Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, July 26, 2004

1931 Ballot

Harry Hooper, Bobby Veach and George Burns join the ballot for 1931. Also joining is real life Hall of Frischer . . . I mean Hall of Famer Rube Marquard, who wasn’t too deserving and doesn’t figure to get much support here.

We’re only electing one this year. Will it be one of the ones mentioned above or a top holdover like Dickey Pearce, George Van Haltren, Jake Beckley or Lip Pike?

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 26, 2004 at 07:12 AM | 198 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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Guapo Posted: July 31, 2004 at 10:57 AM (#767446)
1. Rube Foster- The most dominant player on the ballot.
2. Larry Doyle- Finished in top 10 in league in OPS+ 7 times, in HR 6 times, in XBH 6 times, in times on base 5 times. He was a dominant offensive player in the league, comparable to Clarke and Magee, except he was a second baseman. As for his defense... Win Shares gives him a C+, John McGraw was apparently willing to live with him, and he was well regarded by his contemporaries (see BJHA, 1984 version). In other words, he doesn’t deserve a penalty that negates his offensive preeminence. Just say no to B-Pro’s wacky defensive measures!
3. Gavvy Cravath- Moved him back up, largely because I don’t see anyone else on the ballot who had a comparable 5 year run at the top of the league.
4. Ed Konetchy - The best first baseman of his time, largely forgotten because of the era and teams for which he played. With the new WARP numbers, I fully expect you to start giving him the love and respect he deserves.
5. Frank Chance- Keith Hernandez comp? An OBP stud who was an offensive star, albeit for a short time. Konetchy’s got a better case though.
6. Roger Bresnahan- benefits from sizable positional boost.
7. Bruce Petway- I have him pegged to Bob Boone in my mind- terrific defensive catcher, played a long time (not as long as Boone, but long for his era) and offense that can be charitably described as average- maybe above average for his position. But is seems to me a catcher like that is *much* more valuable in the era in which Petway played, when everyone is running the bases like madmen and catchers drop like flies after a few years.
8. Clark Griffith- could rank higher- maybe next week.
9. Lip Pike- Others have made the arguments, and they’re convincing. The premier outfielder of his time.
10. George Burns- Terrific leadoff man, perennial MVP candidate for the Giants. Could rate higher, but I’m starting him down here this year.
11. Hugh Duffy- My favorite 90s centerfielder.
12. Tommy Leach- I think Pike, Leach, Fielder Jones, and Duffy are all very close.
13. Cupid Childs- Decided I had to get him on to my ballot somewhere. The way he dominated his position is a big selling point. I don’t see him as better than Doyle though (check the Gray Ink)
14. Dickey Pearce- Probably more of a “career” than a “peak” player, but based on the stats I’m thinking his peak was at least very good.
15. John Donaldson- Great southpaw- relative to his competition, I think he’s more meritorious than the remaining pitcher glut.
   102. Guapo Posted: July 31, 2004 at 10:58 AM (#767447)
Everybody Else:

George Van Haltren: The lowest ranked member of the outfield glut for me, he seems to have surged ahead of the other contenders for reasons I don’t understand.

Jake Beckley: A personal fave, but he was the fourth best 1B for most of his career. Konetchy and Chance were the best of their eras.

Jimmy Ryan: I’d take Jimmy over GVH based on peak. Ryan’s not a bad candidate, but he’s going to have to wait to get a vote from me.

Hughie Jennings- great player, but how many shortstops from the 1890s are we going to elect?

Mickey Welch- With Caruthers’ election, I’m taking a break from voting for 1880's pitchers. I’m keeping him on the radar and maybe he’ll get a vote in the future, but I think that era’s quite well represented at this point.

Rube Waddell- Similar to Welch, I don’t know we need more 1900's pitchers after Foster.
   103. OCF Posted: July 31, 2004 at 04:03 PM (#767614)
1931 ballot. We've picked over the top candidates of every decade from the 1870's through the 1900's. The top candidates of the 1910's aren't yet eligible (although the second line from that decade is), and I've never been comfortable with dealing with the very different (and rather local) game of the 1860's. I saw a ballot above that had 14 players from the 19th century on it and only one 20th century player (a crook who doesn't make my ballot). That balance doesn't seem right.

1. George Van Haltren (12, 10, 9, 8, 2) No great enthusiasm for this choice - he gets here by attrition. As "peakless" careers go, he's got substantially more offensive peak than the likes of Beckley or Hooper. Not much pitching value (and it was a whole lot easier to be a pitcher-hitter before 1893 than after), but what little pitching there is serves as a tiebreaker among similar candidates.
2. Jimmy Ryan (10, 8, 7, 6, 3) Nearly indistinguishable from Van Haltren. 23rd year on my ballot.
3. Larry Doyle (3, 3, 3, 2, 5) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the available outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
4. Hugh Duffy (11, 9, 8, 7, 4) 25th year on my ballot.
5. Rube Waddell (9, 7, 6, 4, 6) RA+ PythPat 200-129. Big-game pitcher. Everyone keeps bringing up unearned runs - why not do that for everyone? I have, by always working with RA instead of ERA. I've got Waddell's career equivalent W/L percentage at .606 (or 124 if you want to look at it as if it were RA+). The only higher percentage among an eligible post-'93 pitcher is Joss at .623 (128), which isn't much different.
6. Roger Bresnahan (13, 11, 10, 9, 8) Very good offense for a catcher; not enough if we think of him as an outfielder.
7. Gavy Cravath (8, 12, 11, 10, 9) In the system I use, the biggest offensive peak of anyone other than Chance (well, maybe Tiernan). Yes, he took unique advantage of his park, but real wins resulted from that. Seriously lacking in bulk unless you also consider his work in Minneapolis.
8. Mickey Welch (15, 14, 11, 5, 7) The more I learn, the more confused I get. I'm noticing renewed support for McCormick, Whitney and Mullane - recognition that there's not much between them and Welch and Caruthers?
9. Jake Beckley (20, 20, 19, 18, 10) No peak, long career. But still more peak than Hooper.
10. Frank Chance (17, 16, 15, 13, 11) I could have him higher; huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time.
11. George J. Burns (new) My new favorite leadoff hitter, ahead of Thomas and Hartsel. Of the three new outfielders, my top choice. (See also the NBJHBA.)
12. Vic Willis (14, 13, 12, 11, 12) Defense adjusted RA+ PythPat 248-196. I could reasonably have him right up there with Waddell.
13. Andrew Foster (22, 23, 21, 21, 19) Maybe a longer effective career than I had been giving him credit for.
14. Harry Hooper (new) Less peak than Van Haltren, less peak than Beckley - it's sheer length of career as a good player that gets him on this thin ballot.
15. Herman Long (25, _, 25, 15, 14) The key man in a great team defense. Scored some runs, too - twice over 100 R*.
16. Joe Tinker (19, 19, 18, 14, 13) Defense at SS does matter.
17. Clark Griffith (5, 18, 17, 17, 17) RA+ PythPat of 203-146.
18. Bobby Veach (new) Fits in about here.
19. Roy Thomas (18, 17, 16, 16, 15) Loses his ballot spot to Burns.
20. Johnny Evers (16, 15, 14, 12, 16)
21. Spotswood Poles (---, 20, 18) Everyone on the ballot is so close together. There's no way to be sure that he wasn't better than, say, Ryan, Van Haltren, and Duffy. We do know he wasn't comparable to Torriente, not that that's the issue at the moment.
22. Hughie Jennings (23, 24, 22, 22, 20)
23. Tommy Leach (--, 24, 24, 22)
24. Dickey Pearce (---, 25, 23)
25. Mike Tiernan (----, 24)

>50. Rube Marquard (new) RA+ PythPat 193-174, which makes him a dead ringer for Al Orth. Now that's a good pitcher, and a team could easily win a pennant with an ace pitcher no better than that. But it doesn't put him in the HoM. By contrast, Happy Jack Chesbro (182-140) is much better qualified.
   104. jhwinfrey Posted: July 31, 2004 at 04:15 PM (#767631)
I've been on vacation, so my ballot's not as early as usual this week. But here it is:

1. Mickey Welch (1, 1, 1, 1, 1)—-I'm glad to see him getting more recognition and discussion. Hope he gets in in about 12 elections or so.

2. Dickey Pearce (7, 4, 3, 3, 2)—-Pearce's victory lap?

3. Jake Beckley (6, 3, 5, 4, 4)—-No one on the ballot has more career hits.

4. Rube Waddell (5, 8, 8, 6, 5)—-As I've said before, he's a unique talent, and I hope to see him follow Bob Caruthers into the HoM.

5. Rube Foster (9, 7)--Probably the most talented player eligible.

6. Bill Monroe (15, nr, 14, 12, 11)--Gets a big jump as I've learned more about him in the past couple of weeks. Turns out he played mandolin more than the banjo.

7. Roger Bresnahan (9, 11, 9, 7, 6)—-I do give positional bonuses, but I don't see Bresnahan rising much higher than this.

8. Lip Pike (13, 14, 12, 10, 8)—-I'm still a bit on the fence on the first "pro" baseballer.

9. Spotswood Poles (11, 9)--Not an "elite" player, but I think he belongs with Pike and Van Haltren.

10. George Van Haltren (14, 15, 13, 13, 12)—-GVH is gaining my respect--he's not quite in Beckley territory for me, but he's close. I wouldn't be upset to see him enshrined.

11. Clark Griffith (nr)—-The first of 2 electon "veterans" to make my ballot for the first time this election. Comparisons of him to Welch finally won me over.

12. Bruce Petway (14)--4 Negro Leaguers on a 15-man ballot is probably a bit low, but I'm hopeful that the next few ballots will bring that number up.

13. Cupid Childs (nr)--I'm still not comfortable evaluating defense, and I don't think I'm alone. For now, I'll say that Childs deserves to be at least this high on my ballot.

14. Addie Joss (10, 9, 10, 8, 10)—-I've begun to think that ranking him much ahead of Mullane and McCormick isn't accurate or fair. He was definitely a dominant pitcher, but not for very long.

15. Tony “The Count” Mullane (12, 13, 11, 14, 13)—-He still tops the ballot in terms of raw win shares, which I use as a starting framework.


16. Jim McCormick
17. John Donaldson
18. Tommy Leach
19. Harry Hooper
20. Jimmy Ryan--I have him ranked just below Jimmy Sheckard, who never made my ballot either, so make of that what you will.
21-25: Duffy, Doyle, Cravath, Willis, Tiernan
26-30: Burns, Konetchy, Browning, Daubert, Cicotte
31-35: Evers, Milan, Thomas, Shively, Lyons
36-41: Huggins, Gardner, Veach, Bond, Pratt, Bush

42. Hughie Jennings--I guess this means that I'm not a peak voter. The fact that he may have the highest peak of any eligible shortstop counts less in my opinion than his #1 ranking on the career hit by pitch list.
   105. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2004 at 04:39 PM (#767661)
I saw a ballot above that had 14 players from the 19th century on it and only one 20th century player (a crook who doesn't make my ballot). That balance doesn't seem right.

I just went over my ballot to see what the spectrum is for me. I have eight primarily 19th century guys compared to seven from the last century. I don't know where that places me within the group, but I think that's reasonable.
   106. OCF Posted: July 31, 2004 at 04:50 PM (#767679)
Wasn't talking about you, John. Hey, there are even some things we agree on - Frank Chance, for instance.
   107. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2004 at 05:21 PM (#767736)
I'm the 14 19th century players, and proud of it, but only if you ignore the 20th century play of the likes of Beckley and Griffith. There's really nothing much from the 1900s left that I like, and as you say we haven't had the top 1910s players yet.

Over the next 3 years I expect to put Santop, Foster or Mendez, Johnson, Wheat, possibly Groh, Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Lloyd, Torriente, probably Williams on the ballot. That will redress the balance, and still before we've really considered any 1920s players.

As I remarked when I posted it, 1931 is a weird ballot; the weakest we've seen or shall see for a considerable time. Not surprising that it has a weird distribution between centuries. Since we've elected all the top players, and have only about 15 years of the 20th century represented, you'd actually expect at least 2/3:1/3 in favor of the 19th.
   108. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2004 at 09:12 PM (#768591)
For those of you who like me are tabulating...2nd place this year is worth 19 points, not that correct? Big and important distinction, no?!?
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2004 at 10:00 PM (#768762)
Wasn't talking about you, John. Hey, there are even some things we agree on - Frank Chance, for instance.

I knew you weren't, OCF. I was curious myself to see if I was overdoing it with the 19th century guys.

For those of you who like me are tabulating...2nd place this year is worth 19 points, not that correct?

(in my best Ed McMahon voice) You are correct, sir!
   110. EricC Posted: July 31, 2004 at 10:35 PM (#768891)
1931 ballot.

1. Rube Foster I don't know if he was more like Ed Walsh or like Addie Joss, but talent combined with dedication and drive usually rises to the top, so I rate him (admittedly partly subjectively) as closer to Walsh.

2. Roger Bresnahan Why so high? To integrate ratings for different positions, I simply (1) use Win Shares rates as a strength formula and (2) prorate positional playing time according to typical playing time for that position. Seems reasonable to me, but will probably lead to higher catcher ratings than most.

3. Jake Beckley In retrospect, many of my predictions about future HoM voting trends have been wrong, which is why I don't actually put them in writing, but I did foresee Beckley's upsurge, based on the uniqueness of his case. As he does not have an outstanding peak, I understand the controversy, but I'm firmly in the FOJB camp now. My incomplete calculations give hints that 1B was not particularly a hitter's position from 1895-1905, which helps Beckley's case vs. that of the outfielders- does anybody have full data on year-by-year batting by position?

4. George "Rube" Waddell A legitimately great, though hard-luck pitcher, who should not be forgotten in the years to come.

5. Eddie Cicotte To paraphrase what somebody else said, just because you don't like him doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider him. One of the best pitchers of the 1910s.

6. Harry Hooper (N) Can a slightly above average player play himself into a HoM career by playing long enough? I'll tentatively say yes, but Hooper's the kind of player who may lead me to tweak my ratings to be slightly "less career, more peak".

7. George Van Haltren Van Haltren, Ryan, Duffy. I agree with the consensus pecking order. Van Haltren beats Ryan because of more pitching value and because he played a greater percentage of his career in CF. Duffy's career shape is not like the others, and seems to be the prototypical career path that just falls short of HoM standards.

8. Hughie Jennings Looks like five great years and virtually nothing else will not be enough to get him over the top. Dominant part of career may have been cut short by all the beanings.

9. Lip Pike By the standards the electorate has applied to 1870s players, he's clearly the next in line, but doesn't have enough to get in without credit for pre-1871 play. Good evidence for being a star 1866-1870. All in all, still leaves an annoying amount of uncertainty.

10. Jimmy Ryan

11. Frank Chance Top 1B in the deadball era.

12. Dickey Pearce It's his career, not his peak, that does it for me. Based on career length, age 35+ performance, defensive reputation, and sketchy pre-NA stats, looks like Bobby Wallace lite. Questions about the number of people playing baseball in his time keeps me from jumping him higher. Could join Glasscock in the Beavis and Butthead wing of the HoM.

13. Cupid Childs Best 2B of the 1890s; as with Duffy, the level of play petered out a bit too quickly.

14. Hugh Duffy

15. John McGraw Will always be linked with Jennings as 1890s Orioles greats who just didn't have enough career.

16. Joss 17. Griffith 18. Tiernan 19. McGuire 20. Bond
21. Cross 22. F. Jones 23. Cravath 24. Leach 25. Doyle

Griffith: next best pitcher of the 1890s; whether to move higher depends on how many pitchers to include from that era.

Welch: IMO, enough 1880s pitchers in the HoM already. His election would mean that 27 percent of innings pitched in the National League in the 1880s (prorated by yearly length of schedule) were by HoM pitchers- in other words, a HoMer pitching in practically every other game. As far as Welch vs. Keefe: Keefe was 342-225 (0.603) in 5048 IP with 58 black ink points and an ERA+ of 125, while Welch was 307-210 (0.594) in 4802 IP with 3 black ink points and a career ERA+ of 113. Individual pitching opponents may support the hypothesis that Welch's performance relative to Keefe's was better than the raw numbers suggest, but Paul Wendt's research showing that Welch had Ewing as his catcher more often than Keefe supports the opposite hypothesis.

Leaving Cravath off the ballot might be my biggest mistake of omission. However, I can picture his extrapolated career as being similar to Sam Thompson's, and Big Sam himself never made my ballot. I can't be too sympathetic to adding more corner outfielders.

Putting Foster at #1 could be my biggest error of commission, but, as we all know, rating players without complete information is hard.
   111. Rob_Wood Posted: August 01, 2004 at 01:09 AM (#769256)
My 1931 ballot:

1. Larry Doyle - again top of a fairly weak ballot
2. Jake Beckley - very long peakless career
3. Dickey Pearce - pioneering shortstop
4. Rube Waddell - luv those strikeouts
5. Addie Joss - one of the stingiest whip's ever
6. Harry Hooper - both over and underrated
7. Lip Pike - early star few have ever heard of
8. Roger Bresnahan - best catcher of his era
9. Cupid Childs - on the all-nickname team
10. Tommy Leach - very good at two positions
11. Charley Jones - very underrated centerfielder
12. Ed Konetchy - unspectacular first baseman
13. Clark Griffith - underrated pitcher
14. Jimmy Ryan - I prefer him over Van Haltren
15. George Van Haltren - very similar to Ryan

I am not voting for Rube Foster and Hughie Jennings (both just off my ballot), guys who were in the group top 10 last year.
   112. dan b Posted: August 01, 2004 at 02:03 AM (#769367)
1.Duffy (1). 2nd in 5-year peak, 1st in 8-year and 10-year, PHoM in 1912.
2.Griffith (1) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, elected to PHoM in 1913.
3.Bresnahan (24) Big position bonus to fill the void behind the plate. HoM will be flawed if we do not induct at least one Major League catcher who played between Buck Ewing’s retirement in 1897 and Gabby Hartnett’s debut in 1922 – as The Old Professor said “You have to have a catcher….”. SABR dead ball era committee has him #1. Highest ranking available player by NHBA rankings. PHoM 1928
4.Jennings (10) – PHoM in 1908. 5-year peak 5th best of all eligible players to date behind Wagner, Baker, Delahanty and Lajoie. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar.
5.Poles First Second Negro Leaguer to make PHoM (1929). Bill James and the Cool Papa’s survey agree.
6.Chance (13) – By adding 10-yr peak to the equation, no longer ranks as best pure hitter on ballot. With short peaks and rate just 30% of the equation, still ranks a close 3rd behind Burns and Duffy. Hitting alone ranks – 1st in 3-year and 5-year, 3rd in WS/162. 5 times one of the top 12 players in the NL, 4 times one of the top 5 hitters. Best 1B of the era. NHBA rank of 25 puts him in the BJHoM. PHoM in 1921. The Peerless Leader merits more attention here.
7.Waddell (3) I like his peak and K’s. 2nd to Joss in WS/IP. 2nd best LHP to date. PHoM 1926.
8.Leach (4) 4th in 8-yr peak, 2nd in career. PHoM 1926.
9.Browning (17) – Leads in WS/162, elected to PHoM in 1906.
10.Doyle (8) NHBA rank of 20 put him in BJHoM in 1926. PHoM 1930.
11.Van Haltren (5) 5th best 10-year run on ballot, 4th best hitter. Makes my PHoM this year, will be probably be off my ballot in a couple years.
12.Joss (10) 1st in WS/IP. Great pitcher belongs on more ballots.
13.Burns (2) 3rd behind Jennings and O’Neill in 3-year peak, 2nd behind Duffy in 8 and 10-year peaks. Best hitter on the ballot.
14.Willis (1) – 1st in career, 2nd in 3-year peak.
15.Veach (9) – 3rd in 8-year peak and 10-year run.
17.Foster Has a lot of support, but of Negro League pitchers who played a significant amount of their career in the dead ball era, he clearly was not as good as Williams (a clear NB), and may not have been as good as Mendez or Donaldson. Of the 4, only Foster received zero votes in the Cool Papas all-star phase. (As a member of HOF, wasn’t eligible for the more often quoted HOF phase of Cool Papas, although he probably made the HOF more as a pioneer than as a player.)
18.Ryan (3) – 4th in career.
19.Fielder Jones (6) – 4th best 10-year run.
20.Tiernan (11) 5th best on hitting alone.
21.Williamson (31) Named greatest player of all time in 1894 poll.
22.Petway Looking at John Holway’s ballot in Cool Papa’s, Petway is the first HoM eligible Negro Leaguer on his list – no Johnson, Grant, Hill, Poles or Monroe.
23.Childs (16) – “Best 2B of 90’s” – J. Murphy
24.Hooper (12)
25.Long (7)
   113. Brent Posted: August 01, 2004 at 03:03 AM (#769401)
Hi. I’m new. I registered about a week ago, and I’ve posted an introduction and brief discussion of my methods on the “Let’s get to know each other” thread. I hope no one will object if I go ahead and cast my first ballot this week.

Here’s my ballot:

1. Hugh Duffy: 7 seasons with 25+ WS; A+ defensive outfielder.
2. Tommy Leach: 6 seasons with 25+ WS; A+ fielder at 3B and CF.
3. Hughie Jennings: According to WS, one of the best defensive SS of all time, and I believe it. Best player in baseball, 1895-98.
4. Roger Bresnahan: I reviewed the candidates in 3 groups: pitchers, catchers, and all other position players. I was struck by the extent to which Bresnahan stands out relative to the other catchers of his generation. I'll be disappointed if he doesn't eventually make it in.
5. Rube Foster: I found it much more difficult to rank the pitchers than the position players. I think Foster is the best pitcher on the ballot.
6. George Van Haltren: The kind of career value that I like - many seasons as one of the 10 or 20 best players in baseball.
7. Dickey Pearce: It’s been fun learning about him. While I don’t agree with those who argue that being the best player of 1863 is as valuable as being the best player of 1894, reading these discussions have convinced me that he truly was a great player.
8. Spotswood Poles: Not sure where he fits in, but here seems about right to me.
9. Clark Griffith: Overshadowed by Young and Nichols, but he could pitch too.
10. Cupid Childs: I see Childs, Evers, and Doyle as essentially equal in value, with Childs slightly ahead.
11. George Burns: The best of the newly eligible outfielders; 3 seasons with 30+ WS.
12. Joe Tinker: I think his defensive contributions played a much bigger role in the success of the Cubs than has generally been recognized; an A+ defensive shortstop.
13. Rube Waddell: The strikeouts and ERA are impressive.
14. Jimmy Ryan: Not quite as much career value as Van Haltren; not quite as much peak value as Burns.
15. Johnny Evers: His faults are well documented, but he helped some great teams win. He beats Doyle by a hair.

Not on my ballot:

Jake Beckley: He was never more than a very good player. Not one of my top 30.
Lip Pike: Surely a good hitter, but the sabermetric formulas like RC and EQA are using some pretty strong assumptions when they make his unadjusted statistics -- .803 lifetime OPS in a game where scores averaged 7 R/G -- look like Joe DiMaggio. I’m skeptical of the accuracy of these formulas for the high-error game that was played in the 1870s.
   114. Chris Cobb Posted: August 01, 2004 at 03:16 AM (#769412)
Brent, welcome!

Since the "let's get to know each other thread" isn't popping up onto the hot topics list, I (and I expect most others) missed your posting there -- will have to check it out. Your ballot looks well reasoned to me. Hope you'll enjoy being a part of the project.
   115. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 01, 2004 at 02:42 PM (#769733)
Brent, welcome!

Same from me, Brent!

I agree with Chris that your ballot looks fine, too,

While I don't agree with those who argue that being the best player of 1863 is as valuable as being the best player of 1894, reading these discussions have convinced me that he truly was a great player.

Since I'm Pearce's biggest booster, I don't necessarily believe that Pearce would have been as great in '94 as he was in '63. I do think he would have been, however, if he had been born thirty or thirty-five years later. I think a proper era adjustment is needed for fairness sake(provided that each era is balanced correctly).

With that said, Pearce as your seventh pick is nothing to be ashamed about.
   116. Ken Fischer Posted: August 01, 2004 at 03:29 PM (#769750)
1931 Ballot

1-Dickey Pearce
Maybe Dickey’s time is here. His presence in the HOM is long overdue. We need a representative from the late 1850s NY-Brooklyn All-Star games.

2-Rube Foster
Rube was a pioneer executive, manager and a great pitcher. Right now he represents the best of the players outlawed from playing in the majors that's not in the HOM.

3-George Van Haltren 344 WS
Still holds PCL record for most at-bats (941) in a season with Seattle in 1904. A pitcher turned outfielder, Van has always been hurt by having played for the Giants’ in their least heralded era (days of Andrew Freedman)…for missing 3,000 hits. He had plenty of hits left in him. He just got them in the PCL.

4-Mickey Welch 354 WS
His win shares numbers show he was more than just the 1885 season. McCormick, Mullane and Mathews also deserve another look from the 19th Century.

5-Jimmy Ryan 316 WS
Ryan saw success early with the White Stockings then never tasted a pennant again after 1886. Leaving the MLB scene for 1901 hurt his career stats.

6-Jake Beckley 318 WS
Like his career value. Connor, Crawford and O’Rourke and Clarke are all comps. Jake will eventually make into the HOM.

7-Rube Waddell 240 WS
Despite short career Waddell still makes the A’s all-time top 30 list for Win Shares. Mack signed Rube out of the coast league in 1902. The big cities of the east must’ve been quite a site for Rube.

8-Lip Pike
Great numbers even though he was in the twilight of his career during the NA days. I believe Pearce and Pike will both make the HOM. Along with the other pre-1880 players already in the HOM, our selections will put that other Hall to shame.

9- Roger Bresnahan 231 WS
I’m starting to agree with the argument that we need a catcher…and perhaps a third baseman on the ballot. Roger is probably the best C available. His numbers don’t match up well with the top catchers outside his era but well within his own time. The Deadball era appears to have been tough on backstops.

10-Pete Browning 225 WS
Pete's Grey Ink looks favorable. The Players League year removes the AA discount as an obstacle for me. He had a lot of merit besides being the original Louisville Slugger and a great story.

11- Lave Cross 278 WS
Cross, Van Haltren and Ryan would’ve been more well known names if they had stuck around for 2 to 4 more years. You would think they could’ve caught on with weak teams. They would have their 3,000 hits. An interesting career…including playing for Philly teams in four different leagues.

12-Hughie Jennings 214 WS
Peak among the best but his career value drops him down on my list. Hughie probably ranks third or fourth on the list of great 1890s shortstops. I expect Hughie to be one of those guys to finally get in by the mid-1940s.

13-Bobby Mathews 158 WS
Overshadowed by Spalding in the NA years, Mathews had outstanding seasons with the A’s during the 80s. He was a pioneer in using the curve and spitball. Greg Maddux just passed him on the all-time wins list. His longevity and the ground he helped break in the NA earn him my vote.

14-Hugh Duffy 295 WS
Comps include Brouthers, Kelley and Thompson. Like Cross, Duffy is a four league guy. He was a solid player for a long time…more than just his 1894 average.

15-Tony Mullane 399 WS
Hard to ignore the Count’s win shares numbers. He’s another player given a tough rap for his battles with management and playing a good portion of his career in the AA.

I’m still not sure about Griffith. It appears to me that Mullane, Mathews, Waddell and Welch meant more to their teams. Yes, Griffith’s 1901 season helped give the Sox the flag while Mullane didn’t play for a winner (expect for part of the 1894 season). But when comparing the volume of the two pitchers' work Mullane appears more valuable to me.
   117. Michael Bass Posted: August 01, 2004 at 06:17 PM (#770032)
Well, it took me a few days, but I've absorbed and implemented the new WARP changes. Also put more Win Shares emphasis to my analysis, and still pay some attention to OPS+ and RA+ (basically ERA+ with an eye out for high unearned run totals).

1. Andrew Foster (--,11,11,10,7,1) - I believe his pure pitching peak was obviously HOM calibre, and that he adds more away from that peak than Jennings and Caruthers (though admittedly that isn't saying much). Chris Cobb's excellent work only confirms that impression.

2. Hughie Jennings (--,--,--,--,--,2) - The argument I used for Caruthers all these years works even better for Hughie. Crammed so much value into a short career that he's more valuable than guys with productive careers twice or three times as long.

3. Hugh Duffy (--,--,--,--,--,--) - My ballot is now gonna be even more OF heavy if you can believe it. Anyway, Hugh was a strong hitter with a good offensive peak and a hell of a defender. A+ rating from Win Shares, despite playing more corner than center? Sign me up. Not sure what I was (or wasn't) looking at before on him.

4. Mike Griffin (--,--,--,--,--,--) - About the same level hitter as Duffy, just not quite as long of a peak. Very nice defender, too, almost entirely in center.

5. Bobby Veach (new) - This is actually lower than he would have been in my system before the WARP changes. Sort of a Jennings/Caruthers-lite case. Superficial career numbers only good, but much better when you realize most of that value came in a compressed period.

6. Fielder Jones (9,8,8,8,10,9) - Now that a second system confirms his placement, I'm pretty comfortable with Fielder here. I guess I like defense more than the group as a whole, but he had 4 really nice seasons in a nice career.

7. Rube Waddell (--,--,--,15,--,--) - Takes over for Griffith as my top MLB pitcher project. ERA+ overrates him because of his unearned runs, but love, love, love the strikeouts. Deserves more credit for his run prevention that other pitchers of that time because of them.

8. George Van Haltren (6,5,3,3,3,7) - Suffers in comparison to the similar guys ahead of him because he simply didn't have the same number of high-calibre years to go with his long productive career. I still like him a lot, though.

9. Spotswood Poles (9,8) - Surprised he isn't doing better in voting so far, given the high praise he gets from so many sources. Then again, I seem to have most NLers higher than the curve, so maybe I shouldn't be too shocked. A slightly lesser Pete Hill.

10. Lave Cross (--,--,--,--,--,13) - A player I was overcorrecting for on my earlier ballots. Never a great hitter, but an amazing fielder at what was a critical position in his day. And he did this seemingly forever.

11. Cupid Childs (14,14,13,11,11,6) - Bumps back down some; WARP doesn't like his best years as much as they did before, and a further analysis from me agrees. Not as much career as Cross, better peak, but not quite enough better.

12. Bill Monroe (--,--,14,12,12,11) - I like to see more hitting and a better peak from my NLers than what I see from Monroe, but he still had a very nice career that is not to be overlooked.

13. Dickey Pearce (--,--,--,--,13,14) - I have no problem saying he played baseball. 1866 is the dividing line for me though, before then the competition was so crappy that I'm reluctant to give too much credit for it. But taking his late 60s recorded production (when level of competition really wasn't any different than the better-documented early 70s) and giving him some credit, though not overwhelming, for the early 60s and you get him right about here.

14. Harry Hooper (new) - Lotta career, virtually no peak. Still more of a peak than Beckley, though, so he barely makes the ballot. I look forward to booting him from the ballot soon.

15. Jimmy Ryan (7,6,6,5,5,5) - Takes a big hit; like Childs WARP3 likes his peak a lot less than it did before, and like Childs I agree with the interpretation. Not quite enough defensive value to rank with the better defenders and, for the most part, equal hitters ahead of him.

Top 10 Returners not on my ballot

24. Jake Beckley - Lotta career, but never really that great of a player. Complete lack of peak.

21. Lip Pike - My main problem with Lip is that his best years are clustered away from the late 60s years he needs credit for to get on my ballot. Not far behind Pearce, still, but this part of the ballot is closely grouped together.

20. Clark Griffith - I had been giving him something of a bump, because I wasn't comfortable with a ballot with 14 hitters and one pitcher. Under the new system, Waddell gets his spot above on his own merits, and Griffith's numbers suffered a little. This is where he landed. I may revisit him, but I don't think he's terribly likely to make my ballot again soon.

16. Roger Bresnahan - OK, I like him quite a bit more under the new system. Not quite enough to vote for him, mind you, but I don't think he'd be a huge mistake (Beckley, on the other hand, would). Catcher bonus gets him here.

39. Mickey Welch - Didn't prevent runs, at least not well enough. That's, in my opinion, the goal of a pitcher, and he didn't accomplish it.

16-20: McGraw, Bresnahan, Thomas, Tiernan, Griffith (13,10,10,9,8,10)
21-25: Pike (12,12,12,--,--,--), Leach (15,15,13,13,14,--), Burns, Beckley (--,--,--,14,15,--), Browning
26-30: Donaldson, Willis, Bond, Buffinton, Long

35. Williams (--,--,--,--,--,12)
36. Pratt (15)
   118. OCF Posted: August 01, 2004 at 06:28 PM (#770088)
42 ballots so far, two of them new. If everyone who voted last year checks in, that would be 53, so 11 more to go.

Consensus scores are on the way to being the lowest I've seen yet: average between -2 and -3, highest individual about +7, highest possible only +14 or +15. Part of that is caused by the change from elect-two to elect-one, but only part.

No running vote totals, of course - but the election has not been decided.
   119. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 01, 2004 at 06:35 PM (#770126)
42 ballots so far, two of them new.

That's what I have so far, OCF.
   120. Michael Bass Posted: August 01, 2004 at 07:31 PM (#770492)
Just got done tallying (I never start until after I've posted my ballot lest I let it subconsciously affect me). I have 42 as well.
   121. yest Posted: August 01, 2004 at 08:09 PM (#770642)
but Paul Wendt's research showing that Welch had Ewing as his catcher more often than Keefe supports the opposite hypothesis

since Keefe played on a different team in 1883 and 84 while Ewing caught 143 games and Welch pitched 119 games during that span all it shows is that Welch played with him more seasons it doesn’t show why the were similar when they were teammates
   122. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 01, 2004 at 08:39 PM (#770808)
1931 ballot

I am in the middle of a lot of stuff including reworking my WARP methodology to use BaseRuns rather than XR, so my explanations won't be as detailed this election. But just look at the 1930 ballot for why I'm voting as I am and there may be big changes brewing for '32.

1. Charley Jones
Short seasons understate his greatness, he was extraordinarily good in 1879 and dominated the early AA as well. Blacklist years not his fault.

2. Clark Griffith
ERA+ makes it seem that Griffith had one dominant year in 1898 and was just above average elsewhere. In fact, he was just as good in 1899 (look at K, BB, HR, and BABIP/Teammates' BABIP), was a reliable workhorse, and pitched at an All-Star level for a decade. You can't see his greatness on the surface, but look deeper into the numbers and from 1896-1901 he was a genuine superstar.

3. Lip Pike
Obviously a truly dominant player in the NA and 1876 NL, played many years pre-1871 at a very high level.

4. Pete Browning
1890 showed us he was for real, so his knock-em-dead years in '82, '85 and '87 have to be taken seriously. More career value than the “career” guys GVH/Beckley by my measure, and a true dominator for three or four seasons. Hopefully I can drum up some support for him; he really deserves it.

5. Cupid Childs
Offensive juggernaut at a scarce position with often excellent leather for eight years. A bona fide superstar in '90, '92, and '96, and a strong All-Star in '93 and '97. Didn't play forever but so good that he accumulated more career value than the "career guys" IMO. We don't have anyone from his era at his position, and because he played in a stronger league than his comps by my estimate.

6. Addie Joss
Joss had a remarkable ability to prevent hits on balls in play, allowing a BABIP 31 points lower than his teammates' for his career (.238/.269). He had six seasons where he was absolutely one of the best in the biz, including 1908 which was particularly standout. His rate stats were so good that even despite his innings problem, he still comes out mid-ballot on both career and peak.

7. Hughie Jennings
So good for five years that he was more valuable than guys who played for three times as long.

8. Rube Waddell
Rube’s taken a big hit with my reevaluation. I *love* the K's, but now that I can see that deadball pitchers really could prevent hits on balls in play, he stands out less than he did before. It's worth nothing that his 1903 season was just as good as his much more highly regarded '04--almost as many innings, same BB/K/HR rates, similar propensity to giving up line drives (BABIP 5% higher than teammates' in '03, 6% in '04). '02 was really his best season though. One of the best pitchers in baseball from '02-'05, but not an otherworldly dominator and not enough career to push him further up the ballot or into my revised PHoM.

9. Eddie Cicotte
He really was a premier, superstar pitcher from 1917-19, and was serviceable in 1913 and 1920. A slightly above league average pitcher for the rest of his career.

10. Jimmy Ryan
He doesn’t fare that well in my system, but I do have to give respect to his near-ballot-topping career value and he did at least have two great years in 1888 and 89.

11. John McGraw
He didn't play long enough to make the HoM, and rarely played full seasons even when he did. But man, was he good--an on-base machine the likes of which the game has rarely seen since.

12.Vic Willis
Just kept churning out those innings at an above-average level. The Beckley of pitchers, but a more valuable career than Beckley and at least a genuine All-Star once or twice.

13. Bill Monroe
Decided I prefer him to Foster because it seems he played for a lot longer; Foster's subsequent organizational accomplishments are irrelevant.

14. Rube Foster
Ballot-filling Negro League section continues here. The best black pitcher of his era can squeeze on in a backlog year.

15. Bobby Veach
A little peak never hurt anyone.

Left Off:

Dickey Pearce: First of all, I don't think he was playing baseball, and secondly, I am very wary of subjective accounts of defensive brilliance. People said he was a good fielding shortstop. People say the same of Derek Jeter. I strongly don't think he deserves to get in. Please ask yourselves how reliable the reports are of his excellence before elevating him ahead of players with real stats. I know he was old, but he was a pretty awful hitter in the NA.

Jake Beckley: He wasn't an All-Star for 15 years. He was a slightly above average player for a long time, accumulating less career value than guys who played half as long. And of course he had no peak. Unless you think that replacement level in his era was so low that just playing in the majors meant a lot to helping a team win, he's really got no case. His best year (1899) was worse than Del Pratt in 1919.

George Van Haltren: Seems quite similar to Beckley by my measures.

Harry Hooper: Again, no peak.
   123. Esteban Rivera Posted: August 01, 2004 at 11:01 PM (#771012)
Here's my ballot for the last one electee year.

1. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball. The pre-NA numbers confirm what I have believed about his early career.

2. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress. I buy the "greatness can't take full advantage off lower competition" idea. Proved he could hold his own in the player's league.

3. Rube Waddell - Was a special picher. I buy the run support analysis and also believe in the higher value of being a phenomenal K artist in his time and place. His career record isn't that impressive but you have to remember that there were some stretches where he was jettisoned because his managers did not know how to deal with his unique personality.

4. Mickey Welch - The 300 game winner. The discussion of the past couple of "years" have made me realize that Welch should be a HOMer. Is not that far behind Keefe.

5. Jake Beckley - The career man. What he accomplished during his career is enough to offset the lack of peak, so to speak.

6. Clark Griffith - The more that I look at him the more I realize I have been underestimating his accomplishments. The fourth best pitcher of the 90's should be in.

7. Hughie Jennings - A historical monster for five years.

8. Rube Foster - Have looked at Foster once more and have concluded that the evidence does support him being one of the best pitchers of his time.

9. Bill Monroe - Keep gaining confidence in him. Seems to be one of the best second basemen of his time.

10. Charley Jones - Great hitter and one of the top outfielders of his time. Shorter seasons and blacklisting distort the actual statistical accomplishments Jones would have had.

11. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 90's. Then he just fell off. However, I feel his peak gives him the slight edge over Ryan and Van Haltren.

12. Roger Bresnahan - He has his favorable points such as his offense and being versatile. However, playing time and defensive issues make me a bit wary of going higher with him.

13. Dickey Pearce - Have gotten more confidence in the first half of Dickey's career. Career value is the most of available candidates. I don't know if he'll go higher. My level of confidence can only go so high.

14. Tommy Bond - The only other 70's era candidate that I feel is a viable candidate besides the ones already on my ballot. Was an outstanding pitcher for a stretch of five years. Arm gave out but was the best for what I feel is a long enough time for me to give him the last spot on my ballot. Caruthers without the hitting.

15. Frank Chance - The Peerless Leader makes my ballot this year. Was an outstanding player when he played, which wasn't much outside of his peak.

Not on ballot but made Top 10:

George Van Haltren - Another one with consistency but not the best at postion.

Jimmy Ryan - I'll take Van Haltren's consistency over Ryan's ups and downs.
   124. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: August 02, 2004 at 12:38 AM (#771100)
PHOM inductee this year is Bob Caruthers.

1931 ballot:

1. Mickey Welch: There are a number of borderline pitching candidates kicking around now. He’s got the career totals to put him well inside the border. In 1904, Amos Rusie waltzed into the HOM on his 1st try, with fewer seasons, innings, wins, and a lower WL% in many fewer decisions. 27 years later, Smiling Mickey’s still waiting while his career’s being analyzed down to the most minute details available. (PHOM 1929)

2. Rube Foster: Unquestionably great. Did he pitch enough? I’ve decided he did. (PHOM 1929)

3. Pete Browning: Monster hitter, even considering AA discount. 8-time STATS all-star including 1 each at 2b & 3b. .745 OWP is 8th all-time (1876-1930). (PHOM 1927)

4. Jake Beckley: At or near the top at his position for about 10 years. Long, steady career, lots of gray ink. 3 STATS AS. (PHOM 1926)

5. Roger Bresnahan: Looks like the best catcher post-Bennett and there’s nobody looming on the horizon in the white leagues to challenge him. Positional boost moves him up, and I think his performance in non-catcher roles shows his quality rather than detracting from it.

6. Larry Doyle: No questions about his offensive credentials. There are some about his defensive ability, but if he were substandard, wouldn’t McGraw have moved him elsewhere?

7. Hugh Duffy: Solid WS and WS/162, excellent defense in CF.

8. Rube Waddell: MVP/CYA in 1905, good ERA & ERA+, lots of strikeouts.

9. Clark Griffith: Solid, long career, McGinnity-like stats but spread out over more years. A top pitcher in the offense-heavy 90s.

10. Bill Monroe: Made 4 of Holway’s first 6 all-star teams, the last in his next-to-last year at age 37.

11. Tommy Leach: A+ defender at two right-spectrum positions with solid offensive numbers.

12. Cupid Childs: 6-time STATS all-star, good WS rate, good defense, underrepresented position.

13. Spotswood Poles: There’s enough to suggest brilliance that I’ll put him ahead of the “glut” of outfielders, who don’t suggest that at all.

14. Dickey Pearce: Portrayed in Nineteenth Century Stars as an intelligent player who overcame his physical limitations to excel. Also portrayed as the best shortstop pre-Wright. He was the best in a very small universe, that hurts him some. He played forever, that helps a lot. A standout player in his time.

15. Lip Pike: In his first 7 NA-NL seasons, I make him a first- or second-team all-star every year.

In 1929 top 10, off ballot:
Ryan & Van Haltren: I just don’t get the excitement over these two. Solid careers, but few standout seasons.
Jennings: Their antithesis. Exceptional peak, but not much else. I like some of both.
   125. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 02, 2004 at 03:50 AM (#771209)
Welcome Brent!

"803 lifetime OPS in a game where scores averaged 7 R/G -- look like Joe DiMaggio. I’m skeptical of the accuracy of these formulas for the high-error game that was played in the 1870s."

Don't forget - those scores were 7 runs a game because teams were making truckloads of errors.

The league average (park-adjusted) OPS for Pike was .626. He was a monster hitter and it has nothing to do with any modern formula. Plus new RC (if you are using the Stats All-Time Handbook) are adjusted so the team totals add up, so any error would be spread around the league and wouldn't favor any one player over any other necessarily.

Pike had a .338 OBP while his leagues were .287 and his .465 SLG in a league that was .338 is pretty impressive.
   126. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 02, 2004 at 03:52 AM (#771212)
Love the Geddy Lee references guys.

Brad - Any chance you can get me backstage Tuesday in DC or Wednesday in Camden :-) I'm just joking of course, unless you actually can . . .

I'll be at the show Wednesday night, probably going Tuesday too though I don't have a ticket yet . . . can't wait. Anyone else from the HoM going to be taking in one of the shows?
   127. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:54 AM (#771246)
If you spot something that looks illogical (like how could you have Doe #X and Smith #Y, when Smith was directly comparable and better) please speak up, I easily could have mis-slotted someone despite my careful reconsideration.

I'm giving some extra weight to Chris J's RSI adjustments for pitchers this week. The adjusted WARP numbers listed are those calced prior to the update that inexplicably removed BRARP from the site.

1. Clark Griffith (1) - 95.7 aWARP3 (231-152 Chris J record - CJ from here out). His aWARP3 is best on the ballot aside from McCormick, and his two best years show as more valuable than McGinnity's (though McGinnity had 4 such years total).

2. Jake Beckley (4) - 80.5 aWARP1. Very good player for a very long time, much better than an average player. Good for 22-25 WS a year for about 13-14 years. That has a lot of value in my opinion. I also believe that 1B defense was more important in his time, and that gets him a subjective nudge forward from where modern methods place him. I see him as more Rafael Palmeiro than Harold Baines.

3. Lip Pike (5) - 68.3 aWARP1. He was a great hitter. 155 OPS+ do not grow on trees . . . major bump, as that aWARP1 number has nothing before age 26.

4. Rube Foster (13) - (241-176 estimated record). Creeping up some more. I can see him as better than Waddell now, though with a similarly short career.

5. Bill Monroe (6) - Still not convinced he was better than Grant or Johnson, but I am confident he should be ranked near the Thompson level.

6. Charley Jones (7) - 80.4 aWARP1. Top 7 in OPS+ in the league every year he played from 1876-85, and he played some CF too. Wow. Was better than I realized.

7. Hughie Jennings (8) - 67.4 aWARP1. Great peak, but it was just 5 years, there's not a lot on the resume besides that. His career number turned out higher than I expected, and when you throw in the peak, well, here he is.

8. Ed Williamson (9) - 67.8 aWARP1. I'm really serious about taking a second look at everyone. His career is quite comparable to Jimmy Collins'. Both had a 113 career OPS+, and Williamson's was more OBP driven than Collins'. Both Collins and Williamson were great defensive players, Williamson was actually better, good enough to play about 3 1/2 years as a SS, though he wasn't too good there.

9. Dickey Pearce (10) - Pearce was a great player, the only question for me was whether or not his career fell under the scope of this project. His NA/NL career clearly shows that he was comparable as a hitter from age 35-41 as other great shortstops, and I take that as positive evidence in evaluating his case. Could possibly be convinced to rank him much higher.

10. Jimmy Ryan (11) - 68.8 aWARP1. Good, not great defensive CF, which is probably why he was eventually shifted to RF. One heckuva hitter though. This is a tight ballot, he's not all that far behind Sheckard, but here is where he landed.

11. George Van Haltren (12) - 71.2 aWARP1. Nice, long, consistent career, very good player for a long time. Not a bad fielder, but not a great one either, pretty good hitter. Never had a monster year, he didn't make any Stats All-Star teams, but he also played mostly in a one-league era, where only 3 All-Star OFs were named per year, not 6. He's behind Ryan because of Ryan's higher peak.

12. Vic Willis (19) - 88.7 aWARP3 (254-203 CJ). I see very goodness. He's Dennis Martinez compared the guys on the ballot being Dave Stieb, David Cone or Tom Glavine. But the more I look the better he looks, so he's rising this year.

13. Mickey Welch (14) - 85.9 aWARP3 (302-215 CJ). Based on my adjusted WARP he comes out basically a little below McGinnity, Willis, et al. Throw in some timeline, and he's below them. But Chris J. has mentioned that he was generally matched up against the other teams's best pitchers, so that gives him some bump. He compares better to the top pitchers (Clarkson 299-207 CJ, Radbourn 292-212 CJ, Galvin 361-313 CJ) of his era than I previously thought.

14. Spotswood Poles (15) - I9s, with some downward adjustment shows him below Ryan and Van Haltren, above where I figure Cravath/Tiernan, so this is a reasonable starting point. I don't think his peak is enough to move him past Ryan and Van Haltren.

15. Rube Waddell (16) - 80.5 aWARP3 (193-138 CJ). Not quite as good as Joss at his best, but he pitched about 2 more seasons, enough to edge him forward.


16. Ed Konetchy (17) - 72.8 aWARP1. WARP loves his defense. Very good player - kind of Hernandezish - more power, less OBP, and overall not as good, but a similar package.

17. Harry Hooper (n/e) - I can't see any way to put him ahead of Van Haltren.

18. Cupid Childs (18) - 71.0 aWARP1. Now I can see how you could compare him to Doyle and have him ahead - consider me converted . . .

19. Ed Cicotte (2) - 93.7 aWARP3 (200-157 CJ). Chris J doesn't like him nearly as much as WARP - he's dropping this week.

20. Jim McCormick (20) - 121.1 aWARP3 (267-212 CJ). Maybe I adjusted him too high last time, considering the context of his time. A few huge years, and never a bad one, until his final season. Arguably the best pitcher in baseball (overall) from 1879-82.
   128. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:56 AM (#771248)
21. Larry Doyle (22) - 37.5 aWARP1. Very comparable to Ron Santo. Wasn't as durable and played one fewer season, but he was great hitter for the position, even when you consider that 2B wasn't nearly as important defensively as it is now. QUestions about his defense have caused his drop - but I don't agree with the WARP defensive rating, which cost him 18.8 wins below an average 2B.

22. Gavvy Cravath (23) - 44.1 aWARP1. I ran a little quick and dirty WS comparison on Cravath at age 32-34 to find similar players, and four turned up - Bret Boone, Sam Crawford, Gary Sheffield and Billy Williams.

The others are slam dunk Hall of Famers (if Sheffield ages like Cravath, Crawford or Williams he will be one), except for Boone these guys averaged:

Age 28 - 25 WS
Age 29 - 30 WS
Age 30 - 26 WS

Of course, cravath could've been a late bloomer, like Boone. At 27, Boone had 10 WS, Cravath 12 (in limited playing time 20 projected to a full season). From age 23-26 and 28-30 Boone compiled 82 WS. I could see this as a conservative estimate for Cravath. I could also see giving him credit for 39 WS age 23-26 and 81 WS age 28-30. I think that's what I'll do for now - it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable estimate of where Cravath might have been had he not been held back. That would peg him as a 320 WS player, which about where I see him. Carefully worked out opinion is the best we can do sometimes.

I'm not quite as comfortable projecting this as I was though - so he slips.

23. Bruce Petway (24) - I think it's reasonable to put him a little ahead of Bresnahan.

24. Mike Tiernan (25) - 56.3 aWARP1. Relatively short career, but he could hit (138 career OPS+!). I don't think the D was as bad as WARP says. I jumped the gun last week though . . .

25. Addie Joss (26) - 69.9 aWARP3 (163-94 CJ). A truly great pitcher, in the Koufax/Dean mold. He never had a year where he wasn't at least a very good pitcher, and if it wasn't for his death, he'd be talked about with greatest of the great. He doesn't get any extra credit for dying young or anything, just saying that he was a truly great pitcher.

26. Pete Browning (27) - 85.6 aWARP1. Back on the board, but I don't see him as a great player. Short career, weak competition, questionable defense. Just not enough there. I see him kind of like Jim Rice - some spectacular surface numbers, but when you look at the context, many holes begin to emerge, and nearly all of the necessary adjustments dock his raw numbers.

27. Roger Bresnahan (28) - 46.7 aWARP1. An incredible hitter for a catcher. Lots of walks, but he really didn't play all that much. He drops on the reevaluation - he just didn't play enough. He's only this high because of a subjective 'catcher bonus'.

28. Tony Mullane (31) - 89.9 aWARP3 (287-217 CJ). Tough to rank, but his best years were in weak leagues, or he'd be higher. One of the best pitcher/hitter combinations of all-time. He drops though, as he had more help from his teams than most.

29. Lave Cross (32) - 68.8 aWARP1. Another very good player for a very long time. Had big years in 1894, 1898, 1899 and 1902.

30. John McGraw (33) - 61.0 aWARP1. If only he could have stayed in the lineup. An incredible OBP machine when on the field, and played key defensive positions to boot. But his career was more than a full season shorter than Jennings, for example. Just 7 seasons where he played the modern equivalent of 100 games.

31. Frank Chance (34) - 57.4 aWARP1. Great player, short career and wasn't durable during his short career, decreasing the impact he could have on any one pennant race. What a great team, the most similar team to the 1996-2000 Yankees that I can think of, in terms of balance vs. superstars.

32. Herman Long (35) - 62.9 aWARP1. Pretty good player. I thought he was moving up, but I can't see who to put him ahead of.

33. Mike Griffin (36) - 61.6 aWARP1. Amazing defensive CF and a pretty good hitter too.

34. Hugh Duffy (47) - 52.0 aWARP1. Moved him up to just below Griffin. He had a nice career, but his 2nd best year was in a weak AA (1891), and distorts his eyeball peak value a little bit. I'd take the career of Mike Griffin over Duffy's. Still easily the most overrated player by the group. Convince me why I might be wrong, please, I'm just not seeing it.

35. Tommy Leach (37) - 56.9 aWARP1. One of the best 'slash' players of all-time. When you consider his defensive contribution, career length and that he had some pop (career SLG + .021), it's a nice package. Well-rounded players always tend to be underrated. I wish I could rank him higher.
   129. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:56 AM (#771249)
36. Joe Tinker (38) - 55.5 aWARP1. Another one that's kind of tough. I believe he was a historically great defensive player, along the lines of Ozzie Smith. His offensive was very good for a shortstop (better than Ozzie's). His career was short, or it wouldn't be a question.

37. Johnny Evers (39) - 50.7 aWARP1. Man these poem guys were good, it's amazing that none of them had a long career. All 3 had high enough peaks to warrant a spot near the top (Evers had 6 WARP1's over 9.0), but they just didn't play long enough.

38. Tom York (29) - 73.4 aWARP1. Very good player for a long time.

39. Levi Meyerle (40) - 45.3 aWARP1. Short career, awful defensive player, in an era where defense mattered most. He could hit though.

40. Joe Wood (41) - 58.7 aWARP1, 55.1 aWARP3 (106-67 CJ). His 1912 was one of the best single seasons anyone has ever had.

41. Jake Daubert (42) - 53.9 aWARP1.

42. Fielder Jones (43) - 57.4 aWARP1. Very good player, mid-glut I suppose, I have him ranked a little below Griffin, who was a little better in a shorter career. Similar to Thomas, not as good but played longer.

43. Jimmy Williams (44) - 54.6 aWARP1. He actually showed quite well on my system. Very good defensive player, 115 OPS+. Call me surprised here . . .

44. Miller Huggins (45) - 52.2 aWARP1. Valuable little player, getting on base and playing a solid 2B for a very long time.

45. Larry Gardner (46) - 47.5 aWARP1.

46. Roy Thomas (48) - 51.6 aWARP1. Really good player, but no power at all. He was a great defensive player. I absolutely love the type of game he played.

47. Del Pratt (49) - 51.3 aWARP1.

48. Bobby Veach (n/e) - nice career, can't see him as better than Pratt.

49. George J. Burns (n/e) - edged by Veach.

Out of consideration - John Donaldson (30) - estimated record 126-100, not as good as I previously thought.
   130. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:59 AM (#771252)
I haven't taken in the new WARP ratings (I have a feeling by the time we're done with this I'll have 6 iterations of Ryan and Van Haltren's totals sitting on my database - and I still won't be sure who's better.)

This is quite a thin ballot. I've spent the last several hours looking at the top 2 guys for my PHoM, and I don't feel like I want to put either one in. (And I know the other will probably get in next year.) But I've decided - Iron Man Joe McGinnity makes the PHoM. (If Pearce gets in this year, there's only going to be 1 player difference between the HoM and my PHoM.)

1. Dickey Pearce (1) Didn't make my ballot until 1903, now he's at the top. It's clear from the Wright (via D. Foss) info that he was the best player of his time. It was a very different game, but he was playing the best competiton he could find. His NA numbers are not worthy of induction, but they aren't inconsistent with his being a great player earlier in his career. Made my PHoM in 1920.

2. Lip Pike (2) He was one of the five or six best players of the '71-'77 era, combined power and speed, and played important defensive positions. The information from Marshall Wright via David Foss compares him favorably to his compatriots already enshrined. Behind Pearce because while he was among the best, he was never a true challenger to being The Best. Made my PHoM in 1919.

(2A Joe McGinnity)

3. Cupid Childs (6) He could hit the ball pretty well for a 2B and his defense was decent. It seems 1890s IF are underrepresented, but there's a bunch of 2Bmen on or near my ballot now and there's not much to tell them apart. His career is a little shorter than I'd like - he's definitely ahead of McPhee in the '90s, but McPhee had a LOT more value outside that era.
(BTW, in 1924, McGinnity and Childs were 14th and 15th on my ballot and now they're fighting for my PHoM. Thin Ballot.)

4. Hughie Jennings (7) Still a more impressive peak than anyone else on the ballot, and when he was good, he was good at everything.

5. Bill Monroe (5) A good player at an important defensive position, with a great reputation for his fielding. Slips behind Childs and Jennings because when I thought about putting him in the PHoM, I was really iffy.

BTW, I was looking through Riley's Bio. Encyclopedia, and while I did see the McGraw quote, in Mendez' entry, there was another quote where he listed 4 Negro Leaguers he'd have liked to have on the Giants and didn't mention Monroe. (Of course, he could have meant 4 he'd like to have added at the time he said that, it isn't clear.)

6. Spotswood Poles (8) His numbers (as we have them) do seem similar to Monroe's, but he's an OF instead of a 2B. Ahead of Van Ryan because James likes him so much. His defensive reputation seems good (although further info is always nice)

7. George Van Haltren (10) Another look puts him a bit ahead of Ryan, but I don't understand the big gap in their vote totals. Are three years of league-average pitching worth that much?

8. Jimmy Ryan (9) Van Haltren version 1.1. I just don't see greatness in these two guys.

9. Jim McCormick (12) OK, he probably was great, but not for long enough, and I'm really uncertain about adding more 1880s pitchers. He feels like he should be worthy, but we can't put everyone in.

10. Clark Griffith (11) The DERA numbers help a little, but he doesn't have one strong argument. Just not sure he was ever great. It does feel like the '90s should have another pitcher, but these things ebb and flow.

(10A Sam Thompson)

11. Tommy Leach (13) Long career w/out much peak, but hit OK for defensive positions and fielded extremely well. Most WS Gold Gloves of anyone in my consideration set.

12. Bobby Veach (new) Has good peak value and a halfway decent career value. Seems like a good fielder for a corner OF.

13. Mickey Welch (15) Hard to separate him from Griffith and McCormick this year. OTOH, I don't see why so many have him so far ahead of them, especially McCormick.

14. Harry Hooper (new) A little better peak than Beckley, but a similar type of guy. Pretty low OPS+ for a corner OF candidate.

15. Mike Griffin (14) A great fielder and a good hitter. Similar to Ryan and Van Haltren, but his career was cut short (OK, because he walked away). Definitely want to see what the new WARP has to say after someone voted him 4th.

Off Ballot:

16. Larry Doyle. (18) Seems to be Hornsby lite (very good hitter, lousy fielder). Even w/out the NL penalty, he seems too flawed to rank much higher.
17. Rube Foster. (19) His records are very goof, but are we sure about what they mean? I don't know that I trust all the conversions, and that still seems like a short peak, even for his era.

18. Charley Jones. (21) A heck of a hitter, but you need to make a lot of assumptions to get him up on the ballot.
19. Del Pratt. (16) WARP likes him a LOT more than Win Shares does, and I haven't checked the new numbers.
20. Herman Long. (17) Here's where the numbers put him.
21. Hugh Duffy. (20) Still a step behind the rest of the glut.
22. Eddie Cicotte (28) He was pretty good, it's hard to deny that.
23. Pete Browning (23) Hit the ball real hard
24. Jake Beckley. (24) There just is no peak there whatsoever, and even when there weren't HOFers in the league, he wasn't a great deal better than his compatriots.
25. George Burns (new) Not bad at all, but doesn't have the strengths of the other newcomers.

28. Roger Bresnahan. (25) It'd be nice to have a catcher in for his era, but he just didn't play enough.
   131. Philip Posted: August 02, 2004 at 07:18 AM (#771337)
Again not much change in my ballot. I’m trying to balance all eras. Will give more attention to Win Shares in the future to give the newer folks a fair evaluation. Still working on it though… Foster makes pHoM this year.

1. Pike (1-1-2-1-1) – Still needs a few more voters to finally make it! Pike should appeal to both peak and career voters. Especially his peak is one of the highest of this group. And his 13 year career should not be considered short for the early days (longer than Thompson and effectively just as long as Duffy and Stovey). Also, he shouldn’t be considered part of the outfield glut since half his value comes at second base. Pike has been sitting in my HOM since 1908 and is now the only player left who is been on all my ballots since 1898.
2. Pearce (2-3-4-3-2) – MVP of the 1860’s.
3. Griffith (11-10-7-5-4) – I think he is underrated by this group. Maybe he is too all-round, not really excelling in either career or peak.
4. Foster (24-21-10-6-5) – I believe I’ve been underrating him.
5. Van Haltren (9-8-11-10-6) – Benefits as I lean a little more toward Win Shares rather than WARP. Should eventually make my pHoM.
6. Jennings (13-9-9-7-7) – Collected enough career value in his short peak. Borderline candidate.
7. Ryan (10-9-12-11-8) – As always, just behind Van Haltren. A bit higher, but shorter peak. Borderline candidate.
8. Bresnahan (26-12-8-6-10) – It’s still very difficult to rank catchers. I find the argument that the best hitters were saved from catcher duties to make them more durable very interesting.

9. Leach (22-15-14-16-15) – Third base duties push him in the top10.
10. Poles (9-12) – I rate him just a level below Van Haltren and Ryan.
11. Childs (21-18-16-12-11) – No HoM material but best of the rest.
12. Long (18-17-17-13-13) – I think he’s underrated, although I no longer think he will make my personal HoM. Both WARP and win shares like him. Maybe his lack of a great peak hurts him but most of his value came from playing defense, which is generally more constant from year to year. I don’t believe it’s wrong to have a high percentage of shortstops in the hall, after all it’s the toughest and most important defensive position to play (just like there are more QB’s, centers and strikers considered the best players in their respective sports).
13. Hooper (new) – His numbers don’t look too good, but I’m afraid I’m underrating all players of the 10’s. Will need to look closer.
14. Veach (new) – His numbers don’t look too good, but I’m afraid I’m underrating all players of the 10’s. Will need to look closer.
15. Monroe (15-11-13-14-14) – I’m convinced he deserves to be on the ballot.

16. Waddell (20-23-22-21-20)
17. C Jones (9-7-16-15-16)
18. Duffy (18-19-19-19-18)
19. Williamson (12-20-20-17-17)
20. Welch (28-27-21-20-19)
   132. MichaelD Posted: August 02, 2004 at 02:37 PM (#771488)
Waiting till the last minute like usual. I had a full baseball weekend as I'm trying to cover for a friend's fantasy team as well as my usual.

Here's my ballot. Only a few changes at the bottom. Cravath makes my PHOM after McGinnitty and Frank Grant got in last year.

1. Jimmy Ryan - I'm not sure what else to say. As much as I've supported Ryan, I think this is the first time he finally reached #1 for me.

2. George Van Haltren - Before I was discounting his Win Shares too much for his pitching. Maybe he should be above Ryan.

3. Hugh Duffy - I guess the CF glut has just taken over the top of my ballot. Every time I do a re-analysis, Duffy or Ryan turns out to be slightly in front of the other and it flip-flops each time. Now Ryan has the slight edge.

4. Tommy Leach - Another point towards the CF glut. I guess he is my type of player, lots of career Win Shares. 3b was still a key defensive position while he was playing there, so the defensive Win Shares make sense.

5. Jake Beckley - Hard to ignore his entire career. Even though the peak is not very high, he was still often the best first baseman. Moved up slightly this year.

6. Gavvy Cravath - I'm right now giving him a middling bump up for his missed years (about half a full year) but could give him more.

7. Larry Doyle - Definitely questions about his defense. Based on WS he'd probably be a couple of slots ahead. He may flip-flop with Griffith next year as the two are very close and fighting for a slot in my PHOM.
Project personal 1932 cut line.

8. Clark Griffith - Also drops downward because of the pitcher re-adjustment.

9. Harry Hooper - Yes, he doesn't have much peak. However, his career is strong. Yes, he doesn't look like the best outfielder of his era. However, OF in the AL in those years is loaded.

10. Ed Williamson - There is now a chance Williamson could re-work into my PHOM situation again. A couple of years ago, I would have thought that highly unlikely.

11. Mike Tiernan - I always thought he was a little inferior to Thompson. The two are pretty close but that slight difference could be pretty important at this level.

12. George J. Jones - All those walks. Kind of like Sheckard lite.

13. Spotswood Poles - Not as strong as the elected NLers but given the weakness of the ballot gets a slot.

14. Cupid Childs - A tough player to judge. Best 2nd basemen during the 90s.

15. Roger Bresnahan - I'm not too big on positional bonuses with the exception of catcher and that is why Bresnahan get the last slot. Only barely held on to the ballot slot over Pearce.

Next groups. Listed alphabetically. Like what I do with grades, I tried to find break for these groups.

16-21: Chance, Evers, Konetchy, Pearce, Veach and Welch.

22-26: Foster, Jennings, Monroe, Pratt and Tinker.

27-30: Mullane, Petway, Pike and Waddell.
   133. Brad G. Posted: August 02, 2004 at 02:39 PM (#771489)
Joe D.- Can't get you backstage, but I might have a Permanent Waves program from back in the day stashed in the basement somewhere!
   134. Kelly in SD Posted: August 02, 2004 at 02:50 PM (#771504)
1931 Ballot:

1. Mickey Welch: See my previous posts. I think the wins are real and his achievements merit inclusion.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Tommy Leach: 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.: 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

5. 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 and Hamilton) that the Beanneaters were the best of the 1890s.

6. 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.

7. George Burns: Best/second best NL outfielder of the 1910s and best leadoff hitter. 7th in career win shares, 5th in 3 cons. yrs, 2nd in best non-cons 7 yrs. Only GVH has more 20+ WS (12-10) and he is tied with Veach for most 30+ with 3. 2 Stats AllStars, 5 WS AllStars, 3 times in Major league all star outfield. Top 10 runs 11 straight yrs, leading in 5. OBP 5 times, BA 4 times, SLG 3 times. Walks 8 times, leading in 5.

8. Jake Beckley: 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.

9. 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.

10. Bobby Veach: 127 OPS+. 7th most WS 3 cons yr. 3rd most 7 yr. Tied with Burns for most 30+ WS. 4 WS AllStars. 4th Most Black Ink, Most Grey. 3 WS Gold Gloves.

11. 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.

12: 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.

13. Roger Bresnahan: I didn't realize his level of dominance at the position between 1900-1915. Only Kling came close to him in WS at catcher and it took 20% more games for Kling. His versatility is an added bonus (CF and pitching - see 1897). His huge difference in OPS helps as well.

14. Clark Griffith: I wavered long whether to place him here or Foster. In the end it was the consistent quality of Griffith's performances in a tight, restricted competition 1890s over Foster's great performances over all-comers in the 1900s.

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.

Top 10 Returnees not on ballot, reasons to follow:
16. Foster
17. GVH
18. Pike
19. Ryan
23. Jennings
   135. MichaelD Posted: August 02, 2004 at 02:57 PM (#771518)
Missing ballot:

16. Dickey Pearce - I've been somewhat convinced. The big positive for me is that he was older than almost anyone else in the NA, which suggests he was probably pretty good before that. I'm just not sure if that was because the overall talent level just wasn't very high.

Lip Pike - Not as strong as other NA hitters. I guess I'm willing to go further down the list in more recent years which I view as deeper.

Mickey Welch - Also clost to the ballot, and it is difficult to vote against a 300 game winner, but we've elected so many 1880s pitchers. Was the position that key during those years?

Rube Foster - Mostly a peak argument and I tend to be more career, though I tend to make exceptions for pitchers quicker. Soon we'll see the other strong Negro League pitchers and have a better idea of where Foster sits.
   136. MichaelD Posted: August 02, 2004 at 03:04 PM (#771529)
Dang. I forgot to explaing Jennings.

Hughie Jennings - I like his peak and I probably have him ranked higher than anyone with so little career (except maybe Cravath, depending on how you look at him). Just not much out of the short peak years.
   137. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2004 at 03:11 PM (#771542)
KJOK, Brian H and Carl Goetz will be sending in their ballots sometime today. I don't have the e-mail addresses for RMc and Max Parkinson. Am I missing anyone else, OCF? Our votes are more important than usual this election.
   138. Kelly in SD Posted: August 02, 2004 at 03:30 PM (#771569)
16. Foster: Went back and forth with Griffith for 14th spot. Thank you for the MLEs which gave me numbers that agreed with my gut feelings. Should be on the ballot in 1932. As I said in Griffith's comment, I like the tighter competition he faced as opposed to the all-comers that Foster faced. Also, I am still trying to figure exactly how to integrate pitchers with hitters.

17. Van Haltren: Dropped to a change in emphasis for prime (7 best yrs) and career numbers. Veach and Burns seemed to stand out more in their period but that could be an illusion of two leagues. I will reexamine for next ballot.

18. Pike: Dropped because of my reexamination of Bresnahan and Griffith and because I like Burns and Veach more. I like their leaderboard appearances more than Pike's. I have questions about him that were raised by other voters posts discussing the 1881 fielding incidents and the reasons for his constant team shifting. Also, I don't put as much stock in dominating shorter seasons as I do longer.

19. Ryan: May never see my ballot again with the new candidates coming on in the next few years. The last ten years of his career are just too poor for me to include him in the Hall. In most of those years, he was a middle-of-the-road performer at best, bottom third at worst.

20. Joss: Have reexamined him and am liking what I see more. His outstanding ability to reduce the BABIP lasted his whole career. He had amazing control and kept people off base and prevented those that got on, from scoring. His numerous Top 10s in OBA, OOBP, BB/9, ERA.

21. Doyle: I am wavering with putting him higher. I know about the hitting ability, but I don't know how I can put him higher than Monroe when his manager said Monroe was better. Could possibly see my ballot once the mid30s are over.

22. F. Jones: Like the outfield defense. 7th most career WS, 7th most over best 7 yrs. 7 Gold Gloves. 5 WS AllStars.

23. Jennings: Best 3 cons yr peak. Unfortunately, for his candidacy I don't consider 5 yr peak or prime, but 7 yr because, philosophically, I want players with longer primes. He was excellent, but burned out too fast.

24. Spots Poles: There are a lot of outfielders and I don't see him as good as some of his contemporaries such as Hill or Torriente.

25. Cravath: Didn't get the opportunity to burn out too fast. Love the production. Best outfielder of 1910s NL with Burns (boy, what two different types of players.)Counting numbers were definitely helped by home park, but he took advantage of it the few others could. Minneapolis time gets some credit. Could move up.

Other Newcomers not in top 25.
Hooper: NO peak. 1 appearance on WS AllStars and that was shortened season. No STATS AllStars. Middle of pack for 3yr, 7yr, and per162 games WS. By WS, 3rd best defensive outfielder of Speaker, Lewis, and Hooper. All he has is career length and walks. Not a drop of Black Ink.

Marquard: Some good years. I think I'll take Hooks Dauss instead.
   139. Max Parkinson Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:04 PM (#771646)

Sorry for the lack of time put in this week - as some of you know, I coach a Mickey Mantle team here in Toronto (Ontario Blue Jays), and the past two weeks have been Districts and Regionals in Michigan. We swept both (in 11 games our RS/RA is 141-18), and are headed to McKinney, TX for the World Series tonight. This ballot will be ultra quick, so please forgive the lack of comments; hopefully I've been here long enough for some slack this week.

MP HoM this year is Harry Hooper.

1. Jennings
2. Hooper
3. Pearce
4. Pike
5. Veach
6. Cicotte
7. F. Jones
8. McCormick
9. Griffith
10. Van Haltren
11. Foster
12. Beckley
13. Bond
14. Williamson
15. Petway

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

   140. Michael Bass Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:10 PM (#771657)
I assume #12 on MichaelD's ballot is supposed to be George J. Burns?
   141. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:11 PM (#771659)
I'm just a little curious - are other people's PHoM getting closer or farther away from the offical HoM as we go through the backlog candidates? I was up to having 4 different in 1926, which was a high for me, but like I said in my ballot, if Pearce gets in this year, I'm down to 1 different (Pike for Thompson), although that will almost certainly go back up 1 next year.
   142. OCF Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:16 PM (#771669)
Like Michael Bass, I'm choosing to recored MichaelD with a 12th place vote for George Burns. I have enough trouble keeping up with the Joneses without someone going and inventing a new one.

John - I just logged on. You've got to give me a half hour or so before I can answer your question.
   143. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#771677)
John - I just logged on. You've got to give me a half hour or so before I can answer your question.

Take your time. It wasn't an order. :-)
   144. OCF Posted: August 02, 2004 at 04:45 PM (#771715)
OK, now I have it: there are three "new" votes: Brent, James Newburg, and "... Tanketra". I'm counting James Newburg as "new" because he hasn't voted in the last several elections. In addition, Brad Harris missed last year but voted this time. With 51 ballots in, four of last year's voters haven't appeared yet: Brian H, Carl Goetz, KJOK, and RMc. So yes, John, that's the complete list, unless someone like LennoxHC, Seaver1969, or Zapatero reappears.
   145. PhillyBooster Posted: August 02, 2004 at 05:02 PM (#771761)
I'm just a little curious - are other people's PHoM getting closer or farther away from the offical HoM as we go through the backlog candidates?

I'm getting a little of both, but the trend seems to be divergence.

On the one hand, I've got a more proportional number of outfielders (no Keeler, Kelley, or Sheckard in my PHoM, and Sherry Magee and Elmer Flick are Top 5 on my PHoM ballot, but still outside looking in) and more players that fall on the "peak" side (Cravath, Pike Rube Foster) in my PHoM.

On the other hand there is some "catching up" with earlier elections both by the electorate (I inducted Caruthers in 1901, and I have Beckley in, and think we will induct him eventually) and by me (I will eventually induct at least Sherry Magee and Elmer Flick).

I'd say for every two divergences added, there is one "catching up" subtracted. But I am not that far away from the majority (7 differences), so my experience may not be the norm.
   146. jhwinfrey Posted: August 02, 2004 at 05:19 PM (#771793)
It's about the same for me--There are 6 HoM'ers not in my PHoM (Richardson, Glasscock, Magee, Jackson, Wallace, and Sheckard) and 5 PHoM'ers (Welch, Beckley, Pearce, Waddell, and Bresnahan) not yet inducted. If Van Haltren is elected, that number will go to 6 after 1931's ballot, with the addition of Foster.
For every Sheckard and Magee inducted, there's been a Sam Thompson or Frank Grant to go in as well, keeping my numbers fairly constant. And I don't see many chances to diverge from the norm in the next few elections!
   147. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 02, 2004 at 05:23 PM (#771800)
Geez, 7 divergences and you think you're not far from the norm...But I do realize I tend to be among the more consensus voters - and when I put Pearce in I honestly thought he wouldn't make the offical HoM.
   148. yest Posted: August 02, 2004 at 05:59 PM (#771868)
I'm just a little curious - are other people's PHoM getting closer or farther away from the offical HoM as we go through the backlog candidates?

mine has gotten further so assuming Pierce is elected I now have 15 diffrences
I elected Lip Pike ,Jake Beckley, George Van Haltren ,Pete Browning ,Hugh Duffy ,Jimmy Ryan ,Mickey Welch ,Clark Griffith ,Rube Waddell ,Rube Foster ,Addie Joss ,Jake Daubert, John McGraw,Gavvy Cravath ,Bobby Veach
while not electing Bob Caruthers, Hardy Richardson, Ezra Sutton, George Davis, Sherry Magee, Joe Start, Jim Sheckard, Frank Grant, Bobby Wallace, HR. Johnson, Jimmy Collins, Charlie Bennett, Elmer Flick, Jack Glasscock, and Dickey Pierce.
   149. Rick A. Posted: August 02, 2004 at 06:03 PM (#771881)
I'm just a little curious - are other people's PHoM getting closer or farther away from the offical HoM as we go through the backlog candidates?

I wrote that my PHOM was diverging from the consensus, but really it's not. I have 5 divergences and most of them are not-likely-to-be-inducted-into-the-HOM types, such as C.Jones, Williamson, and Browning. However within the next top 3 candidates for my PHOM are Keeler and McGinnity which would put me more in line with the HOM (as well as Pearce getting inducted in the HOM in the next few weeks)
   150. karlmagnus Posted: August 02, 2004 at 06:05 PM (#771884)
George Davis! Yest, with the greatest possible respect, I have to say you cause us to revise the definition of no-brainer! :))
   151. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: August 02, 2004 at 06:23 PM (#771914)
He compares better to the top pitchers (Clarkson 299-207 CJ, Radbourn 292-212 CJ, Galvin 361-313 CJ) of his era than I previously thought.

FWIW, the above numbers are adjusted for RSI & defense - & I ain't all that sure I've got the defensive adjustment done very well.

28. Tony Mullane (31) - 89.9 aWARP3 (287-217 CJ).

Long as I'm nitpicking - please remember my system completely ignores a pitcher's hitting ability - & Mullane could hit.
   152. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 02, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#771969)
That reminds me of something else I was thinking of as far as Joe looking for topics for a SABR paper: Most Controversial Votes. The ones that spring to mind:

- karlmagnus' putting Caruthers ahead of Crawford and Plank
- yest leaving George Davis off his ballot
- Joe Dimino putting Benny Kauff on his ballot based on a projection of his career, and then recalling it because if the projection was accurate, he wouldn't be eligible for another 6 years.

Any other truly memorable ones?
   153. karlmagnus Posted: August 02, 2004 at 07:06 PM (#771978)
Not just ahead of Crawford and Plank, ahead of Matty and Nap too. I was planning another one for 1941 -- Since he had more hits, and triples in the 1890s were at least as valuable as homers in the 1920s, I'm thinking of constructing a case for putting Beckley ahead of Ruth!
   154. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 02, 2004 at 07:11 PM (#771988)
Geez, I'm starting to hope Beckley gets in so I don't have to see that atrocity. :)
   155. Michael Bass Posted: August 02, 2004 at 07:32 PM (#772025)
I'm sure I'm opening a can of worm I probably shouldn't be here, because it doesn't matter, and PHOMs aren't official, but...

121 OPS+ vs. 117
10151 PA vs. 8742
SS vs. 1B

Top 3 OPS+
155/144/138 vs. 140/138/134

How exactly can one justify PHOMing Daubert and not Davis?
   156. karlmagnus Posted: August 02, 2004 at 07:38 PM (#772037)
Come to think of it, if we carry this project onto 2014, by that time Ruth may only be #5 for homers (Aaron/Bonds/Sosa/A-Rod) whereas Beckley will still be all-time #4 for triples!
   157. DavidFoss Posted: August 02, 2004 at 07:48 PM (#772055)
Since he had more hits, and triples in the 1890s were at least as valuable as homers in the 1920s, I'm thinking of constructing a case for putting Beckley ahead of Ruth!

Yeah... because of a big advantage in Wild Pitches and HBP's, I was thinking of putting Rube Marquard ahead of Walter Johnson on my ballot in 1933!

Maybe I can get people to vote for Marquard this year that way so that they won't have to see that occur!

Are we electing baseball players or are we just get our kicks out of trying to get "our guys" elected at the expense of all logic and reason.

(sorry if I missed any implied smiley on your post karl... but sometimes I wonder...)
   158. karlmagnus Posted: August 02, 2004 at 08:21 PM (#772123)
Actually I rather disagree about the scorn heaped on Marquard and Chesbro. While neither of them achieved quite the career figures one would like, their lack of career ERA+ is due largely to their having mixed truly lousy seasons in with the really good ones. Chesbro 1904 or Marquard 1912/1916 were a real help to their teams winning the pennants; if their bad seasons had been merely mediocre rather than as Marquard's Brooklyn 1915 truly dreadful they would have got 230+ wins and everone would be taking them very seriously indeed. Both should certainly rank among the top 10 pitchers of their era, rather than off the bottom of a list of 20 as has been proposed here -- alternately great and lousy is more Meritorious than uniformaly mediocre, IMHO.
   159. Brian H Posted: August 02, 2004 at 08:33 PM (#772139)
Brian H.
1931 Ballot

1. Hugh Jennings – (3 AS + 2 MVP) His peak is among the highest ever at SS. He was not merely the top SS of an era abundant with outstanding shortstops. This was in perhaps the most competitive era we have judged to date (the one-league 1890’s). James (a peak fan) ranks Jennings 18th , just above Dahlen among all SSs... Jennings was an integral part of the “Old Orioles” dynasty of the ‘90s.

2.Rube Foster – The first great Negro League/Black ball Pitcher. His candidacy equires a great deal of reliance on anecdotal evidence.

3. Frank Chance (7 AS, 1 MVP) Chance was the was the premier 1B in baseball for several years (weak years for the position). Conversely, I have Beckley as the top 1B for only a few years. Very valuable on the bases.....Chance could rank higher if: (A) He was accorded credit for managing the Cubs; or (B) He was more durable player and put up career numbers like his longtime nemesis Fred Clarke.

4.Hugh Duffy –(2 AS, 1 MVP) Duffy was integral part of Boston’s “team of the 90’s”. He had an exceptional peak and enough of a career that I can’t call it a fluke. Renowned as a heads-up player and a top-notch fielder.
5.Cupid Childs (5 AS) – I had him above McPhee based on his peak and strength of competition (as does James). I also think he hit a bit better than Bid (although his fielding was clearly inferior).
6.Pete Browning (8 AS !) – A better AA hitter you will not find. Not as good all around as Stovey – a much better career than O’Niell. His early AA years are discounted. Known as “the Gladiator” for his battles in the outfield (with the ball) – not a great fielder.
7.Rube Waddell – (3 AS, 1 CY + 1 MVP) – one of the greatest strikeout Pitchers of all time. If he had the legendary savvy of Griffith, for example, he probably would have won 300 games and become a first ballot HOMer.
8.Clark Griffith – Among the top Pitchers for the (in my opinion) underappreciated 1890's.

9.Roger Bresnahan (4 AS) – Better than Bennett but not by that much. He was a tremendous all-around talent and played a prominent role in the successes of the Giants of the 1900's. The big question here is how much of a bump he gets as a Catcher.

10.Mickey Welch – Well I’ve always had a soft spot for him (see earlier ballots)... but the reasoning and information presented this week really made me think so he returns .. At number 10 no less. I probably need to rethink Mullane, Joss and even Cicotte now too.

11.Bill Monroe - Monroe made several all-star teams and apparently hit for power as well as average... I actually think he may have been better than Johnson.
12.Dickie Pearce – somewhat convinced by what others have written. But now I wonder about Creighton (who had no career claim but a very strong peak argument) from the very dawn of American Baseball..

13.Jimmy Ryan - I take his peak over VH’s career (but not by much).

14.Lip Pike – He played a bit later than Pearce but did not excel for as long and was probably never the BEST player. Then again at least we have some stats I can appreciate.

15.Van Haltren Strong career but not up to what I look for in a peak for his position.

Off the list :

Jake Beckley – Same as Van Haltren above only much more so. He places around 20 on my list. His best selling point for me is that he did a lot of his best work in the 1890s – which I believe we are selling short (especially realtive to the 1900's and 1880's.. Since a lot of others seem to really like him I am going to go over the 1Bs in the near future — as of now he rates well-below Chance and just below Ed Konetchy (Sp ?).
   160. DavidFoss Posted: August 02, 2004 at 08:53 PM (#772179)
Actually I rather disagree about the scorn heaped on Marquard and Chesbro.

Are you going to rank them higher than more deserving candidates just to drive home your point?

Look, everyone good enough to make the short list of candidates each season may not be ballot-worthy, but they all had fine careers. And what exactly is wrong with the 10 guys in front of these two? Mathewson, Young, Plank, McGinnity, Walsh, Waddell, Leever, Philippe, Walsh, Brown, Joss.... Mathewson, Johnson, Alexander, Coveleski, Vance, Williams, Faber, Rixie...

Karl, I'm not complaining about your opinions, I'm complaining about your methods. You just come up with these ridiculous reasons to support your pet candidates and then steer the debates of the threads to discussion of these guys. Discussion alone tends to improve a players vote totals... the more we know the more the benefit of the doubt is given. It just seems like the "Politics of Glory" that this project was built to avoid. I guess there are subtler ways to deal with this, but sometimes I just can't help but "call you on it" when everyone -- including yourself -- knows that you are just bull####-ing us.
   161. karlmagnus Posted: August 02, 2004 at 09:16 PM (#772214)
David, I have not had either Chesbro or Marquard on my ballot, and don't currently expect to, but I am not going to by tyrannized by majority opinion into not doing so.

My reasons for supporting Caruthers weren't ridiculous; they were his peak and the synergistic effect of both batting and pitching at a high level.

My reasons for supporting Beckley aren't ridiculous, they are his very long career and his truly superior lifetime totals. I am both a peak and a career voter, but a moderate peak like Elmer Flick or Jimmy Sheckard doesn't do it for me, and nor does a moderate career total like Van Haltren; the peak or career concerned have to be truly outstanding in some way (career wild pitches doesn't do it, career total hits and career triples does, as will to a lesser extent Lou Brock's career SB totals.) Once outstandingness has been achieved, wittering about the candidate's supposed weaknesses in other areas "he has no peak" -- "he was done by 30" I regard as more or less irrelevant; outstanding is outstanding. I don't much CARE that Brock hit few homers.

I will NOT be forced into a straitjacket of sabermetric political correctness, in which only certain analytical methods are deemed acceptable.

I trust that explains my view, without resorting to asterisks.
   162. DavidFoss Posted: August 02, 2004 at 09:52 PM (#772276)
I trust that explains my view, without resorting to asterisks.

Sorry for the pound-signs. B.S. just seemed like the appropriate phrase. As you can see, I'm not much of an arguer... I get knicked for swearing and knicked for SABR political correctness in the same post. :-)

I have nothing against Beckley or Caruthers. They've drawn quite a bit of support from the electorate on the whole. There are plenty of non-ridiculous reasons to vote for those guys. I will stand by my statement that you have tossed in ridiculous arguments just in hopes of building a bigger mountain of support for these guys though. Sorry. :-)

We have 55 years before we have to worry about Brock. The rhetoric will get a lot more colorful when its our childhood heros we are talking about, that's for sure. Max Carey will be an interesting preview though. He's got some godly SB percentages.
   163. karlmagnus Posted: August 02, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#772283)
Forunately my childhood was in England, so no baseball childhood heroes, only cricket ones. Hopefully there will be a reasonable degree of consensus about Yaz, though :))
   164. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2004 at 10:04 PM (#772298)
Forunately my childhood was in England, so no baseball childhood heroes, only cricket ones. Hopefully there will be a reasonable degree of consensus about Yaz, though :))

Of course (as long as Tom Terrific gets an appropriate nod).
   165. KJOK Posted: August 02, 2004 at 10:10 PM (#772307)
Using OWP, playing time, and defense (Win Shares/BP) for position players, applied to .500 baseline. Using Runs Saved Above Average and Support Neutral Fibonacci Wins for Pitchers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. BILL MONROE, 2B. Since his comps seem to be guys like Hack, Alomar, and Sandberg, had to move up.

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

10. LIP PIKE, CF. Perhaps best hitting CF of the 1870’s. Similar to Hack Wilson.

11. DICKEY PEARCE, SS. He WAS basically, along with Harry Wright, the old guy in the league 1871-1877, and his fielding was still league average, but didn’t hit nearly as well as Harry (who played CF). May have been Ozzie Smith, but hard to tell for certain. However, I’m finally convinced there is enough evidence to place him in the top 10.

12. BRUCE PETWAY, C. Best Negro Leagues Catcher of the 1910’s. An Elston Howard/Sherman Lollar comp.

13. SPOTWOOD POLES, CF Oscar Charleston and Pete Hill the only Negro League contemporary outfielders that were better. Comp somewhere around Ashburn and Cesar Cedeno.

14. TONY MULLANE, P. 241 RSAA, 240 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 118 ERA+ in 4,531(!) innings. He could hit a little too. AA discount keeps him from being much higher.

15. MIKE TIERNAN, RF. .678 OWP, 350 RCAP. 6,722 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. In danger of being forgotten about, but hitting dwarfs newbies Hooper, Burns & Veach.


BOBBY VEACH, LF. .610 OWP. 96 RCAP. 7,560 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT. Some really good years, but not enough for a LF HOM’er.

GEORGE J. BURNS, LF .579 OWP. 82 RCAP. 8,251 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT. Another great fielding LF’er with a few good offensive years that just don’t stand out enough for a LF’er.

HARRY HOOPER, RF .574 OWP. NEGATIVE 15 RCAP. 10,242. Def: EXCELLENT. Nice long career, but not even league average offense for RF over his career.

JIMMY LYONS, CF Comps are Sammy West and Mickey Rivers.

GEORGE SHIVELY, RF/LF Comps are Tommy Davis and Ruben Sierra.

GEORGE VAN HALTREN, CF. .620 OWP. 167 RCAP. 8,992 PAs. Def: FAIR. A notch below the elite OF’ers both offensively and defensively.

JAKE BECKLEY, 1B. .596 OWP. 245 RCAP. 10,492 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. A very good for a long time player.

JIMMY RYAN, CF/RF. .609 OWP. 205 RCAP. 9,114 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Not quite up to top OF hitters, and only average defense won’t move him up.

CLARK GRIFFITH, P. 256 RSAA, 199 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, and 121 ERA+ in 3,385 innings. He’s really not all that far away from McGinnity, but not that far from Silver King either.

RUBE FOSTER, P. Great for awhile, but not sure how much he actually pitched in many years. Have him comped with David Cone and Bret Saberhagen for now.

HUGH DUFFY, CF/LF. .623 OWP. 154 RCAP. 7,838 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Just not in the elite OF class offensively.

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

GAVVY CRAVATH, RF. .709 OWP. 238 RCAP. 4,644 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Poor defense plus a lack of appreciation of “sluggers” in a singles, sac and SB world may have kept him from major leagues sooner.

EDDIE CICOTTE, P. 183 RSAA, 209 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, and 123 ERA+ in 3,223 Innings. Not all that far from McGinnity in value/performance.
   166. jimd Posted: August 02, 2004 at 10:25 PM (#772322)

Almost the same OWP, yet Burns is positive RCAP (Runs Created Above Position) and Hooper is negative. Do you think that Ruth might be skewing that AL average?
   167. OCF Posted: August 02, 2004 at 11:15 PM (#772374)
I'd wonder more about the OWP than about the RCAP. In RCAA scaled to run environment I have Burns ahead of Hooper despite the shorter career, and with bigger top years. I don't compute OWP, but why isn't Burns higher?
   168. DavidFoss Posted: August 02, 2004 at 11:33 PM (#772404)
I'm pretty sure that KJOK is getting those numbers from Lee Sinin's Sabermetric Encyclopedia. When I get home, I can try and find out from my copy of the program what is causing that difference.
   169. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2004 at 11:59 PM (#772464)
Though many tried, none could Pearce this candidate's HoM chances this "year."

   170. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:01 AM (#772466)
Wow... was it an inexorable result? :-)

How many ballots are still missing?
   171. OCF Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:08 AM (#772481)
How many ballots are still missing?

From last year's voters, just Carl Goetz and RMc, both of whom have records of voting in some years and not others. It's past 5:00 and it's time to call it. The 53 ballots cast are a new record. The lack of consensus is also a new record.

Pearce 661
Foster 633
Van Haltren 614
   172. Patrick W Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:09 AM (#772486)
Preliminary 1931 Results - 53 Ballots

Over/Under on a Hall of Merit plaque posting: 8:15pm EST

RK   LY  Player             PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 1    3  Dickey Pearce      661   40  12  5  3  2     2  3     3     1  4  2  2  1
 2    8  Rube Foster        616   41   5  5  2  4  6  2  2  1  4     4     2  2  2
 3    4  George Van Haltren 614   41   5  6  4  2  2  2  3  1  4  3  4  1  1  1  2
 4    7  Clark Griffith     549   41   2  4  3  1  2  3  4  4  4  2  3  1  4  4   
 5    6  Lip Pike           533   34   4  5  5  2  2  2  2  5  2  1        1  2  1
 6    5  Jake Beckley       511   33   3  3  8  3  3  2     2  2     2  2  1  1  1
 7   10  Hughie Jennings    500   33   3  2  3  3  5  3  3  4     3     3        1
 8   13  Cupid Childs       472   40      3  2  1  3     5  2  4  2  4  4  4  4  2
 9   11  Roger Bresnahan    446   35      1  2  2  3  6  3  4  2  3     2  3  2  2
10    9  Jimmy Ryan         446   32   3  2  2  4  2  1  2  3     5  2  1  1  2  2
11   15  Hugh Duffy         427   32   3  1  2  2  2  1  3  3     3  7     1  3  1
12   14  Rube Waddell       426   30      1  5  4  4  1  5  3  1  1        4     1
13   12  Mickey Welch       407   28   5  2  1  6     1     1     1  2  3  3  1  2
14   16  Pete Browning      361   25   1  4  1  6     2     1  4  2        2     2
15   18  Tommy Leach        324   26   1  1     3     1  1  3  4  3  4  3  1     1  
16   17  Bill Monroe        287   24   1  1        3  1     1  3  5  2  3  3     1
17   21  Spotswood Poles    264   25      1        1  1  3  2  2  2  1  2  4  4  2
18   20  Larry Doyle        255   19   2  1  1        1  2  2  2  4     3        1
19  n/e  Harry Hooper       233   19      2  1  1  2  2     2  1           4  4   
20   19  Charley Jones      220   15   1  1  1  2  1  3        1  2  3            
21  n/e  Bobby Veach        217   19         1     3  1  1  1  3  2     2     3  2
22   23  Frank Chance       176   15      1  1     1  2  1  1     1  1  2  1  1  2
23   22  Ed Cicotte         148   11      1  2     1  2        1     2     1  1   
24  n/e  George J. Burns    134   14                  1  2        2  2  1  1  2  3
25   24  Gavy Cravath       134   12         1  1     2  1        1     1  1  3  1
26   25  Ed Williamson      127   11               1  1     3  1  1  1  1  1  1   
27   27  Addie Joss         126   11               1  2  1  1  1  1     1  1  1  1
28   26  John McGraw        124    9   1     1  1     2              2  1        1
29   28  Fielder Jones       88    7               1  1  1  1     1  1  1         
30   30  Vic Willis          70    7                  2                 3     1  1
31   34  Ed Konetchy         65    6            1        1  1           1        2
32   31  Lave Cross          64    6               1              2  1  1     1   
33   32  Jim McCormick       57    6                        1  1     1  1     1  1
34   36  Herman Long         46    5                           1     1  2        1
35   35  Tommy Bond          46    4            1        1                 1  1   
36   29  Del Pratt           42    3         1           1           1                                           
37   33  Mike Tiernan        44    4               1           1     1           1
38   38  Tony Mullane        38    6                                          2  4
39   37  Bruce Petway        38    4                     1              2        1
40   43  Mike Griffin        36    4            1                             1  2
41   39  Silver King         24    2               1                       1      
41   41  Donnie Bush         24    1   1                                          
43   40  John Donaldson      20    2                     1                       1
44   45T Fred Dunlap         19    2                           1              1   
45   42  Tom York            16    1               1                              
46   48  Joe Tinker           9    1                                    1         
47T  45T Jake Daubert         8    1                                       1
47T  49T Billy Nash           8    1                                       1
47T  51T Roy Thomas           8    1                                       1
47T  51T Bobby Mathews        8    1                                       1
51   49T Levi Meyerle         7    1                                          1
52T  44  Harry Wright         6    1                                             1
52T  45T Jimmy Williams       6    1                                             1
52T  51T Jim Whitney          6    1                                             1
52T  --  Johnny Evers         6    1                                             1

Dropped Out: R.Chapman(51T)
   173. Michael Bass Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:12 AM (#772490)
I agree with your point totals, Patrick, but you Tiernan's and Pratt's finish there.
   174. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:16 AM (#772497)
Very impressive! I'm impressed!
   175. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:16 AM (#772498)
Hoody hoo!

And let me just say: I have absolutely no frickin' clue what's going to happen next year.
   176. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:19 AM (#772502)
And let me just say: I have absolutely no frickin' clue what's going to happen next year.

That was quite a shake-up in the top 10.
   177. OCF Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:23 AM (#772509)
I have five discepancies: Foster, Bresnahan, Ryan, and both Joneses. I'll have to investigate.

There are two ways to get the maximum possible one-candidate difference with the consensus. The first is to entirely omit someone who is otherwise a unanimous #1. (Possible if one person stages a boycott.) The other way is to vote as #1 someone who received no other votes from anyone. The second one happened this year. It's the new father, so let's go easy on him.
   178. Patrick W Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:24 AM (#772511)
Good catch Michael: The last thing I did was to move Tiernan and Mullane up, but didn't double-check that Mike could go another spot higher.

I'd blame KJOK for the late ballot, except the ballot wasn't late and he has done so much good work at the yahoo site.
   179. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:28 AM (#772521)
It's obvious who's fault it is.

That's right, Frank Stallone.
   180. KJOK Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#772536)
'm pretty sure that KJOK is getting those numbers from Lee Sinin's Sabermetric Encyclopedia. When I get home, I can try and find out from my copy of the program what is causing that difference.
Yes, it's much easier than calculating everything myself!

Almost the same OWP, yet Burns is positive RCAP (Runs Created Above Position) and Hooper is negative. Do you think that Ruth might be skewing that AL average?
Ruth doesn't start skewing things badly until 1920. And Burns is actually considred a RF for a couple seasons in the 1920's...

Looks like Hooper has a 37 RCAA swing due to position/Ruth in 1923, but that is one of the years where Burns is also a RF?! Need to keep looking....
   181. OCF Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:39 AM (#772542)
Discrepancies located (#### Jones boys!) I am now in full agreement with Patrick W. My Foster/Ryan problem was actually with Patrick W.'s ballot. And it was just four disrepancies (really, two).
   182. KJOK Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:45 AM (#772555)
Just noticed Ruth is considered a LF'er in 1921 and 1922....

OK, just realized RCAP IS league specific, so Hooper is getting quite a "Ruth" positional adjustment for a few years.

Hooper's RCAA is 202 and Burns' is 164. I still wouldn't put Hooper in my top 15.
   183. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:50 AM (#772567)
I guess it's official then: John Murphy no longer has a reason to exist. :(

Surprised at how high Rube Foster shot up, but I can understand it. Cupid Childs's the real surprise.
   184. jimd Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:51 AM (#772569)
just realized RCAP IS league specific,

Thought so. Hooper's not that bad of a hitter.
   185. OCF Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:53 AM (#772574)
Consensus scores: the elect-one does knock things off a little, but mostly the changes are real.

Average score: -3.4, down from -0.5 and -0.4 the last two years.
Highest score: a mere +6 (Chris Cobb), with 8 others at +5 or +4.
Highest possible score: +14, down from +17/+18 the last two years.
Lowest score: -22. Yeah, the new father. John Murphy, at -8, wasn't even in the bottom 10.
My own score: also -8.
Most disputed candidate: Pearce, of course. Second most disputed was Welch, followed closely by Pike and Beckley. Really, every candidate was highly disputed.
   186. jimd Posted: August 03, 2004 at 12:57 AM (#772584)
Congratulations to Dickie Pearce.

He's really quite a story. In the first election in 1898, his lone points were from being the last player mentioned on the last ballot cast, a 15th place vote by DanG. And now he's in the Hall of Merit.

The power of a good argument.
   187. jimd Posted: August 03, 2004 at 01:03 AM (#772591)
Really, every candidate was highly disputed.

Actually, there was a very strong consensus on Rube Marquard ;-)
   188. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#772721)
Hooper's RCAA is 202 and Burns' is 164.

Differing league contexts, though.

They are almost exactly the same in career hitting. OWP, OPS+, Total Average, Bases per Plate Appearance. Every vs-league total batting number I can think of putting into Lee Sinin's program has Hooper and Burns consecutive on the list, never varying by more than one percentage point.
   189. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 03, 2004 at 04:09 AM (#772770)
I guess it's official then: John Murphy no longer has a reason to exist. :(


I have to say that this was the most satisfying election for me (even more so than when Sutton went in). Until a few "years" ago, I really didn't think he had a chance for election.

Surprised at how high Rube Foster shot up, but I can understand it. Cupid Childs's the real surprise.

Foster looks poised for the second slot next year. I think there are more votes coming his way.

Childs gained almost a hundred votes from last week. Seven more voters added him to their ballots.
   190. Chris Cobb Posted: August 03, 2004 at 05:01 AM (#772810)
I have to say that this was the most satisfying election for me.

It was an exciting one to watch, also. Rube Foster's leap up the ballot was indeed a surprise -- my rough count had him surging into the lead with about ten ballots to go, but the Foster skeptics voted disproportionately late, and Pearce moved back ahead about five ballots from the end.

I think Foster is deserving of his gains, but in a way I'm glad that this was an elect-one year. Foster's rise is in part attributable to new numbers that I worked out, and I'd like to see that analysis examined further before the electorate sends Foster to the Hall. I hope that study of him in relation to Mendez, Wilbur Cooper, and the 1920s pitchers who've come under discussion will help solidify the electorate's view of him.
   191. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 03, 2004 at 05:08 AM (#772814)
"OK, just realized RCAP IS league specific, so Hooper is getting quite a "Ruth" positional adjustment for a few years."

A big reason why if I were going to do it, I'd use the bottom 15% of starters in the league (or the bottom 15% in the majors at the position, adjusting for each league). That far back on the distribution curve you get much more normal results. That's also why I have a big issue with average as the baseline.

Great work though KJOK, just a philosophical difference, that's all.
   192. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 03, 2004 at 05:48 AM (#772849)
Re: Donnie Bush - congrats new papa Dolph Lucky!

Now please explain to us how you can have him #1 :-)

He had a 91 OPS+, including a .300 SLG. League .354. His OBP - .356 vs. league .337 is nice. 13 years as a regular. It was a nice little career, but unless he was Ozzie Smith with the leather, I can't see him on the ballot, let alone #1.

For example, why Bush and not Tinker? Tinker was also a regular for 13 years (though not quite as durable), but they were similar hitters value-wise; though Tinker's OBP was -.022 to the league (Bush was +.019), his SLG was +.007, compared to Bush's -.054. We think (we'll never know for sure) that Tinker was the Ozzie Smith of his time defensively, an absolute wizard with the glove (A+ according to WS; well above the league average in FPct when errors were more prevalent, etc.). So why Bush and not Tinker?

I don't mean this sarcastically, as Dickey Pearce shows, if we're missing something, we'll gladly re-evaluate.
   193. Philip Posted: August 03, 2004 at 10:23 AM (#772969)
I'm just a little curious - are other people's PHoM getting closer or farther away from the offical HoM as we go through the backlog candidates? I was up to having 4 different in 1926, which was a high for me, but like I said in my ballot, if Pearce gets in this year, I'm down to 1 different (Pike for Thompson), although that will almost certainly go back up 1 next year.

Right now I have Pike, Foster and Griffith in and Caruthers, Flick and Thompson out.
Thompson will never get into my PHOM, Caruthers is unlikely and Flick is reasonably likely. Foster and Griffith look like they will make it to the HoM.

As for Pike: Just when I thought he was in, they pulled him back out! =(
   194. yest Posted: August 03, 2004 at 11:38 AM (#772987)
Lowest score: -22. Yeah, the new father. John Murphy, at -8, wasn't even in the bottom 10.
My own score: also -8.

what was mine?
   195. yest Posted: August 03, 2004 at 11:58 AM (#772994)
How exactly can one justify PHOMing Daubert and not Davis?

one of the biggest problems I have with Davis is that at some time in his career Ed McKean, Hughie Jennings, Bill Dahlen, Herman Long, Jack Glasscock, Tommy Corcoran, Bobby Wallace, Honus Wagner, and Joe Tinker were also playing shortstop.
and the fact that Daubert's best hitting years came in the deadball era makes me like him a lot

With that said Davis still has a good chance to make my pHoM when we start electing 3 a year
   196. OCF Posted: August 03, 2004 at 03:13 PM (#773179)
yest, you were at -4, which is the closest to average you've been since I started keeping track and the first time you've been ahead of me. Your largest differences with the pack were over Pearce, Duffy, Welch, Browning, and Joss. My largest differences were over Pearce, Van Haltren, Griffith, Pike, Ryan, Doyle, and Cravath.
   197. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2004 at 03:22 PM (#773193)
As for Pike: Just when I thought he was in, they pulled him back out! =(

Yeah, his candidacy seems to have stalled. He had an impressive surge a few years ago, but I don't think he was (or is) "just off" any of the ballots which means he doesn't gain support as others are inducted. Even in these backlog years, its looking like you need to be on over 75% of the ballots to get elected.
   198. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 03, 2004 at 03:32 PM (#773214)
Lowest score: -22. Yeah, the new father.

Called that one. :-)

John Murphy, at -8, wasn't even in the bottom 10.

(In my best Edward G. Robinson voice) It just means that you guys are starting to wise up, see. :-)
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats





Page rendered in 1.5010 seconds
49 querie(s) executed