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, July 05, 2004

1930 Ballot Discussion

Another fairly light incoming class, with just 4 viable (all extremely borderline for serious consideration) candidates.

WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
242 79.2 1912 Del Pratt-2b (1977)
258 64.6 1910 Larry Gardner-3b (1976)
263 56.4 1910 Jake Daubert-1b (1924)
174 49.2 1910 Amos Strunk-CF (1979)
178 44.8 1914 Jeff Pfeffer-P (1972)
149 35.5 1910 Shano Collins-RF (1955)
148 25.4 1914 Hy Myers-CF (1965)
113 25.3 1918 Charlie Hollocher-SS (1940)
125 16.5 1911 Ivy Olson-SS (1965)

HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star
36% 13-24 John Donaldson-P (1892) - 2.5 - 1*
00% 04-26 Candy Jim Taylor-3B (1884) #9 3b - 0 - 5*
00% 10-24 Doc Wiley-C (1892) - 1 - 3*
00% 09-24 Jess Barbour-LF (??) - 0 - 5*
00% 08-24 Tully McAdoo-1B (??) - 0 - 0*

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 05, 2004 at 12:44 PM | 267 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. Daryn Posted: July 05, 2004 at 06:02 PM (#717377)
This isn't showing up at the Hall of Merit yet.

I have all the newcomers out of my top 20 -- am I missing anything?
   2. Daryn Posted: July 05, 2004 at 06:05 PM (#717380)
I notice Jake Daubert died at 40 years of age in October 1924, just after finishing a full season as the second oldest player in the league. What is the story there?
   3. Guapo Posted: July 05, 2004 at 06:09 PM (#717385)
If anyone has any info on John Donaldson I'd be grateful if they posted it- from what little I know, he seems like at least a ballot candidate.
   4. Kelly in SD Posted: July 05, 2004 at 08:44 PM (#717618)
Daryn asked:
Jake Daubert died at 40 years of age in October 1924, just after finishing a full season as the second oldest player in the league. What is the story there?

From SABR's Deadball Stars of the National League, pg. 295, Daubert suffered his 8th beaning and it had the worst and most long-lasting effects. Also, he "began to suffer from what doctors thought was appendicitis and gallstones. When the season ended, he underwent surgery and a blood transfusion. Jake never recovered." He died October 9, 1924.
Later, his son began to suffer from the same symptoms and he was found to be suffering from a hereditary spleen condition that modern medicine could control.
Some spleen condition is as specific as the book gets.
   5. Kelly in SD Posted: July 05, 2004 at 09:43 PM (#717662)
Welch vs. Keefe - their records against teams and HoMers:
All these numbers are based on the starting pitchers listed for each game on Retrosheet and seasonal totals from BBRef. Totals may not add up to official career numbers b/c there were a few games where one pitcher didn't get a dec'n despite starting, but there was no other pitcher listed.
          Welch  Keefe
Galvin    26-11   8-6
Clarkson  12-5    9-10
Radbourn  17-10  14-10
Rusie      2-0    5-2
Nichols    0-1    3-3
Ward       4-7    3-7
Young      NR     0-2
totals:   61-34  42-40
          .642   .512


Against teams over/under .500 (don't have Welch's 1891 info in the next two entries (sorry)
            Welch    Keefe
over .500   129-130  147-150
             .498     .495
under .500  179-73   201-81
             .710     .712


Against teams by finish

    Welch  Keefe
1   22-30  30-38
    .423   .441
2   27-39  29-44
    .409   .397
3   48-23  33-21
    .676   .611
4   34-25  34-24 
    .576   .586
5   32-30  39-24 
    .516   .619 
6   39-20  54-23
    .661   .701
7   51-21  52-20
    .708   .722
8   59-14  50-25 or 8+ 77-34
    .808   .667        .693
9+   NR    27-9
           .750


When they pitched together 1880-1882, 1885-1889:
<pre>

player w l % era WS gs cg whip k/w
Welch 226 152 .598 2.70 261 391 384 1.22 1.32
Keefe 215 141 .604 2.56 239 368 350 1.13 2.06

Welch Keefe
over .500 85-85 82-91
.500 .474
under .500 138-59 131-48
.701 .732

Welch Keefe
1 14-21 17-25
.400 .404
2 15-27 18-26
.357 .409
3 37-17 19-16
.685 .542
4 24-14 28-20
.632 .583
5 26-23 28-9
.531 .757
6 32-19 36-17
.627 .679
7 37-12 33-12
.755 .733
8 39-10 34-14
.796 .708

Having looked at the above numbers, why is Keefe in the HoM and Welch isn't?
Welch may not have been quite as good as Keefe, but he wasn't significantly worse, either.
Welch had the same results as Keefe despite facing more HoMers, despite getting poorer run support (please see the Run Support Index in the Yahoo group, but I think Keefe's RSI was about 107 and Welch's was 102.5). Also, 18.7% of Keefe's starts were against teams 8th or worst. Only 13.3% of Welch's were.
Keefe has more WS b/c he pitched longer and had the big year in the second year of the AA. I don't know why WARP likes Keefe better. Is it all K/W ratio and WHIP?
Any comments?
   6. Kelly in SD Posted: July 05, 2004 at 09:49 PM (#717664)
ARRGGGH,forgot to close the pre segment. One more time.

Welch vs. Keefe - their records against teams and HoMers:
All these numbers are based on the starting pitchers listed for each game on Retrosheet and seasonal totals from BBRef. Totals may not add up to official career numbers b/c there were a few games where one pitcher didn't get a dec'n despite starting, but there was no other pitcher listed.
          Welch  Keefe
Galvin    26-11   8-6
Clarkson  12-5    9-10
Radbourn  17-10  14-10
Rusie      2-0    5-2
Nichols    0-1    3-3
Ward       4-7    3-7
Young      NR     0-2
totals:   61-34  42-40
          .642   .512

Against teams over/under .500 (don't have Welch's 1891 info in the next two entries (sorry)
            Welch    Keefe
over .500   129-130  147-150
             .498     .495
under .500  179-73   201-81
             .710     .712


Against teams by finish
    Welch  Keefe
1   22-30  30-38
    .423   .441
2   27-39  29-44
    .409   .397
3   48-23  33-21
    .676   .611
4   34-25  34-24 
    .576   .586
5   32-30  39-24 
    .516   .619 
6   39-20  54-23
    .661   .701
7   51-21  52-20
    .708   .722
8   59-14  50-25 or 8+ 77-34
    .808   .667        .693
9+   NR    27-9
           .750

When they pitched together 1880-1882, 1885-1889:

player w   l    %  era  WS  gs  cg  whip k/w 
Welch 226 152 .598 2.70 261 391 384 1.22 1.32
Keefe 215 141 .604 2.56 239 368 350 1.13 2.06

           Welch  Keefe
over .500   85-85 82-91
           .500   .474
under .500 138-59 131-48
           .701   .732

  Welch  Keefe
1 14-21  17-25
  .400   .404
2 15-27  18-26
  .357   .409
3 37-17  19-16
  .685   .542
4 24-14  28-20 
  .632   .583
5 26-23  28-9 
  .531   .757 
6 32-19  36-17
  .627   .679
7 37-12  33-12
  .755   .733
8 39-10  34-14
  .796   .708 


Having looked at the above numbers, why is Keefe in the HoM and Welch isn't?
Welch may not have been quite as good as Keefe, but he wasn't significantly worse, either.
Welch had the same results as Keefe despite facing more HoMers, despite getting poorer run support (please see the Run Support Index in the Yahoo group, but I think Keefe's RSI was about 107 and Welch's was 102.5). Also, 18.7% of Keefe's starts were against teams 8th or worst. Only 13.3% of Welch's were.
Keefe has more WS b/c he pitched longer and had the big year in the second year of the AA. I don't know why WARP likes Keefe better. Is it all K/W ratio and WHIP?
Any comments?
   7. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 12:20 AM (#718060)
Other info about Daubert, Gardner, and Pratt.

Daubert played firstbase for Brooklyn 1910-1918, Cincinnati 1919-1924. 1913 MVP by writers. .303/.360/.401. Twice Stats and WS AllStar, but never best in majors. OPS+ 117. Black Ink/Grey Ink 12/86. 7 top 10s in Avg., 6 in triples and adjusted OPS+. 2nd most career sacrifice hits. Defense: B+ and 2 gold glvoes by WS. Did not reach majors until age 26. Most similar players are Konetchy, Chase, and Tenney, all with Sim Scores between 874-884.

Gardner played third for Boston AL 1908-1917, Phil AL 1918, Cleveland 1919-24. Regular from 1910-1922. .289/.355/.385. Three times Stats, four times WS AllStar, but never best in majors. OPS+ 109. BI/GI 1/51. 5 times top 10 RBI and Sacrifices. Defense: B+ and 5 gold gloves by WS. Most similar players are Heinie Groh, Ossie Bluege, and Willie Kamm, Sim Scores 903-897. Larry Doyle and Jimmy Collins are also on the list - 874 and 892.

Pratt played 2nd for StLouis AL 1912-17, NY AL 1918-20, Boston AL 1921-22, Detroit 1923-24. Regular every year except maybe 1923. .292/.345/.403. One time Stats and WS AllStar and never best in majors. OPS+ 112. BI/GI 9/102 - 5 top 10 in RBI, 8 top 10 in 2b, 5 top 10 in hits, 5 times led league in games. Defense: B with 1 gold glove by WS. Most similar players are Doyle, J Collins, and Gardner - all between 903 and 895.
   8. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:06 AM (#718292)
I just found a site that lists BaseBall Magazine's All America teams for 1908-1919. I am not sure how to put a link in. If the link fails, the address is below.

http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/all.america.html

1908-1919 BaseBall Magazine All-Americas

Even contemporary observers thought the AL had the dominant players.
   9. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:20 AM (#718359)
Does anyone know where to find the magazine's All-Star lists from 1920-1950 or other post-season All-Star teams, such as the Sporting News, online? Thank you.
   10. KJOK Posted: July 06, 2004 at 02:39 AM (#718614)
Baseball Magazine I only online up through 1918 I believe.

I also found this link interesting:

SABR Deadball Committee Vote
   11. KJOK Posted: July 06, 2004 at 02:43 AM (#718630)
Also, I'm a bit confused about Donaldson's eligibility since he pitched until 1932 and would only be 38 years old in 1930??
   12. jhwinfrey Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:41 AM (#718808)
Getting the ball rolling...

Assuming Donaldson will be eligible, here's my preliminary ordering. As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it!
Rube Waddell and Roger Breshnahan are my PHoM's class of 1930.

1.Mickey Welch--He'll be in my top slot for at least the next 2 years.
2.Bob Caruthers--I'm rooting for him and Pearce to get in this year.
3.Dickey Pearce
4.Jake Beckley
5.Rube Waddell
6.Roger Breshnahan
7.Rube Foster
8.Addie Joss
9.Lip Pike
10.Spotswood Poles
11.Bill Monroe
12.George Van Haltren
13.Tony Mullane
14.Jimmy Sheckard
15.Bruce Petway

16.John Donaldson is the highest-ranked of the newcomers for me: Pop Lloyd called him "the toughest pitcher he ever faced." This Cal State article indicates that he had a ~.400 batting average and a 83-35 W/L record from 1924-30--an impressive peak... It would only take a bit more information on the rest of his career for me to consider bumping him up ahead of Mullane.

Other off-balloters in order...
17-20: McCormick, Leach, Ryan, Duffy
21-25: Doyle, Griffith, Cravath, Willis, Konetchy
26-30: Browning, Cicotte, Daubert, Evers, Milan
31-35: Huggins, Childs, Gardner, Bond, Pratt
   13. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 06, 2004 at 10:40 AM (#718854)
I think I fixed this to show up on Hall of Merit. This is a test post . . .
   14. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 06, 2004 at 10:43 AM (#718855)
I'm not sure about Donaldson either - I'm just going based off what was listed . . .
   15. Brad Harris Posted: July 06, 2004 at 11:39 AM (#718861)
Preliminary Thoughts...

1. Dickey Pearce – Let's see if he gets more support now without Wallace around to steal some of his thunder. Best "career" SS available.
2. Lip Pike - I like the Monte Irvin comparison someone made. Pike is the best CF on the ballot.
3. Eddie Cicotte - This knuckleballer was a great one and projects to continue being one if he hadn't been expelled from the league. Who else is a FOEC? I’ll have to come up with a comprehensive argument in the next few years. I think he’s the best pitcher available.
4. Jimmy Sheckard - Best OF on the ballot for combination peak/career.
5. Gavvy Cravath - Gets the nod over Thompson as the next best OF. (Boy, there's a lot of them.)
6. Cupid Childs - I've been converted. Just a hair better than Doyle, on the whole.
7. Larry Doyle - Still very much underrated by the electorate.
8. Bob Caruthers - Overall value is underestimated.
9. George Van Haltren - I just can't decide between these two guys. Geez.
10. Ed Konetchy – Got to give props to "Big Ed". Better player than Beckley, IMO.
11. Jimmy Ryan – I think VH was better.
12. Clark Griffith – Reappears on my ballot.
13. Rube Foster - Best peak on here besides Waddell, better career than him though.
14. Rube Waddell – Best of the post-1893, short career (Joss, Wood, etc.) group.
15. Mickey Welch - Finally makes my ballot. The "Bert Blyleven" of the 19th Century.

Close, but no cigar:

16. Spotswood Poles – Instinctively want to place him higher. Numbers not as impressive as I would have thought.
17. Jake Beckley – There has to be some value in being good over a long period of time, even if you were never great.
18. Ed Williamson – hovering under the radar, but a “greater” player than Cross or Leach ever were.
19. Charley Jones – Adjusting his season totals for the short schedule make him look much more impressive.
20. Roger Bresnahan - I'll be voting for Wally Schang over Ray Shalk in a few years so I guess I should be consistent and take Bresnahan over Petway now.

Further consideration forthcoming...
   16. yest Posted: July 06, 2004 at 12:10 PM (#718869)
since its 1930 can I asumme we're not having the managers wing open this year
   17. Rusty Priske Posted: July 06, 2004 at 12:46 PM (#718877)
Prelim:

1. Jimmy Sheckard - I really thought he had it last year. Instead we got someone who will never make my PHoM. That's why we vote, eh?
2. Bob Caruthers
3. George Van Haltren
4. Rube Foster
5. Mickey Welch
6. Jake Beckley
7. Lip Pike
8. Dickey Pearce
9. Jimmy Ryan
10. Tommy Leach
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Bill Monroe
13. Clark Griffith
14. Spotswood Poles
15. Cupid Childs

16-20. Doyle, McCormick, Powell, Mullane, F.Jones
21-25. Willis, Konetchy, White, Gleason, Waddell
26-30. Cross, Milan, Bresnahan, Cicotte, Long
   18. Al Peterson Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:10 PM (#718887)
Since I don't have it at my fingertips maybe someone can look this up for me...

In the Bill James book where do Pratt, Gardner, and Daubert rank at their positions? Thanks.

Daubert is an interesting guy since contemporary opinion seemed to favor him over Konetchy as first base and now most would consider the order reversed.
   19. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:11 PM (#718889)
Anyone have any info on Daubert's pre-1926 minor league stats? Was he a late bloomer? A latter day version of Gavvy Cravvath? As it stands now he has no chance to make my ballot & really notable minor league numbers for several years would be his only way to get on.
   20. Daryn Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:15 PM (#718890)
I will be going on vacation in a couple of days and won't be back until Monday the 19th, which is the close of balloting this year. So just in case I don't get to a computer next week, please post this as my real ballot for 1930.

1. Andrew Foster – I look forward to the 23 or so who left him off the ballot to take this time to reassess – he should be liked by both peak and career voters. 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.

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

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

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

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

The people below here are not HOMers to me at all.

10. 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.

11. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected.

12. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

13. Pete Browning – Joe Jackson’s most similar player, and they are pretty close – I have him as about 4/5ths of Jackson, who was 2nd on my ballot when elected.

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

15. Spotswood Poles – Van Haltren seems like a good comp.

The rest

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

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

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

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

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

21. Clyde Milan – nice willie wilsonesque career.

22-25. Rube Waddell, Jim McCormick, Addie Joss and Ed Cicotte -- pitcher glut, throw in Willis, Bender, Mullane and Mullin for that matter.

Next in line, in no order, but I’d be very reluctant to but them on a ballot (26 to 42)-- Daubert, Pratt, Gardner, Donaldson, Petway, Evers, Tiernan, Tinker, Jennings, Bender, Williamson, Meyerle, Mullane, Willis, White, Thomas, Cross, Mullin and Chance.
   21. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:18 PM (#718891)
Semi-uselsess trivia: in 1920 Larry Garnder had 3 stolen bases & was caught steeling 20 times. OUCH!

In the Bill James book where do Pratt, Gardner, and Daubert rank at their positions? Thanks.

Jake Daubert #61
Del Pratt #35
Larry Gardner #29
   22. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:26 PM (#718895)
FWIW, I figured out yesterday that Eddie Cicotte had a career median opponent winning percentage of .490, lower than the MOWP of Brown, Griffith, Waddell, Welch, McGinnity but higher than that of Caruthers.
   23. karlmagnus Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:29 PM (#718896)
Do we need a separate thread about Donaldson? -- seems like he may be worth a closer look.
   24. Al Peterson Posted: July 06, 2004 at 01:31 PM (#718899)
Thanks Chris J.

Daubert spent a couple of years in the minors but really just worked his way out of the coal mines, playing semipro stuff and then learning the game til he had a good year in the minors which led to his promotion at age 26.

This comes from the SABR BioProject:

Jake Daubert
   25. mbd1mbd1 Posted: July 06, 2004 at 02:36 PM (#718950)
It looks like Pratt has a good shot at making the tail end of my ballot; Daubert and Gardner are in 16-25 range.
   26. Howie Menckel Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:06 PM (#718982)
trivial trivia on our newest HOMers:

Thompson played (minimum 10 G) with White, Connor, Brouthers, Richardson, Keefe, Bennett, Delahanty, Lajoie, and Hamilton - Nos. 2-4-5-9-10-19-21-22-23 on the all-time list of players with "Most Seasons with HOM Teammates." Thompson himself checks in immediately at No. 15. (He also played with Flick one year).
Thompson's ascension gives the 1886-88 Detroit Wolverines five HOMers, the 12th team to reach that level (counting that as one 'team'). Six more 'teams' have had six HOMers on their rosters.
Wallace only claims two HOMer teammates - but spent 10 seasons with Jesse Burkett and 6 with Cy Young. The trio all were with Cleveland and St. Louis from 1895-1900.
In 1894, Cleveland's starting staff was Cy Young 35-10, Nig Cuppy 26-14, Bobby Wallace 12-14.
   27. PhillyBooster Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:10 PM (#718988)
Here's something I started on Friday. I re-created Bill James's Personal Hall of Merit using our voting schedule and his player rankings. Highest ranked players at his respective position won, and I divided the Pitcher's rankings by 2 to double the number of pitchers. Ties went to the player who had been on the ballot longest, and then to the tougher defensive position, although the tie-breaker never had a permanent effect on who was in or out (just pushed people back a year). Also, I assumed that James elected exactly the same Negro Leaguers, in the same years we did. If you disagree, add the Top 2 or 3 players from his 1930 ballot:

Results: All eligible players ranked 1-26 in their position made the BJPHoM. The highest ranked player outside in George van Haltren (CF-28), and he will go in in 1930 (with Joe Kelley, LF-28). The lowest ranked players to make it in were Ed Williamson (3B-45) and Tony Mullane (P-82). Williamson was the only position player outside the Top 40 taken, and Mullane was the only pitcher outside the Top 80 (Keefe was next at 54). Differences from our HoM are in Bold. The big differences are pitcher, third base, and center field. I added James' 1930 ballot (next 15 players) at the end.

P (14):Young (4); Mathewson (7); Nichols (9); Walsh (19); Brown (20); Rusie (28); Plank (34); McGinnity (41); Clarkson (42); Radbourn (45); Cicotte (50); Waddell (53); Keefe (54); Mullane (82)

C (2):Bresnhanan (18); Ewing (17)

1B (4):Anson (11); Brouthers (18); Connor (22); Chance (25)

2B (6):Lajoie (6); Doyle (20); Evers (25); Childs (26); McPhee (30); Richardson (39)

SS (5):Wagner (1); Davis (14); Jennings (18); Dahlen (21); Ward (35)

3B (5):Baker (5); Collins (17); Leach (20); McGraw (26); Williamson (45)

LF (9):Jackson (6); Delahanty (12); Burkett (14); Magee (21); Clarke (22); Sheckard (24); K.Kelly (32), O’Rourke (37); Stovey (39)

CF (5):Hamilton (9); Duffy (20); Ryan (26); Browning (38); Gore (40)

RF (3):Crawford (10); Flick (23); Thompson (37)

1930 Bill James Ballot

1. van Haltren (CF-28)
2. Kelley (LF-28)
3. Gavy Cravath (RF-29)
4. Larry Gardner (3B-29)
5. Roy Thomas (CF-29)
6. Cy Seymour (CF-30)
7. Lave Cross (3B-33)
8. Joe Tinker (SS-33)
9. Herman Long (SS-34)
10. Willie Keeler (LF-35)
11. Clark Griffith (P-70)
12. Clyde Milan (CF-35)
13. Del Pratt (2B-35)
14. Bobby Wallace (SS-36)
15. Miller Huggins (2B-37)

16-20: G. Beaumont, D.McGuire, Joss, Willis, Caruthers
   28. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:30 PM (#719014)
Provisional ballot. New personal rule, for no dang good reason every fifth year I'll dump my entire ballot in the discussion thread. Don't know enough about Donaldson to rank at all, so for now I'll leave him off, though he could likely crash it.

The ready-for-primetimers:

1. Jimmy Sheckard (2,1,1,1). 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. Jake Beckley (5,5,4,3). 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.

3. Dickey Pearce (7,6,5,4). Best baseball player born during James Madison's lifetime.

4. Mickey Welch (8,7,6,5). 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.

5. Clark Griffith (12,12,8,6). Personal favorite 1890s pitcher. Nice career, nice prime. The median winning percentage of his opponent is the highest of the four pitchers I've got on the ballot. Leaps ahead of BC as I'm more impressed by the level of competition he faced & his durability. Jumps a little due to periodic reevaluation

6. Tommy Leach (10,10,9,7). Mutlitalented player. Terrific defense at two positions & he was a good hitter. Fine player for a long time.

7. George Van Haltren (13,13,12,9). Very good player for an extended period of time who could do numerous things well. Nice career. Nice peak. Could pitch.

8. Jimmy Ryan (14,14,13,10). GVH without the ability to pitch.

9. Bob Caruthers (11,11,11,11). 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 & cause him to drop below some guys who lasted a little longer.

10 Cupid Childs (17,15,14,12). 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.

11. Larry Doyle (18,18,16,13). 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. Looking at him again, I'd say he's about as close to Childs as Ryan is to GVH, so they're now also yoked together.

12. Charlie Jones (19,19,17,14). 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. Looks more like Sam Thompson every time I look at him.

13. Gavvy Cravvath (20,20,19,15). 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. In trying to weigh out the different factors, I'll give him enough credit for his minor league days to just get him on the ballot.

14. Bill Monroe (23,23,22,17). He looks better in comparison to the later negro league arrivals (Poles, Foster) than the initial ones (Johnson, Grant).

15. Spot Poles (18). For me, he needs a longer career and a better prime. I don't see any reason to get too excited about him. I don't see him being better than any of the outfielders ahead of him.
   29. Howie Menckel Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:31 PM (#719015)
Hmm, that list has 53 players.
Have we elected 53, or 54, thru 1929? Just checking..
   30. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:32 PM (#719018)
The not ready for primetime players:

16. Pete Browning (24,24,23,16). Could freakin' hit. But not long enough.
17. Lip Pike (36,39,29,19). Keeps rising & rising. Now stuck in a glut of OFers at the edge of the ballot that could best be described as: "If only they'd been that good for a few more years. . ."
18. Joe Tinker (15,16,15,20). 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.
19. Herman Long (16,17,18,21). Only SS whose glove rivals Tinker's.
20. Addie Joss (25,25,24,22). Could freakin' pitch. But not for enough innings.
21. Eddie Cicotte (28,28,23). Decent prime, but not as good as Waddell, with only a slightly longer career & similar RA+s.
22. Ed Williamson (26,26,25,24). Very good third baseman. Similar, though clearly inferior, to Jimmy Collins.
23. Lave Cross (34,37,37,25). Weird career. OK for a long time. Great defense, but banal offense. Possibly the worst hitter to ever get 2500 hits, but still, he got those hits & had that glove.
24. Rube Waddell (30,27,26,26). The king of unearned runs - & considering how important his ERA+ is to his candidacy, that really hurts. Entry of Vaughn & Cicotte helps him.
25. Larry Gardner. (new). Hall of Very Gooder. Nice career, but not long enough to get in that way. Nice prime, but he ain't Frank Baker. Good defense, not great.
26. Hugh Duffy (31,32,27,27). Needs either better rate stats or more games. He's a tweener - in a bad way. Periodic re-evaluation boosts him a little.
27. Tommy Bond (21,21,20,28). 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).
28. Silver King (22,22,21,29). Another pre-'93 pitcher with a strong peak/primer.
29. Bruce Petway (30). Good catcher, but needs to hit better. Duration gets him this high. This may be too high, but since I can't see him ever making the ballot that doesn't concern me too much.
30. Johnny Evers (27,29,30,31). Another of those Cubs whose career fizzled out too soon.
31. Jack Clement (28,30,31,32). My choice for best cather available. Bresnahan was a better hitter, but Clement did more hitting at catcher.
32. Rube Foster (29,31,32,33). He turned into the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man too quickly for me to see him as a HoMer.
33. Hippo Vaughn (33,33,34). Nice prime, but that's it, & it wasn't a great prime.
34. Ed Konetchy (34,34,35). 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. Del Pratt. (new). Similar but a little worse than Johnny Evers.
36. Charlie Buffinton (32,35,35,36). A very good pitcher during his time.
37. Roger Bresnahan (33,36,36,37). Not enough games at catcher to get in as a catcher & not nearly enough games to get in as anything else.
38. Harry Davis (35,38,38,38). My choice for best 1Bman from the 1900's.
39. Jake Daubert (new). Directly comparable to but not quite as good as Ed Konetchy.
40. John McGraw (37,40,39,39). Great peak, but not nearly enough games.
41. Vic Willis (43,46,45,40). Banal W/L record despite average run support & some very good defensive support.
42. Tony Mullane (38,41,40,41). Very good in a weak league. Never dominated. Voluntarily sat out a year so gets no bonus points for that from me.
43. Hughie Jennings (39,42,41,42). Five great years & not much else - lands you this low on my ballot.
44. Frank Chance (40,43,42,43). Best peak of any 1Bman between ABC & Sisler.
45. Roy Thomas (41,44,43,44). There was an OBP God & he lived in Philly, but not for long enough.
46. Jim McCormick (42,45,44,45). Good pitcher for a while.
   31. ronw Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:33 PM (#719019)
I think my numbers are off, but Matt's chart means that the theoretical James wouldn't have elected Joe Kelley, Bobby Wallace and Willie Keeler from the '90s-00s, Glasscock, Galvin and Bennett from the '80s, and Sutton, Spalding, Barnes, White, Hines, Wright, McVey, and Start, who all have significant '70s time (and some '80s and '60s).
   32. Paul Wendt Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:39 PM (#719027)
Kelly in SD #9
Does anyone know where to find [Baseball Magazine's] All-Star lists from 1920-1950 or other post-season All-Star teams, such as the Sporting News, online? Thank you.

When did The Sporting News begin selecting stars? Did Sporting Life select any? Does anyone here know other postseason stars or awards by leagues, local newspapers, etc?

Paul Wendt
maintainer, Deadball Era Resources
   33. PhillyBooster Posted: July 06, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#719030)
mm, that list has 53 players.
Have we elected 53, or 54, thru 1929? Just checking..


56 actually. My list excluded Johnson, Grant, and Hill.

Ron, I believe, is accurate. Kelley, Wallace and Keeler are part of the James-backlog. The rest are all never going to be elected by James.
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 06, 2004 at 04:01 PM (#719052)
No newbies on my ballot this year. In fact, my ballot should be identical to my last one, though I'm going over the pitchers and Poles again.
   35. dan b Posted: July 06, 2004 at 04:04 PM (#719055)
A while back I also constructed a Bill James HoM. Mine differed from Matt's, as I divided the pitchers rank by 2.5 instead of 2 - I think 20% is a bit light for pitchers. I don't have the results with me, but do recall that Caruthers was selected in 1898.
   36. PhillyBooster Posted: July 06, 2004 at 04:15 PM (#719083)
Yes, that was my first thought, but then I thought I'd likely get outside the Top 100 pitchers. Mostly, I made a subjective judgment that I didn't want to start out electing Tommy Bond in 1898. If you use 2.5, replace Ned Williamson with Tommy Bond and Harry Stovey with Bob Caruthers. Griffith also moves up near the top of the backlog. Joss and Willis also make the ballot.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:26 PM (#719217)
Random thoughts as we enter a whole new decade.

1. My dad was 19 in 1930. The decade started with a recession that became The Great Depression and lasted pretty much the whole decade. By the end of the decade, the threat of war was palpable. It wasn't a great time for a lot of people.

2. But in baseball it is still remembered as a part of (continuation) of the Golden Age. Not quite so golden with the decline of Ruth and Hornsby maybe, but still characterized by larger-than-life offensive achievements that were not equalled until the 1990s.

3. The onset of the Golden Age in 1920 will not really be felt in the HoM for another decade, with the eligibility of the aforementioned Babe and Rajah. But we will shortly see players becoming eligible who became established in the dead ball era but still excelled with the lively ball--players like Johnson and Wheat in '33, Cobb, Speaker and Collins in '34, and etc.

4. We will also see the impact of the Golden Age with the establishment of a rival to our HoM, something called the hall of fame, whatever that means, in Cooperstown, NY, of all places. It will be interesting to see if they elect the same players we did or if they go in some other direction. It will also be interesting to see if the place amounts to anything.

5. The most important reflection of the Golden Age, however, will be that of the Golden Age of the Negro Leagues, as what has been a trickly of negro stars will become a steady stream as soon as 1932.

6. We will also reach the point where (at least by my reckoning) half of "elite" baseball history will be in the 20th century and half in the 19th. That will be in 1935 (for me) since I date "elite" baseball from 1865 (or '66) and the end of the Civil War. The 19th century will rapidly fade as a part of this project. After 1932-33-34, I doubt that we will pick more than 4-5 19th century players or about one every 20 years. I wonder how we did with the 19th century?

7. Finally, our "drought" was originally defined as extending through 1934 (exclusive of '34). From what I've learned--especially concerning the Negro Leagues--I think we really only have two more drought or backlog years left.

7a. In 1932, I see Mendez and Santop as almost NBs.

7b. In 1933, you've got Walter Johnson and Zack Wheat, though maybe another backlogger squeezes ahead of Wheat but I doubt it.

So how to spend those last three backlog positions?
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:31 PM (#719229)
Prelim. And how I would spend those last three backlog positions.

1. Pearce--would elect in 1930.
2. Caruthers--would elect in 1930.
3. Jennings
4. Bond
5. Pike--would elect one of these three in 1931 and then we would be mostly done with the 19th century.
6. C. Jones
7. Childs
(7a. Jimmy Collins makes my PHoM in 1930.)
8. Williamson
(8a. Frank Grant makes my PHoM in 1930.)
9. Rube Foster (queued up to make my PHoM in 1931.)
10. Doyle
11. McCormick
12. Monroe
13. Browning
14. Poles
15. Sheckard or Duffy or Waddell

Future PHoMers
In 1932, Mendez and Santop look like PHoMers.
In 1933, Johnson and a LFer from among Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Magee, Pete Hill or Zack Wheat.
1934--Cobb and Speaker
1935--Collins and Lloyd
1936--Alexander and Williams
1937--Torriente and Heilmann
Then it gets hard again.
   39. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:37 PM (#719239)
7a. In 1932, I see Mendez and Santop as almost NBs.

I think it's a bit premature to assume Mendez will get in right away. His career length if nothing else will hurt him with some.
   40. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:39 PM (#719244)
2. But in baseball it is still remembered as a part of (continuation) of the Golden Age. Not quite so golden with the decline of Ruth and Hornsby maybe, but still characterized by larger-than-life offensive achievements that were not equalled until the 1990s.


We may not notice this because we use almost exclusively used adjusted numbers but offense-levels dropped in the NL following the big 1930 season. Starting in 1931, run totals in the NL were quite a bit lower than the AL and remained that way for the rest of the decade.

Carl Hubbell's career ERA is lower than Lefty Grove's which may seem surprising.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:45 PM (#719257)
David, but Chuck Klein's and Hack Wilson's and Bill Terry's individual exploits after 1930 are still eye-popping, though less so in 2004 than in 1994.

And the league differential is because of the DH, right? ;-)
   42. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:51 PM (#719268)
David, but Chuck Klein's and Hack Wilson's and Bill Terry's individual exploits after 1930 are still eye-popping

Actually, after 1930 Hack Wilson never hit more than 23 homers nor did he ever hit .300.
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: July 06, 2004 at 05:51 PM (#719269)
Oh, and Chris, I wasn't predicting the HoM voting (Mendez and Santop in 1932), just where I'm leaning myself for my PHoM.

The real test of whether short Negro League careers will be treated any different than short ML careers is Dobie Moore. He is basically Hughie Jennings--5 magnificent years and nothing else (broken leg that never healed).

Mendez' pitching career was short, yes, but he is a poor man's John Ward, able to do other things and do them very well to stay active in the game, until his arm actually came back a bit. Or maybe he is a poor man's Bob Caruthers (oh oh, the kiss of death). In any event, a very unique man and career.
   44. OCF Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:02 PM (#719294)
In 1916, Del Pratt drove in 103 runs for a team that only scored 588 runs and only had 499 RBI. I seem to recall Bill James flagging that as the (20th century?) highest proportion of team RBI by any one player, but I can't find the reference.

So I looked at the 1916 Browns. They seem to have a classic structured batting order, unusually easy to diagnose just from the stats in bbref, and Pratt was sitting in the payoff spot of that order.

They had a leadoff specialist in the Roy Thomas/Fielder Jones class in Burt Shotton. (Fielder Jones was the manager.) Shotton: .283/.392/.345 (in a .251/.324/.328 environment) with 97 R and 36 RBI. Shotton was one of three people who didn't sacrifice; the other two (SS Lavan and C Severeid) were, I would guess, batting 7th and 8th.

The other two outfielders, Marsans and Miller, also had OBP > SLG. I was a little surprised in 1916 to see the name "Armando Marsans"; apparently he was the very first Cuban in MLB. Anyway, I would guess that Ward Miller batted 2nd. Part of the evidence for that was that Miller led the team in sacrifices. Miller: .266/.371/.328, 72 R, 50 RBI.

The best hitter on the team was George Sisler who batted third, but Sisler didn't have enough power to claim that many of the available RBIs, leaving many opportunities for the cleanup hitter to follow. Sisler: .305/.355/.400, 83 R, 76 RBI.

Then Pratt got to clean up that - that's a rather rich RBI environment, with plenty of runners on base and plenty in scoring position. Pratt had more isolated power than Sisler, with XBH 35-12-5 to Sisler's 21-11-4. Pratt was also the only player to appear in all 158 (!) of the team's games. So Pratt's .267/.331/.391 resulted in 103 RBI - and only 64 runs, as the back half of the order was dead. Marsans, who must have been batting 5th, did at least have 60 RBI, and, as the best base stealer on the team, 51 R.

Over his career, Pratt was nowhere near as good a hitter as Doyle, and nowhere near as good as Childs. I just wanted to take a closer look at that one year.
   45. andrew siegel Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:20 PM (#719305)
A prelim:

(1) Jimmy Sheckard (1st)-- Surprised he didn't make it last year.

(2) George Van Haltren (2nd)
(3) Cupid Childs (5th)
(4) Jimmy Ryan (4th)
(5) Hughie Jennings (6th)
Looking over things decade by decade, I think we've been awfully hard on the 1890s. I think we've got room for another handful from that decade and these are my top choices. One of the things that has been holding the decade back is that, once you get past the obvious, there is no clear pecking order. I've gone with two based on career numbers, one who was briefly the best player in the game, and one who dominated his position but I can see a list that ditches some of these guys for other possibilities. I can't see stopping with the 1890s now though.

(6) Bob Caruthers (7th)-- Having crunched the numbers for 30 "years" I find his resume very similar to Hughie Jennings--a unique combination of offense and defense that made him one of the very best in the game for a wondeful five year period.

(7) Larry Doyle (15th)-- I've been underrating him too; he's the top second-tier candidate of the 1910s; ranks one step behind Childs but only one.

(8) Hugh Duffy (13th)-- He'd be my next 1890s guy. I've been gradually increasing my reliance on WARP and decrearing my reliance on WS just b/c/ the WARP numbers are more accessible online. This ranking (and Doyle's) corrects for that silly methodological slide.

(9) Frank Chance (11th)-- Not thrilled to have him here, but I'd sooner induct him than everyone below. Accomplished a lot in an awful short time.

(10) Charley Jones (8th)-- Very similar to Sam Thomspon in every respect; probably a better player in his place and time than Thompson was in his. He slides a bit due to my sense that I've been overrating the 1870s and 1880s in comparison with latter decades.

(11) Lip Pike (9th)-- Like Jones, just not sure whether--when pushes comes to shove--there is room for another B+ player from a well-represented era. Also continue to have lingering suspicisions that his contemporaries (who were more privvy to his fielding, his effort, his team-jumping, and his possible game-throwing) would laugh at us if we induct him.

(12) Ed Williamson (10th)
(13) Roger Bresnahan (unranked)
(14) Clark Griffith (14th)
(15) Spotswood Poles or Mickey Welch (both unranked)
From 10 on up, I'd vote "yes" if our ballot were binary. I'm on the fence on Pike. This group (12-15) strike me as a fairly nice cross-section of the best players for whom I'd vote "no."

I'll look at the evidence on Foster again, but I think his later fame has given him a bump ahead of some similarly talented contemporaries. Remember that I vote my best guess of excluded players rather than probabilistically. That system has helped Grant, Johnson, and Hill (who I ranked highly despite some lingering doubts) and hampered the likes of Monroe, Poles, and Foster (who I've kept low despite some real chance that they were as good as the others). FWIW, Ben Taylor looks like he will soon be another victim.
   46. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:24 PM (#719309)
David, but Chuck Klein's and Hack Wilson's and Bill Terry's individual exploits after 1930 are still eye-popping, though less so in 2004 than in 1994.


I don't have time to reformat the numbers, but the R/G differential between the AL & the NL was often as much as a full run per game between 1931 and 1942.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml

The AL still had extremely high offense levels while the NL was much closer to historical averages.

Again, we may not notice because OPS+, WS and WARP should all automatically adjust for this.

Its just a weird historical quirk that has always fascinated me. Its right up there with the Post-WWII Walk Boom.
   47. karlmagnus Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:28 PM (#719315)
Andrew Siegel, if you want the 1890s, what about Beckley? It's all very well sneering at his lack of peak, but his career stats are enormous, looked at from 1930 (they look less grand from 2004, but that's because of the season expansion of 1962, the career length expansion of the 1970s and the offensive explosion of the 1990s.
   48. yest Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:28 PM (#719316)
Kelly in SD wrote
(.........Welch...Keefe
Galvin....26-11...8-6
Clarkson..12-5....9-10
Radbourn..17-10..14-10
Rusie......2-0....5-2
Nichols....0-1....3-3
Ward.......4-7....3-7
Young......NR.....0-2
totals:...61-34..42-40
----------.642---.512)


So if this is accurate
Mickey Welch’s winning% is .091 points lower then his career winning% against HoM pitchers.
and Tim Keefe’s winning% is .048 points HIGHER then his career winning% against HoM pitchers.

I heard some voters say they wouldn’t vote for Welch because didn’t have any black ink.
In 1885 he had 800 winning% with 44 wins and 11 losses and
Danny Richardson had a 875 winning% going 7 and 1.
I sincerely doubt anyone one here would make Danny Richardson the leader in winning%.
also in 1899 he led in saves with 2.

I also heard some voters say they wouldn’t vote for Welch is because they feel that there five 1880’s pitchers is too much for the HoM.
(Galvin, Keefe, Clarkson, Radburne and hopefully Welch)
Then what do you say to a bought how many shortstops there are in the early 1900’s.
(Davis, Dahlen, Wagner, Wallace, Home Run Johnson and John Henry Lloyd will probably also make the HoM. With a few more shortstops are still gathering a few votes)
   49. PhillyBooster Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:34 PM (#719326)
"I was a little surprised in 1916 to see the name "Armando Marsans"; apparently he was the very first Cuban in MLB."

Marsans was teammates with Jose Mendez and Dolph Luque in Cuba, and a good player on those teams, although not one of the best.

He was not, however, the first Cuban major leaguer.
   50. OCF Posted: July 06, 2004 at 06:47 PM (#719342)
Thanks for the correction, PhillyBooster - I realize now that I uncritically took the word of Marsans's bbref page sponsor.

Assuming the date of birth given for Marsans is correct, he played in the US majors from age 23 through 30, 1911-1918. The three entries on his transaction line say that he twice jumped leagues (although in one case the league he jumped from was dead) and was once traded for a crook. One of the names on his most similar list: Jose Tartabull.
   51. TomH Posted: July 06, 2004 at 07:08 PM (#719379)
Negro League 'quotas', and Andrew Foster:

I am against using quotas (for the HoM and in other matters like college admissions) when better tools are available. However, when discussing Negro Leaguers, I am unashamed to admit defeat in the quest for good comparative analysis, and in the end Negro Leaguers will be competing more against their own when it comes to spots on my ballot.

So, for me to vote for Andrew Foster (who hasn't appeared on my ballot so far), he will have to be one of the top 7 NegLeg pitchers. To make the top half of my ballot this year, he would have to be one of the top 5 NegLeg pitchers. This seems to be a tall task. I count 4 clearly above him: Paige, Williams, B Foster, Rogan. After that the competition seems to be Brown, Cooper, Byrd, Winters, Mendez, Hilton Smith(?), maybe others I've missed. I don't see any consensus from NegLeg experts that place Andrew Foster on top of this second group. I'm very open to voting for him, but frineds of Foster will have to convince me that he belongs.
   52. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 07:50 PM (#719440)
Just a small correction to Yest's post #48:

Mickey Welch's winning percentage against HoMers is 48 points better than his career - .642 vs .594.
Tim Keefe's winning percentage against HoMers is 91 points worse than his career - .512 vs .603.
   53. DavidFoss Posted: July 06, 2004 at 07:57 PM (#719454)
I am against using quotas (for the HoM and in other matters like college admissions) when better tools are available. However, when discussing Negro Leaguers, I am unashamed to admit defeat in the quest for good comparative analysis, and in the end Negro Leaguers will be competing more against their own when it comes to spots on my ballot.


Yeah... this works great for a fully stocked ballot and backlog, but this candidate gap is making for some awfully thin ballots. I'm trying to at least keep in mind that the Negro Leaguers should have the same advantages of "ballot timing" that their white contempories are getting in the late 20's and early 30's elections.
   54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 06, 2004 at 08:02 PM (#719466)
The problem I'm having with the Keefe/Welch comparisons is we need to know what inning all of these runs were being given up by those two, plus what innings their teams drove in their runs in support of those two pitchers. By doing this, we can better see if Welch was "pitching to the score." I don't think we can do this at the present time. That means we need to check each game they played inning-by-inning. Sounds like fun to me! :-)
   55. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#719520)
John Murphy's Grandma wrote:
That means we need to check each game they played inning-by-inning. Sounds like fun to me!
I am a friend (some might say best friend) of Welch and that project sounds off-putting even to me.
   56. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 08:46 PM (#719549)
Prelim Ballot Time:

1. Mickey Welch: See my other posts

2. Jimmy Sheckard: 3rd most career WS among eligibles. 4th highest 3 cons yrs WS. 2nd highest 7 best yrs WS. 3 seasons with 30+ WS - best. Defense: WS "A" despite being a LF. Also, 5 WS Gold Gloves (only Leach has more). Part of winningest team in history.
Among LF enshrined, he would be 4th in career WS, 5th in 3 cons yr, 6th in 7 best yrs, 3rd most 20+ yrs, 3rd most 30+ yrs.

3. Bob Caruthers: Great peak. 5 straight years MVP candidate - 1st or 2nd in WS 1885-1889. 5 times WS AllStar. 5 straight years top 3 in fewest WHIP. Ranks 3rd in career win% behind a HoM and a teammate who started 100+ fewer games. In wins per 50 starts (pre1893 pitchers), only Spalding averaged more than Caruthers' 33. It was a short career, but it the peak was incredibly high.

4. Jake Beckley: In contrast, a long career, that is either all peak that is really low or no peak at all. Still, 3 WS AllStars and 3 STATS AllStars. Also, 318 career WS is 5th among eligibles and his 280 batting WS is the best. Good ISO of .127. Great career totals among players retired by 1922: 6th most career hits behind 5 HoMers, 6th most XBH behind 5 HoMers, 11th most runs behind 8 HoMers and Ryan and GVH, 4th most RBI behind 3 HoMers, 5th most 2B behind 4 HoMers, 3rd most 3B behind 2 HoMers.

5. Cupid Childs: Dominant Second Baseman of 1890s. 7 WS AllStars, 6 STATS AllStars. 2nd highest OBP among eligibles. 6th most WS in 1890s among position players. 7 top 10 in OBP. 11 top 10 in walks.

6. Pete Browning: Dominant LF/CF in AA. 5 WS AllStars, 8 STATS AllStars. He has the most WS/162g among eligibles - 31. 162 OPS+ is highest among eligibles. Even with large discounts, he is still in the middle of elected players at his two positions.

7. Dickey Pearce: Revolutionized/Created modern concept of shortstop. Top 2 player on team 1857-64. Hiccup in 1865-6. Top 3 hitter on team 1867-70 plus defensive ability. The above average fielding stats from 1871-78 at ages 35-41 indicate he must have been tremendous at earlier ages.

8. Hugh Duffy: 5th most WS 3 cons yrs, most WS 7 best yrs. "A+" defensive CF. 5 WS AllStars. Black Ink total is 2nd behind Cravath, Grey Ink is 2nd C.Jones. I know it was a hitters' era, but compared with all eligibles only McGraw scored more per game no one drove more in. Also, he had at least 7 top 10s in hits, runs, RBI, and total bases. I think he was a key reason (along with Nichols) that the Beanneaters were the best of the 1890s.

9. George Van Haltren: So many CF, so many different ways to line them up. Pitching ability boosts over Thomas, Ryan, Duffy. Most WS among eligibles - 344. Most 20+ WS seasons among eligibles - 12. Best outfield arm of 1890s per NBJHBA.

10. Charley Jones: Another power-hitting LF. His 30 WS per 162g is one of the highest among eligibles. 5 Stats AllStars and 4 WS AllStars despite having 2.2 yrs stolen by owners. Great Grey Ink - 162.

11. Tommy Leach: Maybe the best fielder eligible - WS "A+" at both 3rd and OF. 328 WS is one of highest available. 189 WS over best 7 yrs is 3rd best. Combined position totals: 3 STATS AllStars, 5 WS AllStars. 7 top 10 WS in National League.

12. Bill Monroe: Generally a middle of the order hitter per Riley. McGraw called him the best player ever per Riley. I wish I had more to go on. But McGraw's comment will lift him over Doyle for sure.

13. Lip Pike: Another CF (just throw a dart) [just kidding]. Great hitter it appears from OPS+ and the Black and Grey Ink tests. Excellent ISO of .144. I wish he ranked better on his teams pre-NA. Also, wish his outfield defensive numbers were more consistent.

14: Frank Chance: Best 1b of 1900s. Excellent 30 WS per 162g. 6 STATS AllStars, 6 WS AllStars, 4 WS best in majors 1B. Great speed. Excellent 135 OPS+. Per SABR's Deadball Stars book - stopped playing regularly b/c severe cumulative effects from beanings - 10 out of 11 years he was top 10 in HBP.

15: Konetchy: Best 1b of 1910s. 4 Stats AllStars, 7 WS AllStars, 3 WS best in majors. 5 WS Gold Gloves. Top 10 triples - 9 times, RBI: 7, XBH: 8. BA: 6 times, SLG: 5.
   57. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 08:55 PM (#719561)
To Friends of Larry Doyle, Jimmy Ryan, Clark Griffith, Rube Foster, Spots Poles, Addie Joss, Rube Waddell, Hughie Jennings, John McGraw, Gavy Cravath, and Roger Bresnahan. These are the next 11 on my list. Most of my eligibles are not far above these next 11. I would like to hear various arguments please.
All of the eligibles have weaknesses. There is no eligible who has the combination of high peak with long career. Please make the strongest argument you can. These next 2 or 3 years, 3-5 electees, will be difficult choices and I want to be sure I am electing the best.
   58. KJOK Posted: July 06, 2004 at 09:35 PM (#719644)
When did The Sporting News begin selecting stars? Did Sporting Life select any? Does anyone here know other postseason stars or awards by leagues, local newspapers, etc?

The Sporting News started selecting a TSN MVP in 1929 and a TSN Player of the Year in 1936. Will have to check on "stars" teams.

Baseball Alamanc has a good list of awards:

Baseball Awards
   59. KJOK Posted: July 06, 2004 at 10:12 PM (#719702)
Looks like 1925 was the first TSN All-star team unless I missed them earlier....

FIRST TEAM
Goslin, LF
Carey, CF
Cuyler, RF
Traynor, 3B
Wright, SS
Hornsby, 2B
Bottomley, 1B
Cochrane, C
Vance, P
Johnson, P
Rommel, P

2ND TEAM
Wheat, LF
Speaker, CF
Heilman, RF
Frisch, 3B
Bancroft, SS
Collins, 2B
Sisler, 1B
Ruel, C
Aldridge, P
Coveleskie, P
Pennock, P
   60. OCF Posted: July 06, 2004 at 10:14 PM (#719706)
For Kelly's sake:

One argument for Ryan, Griffith, Jennings, and McGraw is that we may (or may not) be headed towards underrepresenting their decade. However, Kelly does have Beckley, Childs, Duffy, and Van Haltren on his ballot.

I'm not going to try to compare 60'6" pitchers to those who threw from closer in; Kelly has made his own choice there anyway, with Welch and Caruthers in his top three.

I'll take the three post-'93 pitchers he mentioned and throw in Vic Willis. I have my version of adjusted records, based on RA+ and IP; Chris J. has a different version based on decisions and support. The following is my version.

Pitcher     Record    Adj. Record
Griffith    237-146    203-146
Joss        160- 97    161- 98
Waddell     193-143    200-129
Willis      249-205    248-196


In Willis's case, the adjustment involved noting that he was backed by a great defense and adjusting his run environment accordingly; there's no such adjustment for the other three. The single best year among them appears to be Griffith's 1898 at an adjusted 27-9, although the defensive adjustment moves Willis's 1899 from 28-10 to 24-4. Waddell's 1905 adjusts to 26-11, and Joss's 1908 to 25-11. Please note that that I am holding Waddell (along with the others) as responsible for his unearned runs as his earned runs.

Griffith was a pretty good hitter for a pitcher: career OPS+ 69. Waddell, Joss, and Willis were all terrible as hitters. Waddell was also a bad fielder, but that has already been accounted for in his RA.

My order among these pitchers is Waddell > Willis > Griffith > several others, one of whom is Joss. I understand the arguments of those who would single out Griffith as the best remaining 90's pitcher and defend the choice with the idea that Griffith pitched to the score and avoided shutouts. Griffith was a smart man who became an owner; Waddell was, well, not that.

For the years 1893-1919, we've already honored or are dead certain to honor 10 pitchers: Young, Nichols, Rusie, Walsh, Mathewson, Plank, Brown, McGinnity, Johnson, and Alexander. Waddell and the others are in the second line behind these (well, some of those 10 might also be in that second line), along with several teens-twenties pitchers (Rixie, Faber, Coveleski, Adams). I think Waddell is the best of those currently eligible, but not by a large margin, and I would probably take some of the teens-twenties pitchers ahead of him.
   61. Kelly in SD Posted: July 06, 2004 at 10:25 PM (#719724)
Thanks OCF.
Joss is pitcher I have a soft spot for. His rate stats are amazing. If only he didn't get sick. Willis got stuck with some horrible hitting teams, but great fielding ones. Waddell had a great peak and his strikeouts were amazing for the era, but the short career monster raises its head. Griffith (and Foster) has been the toughest pitcher for me to get a handle on. His Opponent Winning Percentage was very high if I remember a recent post correctly and he was supported by a weak team. But his numbers are rather weak compared to post93 HoMers. Pluses and Minuses.

Waddell was, well, not that. :D
   62. ronw Posted: July 06, 2004 at 10:59 PM (#719786)
Prominent 1930 newcomers (Or, Stupid Frank Baker and Eddie Collins)

Since there are not many comments on ballot candidates Larry Gardner, Del Pratt, and Jake Daubert, I figured I’d do a brief WS breakdown of their careers:

Larry Gardner – 1908-1924

1908 BosR – 0 WS, cup of coffee
1909 BosR – 2 WS, backup 3B to Harry Lord
1910 BosR – 15 WS, T4th (with Rollie Zeider) among AL 2B, behind Nap Lajoie, Collins and Jim Delahanty
1911 BosR – 18 WS, 3rd among AL 3B, behind Baker and Lord
1912 BosR – 29 WS, 2nd, behind Baker
1913 BosR – 16 WS, 2nd, behind Baker
1914 BosR – 20 WS, T3rd (with Fritz Maisel) behind Baker and Eddie Foster
1915 BosR – 14 WS, 6th, behind Ossie Vitt, Foster, Maisel, Wally Schang, and Jimmy Austin
1916 BosR – 27 WS, 1st in AL
1917 BosR – 18 WS, 3rd, behind Baker and Buck Weaver
1918 PhiA – 17 WS, 3rd, behind Baker and Eddie Foster
1919 Clev – 20 WS, T1st, with Baker and Weaver
1920 Clev – 23 WS, 1st in AL
1921 Clev – 23 WS, 1st in AL
1922 Clev – 14 WS, T2nd in AL with Joe Dugan (behind Jimmy Dykes)
1923 Clev – 2 WS, backup 3B to Rube Lutzke
1924 Clev – 0 WS, garbage time

Totals – 258 WS (possibly 12 All-Star seasons, no MVP seasons, never best 3B in baseball)

Del Pratt – 1912-1924

1912 StLB – 19 WS, 4th, behind Collins, Morrie Rath, and Lajoie
1913 StLB – 19 WS, 4th, behind Collins, Lajoie, and Ray Morgan
1914 StLB – 26 WS, 2nd, behind Collins
1915 StLB – 21 WS, 2nd, behind Collins
1916 StLB – 24 WS, 2nd, behind Collins
1917 StLB – 12 WS, T3rd, with Morgan and Ralph Young, behind Collins and Bill Wambsganss
1918 NYY – 17 WS, 1st, no missed time for wartime service
1919 NYY – 20 WS, 2nd, behind Collins
1920 NYY – 25 WS, 2nd, behind Collins
1921 BosR – 20 WS, T2nd with Bucky Harris and Aaron Ward, behind Collins
1922 BosR – 19 WS, 3rd, behind Collins and Marty McManus
1923 Det – 9 WS, backup to Fred Haney
1924 Det – 11 WS, T6th with Wambsganss, behind Collins, McManus, Dykes, Harris, and Ward

Totals – 242 WS (possibly 11 All-Star seasons, no MVP seasons, never best 2B in baseball)

Jake Daubert – 1910-1924

1910 Broo – 17 WS, 4th, behind Ed Konetchy, Fred Merkle and Dick Hoblitzell
1911 Broo – 20 WS, T2nd with Fred Luderus, behind Konetchy
1912 Broo – 17 WS, 4th, behind Konetchy, Hoblitzell, Merkle
1913 Broo – 17 WS, 4th, behind Vic Saier, Konetchy, Dots Miller
1914 Broo – 19 WS, T3rd with Bob Schmidt, behind Saier and Miller
1915 Broo – 27 WS, 1st in NL, won actual MVP award
1916 Broo – 21 WS, 3rd, behind Konetchy and Hal Chase
1917 Broo – 12 WS, 6th, behind Merkle, Luderus, Chase, Walter Holke, and Konetchy
1918 Broo – 15 WS, T3rd with Luderus, behind Merkle and Sherry Magee
1919 Cin – 17 WS, 3rd, behind Konetchy and Luderus
1920 Cin – 24 WS, 1st in NL
1921 Cin – 12 WS, 6th, behind Jack Fournier, George Kelly, Ray Grimes, Charlie Grimm, and Konetchy
1922 Cin – 24 WS, 2nd, behind Grimes
1923 Cin – 13 WS, 5th, behind Fournier, Jim Bottomley, Grimm, and Kelly
1924 Cin – 8 WS, 8th, behind Fournier, Kelly, Bottomley, Grimm, McInnis, Grimes, Holke, and teammate Rube Bressler

Totals – 263 WS (possibly 11 All-Star seasons, 1 MVP season (1915), never best 1B in baseball)

Gardner reminds me a great deal of Jimmy Collins, but Collins was more often the best 3B in the league, not having to compete against Frank Baker.

Pratt reminds me of Cupid Childs, again with Childs as the best 2B in the league more often without an Eddie Collins as competition.

Daubert is Jake Beckley with a shorter career. Although his competition was not terrific, he managed to top his league position only twice. Most of the time, his contemporary Ed Konetchy was better.

None will make my ballot before the 33-34 inundation of candidates, but perhaps in later lean years, Gardner, then Pratt, then Daubert will sneak onto my ballot.
   63. yest Posted: July 06, 2004 at 11:12 PM (#719821)
Games against HoM pitchers
-------------Welch-------------Keefe
Galvin------37 Games---------14 Games
Clarkson----17 Games---------19 Games
Radbourn----27 Games---------24 Games
Rusie--------2 Games----------7 Games
Nichols------1 Game-----------6 Games
Ward--------11 Games---------10 Games
Young--------0 Games----------2 Games
career------95 Games---------82 Games

Games against HoM pitchers who pitched for most of the 1880’s
-------------Welch-----------Keefe
Galvin------37 Games--------14 Games
Clarkson----17 Games--------19 Games
Radbourn----27 Games--------24 Games
career------81 Games--------57 games

Since they played for the most part on the same team this shows that either
The manager thought Welch was the better pitcher,
They were saving Keefe for the weaker teams, or
We made a big mistake in picking Galvin, Clarkson, and Radbourn as the best pitchers of the 1880’s
   64. EricC Posted: July 06, 2004 at 11:34 PM (#719905)
No newcomers will make my ballot this year.

Larry Gardner is about 27th on my ballot. He joins my Hall of the Very Good infielder glut, which includes Larry Doyle, Tommy Leach, Sol White, and Ed Williamson.

I have Del Pratt about 50th. Most similar player: Tom Daly.

Jake Daubert is even lower. Similar to Fred Tenney.

John Donaldson is only shown as pitching for 9 seasons in Holway's book. He wins one Holway George Stovey award (= CYA) in 1916 with a 5-1 record against Negro League competition. The rest of his career, he was 13-14 against NL competition (incomplete data).

Now, on to my prelim ballot. Everybody moves up a spot or so.

1. Rube Foster
2. Roger Bresnahan
3. Jake Beckley
4. George "Rube" Waddell
5. Eddie Cicotte
6. George Van Haltren
7. Lip Pike
8. Jimmy Ryan
9. Hughie Jennings
10. Frank Chance
11. Dickey Pearce
12. Cupid Childs
13. Hugh Duffy
14. John McGraw
15. Jimmy Sheckard
   65. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 07, 2004 at 03:25 AM (#720822)
Willis got stuck with some horrible hitting teams, but great fielding ones.

Not really. His career run support was average, actually barely above average. Defensive support was good. And the worst hitting teams he played on were also the worst fielding ones.

Griffith (and Foster) has been the toughest pitcher for me to get a handle on. His Opponent Winning Percentage was very high if I remember a recent post correctly and he was supported by a weak team.

Griffith's median opponent winning percentage was very high. His support from his team was better than you think as he had good run support & his defensive support was positive (+6.3), but not as high as most of the other pitchers of his era.
   66. Jeff M Posted: July 07, 2004 at 03:50 AM (#720832)
Finished my WS Sim Score sheet, using the following:

1000 minus
1 point for every 20 games played
1 point for each WS difference in 3-year peak
2 points for each WS difference in 5-year peak
2 points for each WS difference in 7-year peak
2 points for each WS difference in 9-year peak
4 points for each WS difference in career
10 points for each WS difference in per 162g rate

I'm working on adjusting the older players for season-length so the comparisons will be more meaningful. For now, they are just raw WS (with my WS calcs for 1871-1873 and estimated WS for NA play 1874-1875).

Here are the WS Sim Scores for the four primary hitters newly eligible. Number in parentheses is the sim score. Numbers after the player line are his 3, 5, 7 and 9 year peaks, career WS and WS/162g:

Del Pratt:
75-116-155-193-242-21.35

with position adjustment
LOPES, DAVEY (963)
78-123-160-192-240-21.46

McAULIFFE, DICK (957)
GILLIAM, JIM (934)
MYER, BUDDY (921)
HUGGINS, MILLER (885)
----

without position adjustment
MADLOCK, BILL (964)
76-122-155-184-242-21.71

DAVIS, HARRY (963)
LOPES, DAVEY (963)
McAULIFFE, DICK (957)
BELL, JAY (953)

--------------------------------
Larry Gardner
79-122-160-195-258-21.73

with position adjustment
VENTURA, ROBIN (931)
85-127-167-201-266-21.80

WILLIAMS, MATT (921)
YOST, EDDIE (920)
MADLOCK, BILL (911)
TRAYNOR, PIE* (895)
----

without position adjustment
MYER, BUDDY (979)
80-120-157-190-258-21.73

TINKER, JOE* (971)
HOY, DUMMY (954)
LEMON, CHET (953)
FRANCO, JULIO (951)

-------------------------------
Jake Daubert
75-116-152-186-262-21.15

with position adjustment
JOYNER, WALLY (943)
69-112-152-187-253-20.16

TENNEY, FRED (921)
GALARRAGA, ANDRES (905)
DAVIS, HARRY (885)
BOTTOMLEY, JIM* (880)
----

without position adjustment
BURKS, ELLIS (977)
76-118-155-185-260-21.18

MONDAY, RICK (973)
O'NEILL, PAUL (969)
MATTHEWS, GARY (959)
LEMON, CHET (957)

-------------------------------
Amos Strunk
64-99-129-149-174-18.64

with position adjustment
PUHL, TERRY (976)
65-102-130-153-176-18.62

BUHNER, JAY (966)
RUDI, JOE (957)
SANDERS, REGGIE (956)
WALKER, TILLY (955)
----

without position adjustment
PUHL, TERRY (976)
HERZOG, BUCK (974)
BUHNER, JAY (966)
HERR, TOM (965)
CRANDALL, DEL (965)
   67. Kelly in SD Posted: July 07, 2004 at 06:25 AM (#720916)
Chris J.
Thank you for clarifying some bad perceptions I had. I remember seeing info about your site, but I never bookmarked it. That has been taken care of.
I guess the perception about Willis comes from the comment about best pitching staffs in the NBJHBA. The book mentioned that the 1901 Boston team had a "genuinely pathetic offense" which finished last in the league in run scored despite playing in a park which increased run scoring by 17%. I just extrapolated to his entire career.
   68. Howie Menckel Posted: July 07, 2004 at 12:29 PM (#720973)
So are those "sim shares" adjusted for era (as in 'epoch', not 'earned runs')?
   69. Al Peterson Posted: July 07, 2004 at 01:15 PM (#720986)
Jake Daubert – 1910-1924

1910 Broo – 17 WS, 4th, behind Ed Konetchy, Fred Merkle and Dick Hoblitzell
1911 Broo – 20 WS, T2nd with Fred Luderus, behind Konetchy
1912 Broo – 17 WS, 4th, behind Konetchy, Hoblitzell, Merkle
1913 Broo – 17 WS, 4th, behind Vic Saier, Konetchy, Dots Miller
1914 Broo – 19 WS, T3rd with Bob Schmidt, behind Saier and Miller
1915 Broo – 27 WS, 1st in NL, won actual MVP award
1916 Broo – 21 WS, 3rd, behind Konetchy and Hal Chase
1917 Broo – 12 WS, 6th, behind Merkle, Luderus, Chase, Walter Holke, and Konetchy
1918 Broo – 15 WS, T3rd with Luderus, behind Merkle and Sherry Magee
1919 Cin – 17 WS, 3rd, behind Konetchy and Luderus
1920 Cin – 24 WS, 1st in NL
1921 Cin – 12 WS, 6th, behind Jack Fournier, George Kelly, Ray Grimes, Charlie Grimm, and Konetchy
1922 Cin – 24 WS, 2nd, behind Grimes
1923 Cin – 13 WS, 5th, behind Fournier, Jim Bottomley, Grimm, and Kelly
1924 Cin – 8 WS, 8th, behind Fournier, Kelly, Bottomley, Grimm, McInnis, Grimes, Holke, and teammate Rube Bressler

Totals – 263 WS (possibly 11 All-Star seasons, 1 MVP season (1915), never best 1B in baseball)


Someone needs to explain the 1911-13 NL MVP voting to me. Daubert played on teams finishing 7th, 7th, and 6th yet places in the top 10 in MVP balloting, winning in 1913 as the 4th best 1st basemen?!? Were the writers watching a different game or not watching at all?
   70. PhillyBooster Posted: July 07, 2004 at 01:25 PM (#720993)
The more I look at the ballot eligibles, the more I see 300-win ace Mickey Welch sitting out there like a sore thumb. He is moving up this year. The two moving onto the bottom of my ballot are Hughie Jennings and Spotswood Poles:

1-15 in Bold
16-30 in italics
30-X in plaintext

P: Caruthers, Welch, Foster, Griffith, McCormick, Willis, Waddell, Mullane, Cicotte, Bond

C: Bresnahan, Petway, Clements, McGuire, Meyers, Kling

1B: Beckley, Chance, Konetchy, Daubert, S. White,

2B: Childs, Evers, Monroe, Doyle, Pratt

SS: Pearce, Jennings, Long, Tinker

3B: Williamson, McGraw, Leach, Gardner, Cross

LF: Sheckard, C. Jones, York, O'Neill, Dougherty

CF: Pike, van Haltren, Browning, Poles, Duffy, Ryan, F. Jones

RF: Cravath, Tiernan, Donovan, O. Burns
   71. TomH Posted: July 07, 2004 at 02:48 PM (#721037)
Okay...being out for 6 days puts me far behind in my reading. How could I handle a 2 week vacation and still be coherent in this discussion?

Lots of Mickey Welch info here. The comps to Keefe are interesting, but if anything they tell me we might consider a recall on Keefe more than we ought to elect Mickey. The fact that Mickey pitched against a large number of HoM pitchers is also interesting, but if I use his run support index, this will be accounted for.

Welch's case is not supported by WARP or ERA+. If he were to be elected, it would be if we believed his win-loss record, in context of his team, is the more true indicator of his worth.

Welch's lifetime record is 307-210. His team records in the years he pitched were 772-576. Subtracting his own games leaves 465-366. His own winning pct is .034 above his team, or an extra 18 wins. That ain't a lot, although Keefe's presence does distort this number.

Remind me (since it's time consuming to attempt to find all I've missed) if someone has analyzed that Welch's W-L record is BETTER than his runs allowed would suggest? Until I see this info, my support of Mickey will trail that of other hurlers of his day (McCormick and Caruthers).
   72. Rick A. Posted: July 07, 2004 at 03:25 PM (#721073)
1930 Prelim ballot

No new eligibles on my ballot

1. Pearce
2. C. Jones
3. Pike
4. Browning
5. Foster
6. Williamson
7. Caruthers
8. Childs
9. Jennings
10. Sheckard
11. Monroe
12. Duffy
13. Van Haltren
14. Leach
15. Poles

16-20 Griffith, Willis, Tiernan, Welch, Waddell
21-25 Doyle, Griffin, McGraw, Chance, Long
26-30 Dunlap, Beckley, Mullane, Ryan, Cravath
   73. ronw Posted: July 07, 2004 at 03:26 PM (#721074)
Someone needs to explain the 1911-13 NL MVP voting to me. Daubert played on teams finishing 7th, 7th, and 6th yet places in the top 10 in MVP balloting, winning in 1913 as the 4th best 1st basemen?!? Were the writers watching a different game or not watching at all?

I think Bill James noted that in the teen MVP years, batting average was king. (similar to RBI totals since the '70s) Is Daubert a worse selection than Don Baylor or Andre Dawson?

A high batting average partly explains Daubert's consistent high ballot placement, and his victory in a relatively weak class during 1913 (not 1915, as I mentioned above (stupid memory)). Plus, there is that New York factor.
   74. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:10 PM (#721126)
Welch's case is not supported by WARP or ERA+.

His ERA+ is affected by defense. I've come up with a method of trying to determine how above/below average a pitcher's defensive support was in his career. Here are the results for the pre-1893ers:


1) John Clarkson +29.9
2) Al Spalding +18.5
3) Tony Mullane +17.5
4) Jim McCormick +16.7
5) Bob Caruthers +16.6
6) Old Hoss Radbourn +15.7
7) Tim Keefe +15.1
8) Tommy Bond +14.3
9) Charlie Buffington +11.9
10) Silver King +11.5
11) John Ward +9.5
12) Will White +8.5
13) Bobby Mathews +8.2
14) Bill Hutchinson +6.8
15) Candy Cummings +5.4
16) Mickey Welch +5.4
17) Jim Whitney -2.2
18) Pud Galvin -7.3

Few thoughts - it really shows just how wildly important defense was to pitching back then. Welch had good defensive support, but he's still well below most of his contemporaries. He's tied with Cummings, but CC got to +5.4 in far fewer innings. This is a reason, IMHO, to devalue pitchers from that era, but it does bolster Welch in comparison to his fellow pitchers. NOTE: post-'93 pitchers also tend to have above average defensive support. I've done 140 pitchers & the average mark is +6.2, a little higher than Welch's number. (The pitchers above have an average of +11.2, over twice Welch's mark) Adjust for defense & most good ERA+s go down, but it makes Welch's better relative to other pitchers.

Welch's lifetime record is 307-210. His team records in the years he pitched were 772-576. Subtracting his own games leaves 465-366. His own winning pct is .034 above his team, or an extra 18 wins. That ain't a lot

IIRC, back in the old pitchers thread, jimd (I think it was him) went through the gamelogs on retrosheet & found that in general (though not always) Welch was paired off against tougher opposing pitching than Keefe).

Remind me (since it's time consuming to attempt to find all I've missed) if someone has analyzed that Welch's W-L record is BETTER than his runs allowed would suggest?

Yea, it is. Given his run support & RA/9IP, he won 13 more games than one would expect. (FWIW, Keefe lost 18 more, tying Curt Simmons as the biggest underachiever ever). The question is was Welch "pitching in a pinch" or just lucky? Anyone's guess is as good as anyone's elses, though I haven't heard anything about Welch being a fox on the mound like Griffith.
   75. PhillyBooster Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:26 PM (#721144)
Welch's lifetime record is 307-210. His team records in the years he pitched were 772-576. Subtracting his own games leaves 465-366. His own winning pct is .034 above his team, or an extra 18 wins. That ain't a lot, although Keefe's presence does distort this number.

Keefe's lifetime record was 342-225. His team records in the years he pitched were 1041-773. Subtracting his own games leaves 699-508. His own winning pct is .024 above his team, or an extra 14 wins (only 8 if you exclude his two early AA years). That ain't a lot, although Welch's presence (in the non-AA years) does distort the number.

There are really two possibilities for Welch: (1) He was better than his numbers suggest; or (2) He was consistently lucky, relative to his own teammates.

I question whether there is a testable difference between the two.

Remind me (since it's time consuming to attempt to find all I've missed) if someone has analyzed that Welch's W-L record is BETTER than his runs allowed would suggest? Until I see this info, my support of Mickey will trail that of other hurlers of his day (McCormick and Caruthers).

The evidence at Baseball Prospectus is that Welch won two fewer games over his career than his runs allowed would suggest (the "Delta-W" number), so it is basically a wash. It is saying that he gave up enough runs to win 309 games and won "only" 307. Absent an extreme deviation (i.e., he should have "only" won 250 games) I'm not sure why this calculation would be determinative, though.
   76. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:26 PM (#721145)
I'm still playing around with WARP calculations--does anyone have access to positional average data for Equivalent Average or XR/27 or OBP/SLG or any other such rate stat for each year and each league in MLB history? It would make my life easier.
Thanks
   77. Jeff M Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:28 PM (#721146)
So are those "sim shares" adjusted for era (as in 'epoch', not 'earned runs')?

No. Not adjusted for anything that WS doesn't inherently adjust for. No timelining. No normalization.

I hope to have season-length adjusted numbers eventually, but that takes a lot of time...lots of data entry. It's gonna be awhile.

I guess you could say that using an exponent of .75 for season-length adjustments, all of the new eligibles would have their WS adjusted upwards by roughly 2-3%...ergo, they are probably about 3% better than the most similar players listed above. I don't know if that's meaningful or not (and won't know until I finish the adjustments).

The difficulty of the sim score system is that it doesn't solve the issue to simply season-length adjust Del Pratt and then run the calcs, because all the other players haven't been adjusted. It's kind of all or nothing.

Maybe I should have waited to post the numbers, but I think they are interesting even without the season-length adjustments. The season-length adjustments matter a lot more for guys like Charley Jones and Pete Browning than they do for the new eligibles.
   78. OCF Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:29 PM (#721148)
Jeff M - great stuff!

Gardner - Ventura puts an image on it, even if it doesn't exactly tell us what to do. Ventura, after all, was generally the best third baseman in baseball in the early to middle 90's, but that was a weak time for third basemen.

Similarly, Pratt-Lopes confirms what I thought: good player but not good enough. But it rings a little funny to be pairing a leadoff hitter (Lopes) with a cleanup hitter (Pratt).

I'm interested in this similarity for Doyle, Konetchy, Cravath, and Bush. Do you have them?
   79. DavidFoss Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#721161)
Yeah, Jeff M... amazing stuff.
   80. Max Parkinson Posted: July 07, 2004 at 04:48 PM (#721178)
Dan,

I have positional EqA data for each year and league through 1938, if that helps. Email me at maxwell.parkinson@fedex.com, and I'll send you the Excel file.

MP
   81. Jeff M Posted: July 07, 2004 at 05:37 PM (#721317)
I'm interested in this similarity for Doyle, Konetchy, Cravath, and Bush. Do you have them?

I'll post those tonight when I get home from work.
   82. Jeff M Posted: July 07, 2004 at 06:08 PM (#721429)
Similarly, Pratt-Lopes confirms what I thought: good player but not good enough. But it rings a little funny to be pairing a leadoff hitter (Lopes) with a cleanup hitter (Pratt).

I think this illustrates an important conceptual difference between the Bill James Sim Scores and the WS Sim Scores I posted.

The former was matching total stats so that the players at least had the appearance of being similar players (including style, such as power, etc.). Of course, one problem with that was it was comparing raw stats across eras, without any concept of relativity (e.g., a .260 hitter in the 1960s would appear similar to a .260 hitter in the 2000s).

The sim scores for WS should eliminate the relativity problem, but it also will mismatch player styles. Instead, it will match player values (measured by WS) over certain peaks and for career.

There are many possible modifications/permutations. I could use peaks measures that are consecutive, so the career arcs look about the same. I could separate the fielding WS and match those too, instead of using a positional value adjustment like James did. I could incorporate how players did at various ages. All of that, of course, requires more and more data entry, so I'm keeping it simple.

When (if) I finish the season-length adjustments for hitters, I'm going to do the pitchers. I don't normally season-length adjust the pitchers, so I can probably omit that step. Then I'm going to take a nap.
   83. Kelly in SD Posted: July 07, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#721595)
Re: Jake Daubert and the 1913 MVP vote.
Though it doesn't make sense to us, let me see if I can recreate what reporter/voters may have seen in 1913.
First, like Ron Wargo said in post 73, batting average was very highly regarded during that period. He led the NL in BA at .350 and only Cravath was within .033 points. The top 5 looked like:
name    team  avg tm finish
Daubert Bro  .350  6
Cravath Phi  .341  2
Viox    Pit  .317  4
Tinker  Cin  .317  7
Beals Becker .316  7/2

Second, he was second in hits, one behind Cravath.
Third, his fielding. SABR's Deadball Stars states that he was very highly regarded as a fielder, frequently compared with Hal Chase with a bonus of never being erratic. This was the time of inside baseball and voters presumably thought defense was an important consideration.
Fourth, the New York Giants ran away with the pennant by 12.5 games, but did not have a hitter who had dominant numbers and the four Giant starters dominated the pitching stats so no one of them stood out enough to gather enough votes.
The voting looked like this:
Player    Team Votes (out of 64 points)
Daubert    Bro  50
Cravath    Phi  40
Maranville Bos  23
Matty      NYG  21
Meyers     NYG  20
Saier      Chi  15
Cheney     Chi  12
Miller     Pit  11
Wagner     Pit  11
Evers      Chi  10

There are 17 players with between 9 and 1 points.
Fifth, I believe RBI was recognized as an official stat in 1913, so Cravath's 29 RBI advantage may not have carried a lot of weight.
Sixth, reporters saw how Cravath took advantage of Baker Bowl for his homers and discounted them.
Last, Cravath was not a good outfielder and that probably hurt him in the eyes of voters.
Yeah, Cravath should be the MVP and Daubert is one of the strangest votes.
   84. Kelly in SD Posted: July 07, 2004 at 07:12 PM (#721633)
RE: Adoption of RBI as an official statistic of the Leagues ...
In the Hidden Game of Baseball, Thorn and Palmer state that RBI became an official stat in 1920, though individual newspapers kept track of the stat with varying standards as far back as 1879/1880. One of the problems with its adoption was that fans in the 19th century saw it as too reliant on one's teammates performance to be an accurate reflection of an individual's skills. Cravath's RBI total may not have meant much to the voters if they even knew what it was.
   85. karlmagnus Posted: July 07, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#721748)
Fans in the late 19th century were right, as they were when they ignored ERA and focused on W/L.
   86. Jeff M Posted: July 07, 2004 at 08:22 PM (#721880)
WS Sim Scores, as requested:

Larry Doyle
90-142-183-222-289-26.51

with position adjustment

HERMAN, BILLY* (941)
90-142-185-225-298-25.12

DOERR, BOBBY* (895)
GLEASON, KID (877)
FOX, NELLIE* (842)
EVERS, JOHNNY* (834)

----

without position adjustment

JONES, FIELDER (982)
88-138-183-223-298-26.28

CUYLER, KIKI* (943)
HERMAN, BILLY* (941)
PUCKETT, KIRBY* (935)
MARTINEZ, EDGAR (934)

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

Ed Konetchy
80-130-171-207-287-22.30

with position adjustment

POWELL, BOOG (937)
87-136-177-214-282-22.37

GRACE, MARK (931)
VERNON, MICKEY (919)
GARVEY, STEVE (902)
HODGES, GIL (895)

----

without position adjustment

CEY, RON (963)
79-127-171-205-280-21.88

HARRAH, TOBY (960)
BUTLER, BRETT (949)
JOHNSON, BOB (940)
POWELL, BOOG (937)

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

Gavvy Cravath
92-144-175-198-202-26.82

with position adjustment

EDMONDS, JIM (948)
88-134-174-199-205-26.82

YOUNGS, ROSS* (939)
STAHL, CHICK (908)
HENRICH, TOMMY (897)
BUFORD, DON (891)

----

without position adjustment

CAMPANELLA, ROY* (963)
94-140-174-197-207-27.60

EDMONDS, JIM (948)
YOUNGS, ROSS* (939)
JETER, DEREK (934)
JENNINGS, HUGHIE* (934)

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

Donie Bush
73-114-151-184-232-19.31

with position adjustment

GROAT, DICK (948)
77-116-148-178-225-18.90

DARK, ALVIN (942)
PECKINPAUGH, ROGER (929)
BELL, JAY (928)
McKEAN, ED (905)

----

without position adjustment

KUENN, HARVEY (957)
73-113-150-183-223-19.71

HENDRICK, GEORGE (955)
MOSES, WALLY (954)
KELL, GEORGE* (953)
GRISSOM, MARQUIS (951)
   87. Jeff M Posted: July 07, 2004 at 08:23 PM (#721884)
4 points for each WS difference in career

Typo: that should be 3 points
   88. DavidFoss Posted: July 07, 2004 at 08:42 PM (#721907)
Thanks Jeff M! I would not have guessed that these types of comps would be available before I saw you post them.

Those are some decent comps for Doyle, the rest are not too impressive. Of course, WS likes Doyle a lot more than WARP does which is part of the debate about him.
   89. OCF Posted: July 07, 2004 at 10:23 PM (#722040)
What's telling about Cravath's comps is all the careers truncated one way or another. Edmonds and Jeter are active players who will look different with their career tails added in. Youngs got sick and died. Campanella lost the front end of his MLB career to the color line and maybe the back end to his car crash. For some of these players (Youngs, Jennings), what we see is pretty much all there is; for Campanella, there is his Negro Leagues play, and for Edmonds and Jeter, we can at least try to forecast what hasn't happened yet. Edmonds, Buford, and Henrich were late bloomers - maybe (or maybe not) that also applies to Cravath.
   90. KJOK Posted: July 07, 2004 at 11:43 PM (#722156)
Ranking the New Guys:

12. DEL PRATT, 2B. .541 OWP, 151 RCAP, 7,609 PA’s. Def: VERY GOOD. Didn’t hit quite as well as Doyle or Childs, but did play better defense.

OFF BALLOT:

JOHN DONALDSON, P. The “black Waddell” was very good, but contemporaries Joe Williams, Joe Rogan, Dick Redding, Jose Mendez, and possibly even Andy Cooper and Nip Winters were better.

LARRY GARDNER, 3B. .535 OWP, 147 RCAP. 7,681 PA’s. Def: VERY GOOD. Similar to Ed Williamson as a hitter, but with a “very good” instead of an “excellent” glove.

JAKE DAUBERT, 1B. .577 OWP, 97 RCAP. 8,741 PA’s. Def: VERY GOOD. Much less of a hitter than Beckley and with a shorter career that his defensive edge won’t make up for.
   91. EricC Posted: July 08, 2004 at 01:15 AM (#722379)
Similar to what Jeff M. has done, I've been playing with my own version of "era-neutral" similarity scores. I adjust win shares for league and position and season length, and compare players by position, career length, overall rating in my system, and differences in rank-ordered seasonal adjusted win shares. I report below the most similar players to recent candidates of interest. I only have data through 1924, so (unlike Jeff's) my systems is backwards-looking. Player (1924) indicates that the comparison is with Player's career through 1924 only. (?) indicates that my position adjustments for catchers are questionable. Bold indicates HoMer Italics indicates player has been in the top 15 of a HoM election.

DONIE BUSH: Joe Tinker, Roger Peckinpaugh (1924), Jack Burdock, Ed McKean, Fred Pfeffer, Jack Clements(?), Johnny Evers, Rabbit Maranville (1924), Chief Zimmer(?)

GAVVY CRAVATH: Due to his unusual career, I don't have reliable comparisons.

JAKE DAUBERT: Dummy Hoy, Harry Davis, Hal Chase, Clyde Milan, Max Carey (1924), Stuffy McInnis (1924), Fred Tenney

LARRY DOYLE: Larry Gardner, Hardy Richardson , Duke Farrell(?), Jimmy Collins , Tom Daly, Herman Long, Fielder Jones

LARRY GARDNER: Larry Doyle, Fielder Jones, Jimmy Collins

ED KONETCHY: Tom York, Harry Stovey , Max Carey (1924), Harry Davis, Jimmy Sheckard , Jake Daubert

DEL PRATT: Roger Peckinpaugh (1924), Johnny Evers, Chief Zimmer(?), Billy Nash, Tom Daly

AMOS STRUNK: John Titus, Fred Merkle, Dode Paskert
   92. Howie Menckel Posted: July 08, 2004 at 01:40 AM (#722456)
Humble suggestion, potential ingrate alert:

Any way we can get the results posted by Tuesdays, to allow more time for ballot discussion while being positive who actually is eligible? The full results also would allow voters to react positively or negatively to rises and falls...
   93. DavidFoss Posted: July 08, 2004 at 02:34 AM (#722574)
Posting my depth chart to save space...

Depth Chart:

C -- Bresnahan-11, Petway
1B -- Beckley, Chance, Konetchy, Daubert
2B -- Doyle-9, Childs-10, Monroe, Pratt
SS -- Pearce-2, Jennings-7
3B -- McGraw-6, Leach, Williamson, Gardner
LF -- Sheckard-3, CJones-6, Poles-13
CF -- Pike-1, Browning-15, Van Haltren, Duffy
RF -- Cravath, Ryan
P -- Foster-4, Griffith-8, Caruthers-12, Welch-14, Joss

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

Thin ballot! Again... no newcomers.

Dickey Pearce finally clawed his way up into an elect-me slot.

Foster's a tough candidate to judge. He may be benefitting from ballot-timing (i.e. he'll drop when longer-careered stars appear in future ballots), but that's true of the many of the MLB players on my ballot as well.

Welch and Browning finally make my top 15.
   94. sunnyday2 Posted: July 08, 2004 at 03:20 AM (#722651)
The Depth Chart is a nice innovation. Here's another. The players in (parens) are already in the Hom but are still in contention for PHoM (I have already deleted this year's PHoMers, Collins and Grant, from the list. And this is based on the assumption that Wallace and Thompson did indeed get elected in 1929.)

C-Bresnahan, Clapp, Petway, Carroll, Clements
1B-Beckley, Konetchy, Chance, Davis, Orr
2B-Childs (7), Doyle (9), Monroe (12), Dunlap, Evers
SS-Pearce (1), Jennings (3), Long, Tinker, Bush
3B-Williamson (8), (Sutton), Leach, Gardner, Bradley
LF-Jones (6), Sheckard (14), (Magee, Stovey, Kelley, Hill)
CF- Pike (4), Browning (13), Poles (15), Duffy, Van Haltren
RF-(Keeler), Tiernan, Cravath, is there anybody else?

P-Caruthers (2), Bond (5), R. Foster (10), McCormick (11), Waddell, (Plank), Welch, Whitney, Joss, Griffith, Willis, Cicotte, Mullane, (Galvin), Donaldson
   95. sunnyday2 Posted: July 08, 2004 at 03:39 AM (#722694)
And on the subject of sims, I've done some down and dirty sims for some Negro Leaguers, based on KJOK's MLEs. Chris discounts them 5%, I knock them down a full 10%.

Then, since I'm doing this pretty much by hand, I find some sims based on three variables--RC, OPS and R + RBI. Here's what I got.

John Henry Lloyd is obviously an NB unless you knock down KJOK's MLEs a lot more than 10%. At that rate, I come up with Eddie Murray as his best sim. Not bad for a SS. The next best sims are Rickey Henderson, Kaline, Brett, Lajoie and Molitor.

I see Lloyd as being below Murray on all three of the major rates--BA, OBA and SA but not by much. And he (Lloyd) would be below all his other comps on OPS. KJOK's MLEs seem to award a lot of RC relative to OPS.

So I think this group of comps may overstate Lloyd's offense, but it may not.




Torriente doesn't do quite as well, though his top sim is pretty good--Roberto Clemente. The others are not as impressive--Jimmy Ryan, G. Van Haltren, Rusty Staub, Zack Wheat and Harold Baines. Compared to Clemente, I see (in KJOK's MLEs) Torriente as hitting for a lower average, with many more X-base hits, and a significantly lower OBA, but a very similar SA.

Finally, Big Ben Taylor's best sim seems to be Mickey Vernon, though Taylor projects with more power and a better SA, while Vernon has a better BA and OBA and also a better OPS by a very slight margin.

Taylor's other sims are Santo, Manush, Klein, Medwick and Slaughter. Oddly they "sound" better than Torriente's overall. Torriente's was a fairly short career for a guy who is as highly regarded overall, just one year longer than Spot Pole's, shorter than Santop's. Yet his comps are mostly guys whose claim to fame is a long career, but some of whom didn't have a great peak. Taylor's generally had more notable peaks--i.e. Klein and Medwick.

I don't think there's any question that these are the big three of soon-to-be eligible Negro Leaguers based on offense. Poles would be next, then Santop. Santop would move up certainly over Poles and probably Taylor, since he played a valuable defensive position. I don't think you can quite make a case that he catches Torriente.
   96. robc Posted: July 08, 2004 at 02:54 PM (#723119)
Prelim ballot.

1. Sheckard
2. VanHaltren
-big dropoff-
Above are solid HoMers (there are no no-brainers this year). Below are guys I think should get in, but if they dont, thats okay too.
3. Ryan
-
4. Beckley
5. Cross
6. Pratt
-
7. Jennings
8. Caruthers
= end of HoMers
9. Long
10. Jones, F
11. Childs
12. Griffith
13. Tiernan
-Below here is a near indistinguishable mass of good but not great players.
14. Nash
15. Griffin
16. Williams
17. Bresnahan
18. McCormick
19. Pearce
20. Konetchy
21. Pike
22. Waddell
23. Mullane
24. Foster
25. Poles
26. McGraw
27. Welch
28. Willis
29. Selbach
30. Bush
   97. sunnyday2 Posted: July 09, 2004 at 02:42 AM (#724899)
Enough of 1927 already! No more scrolling to the 4th page!

So. Re. Dickey Pearce. andrew, your comp of Pearce to Charles Smith and Dick McBride was clearly not meant to get us to put Smith and McBride on our ballots, it was anti-Pearce. That's OK, of course, you're entitled.

But my point would be that you are holding Dickey to an unfair standard. I mean, of our 200+ HoMers, maybe 25-35 of them are 1st ballot NBs. The rest...?

Well, you say that Dickey is not head and shoulders above his contemporaries. Well, not in the Ruthian or Bondsian sense, of course not. But in the Ozzie Smithian sense, yes. I've said before that I see Oz as Dickey's comp. Both played SS for about 20 years and we know that their decline phases (age 35-40) are very similar. Oz will go into the HoM the same way he went into the HoF. Fast.

Was he head and shoulders...? Well, not in the MLs, what with Cal Ripken around, and Robin Yount for the first half of his career. And even in the NL, early on there was Concepcion and Templeton, and later there was Barry Larkin. Oz might have been head and shoulders in the NL once or twice. All-Star more often than that, but head and shoulders once or twice. Even in his two legitimate MVP candidate years of 1985 and 1987, there were some good SS in the NL.

As to Pearce "only" being the #2-3 hitter on his own team, even in '85 and '87 Ozzie was nowhere near the #2-3 hitter on his own team, what with Jack Clark, Tommy Herr, Willie McGee and Vince Coleman (OK, Coleman is debatable) among others on his own team.

Considering that Pearce was a SS, and other than Joe Start, the only teammates who hit as well as Dickey were OF like McBride and Smith, and they each were among the team leaders 3-5 times, not 9-10 times like Dickey did. That is not only not inconsistent with a HoMer, it is consistent with a HoMer.
   98. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 03:05 AM (#724953)
Sorry Marc! I'm trying to keep all the pre-NA numbers in one thread!

I'll post a zip file to the yahoo groups soon... hopefully tonight.
   99. DavidFoss Posted: July 09, 2004 at 03:11 AM (#724964)
Oh... and McBride played for the Athletics. Him and Pearce were never teammates in the NABBP.
   100. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 09, 2004 at 08:28 AM (#725102)
Didn't Pearce play when a ball that bounced once and then was caught was an out?
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
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0428 seconds
49 querie(s) executed