best Wallace comp) and Davey Concepcion - if Trammell had played a few years longer or Concepcion a few fewer if you ask me.

Dan - I know that Bill James has suggested that because running was such a part of the game, SB actually correlate with RS, even without the CS data (unlike with the modern game, where just SB tell you nothing about a team's run scoring).

He thinks that it means the guys that stole bases were also better base-runners, etc..

So I'd say don't have to worry about it. I have no idea how you could estimate it anyway. I suppose you could do it on the team level, find the 'missing outs' assume they were all CS and then apportion them somehow . . . but I don't know that that would be correct.
   255. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 04:24 AM (#690146)
Those Wallace/Long numbers are WARP1 - so there is no timeline effect in there . . .
   256. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 05:07 AM (#690161)
Can anyone tell me how many Win Shares a replacement fielder at each position earns?
   257. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 05:14 AM (#690162)
Another point of view

Wallace vs. Long:

Batting WS - adjusted for season length, for those who prefer WS to WARP:

Wallace: 19, 17, 16, 15, 15, 15, 15, 14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 8, 8, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Long: 22, 20, 19, 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 7, 6, 1, 1, 0

By WS, Wallace beats Long only on career length, but not on 3-year peak, 5-year consecutive peak or 7 year peak. Or on a per/162g basis.

Fielding WS -- adjusted for season length

Wallace: 10, 10, 10, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Long: 12, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 4, 0

Despite playing 10 years longer, Long has only 6 fewer fielding WS. Long's fielding WS per 1000 innings is 6.40. Wallace's is 5.46.

FRAA and FRAR - adjusted for season length

Long has 33 more FRAA than Wallace on a career basis, despite playing 10 years fewer. On a per 162 game basis, Long has 17.28 FRAA and Wallace has 11.82 FRAA.

Some believe (including me) that BP's replacement level is too low for fielders, but for completeness, under FRAR Wallace has 33 more FRAR on a career basis. On a per 162 game basis, Long has 72.87 FRAR and Wallace has 61.66 FRAR.

Conclusion: Long is at least as good as Wallace.
   258. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 05:45 AM (#690168)
"Conclusion: Long is at least as good as Wallace."

If you don't give Wallace any credit for anything besides their best 7 seasons - and you use WS.

Wallace beats Long every year after their 5 best offensively using WS. Long's edge on the first 5 years - 12 bWS - 2.4 per year. Wallace's edge on the rest of their careers, 35 bWS.

"Despite playing 10 years longer"

Are you kidding me? Wallace was a pitcher for a couple of years, and he only had 1119 more PA than Long, and Long played during shorter seasons.

Wallace played 16 years as regular SS/3B, Long 14 1/2. And Wallace has 6 more fielding WS.

Look at your own numbers year by year:

fWS

W L
10-12
10-11
10-9
9-9
8-8
8-8
8-8
8-7
8-7
7-7
5-7
5-7
5-6
5-6
5-4
4-
1-
1-
1-
1-

They seem pretty even to me - slight edge for Long, but nothing much, and certainly not enough to outweigh Wallace's steep offensive advantage.
   259. KJOK Posted: June 21, 2004 at 06:09 AM (#690173)
Could you get an answer by reverse engineering some of the RC formulas developed for years in which CS was not recorded?

I think this actually will work. Just set the formula for the given year equal to formula #6 (1920-1925) that has CS in it, then plug in the values and solve for CS I think, although I haven't tried it yet....
   260. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 08:14 AM (#690182)
They seem pretty even to me - slight edge for Long, but nothing much, and certainly not enough to outweigh Wallace's steep offensive advantage.

Well, they have the WS that they have, and except on a career basis for batting, Wallace doesn't show any significant gaps. As I've said before, I've got them about even.

I look at peak and career. I look at WS and WARP. And I look at lots of other things, and on balance, there's not much difference between them, even though they were quite different players. In WS, Long is ahead on the peak measures, and Wallace is ahead on career. In WARP, they are about even on peak measures and Wallace is ahead on career. Wallace would have made fewer all-star teams and wasn't the shortstop on championship teams. Yet Wallace has better counting stats because he played longer.

I'm not claiming you can't find a basis for seeing Wallace as better. I'm saying that if you look at everything, it isn't exactly obvious that Wallace is on the verge of the HoM while Long is in danger of disappearing from the radar screen. Wallace is 4th and Long is 37th. I think you agreed that the gap isn't justified.

It's not like this is some crazy wacked-out thought. We just disagree about their relative values. I'm gonna go try to find my NHBA, hoping that James doesn't think I'm as crazy as you do. :) I need at least one ally. ;)
   261. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 09:06 AM (#690183)
No problem Jeff - I will have them closer on this ballot, but I see a huge gap, especially once you give Wallace credit for 400+ IP at an ERA+ of 125.

Moving to another topic, before I post my ballot, pitchers . . .

Post 1893
1. Young 234.0 (233.2)
2. Mathewson 165.6 (155.5)
3. Nichols 147.9 (144.6)
7. Plank 130.9 (128.6)
9. Rusie 126.1 (123.1)
14. Walsh 104.5 (101.2)

15. Griffith 98.9 (95.7)
16. Brown 98.5 (89.4)
18. Willis 93.3 (88.7)
19. Cicotte 93.3 (93.7)
20. McGinnity 88.5 (83.8)
23. Waddell 73.1 (80.5)
24. Joss 69.2 (69.9)

AA Era
4. Keefe 137.9 (128.2)
5. Radbourn 134.6 (139.4)
6. Galvin 131.1 (142.6)

10. Mullane 125.7 (89.9)
11. Clarkson 125.3 (120.3)
13. Caruthers 113.7 (89.7)
21. Welch 85.3 (85.9)
22. King 83.3 (75.1)

Early NL
12. McCormick 119.0 (121.1)
17. Bond 98.3 (98.0)

NA
8. Spalding 126.9 (121.8)

HoMers in italics. That includes anyone that received a vote last time, and anyone in the Hall of Merit already.

******

That's adjusted for season length WARP1, using BRARP+FRAA+PRAR, but not competition level. The number in parenthesis is adjusted for era (WARP2 with a full schedule adjustment, so not quite WARP3), using the same BRARP+FRAA+PRAR.

Note that almost everyone's number is similar for both, except for the AA players (Caruthers, Mullane & King - to a lesser extent Keefe). That's because the all-time adjustments give them more credit for their hitting (since many were great hitters for pitchers relative to ML history, due to pitcher hitting declining).

I think basically we've got it right so far. Brown had a great peak, so it's reasonable to have him in before Griffith.

******

Interesting that Mullane's numbers (and Caruthers) were propped up by playing in a weak league, but basically their contributions were even (sorry FoBC) - there's even a case for Mullane being ranked above him. His 1882 and 1884 were as valuable as anything Caruthers did, though Caruthers had more big years.

******

McCormick should be getting more support. A comparison year by year with Caruthers.

WARP1
JM BC
21.5-19.7
16.4-19.2
15.3-17.9
13.8-16.8
12.8-13.4
10.5-9.8
9.2-8.8
7.7-3.8
6.3-3.6
5.5-0.7

WARP2
18.3-15.1
17.8-15.0
17.6-14.5
15.5-13.4
13.0-10.5
9.8-8.8
9.6-7.5
7.7-2.5
6.6-2.0
5.3-0.4

On average McCormick's seasons were 97 games vs. 133 for Caruthers, so while the counting stats are similar, his raw numbers had more pennant impact. This makes up for Caruthers' edge with the stick.
   262. PhillyBooster Posted: June 21, 2004 at 01:53 PM (#690213)
I'm gonna go try to find my NHBA, hoping that James doesn't think I'm as crazy as you do. :) I need at least one ally. ;)

James has Long #34 and Wallace #36. I will definitely re-examine that pair before the next election.
   263. TomH Posted: June 21, 2004 at 02:03 PM (#690219)
assorted thots:

Gavvy Cravath: I am sympathetic to sluggers who excelled in the deadball era, and I am also symathetic to projecting stats for lost years. But when looking at Cravath, we oughta remember he hit more than 3/4ths of his home runs in the tiny Baker Bowl. If we give him extra credit for major league time before he was 30, we should put him in some neutral environ, shouldn't we? I'm not about to assume a Sam Thompsian career for Gavvy.

B Wallace - H Long: Long is ranked higher in the NBJHA. But this is all due to James' large dependence on various peak and rate stats. Career voters will have little trouble distinguishing the two.

Browning - Thompson: One post this week claimed that Browning was a "much better hitter". Well, if you don't adjust for league quality, I agree, but if you do, I don't agree. BP's translated stats show Sam with a 16 point OPS advantage, with more PAs.

new class of 1929: UnWow. The runner-ups from 1928 will be polishing their induction speeches.
   264. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 21, 2004 at 03:06 PM (#690252)
Chris/Dan, would it work if I gave you each your own thread for posting stuff related to your numbers? Anything else like that that I can do to facilitate the spread of information?

Flattered, but at this point when I feel the need to put some info out I just dump it on [gratuitous self-promotion]my site[/gratuitous self-promotion]. I just put on the fielding stuff the other day. I'll probably include the year-by-year fielding stuff when I'm done putting in all the RSI stuff. So if you do start up a Chris J thread, it'll just be a bunch of links to there.
   265. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 10:09 PM (#690722)
Is anyone of the group an online subscriber to BP? Is it worth it?
   266. jimd Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:45 AM (#690882)
but basically their [Mullane's and Caruthers] contributions were even

You do have a point there Joe. The two are about as even as Harry Hooper and Joe Jackson.
   267. Sean Gilman Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:10 AM (#691198)
Browning - Thompson: One post this week claimed that Browning was a "much better hitter". Well, if you don't adjust for league quality, I agree, but if you do, I don't agree. BP's translated stats show Sam with a 16 point OPS advantage, with more PAs.

. . .with Browning having the higher EQA (by 1 point).


Is anyone of the group an online subscriber to BP? Is it worth it?

Yes and absolutely.
   268. Jeff M Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:53 AM (#691226)
I missed that Browning-Thompson post that Sean is responding to. It might have been referring to my ballot, because I made a comment like that.

I apply an AA discount (as described elsewhere here), but it isn't as drastic during Browning's years as the BP adjustment. I use a season-adjusted WARP1 when looking at the BP numbers and discount them with my AA numbers.

BP takes away a ton of Browning's value by the time it gets to WARP3. For instance, it takes away more than 50% in 1886 AA, which is one of the more "mature" AA seasons. It takes away about 1/3 in other mature AA seasons. For their careers, BP takes away 45% of Browning's value and only 15% of Thompson's. To me, that's too steep a difference, considering that when Browning made it to the PL (the strongest league in 1890), he won the batting title.

I also give equal weight to season-adjusted WS (with the AA discount).

So that's probably why our opinions differ. I've got them about the same on career but Browning has better peaks.

I don't use BP's translated stats, so I can't really respond to that aspect of the post. It's just hard for me to picture Thompson as a hitter with 370+ home runs.

Browning actually made my PHoM in 1912, but I don't really hold out any hope that he'll be elected for real.

Looks like he'll be #1 on my next year's ballot though...he meets about 73% of my standards for HoM, which is ahead of everyone else (though I haven't looked at Poles yet). Thompson will be #9...he meets about 67%, and there's not a ton of separation between the top and bottom of my ballot right now. The player we've elected with the lowest pct of my HoM standards is Spalding, at 66%, which isn't half bad, IMO. Wallace looks destined to dethrone Spalding in that regard.

Anyway, my ballot comment about Browning does not mean that Thompson wasn't a great hitter. He's on my ballot too...just not as high as Browning.

Thanks for the heads up on the BP subscription, Sean.
   269. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:21 AM (#691263)
You sure? It looks to me like this year we're electing Baker and McGinnity...you think Wallace gets in in '29?
   270. Jeff M Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:22 PM (#691317)
Dunno, but the early vote tallies from 1928 show him in 3rd with a huge lead over Sheckard, and the new eligibles are a weak class.
   271. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:47 PM (#691937)
karlmagnus:

BTW, you were 110% correct about Internet Explorer. I will never use that piece of crap ever again. I can't believe the amount of spyware that I had to get rid of in a span of a few weeks. Hopefully, I think my computer is OK now after using Spybot and Ad-aware.

IE is now in my recycle bin.
   272. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 22, 2004 at 11:06 PM (#692310)
Actually, I decided to keep IE in case of an emergency because I installed Google's Toolbar to stop all popups.
   273. Michael Bass Posted: June 23, 2004 at 12:56 AM (#692785)
I was about to say, I used to have Spyware problems with IE like everyone else, but Google Toolbar has pretty much completely shut that down.
   274. Jeff M Posted: June 23, 2004 at 01:52 AM (#693092)
I'm watching the Braves game, and with Andruw Jones at the plate, they mentioned he's only 27 years old. Hard to believe. He's still got a peak coming.

That prompted me to look at his BP numbers, and it points out why I have a problem with WARP3 in the context of this project (e.g., timelining). Andruw Jones is already considered by WARP3 to be 20% better than Pete Browning for his entire career!

Jones' OPS+ is 114 for 4600 PAs. His best OPS+ is 129 and in 38% of his eight seasons, he's had an OPS+ below 100.

Browning's OPS+ is 162 for 5315 PAs. He had 11 seasons better than Jones' best season at the plate, and that wouldn't change much with an AA discount (maybe knock a couple of seasons off that). In the 1882, which most of us discount heavily, his OPS+ was 222. He had one year as a regular with an OPS+ below 100.

Now obviously Jones is one of the greatest centerfielders of my lifetime, which tremendously increases his value. And Browning was a poor outfielder, which probably detracts fairly minimally from his value since we've concluded that early outfielders didn't have much to do. But I don't see how outfield defense alone can propel Jones to 20% better than Browning already.
   275. DavidFoss Posted: June 23, 2004 at 03:51 AM (#693509)
Looks like they are imposing an AA discount for Fielding Runs.

WARP-1 -- FRAR/FRAA :

Gore -- 358/28
Stovey -- 380/91
Browning -- 231/-43

WARP-2 -- FRAR/FRAA

Gore -- 167/-42
Stovey -- 99/-55
Browning -- -8/-171

I'm not sure I agree that fielding numbers will vary that much from league to league. My impression is that good-field/no-hit players are often the guys that make up the utility players on a team... or set the batting replacement level. Could be wrong there.
   276. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 23, 2004 at 03:53 AM (#693511)
I completely forgot to start the 1929 discussion thread, sorry guys . . . someone send me an email when I'm slacking! It'll be up in the next few minutes, once I get the eligibility list.
   277. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 23, 2004 at 04:12 AM (#693522)
But I don't see how outfield defense alone can propel Jones to 20% better than Browning already.

Who made the bigger impact for their respective eras? At this point, it's Browning, IMO.

That's not to say that Jones won't or can't make the bigger impact, but as of right now, he hasn't.
   278. Jeff M Posted: June 23, 2004 at 04:18 AM (#693532)
That timelining concept has the potential to render all of the ballot-hanger-on-ers invisible as we get deeper into this process.
Page 3 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
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8155 seconds
61 querie(s) executed