Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

1931 Ballot Discussion

Interesting class this year, with at least one legitimate candidate joining the fray . . .

1931 (August 1)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
321 96.8 1909 Harry Hooper-RF (1974)
265 82.1 1913 Bobby Veach-LF (1945)
290 63.3 1913 George J. Burns-LF (1966)
208 43.6 1909 Rube Marquard-P (1980)
160 46.6 1913 Dutch Leonard-P (1952)
188 30.2 1914 Milt Stock-3b (1977)
159 34.8 1913 Casey Stengel-RF (1975)
142 31.1 1911 Rube Benton-P (1937)
156 25.4 1914 Max Flack-RF (1975)
134 30.2 1912 Howie Shanks-LF/3b (1941)
117 31.1 1913 Nemo Leibold-CF/RF (1977)
118 29.5 1911 Hank Gowdy-C (1966)
134 23.7 1913 Tommy Griffith-RF (1967)
115 27.3 1912 Ivy Wingo-C (1941)
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star
12% 10-25 Jimmy Lyons-LF(??) #5 cf - 2 - 2*
08% 18-25 Dave Brown-P (1896) - 0- 3*
00% 10-25 George Shively-OF (??) - 2 - 7*
00% 13-25 Blainey Hall-LF (1889) - 0 - 6*
00% 11-25 Leroy Grant-1B (??) - 0 - 5*
00% 15-25 Dick Whitworth-P (??) - 1 - 3*
00% 04-25 Brodie (Billy) Francis-3B (??) - 0 - 0*
00% 10-25 Judy Gans-LF (??) - 0 - 2*
00% 11-25 Dicta Johnson-P (??) - 0 - 0*

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 20, 2004 at 08:56 AM | 353 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 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Kelly in SD Posted: July 21, 2004 at 10:14 PM (#747167)
4. He played for great teams that scored a lot of runs for him

His team did not score runs for him the same way other teams supported their pitchers in the same period - early HoM period (1871-1893):
(from Chris J's website)
Run Support Index where 100 would be average

Spalding 133.60
W White 113.48
Cummings 111.87
Caruthers 111.34
J Ward 109.56
Clarkson 109.46
Keefe 107.16
Radbourn 106.83
Buffington 105.69
Weyhing 104.19
Welch 102.79
Rusie 102.71
Galvin 102.11
Bond 101.50
B Matthews 99.39
McCormick 98.70
S King 97.19
A Terry 96.75
Mullane 96.51
Whitney 96.44
Hutchison 94.49
(bold are HoMers)

In comparison to elected HoM pre-93 pitchers, Welch's team did NOT score a lot of runs for him.
Rusie and Galvin's teams gave them about the same level of support as Welch's teams gave him. Keefe, Radbourn, Caruthers, Ward, and Clarkson recieved from 4-8 % more support, while Spalding is off the scale.
   102. Kelly in SD Posted: July 21, 2004 at 10:20 PM (#747171)
Does someone know what newspapers would be best for the following research project:

I have some free time coming up and want to see Welch pitched to the score. All I need to find are line-scores, not even a boxscore. Does anyone know what newspapers would be a good source for 1880-1893? I am willing to go to libraries and look at microfilm.

Also, I plan on doing breakdowns for Caruthers, Clarkson, Galvin, and Radbourn similar I have done for Keefe and Welch. For this part I will just use Retrosheet. I don't have that much time to see if every pitcher pitched to the score.

If people don't know which newspapers would be good, do you know who might know?
   103. DavidFoss Posted: July 21, 2004 at 10:40 PM (#747192)
4. He played for great teams that scored a lot of runs for him


Sorry... he had a list of reasons why Welch had a good W/L record and a mediocre ERA+. They looked like generic explanations, so I added one of the obvious reasons why this would occur. I guess I was being very generic.

I wasn't specifically picking on Welch, I was just adding it to the list of possible explanations. If it turns out to be discounted by RSI data, so be it. This list will come up again for guys like Ruffing, Burdette, JMorris. The converse to this list also pops up a lot (Blyleven, Niekro, Rixey?).
   104. Kelly in SD Posted: July 21, 2004 at 10:46 PM (#747203)
Run Support Index for Keefe, Welch, Radbourn
year  Keefe w-l   Welch  w-l  Radbourn w-l
1880*  69   6-6     99  34-30
1881*  88  18-27    87  21-18   119  25-11
1882*  92  17-26   100  14-16   107  33-20
1883   90  41-27   100  25-23   119  48-25
1884  124  37-17   106  39-21   113  59-12
1885* 116  32-13   124  44-11    97  28-21
1886* 118  42-20    94  33-22   106  27-31
1887* 115  35-19    97  22-15   111  24-23
1888* 109  35-12   100  26-19    71   7-16
1889* 119  28-13   117  27-12   112  20-11
1890  105  17-11   100  17-14    98  27-12
1891*  89   4-11   107   7-10    92  11-13
1892  101  19-16   180  1 start
1893  134  10-7          0-0
* are when Keefe and Welch are on same team.

Why does Keefe get better support generally than Welch while they are on the same team? Did Welch have an aversion to bathing? Was he as ass?
   105. DavidFoss Posted: July 21, 2004 at 10:58 PM (#747221)
Why does Keefe get better support generally than Welch while they are on the same team?

It looks like its just 1886-1887. Its a big difference for those two years, yes, but other than that it pretty even (maybe slight advantage to Welch).

The hit about the same that year (though overall Welch was a stronger hitter who was used in the outfield quite a bit in 1883).

Keefe has significantly more strikeouts which is possibly why Keefe has a higher percentage of his runs being earned (59.64% to 56.61%). Keefe pitched an extra year and picked up about 60 more decisions (though he does get knicked with an early AA discount a couple of times).

At any rate, maybe we shouldn't focus too much on Keefe because he's in already. Welch is fighting against Griffith for votes now.
   106. sunnyday2 Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:10 PM (#747237)
DavidFoss beat me to it. Does Kelly's table actually show that Keefe "generally" got better run support? No. Generally would be more than 5 out of 9, with 2 of Keefe's five being by 1 and 2 points. The average of the 9 scores is Welch 103, Keefe 102. (Granted the mean is 109-99 Keefe.)

Isn't the real question whether Welch got better results out of the run support that he got? I don't see it in the 9 years they were together. With the possible exception of 1881, I don't see where their two W-L records compared to their two RSIs are out of whack. And in the years they were not together, 1883 is an even bigger anomoly in Keefe's favor. Keefe got a lot more wins out of his run support in '83 than Welch did.

And if anybody seems to have really squeezed an inordinate amount of wins out of his run support, it appears to have been Old Hoss in '85 and '90.



Hypotheses remain neither proven nor unproven.
   107. Adam Schafer Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:17 PM (#747245)
I've posted a ballot every year since the start of the project, I read all of the ballot posts, but seldom post my own other than a ballot, but I did have some thoughts on the following and was hoping someone wiser than myself could tell me why I shouldn't like Welch as much as I do.

4. He played for great teams that scored a lot of runs for him.

from 1880-1884 Welch's team never placed higher than 4th. From 1885-1889 his team placed 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 1st. That's only 3 years of pitching for a team placing 2nd or 3rd. Where is all of this run support?? When him and Keefe were starting the majority of their teams games these years, was Keefe the only one recieving this possible outstanding run support? And if so, did we make a mistake in electing Keefe? I can understand holding something like this against someone such as Larry Corcoran, who's amazing stretch came from 1880-1884 in which he pitched for primarily 1st place teams, but Welch spent over half his career on pretty poor performing teams. Despite playing on the incredibly poor Troy teams with Keefe , he managed 2 good years, and appeared to be the better pitcher out of the two of them while with Troy. I'm not into the in depth sabermetrics that many here are, I don't even claim to understand some of them, but there sure appears to be much more to this than run support and 10 or 11 years of luck.
   108. yest Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:26 PM (#747258)
year Keefe w-l Welch w-l
1880* 69 6-6 99 34-30
how many unearned runs would Keefe need to go 6-6 with 0.88 ERA pitching 12 games all of them complete.
makes you wonder who was the offical scorer
   109. yest Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:31 PM (#747278)
Except your examples of Clarke and Chance are listed at the HoF site with the left fielders and first basemen, while McGraw is not listed with the third basemen.
McGraw's plaque reads
JOHN J. McGRAW
STAR THIRD - BASEMAN OF THE
GREAT BALTIMORE ORIOLES, NATIONAL
LEAGUE CHAMPIONS IN THE '90'S.
FOR
30 YEARS MANAGER OF THE NEW YORK
GIANTS STARTING IN 1902.
UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP THE
GIANTS WON 10 PENNANTS AND 3
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS.

The positions mentioned by the HoF came later
   110. Jeff M Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:36 PM (#747310)
I would hate to think after all this work that we are going to turn around to the outside world and say there are two kinds of HoMers--consensus ones and the unwashed "other." IOW Joe, if you are going to present this, apologizing for Bob Caruthers would not be the way to go.

DavidFoss wrote: Well, I don't think that's what he meant.

Thank you, David. It certainly wasn't what I meant, and I'm surprised that anyone would read my post that way.

Caruthers was #4 on my ballot last year.

Chris J wrote: And ultimately, people attending your talk would be more likely to be interested in the results & what sorts of things you/we found than how we all went about finding it out.

I understand your point, Chris, and as a presenter you know better than I about what the audience wants. But my point is "What have we found out?" If we have no consensus on certain candidates, then the Hall of Merit hasn't really "found out" anything about those candidates as a group. Our points per eligible balloter for the last few elected candidates is in the 14-15 range.

It's not a criticism of the project. It is a difficulty with the proposed presentation.

For instance, I don't think Joe could stand up in front of SABR and say "Through the Hall of Merit project, we determined that Bob Caruthers was a truly dominant player who would have excelled at bat and in the box regardless of which league he played in." We have more than a few voters who would disagree with the strength of that statement.

Not to focus on Caruthers too much, but the fact is that he got in during a time when there weren't a lot of fantastic new eligibles and he accumulated enough points up and down the ballot to get in. I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm assuming that at least half the electorate didn't have him #1 or #2 on the ballot.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the system or with us electing Caruthers, but I think it makes a presentation of what "we" found out about Caruthers sort of difficult.

I also thought the SABR group would be interested in the process...not just conclusions. SABR doesn't strike me as a group that takes conclusions at face value without knowing from whence they came.

I'll step out of this and let Joe and others determine what the content of the presentation will be.
   111. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:47 PM (#747365)
Why does Keefe get better support generally than Welch while they are on the same team?

jimd (I think it was him) on the old, lost pitchers thread, looked them up on the gamelogs at retrosheet & found that when in NYC, Welch was usually (though not always) matched up against better pitchers. In these years it was somewhat common for pitchers to get matched up regularly against each other (it was still going on in the days of Whitey Ford & Billy Pierce). One example is that in 1885, Welch faced off against John Clarkson 7 times & won all seven games against a pither who was 53-9 against the rest of the league.

It looks like its just 1886-1887. Its a big difference for those two years, yes, but other than that it pretty even (maybe slight advantage to Welch).

Key thing to realize is that there's two different eras of being teammates: the Troy years & the New York years - that's what I remember from jimd's study. The discussion of Welch having worse run support focuses on the NY years. In their years together in NYC, Welch had an RSI of 106.41, & Keefe one of 115.29. In all their years as teammates, Welch had an RSI of 102.71, & 107.78. Welch started 257 games in NY & 394 games overall in their teammate years. Keefe had 269 & 368 respectively. It's very rare to see two guy start that many games on a team together & have as large a difference as they do. The only other examples I can think of would be Perry & Marichal (advantage Marichal), Maddux & Glavine (advantage Glavine) & Drysdale & Koufax (advantage Koufax).

Fun fact: going by my defensive metric, Keefe also had notably better defensive support than Welch: +15.1 to +5.4. (here's where Welch really doesn't do that good compared to his pre-1893 peers)>
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:49 PM (#747376)
The positions mentioned by the HoF came later

I don't think there is any doubt that McGraw would be in the Hall as a manager if he had never played a single game in the majors. I'm not so sure of his HoF chances if he had never been a manager, however. Of course, the same can be said for Chance.
   113. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 21, 2004 at 11:54 PM (#747399)
I also thought the SABR group would be interested in the process...not just conclusions. SABR doesn't strike me as a group that takes conclusions at face value without knowing from whence they came.

Either I overstated my point (likely) or you're misinterperting me. Sure, go over the process, but I think the results would be what would interest people. As long as they have a basic understanding of the former (& what else can you really do in the time available). What I see happening is people checking their programs & seeing two opposite presentations going on (that is almost always the case), & if they're going to look in on the Hall of Merit that's an investigation into the best players in history that's going at a year by year pace, people attending may (just because I'm pretending to know what people think doesn't mean I actually do) be looking more for who were the best players being found not elected in or whose reputation took a beating in the voting & whose rep improved (I'm thinking Galvin & his team's defense here) . . . well, I guess it all depends how the title of the presentation is written. That'll tell people what to expect.

I dunno, I may be thinking that what I'd do is what everyone ought to do.
   114. jimd Posted: July 22, 2004 at 12:12 AM (#747464)
For what it's worth, the WS system treats RF and LF as equal.

Actually, it treats ALL outfielders as equals. It does not distinguish between outfield positions. Center-fielders usually get more shares because they usually make more plays per game.
   115. jimd Posted: July 22, 2004 at 12:17 AM (#747480)
Fred Dunlap:

1880 -- WARP-1 2B Gold Glove, Silver Bat, All-Star, 2nd best player in NL (behind Ward)
1881 -- WARP-1 2B Gold Glove, Silver Bat, All-Star, 2nd best player in NL (behind Anson)
1882 -- WARP-1 2B Silver Bat, All-Star
1883 -- WARP-1 5th best player in NL (Jack Farrell is 3rd and the 2B All-Star)
1884 -- WARP-1 2B Gold Glove, Silver Bat, All-Star, Best player in UA
1885 -- WARP-1 2B Silver Bat, All-Star, 3rd best player in NL
1886 -- WARP-1 2B Silver Bat, All-Star, 9th best player in NL

It's a very good peak resume, but not Hughie Jennings. Dunlap's been on the bottom of my ballot the last couple of years.
   116. DavidFoss Posted: July 22, 2004 at 01:35 AM (#747861)
FWIW, here is Keefe's "record" 1880 season game log (27 R/ 10 ER):

 8- 6-1880            Vs CIN N  W  4- 2          24-25  Keefe  White                  
 8-10-1880            At BUF N  W  3- 2          26-25  Keefe  Galvin                           
 8-12-1880            At BUF N  W  5- 1          28-25  Keefe  Galvin                           
 8-17-1880            At CLE N  L  3- 5          29-26  Keefe  McCormick                        
 8-24-1880            At CIN N  W 11- 1          31-27  Keefe  White               
 8-25-1880            At CIN N  L  3- 5          31-28  Keefe  Purcell             
 8-27-1880            At CIN N  W  3- 2          32-28  Keefe  Purcell             
 8-31-1880            At CHI N  L  1- 2          33-29  Keefe  Corcoran            
 9- 2-1880 1          At CHI N  L  0- 1          33-30  Keefe  Corcoran            
 9- 2-1880 2          At CHI N  W  5- 1          34-30  Keefe  Corcoran            
 9- 4-1880            Vs BOS N  L  3- 4          34-31  Keefe  Foley               
 9- 9-1880            Vs PRO N  L  0- 1          36-32  Keefe  Ward                
   117. DavidFoss Posted: July 22, 2004 at 01:45 AM (#747911)
Sure, go over the process, but I think the results would be what would interest people.

Yeah, this is standard procedure for scientific presentations... unless you are inventing a totally novel process or something.

The paper usually where all the nitty gritty details go. For presentations, you have to remember that people were up all night, jet-lagged, and have sat through several of these presentations already. You gotta get people's attention and tell them a story... preferably with colorful graphs and diagrams. :-)

This site is pretty well known anyways. There can be a link to all sorts of details and analyses here at BTF/HOM where things are analyzed from every angle conceivable and people can browse those at their leisure. You could even put the link in the abstract interested people could visit before the meeting, if you think that's a good idea.
   118. DavidFoss Posted: July 22, 2004 at 01:55 AM (#747951)
Fun fact: going by my defensive metric, Keefe also had notably better defensive support than Welch: +15.1 to +5.4. (here's where Welch really doesn't do that good compared to his pre-1893 peers)>


Chris, your website does not mention strikeouts in the algorithm for the defensive support adjustment. Do you handle those outs differently than the other ones?
   119. Chris Cobb Posted: July 22, 2004 at 03:22 AM (#748155)
DavidFoss wrote:

At any rate, maybe we shouldn't focus too much on Keefe because he's in already. Welch is fighting against Griffith for votes now.

Welch and Griffith make an interesting pair of pitchers to consider, in that they are both under serious consideration right now for the same reason: both have won-lost records that are too good to dismiss, but neither has either the dominating peak or the clear DIPS-markers that would give the electorate confidence that each pitcher truly deserved credit for his won-lost record.

They have not often been compared directly to one another because their careers fall on opposite sides of the 1893 divide, but I thought I’d see what I’d find from some direct comparisons, using the methods I normally use to evaluate pitchers.

Griffith 237-146, .618 wp
Welch 307-210, .593 wp

Griffith’s winning percentage is 4% better than Welch’s; Welch has 25% more decisions, but much of that can be attributed to different pitching conditions. Compared to his contemporaries, Welch has an IP+ during his 11 seasons as a full-time starter of 103; Griffith has an IP+ during his 10 seasons as a full-time starter of 97, but he has several part-seasons that close some of the career durability gap.

Their run-support is pretty similar, but Griffith’s is better.

Welch RSI 102.79 –-> .513 WP for avg. pitcher & fielders
Griffith RSI 105.50 --> .527 WP for avg. pitcher & fielders

Their fielding support is similar, but Welch’s is better.

I estimate that Welch’s fielders saved 169 hits above avg. during his career; they committed an estimated 60 fewer errors than average.

I estimate that Griffith’s fielders saved 100 hits above avg. during his career; they committed an estimated 28 more errors than average.

It’s possible to proceed season-by-season through the period and estimate the run-value of a hit and of an error; for quickness, I have used a value of .6 r/h and .3 r/e as eyeball values based on season-by-season values that I have calculated.

Using these values, it’s possible to calculate fielding runs saved above average, find average runs allowed for the pitcher’s career using BP’s NRA, and subtract to estimate runs allowed by an average pitcher with Welch’s & Griffith’s defense. One can then apply Chris J’s RSI to the average runs allowed to get run support, and pythag from there for a winning percentage.

An average pitcher with Welch’s offensive and fielding support would have a .535 winning percentage, leading to a record of 276.5-240.5 in Welch’s decisions

An average pitcher with Griffith’s offensive and fielding support would have a .539 winning percentage, leading to a 206.5-176.5 record in Griffith’s decisions.

Welch is 30.5 wins above average in his career
Griffith is 30.5 wins above average in his career

That looks pretty similar to me. Welch has more total career value; Griffith has more value per game pitched.

If you accept this analysis, the two should rank pretty close together. Where they rank on your ballot depends on how good you think a pitcher who averages just under 3 wins above average per year for 10-11 years is. At their best, they were 6-7 wins above average, while pitchers like Mathewson and Clarkson were 10 wins above average or more. But they had a lot of very good seasons.

I think 3 wins a year (3 wins in WARP, or 9 win shares) above average is quite significant, and I would elect them both.

I rank Griffith ahead of Welch, however, because he accomplished what he did under more difficult conditions, and so he stands out among his peers more than Welch does.
   120. PhillyBooster Posted: July 22, 2004 at 03:33 AM (#748172)
It's a very good peak resume, but not Hughie Jennings. Dunlap's been on the bottom of my ballot the last couple of years.

Why not Hughie Jennings? Dunlap, based on your numbers, had a great 7 year peak. Jennings's peak was just 5 years. In fact, Dunlap had more games at 2B than Jennings had at SS (963 to 899), despite the fact that Dunlap played a decade earlier in a shorter-season environment.

My current issue, though, is ranking the second basemen. I came in with them ranked (1) Childs, (2) Monroe, (3) Evers, (4) Doyle, (5) Dunlap. I'm considering moving Dunlap to the top of that list, keep Monroe second, and move Childs to third, followed by Evers and Doyle. Doyle might not actually be in the Top 5 anymore, but since #5 isn't getting anywhere near my ballot, it's probably not worth the time to compare him to a hypothetical #6 (Jimmy Williams).
   121. PhillyBooster Posted: July 22, 2004 at 03:45 AM (#748191)
I rank Griffith ahead of Welch, however, because he accomplished what he did under more difficult conditions, and so he stands out among his peers more than Welch does.

I generally agree with Chris's analysis -- I place Welch ahead of Griffith, but I see them both ending up on the "inside".

It looks like they will both be waiting awhile, but I suspect them to come back up when the next round of pitchers come along (Rixey, Covaleski, etc.) I haven't examined them all, but I expect that batch to look a lot more like Griffith than Welch, which might help to drive a wedge between the two.
   122. yest Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:14 AM (#748213)
where can I find the type of information given in post 16 for other 19th centuray pitchers?
   123. jimd Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:28 AM (#748217)
[Dunlap]'s a very good peak resume, but not Hughie Jennings.

By WARP-1, Jennings was the best player in baseball 4 consecutive years (1895-1898). Using WARP-1/WARP-3, nobody else has done that to date (1930). Barnes was 4 of 5. Lajoie would top Wagner sporadically. Cobb had Johnson. Ruth had injuries (1922,1925).

It all depends on how you weight different factors.
   124. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:34 AM (#748224)
where can I find the type of information given in post 16 for other 19th centuray pitchers?

Retrosheet.org. Click on "Boxscores" in the left sidebar, click on the year you want, the team you want, & then "game log."

Chris, your website does not mention strikeouts in the algorithm for the defensive support adjustment. Do you handle those outs differently than the other ones?

Handle them the same. A pitcher may be more or less dependent on his defense based on his K-rate, but I'm trying to gauge the quality of the D behind him compared to league average, not how dependent he is on them.

This site is pretty well known anyways.

Hmmm. . . . to an extent, yea. I think Chris Dial (I think it was Dial) though mentioned that he was talking to some of the non-primer people there farely well-regarded & well-known in SABR & some of them were only vaguely aware of the whole thinkfactory universe. My guess is this would be especially true of the older members.
   125. Chris Cobb Posted: July 22, 2004 at 06:15 AM (#748282)
Phillybooster posted the following data on second basemen:

WARP1/162 games for all eligible second basemen:

1. Ross Barnes, 23.1
2. Fred Dunlap, 17.0 (half credit for UA season brings him down to 15.1, still second place)
3. Bid McPhee, 14.5
4. Nap Lajoie, 14.2
5. Bill Craver, 13.6 (only 339 games in the NA)
6. Hardy Richardson, 13.2
7. Cupid Childs, 12.1
8. Jimmy Williams, 11.4
9. Miller Huggins, 10.7
10. Jack Burdock 10.6

(Evers in in 16th place with 10.0, Del Pratt in 22nd with 9.1, and Larry Doyle is in 25th place with 8.5)


This list is part of an argument that Fred Dunlap merits a very high ranking among eligible second basemen, but it strikes me as evidence of the need to make significant competition adjustments and adjustments for the greater value all position players had relative to pitchers in the early game, when using WARP1. Notice that everyone in the top half of the list is from the 1870s and 1880s, except Nap Lajoie, who was the second-best position player of his era. The 1910s second-basemen are totally squeezed out (though I imagine that Eddie Collins would place fairly well).

I suspect one would find that Charley Jones and Ed Williamson would also look outstanding by this measure, if compared by WARP1 per 162 games to outfielders and third basemen of later eras, but it's more important to consider how they compare to their immediate contemporaries at all other positions. Put in that context, will they look like third-tier stars, or are they substantially better than their already-elected contemporaries


There have been several campaigns going lately arguing for players from the 1880s as deserving high ballot placement, but the only 1880s star who is being carefully compared to his contemporaries is Mickey Welch. Those who are arguing for Dunlap, Williamson, C. Jones, Browning: it seems to me that you need to make a case that they were as good as or better than their already-elected contemporaries. If they're not, I think we should be skeptical about their being more meritorious than later players on the basis of raw statistics. By any measure of representation, the 1880s are very well-represented already.
   126. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 22, 2004 at 09:38 AM (#748339)
I'll ask once again--does anyone have a good deadball era run estimator? I need one to revise my WARP calculations
   127. yest Posted: July 22, 2004 at 10:21 AM (#748348)
This is based on the retrosheet so not all the runs were given up by Welch and it also gives him 3 more losses. Also keep in mind not all these runs are earned runs.
in games that Welch lost he
gave up 24 runs 1 time
gave up 21 runs 1 time
gave up 18 runs 2 times
gave up 17 runs 3 times
gave up 16 runs 1 time
gave up 15 runs 3 times
gave up 14 runs 4 times
gave up 13 runs 8 times
gave up 12 runs 9 times
gave up 11 runs 12 times
gave up 10 runs 12 times
gave up 9 runs 11 times
gave up 8 runs 17 times
gave up 7 runs 22 times
gave up 6 runs 19 times
gave up 5 runs 32 times
gave up 4 runs 28 times
gave up 3 runs 15 times
gave up 2 runs 9 times including 1 forfeit when the game was tied
gave up 1 run 4 times

in games that Welch won he
gave up 12 runs 2 times
gave up 10 runs 3 times
gave up 9 runs 2 times
gave up 8 runs 12 times
gave up 7 runs 20 times
gave up 6 runs 17 times
gave up 5 runs 23 times
gave up 4 runs 28 times
gave up 3 runs 55 times
gave up 2 runs 52 times
gave up 1 run 62 times
and no runs 41 times
   128. TomH Posted: July 22, 2004 at 01:19 PM (#748382)
Lip Pike - raw EqA of .328 (no data before age 26)

How many players on our ballot have a higher EqA? One - Pete Browning. Who had a shorter career, and less defensive value. All of the other guys who are thought of as hitters (Tiernan, Doyle, Jones, Chance, Jennings) are below him (McGraw is even).

Pike's EqA is higher than Elmer Flick's. It's one point short of Delahanty's. His EqA is higher than Joe DiMaggio's, Willie Mays's, and Hank Aaron's.

We know he could hit. He hit with power. He had a ton of speed. He played some CF, some 2B, a little everywhere.

If we're going to adjust for era, let's quit electing 1880s pitchers :)

I'm not emotionally attached to Pike - he just has a great prime, plus a more undocumented longer career. Unless you give him no credit for anything beyond 1871-1879, how can he NOT be listed on the top 15 of a ballot?
   129. karlmagnus Posted: July 22, 2004 at 01:29 PM (#748389)
1) Meyerle's eligible for our ballot and his EqA is presumably higher than Pike's

2) Where's the 1930 election results -- I am being done out of my week of smug gloating!
   130. PhillyBooster Posted: July 22, 2004 at 01:42 PM (#748406)
This list is part of an argument that Fred Dunlap merits a very high ranking among eligible second basemen, but it strikes me as evidence of the need to make significant competition adjustments and adjustments for the greater value all position players had relative to pitchers in the early game, when using WARP1.

Chris makes a good point. Dunlap is essentially a contemporary of McPhee and Richardson, so electing him would be saying that it was appropriate to elect 3 (white) second basemen from the era. Not an extreme conclusion, but as I look back at my chart, Chris is right that Childs is the top member of his "era", defined as anyone born within 5 years in either direction.

Going by year for an age 27 season (1895), the nearest competition to Child's 12.1 WARP-1 per 162 games is Jack Crooks (10.0 in half as many games) and Lou Bierbauer (9.3 in slightly fewer games than Childs).* Both Crooks and Bierbauer played their age 27 season in 1893. And, in fact NO second baseman of any consequence played their age 27 season between Childs in 1895 and Claude Ritchey in 1901. (The best I could come up with was Dick Padden, whose WARP-1 comes in at 39.2, putting him somewhere in the low 30s among eligible second basemen.)

Definitely looks like a rough era for 2Bers, and Childs stands head and shoulders above everyone else* between Bid McPhee (1887) and Nap Lajoie (1902).
-----
*Excluding Frank Frant, who was a contemporary.
   131. Chris Cobb Posted: July 22, 2004 at 02:20 PM (#748440)
To provide another perspective on Pike, here's how his EQA looks as adjusted for all time in comparison to some groups of players who might serve as benchmarks. Jim O'Rourke is a notable omission because I couldn't remember the BP trick for apostrophes. Not that I advocate placing too much trust in WARP3 or in a batting rate measure like EQA for judging total value, because the competition adjustments are not necessarily reliable and efensive value and career length are obviously not accounted for, but it's another data point.

1870s stars
Ross Barnes .321
Lip Pike .308
Cal McVey .305
Cap Anson .304
Charley Jones .294
Paul Hines .289
Deacon White .284
George Wright .275
Joe Start .275
Tom York .270

Outfielders
Joe Jackson .329
Ed Delahanty .320
Billy Hamilton .318
Elmer Flick .315
Pete Browning .312
Jesse Burkett .309
Lip Pike .308
Sam Thompson .308
Mike Tiernan .305
George Gore .302
Sam Crawford .301
Joe Kelley .299
Fred Clarke .296
Sherry Magee .294
Charley Jones .294
Harry Stovey .293
Willie Keeler .292
Paul Hines .289
George Van Haltren .289
Mike Griffin .289
Jimmy Ryan .288
Jimmy Sheckard .286
Hugh Duffy .285
Fielder Jones .283
Tom York .270

Current eligibles
John McGraw .318
Pete Browning .312
Lip Pike .308
Mike Tiernan .305
Frank Chance .301
Charley Jones .294
Roger Bresnahan .292
Cupid Childs .290
George Van Haltren .289
Mike Griffin .289
Jimmy Ryan .288
Fred Dunlap .286
Jake Beckley .285
Larry Doyle .285
Hugh Duffy .285
Hughie Jennings .284
Fielder Jones .283
Ed Williamson .272
Tom York .270

In terms of all-time EQA, Pike compares favorably to his contemporaries, to all outfielders so far eligible, and to current eligibles. (He's a good bit behind Dimaggio, Mays, and Aaron, however, who are at .327, .326, and .323, respectively.)
   132. Chris Cobb Posted: July 22, 2004 at 02:22 PM (#748441)
For karlmagnus:

levi meyerle .312
   133. DavidFoss Posted: July 22, 2004 at 02:58 PM (#748497)
This is based on the retrosheet so not all the runs were given up by Welch and it also gives him 3 more losses.

Yeah... those are the starting pitchers not the pitchers of record. No Decisions must have been rare in the 1880's, but I'm sure they happened.

gave up 24 runs 1 time
gave up 21 runs 1 time
gave up 18 runs 2 times
gave up 17 runs 3 times


Hmmm... I suppose you could call that "pitching to the score"... its more like picking up the ball and walking to the next tee in a skins game. One of those games would really knock a dent into your ERA (though they did pitch a ton of innings back then).

Anyways, its only one data point. Did all pitchers of this era have those high games? If you calculate RA from those numbers how close does it come to his career RA (Not all games were CG, were they?). If you put high cap on the runs allowed for each game (13 or so?) and set all those high run games down to that number... does the RA go down appreciably. You would have to do this for other pitchers to see if this effect was different for others.

Anyhow, lots of fun stuff you could do with those numbers.
   134. yest Posted: July 22, 2004 at 03:33 PM (#748560)
Did all pitchers of this era have those high games?
since I still have every one of Welch's games saved here's a list of all the Welch's games where his team scored 17 or more runs

1. Corcoran lost to Welch 22-7 on 6/2/1883
2. Van Haltren lost to Welch 19-2 on 6/8/1888
does this hurt his HoM chances? :)

3. Bowman lost to Welch 18-1 on 7/12/1890
4. Wadsworth lost to Welch 18-4 on 7/19/1890
5. Buffinton lost to Welch 18-10 on 8/22/83
6. McElroy lost to Welch 17-3 on 7/11/1884
7. Galvin lost to Welch 17-5 on 9/20/1881
8. Schmit lost to Welch 17-10 on 5/23/1890
and my absolute favorite
9. Galvin lost to Welch 24-0 on 5/27/1885
   135. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 22, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#748595)
Did all pitchers of this era have those high games?

I'm pretty sure, yeah. Kept track of how many times a pitcher's team scored 10, 12, 15, 18, & 20 runs for him when he started when doing the RSI stuff. Quick comparison: Red Ruffing leads all 20th century pitchers with 14 games in which his team's hitters scored at least fifteen runs when he started. The following is the number of times 19th century pitchers benefitted from this support:

1. Al Spalding 79
2. Bobby Mathews 36
3. Candy Cummings 33
4. Kid Nichols 28
5. John Clarkson 27
6. Pud Galvin 26
7. Tim Keefe 22
8. Tommy Bond 20
9. Old Hoss Radbourn 19
10. Silver King 18
11t. Jim McCormick 17
11t. Jack Stivetts 17
11t. Adonis Terry 17

So it was more common in the 1870s, but it was far more common throughout the 19th century than anytime in the 20th century.
   136. PhillyBooster Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:05 PM (#748638)
Hey, can anyone find Monte Ward's Baseball Prospectus page for me?
   137. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:05 PM (#748641)
isn't it www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/wardmo01.shtml?
   138. Chris Cobb Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:08 PM (#748646)
9. Galvin lost to Welch 24-0 on 5/27/1885

Now that's pitching to the score :-) !
   139. PhillyBooster Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:12 PM (#748656)
Thanks. It wasn't coming up on any of the searches I was doing!
   140. Chris Cobb Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:17 PM (#748680)
This post isn't relevant to the 1931 election, but . . .

I've been working on Christobal Torriente, both to get ready for 1934 and to help me place Burns, Hooper, and Veach this year, so I decided to look at what James had to say about him again, and I noted for the first time that James actually has Torriente in his top 100 all time. So in 1934, we'll have _six_ newly eligible players from James's top 100:

5. Ty Cobb
11. Tris Speaker
18. Eddie Collins
27. Pop Lloyd
52. Smokey Joe Williams
67. Christobal Torriente

That'll be after seeing eleven from the James top 100 in the preceding 36 elections. He does timeline, of course and doesn't adjust for short seasons, but still . . .
   141. dan b Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:22 PM (#748693)
We would win
I agree


Given the parameters karlmagnus proposed using a players 4th best season, I am not so sure. The high peak, short career players on the HOFer team - Chance, Jennings, McGraw and Bresnahan would give them a strong lineup. Coupled with our refusal to select as many pitchers as are in the HOF, and we are doomed to lose in 5 games if we play a 7 game series. Caruthers and a rotation of volunteers doesn't match up well with Welch, Griffith, Joss, Willis, Waddell. Even Happy Jack would give them the edge in game 2.
   142. yest Posted: July 22, 2004 at 04:24 PM (#748698)
9. Galvin lost to Welch 24-0 on 5/27/1885
I have a feeling this is a record
   143. jimd Posted: July 22, 2004 at 06:08 PM (#749033)
10/1/1874 at Boston 29 - Brooklyn 0 (Spalding vs Bond)
   144. karlmagnus Posted: July 22, 2004 at 07:35 PM (#749560)
Chris Cobb, thank you. Suggests Pike AND Meyerle should move up some ballots.

Dan b: Hadn't realised the pitcher gap was so great. Suggests we'd better spend '31 and '32 inducting Welch and Griffith, as I suspect the HOF/HOM game may be scheduled to coincide with the first All-Star game in 1933! If we had a rotation of Welch, Griffith and Caruthers one could be pretty confident!
   145. karlmagnus Posted: July 22, 2004 at 07:38 PM (#749579)
Sorry, Welch and Griffith won't do; they don't become HOF-not-HOM just by our inducting them. It had better be Foster and Mendez -- with a bit of luck half their hitters would refuse to play!
   146. karlmagnus Posted: July 22, 2004 at 07:39 PM (#749586)
I mean HOM-not-HOF.
   147. Michael Bass Posted: July 22, 2004 at 07:45 PM (#749619)
Foster's in the HOF, too. We're running low on ideas here. :) Maybe we need Donaldson real quick! (I don't think he or Mendez is in)
   148. karlmagnus Posted: July 22, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#749643)
Van Haltren would do it -- we could specify taking a pitching year!
   149. karlmagnus Posted: July 22, 2004 at 07:59 PM (#749704)
Come to think of it, since all the HOF pitchers were pre-'33, "pitched in a pinch" and never faced the DH they might be seriously deranged by facing a rotation two thirds of which was Caruthers and van Haltren, who could knock the stuffing out of the ball.
   150. mbd1mbd1 Posted: July 22, 2004 at 08:08 PM (#749732)
I did some tinkering this week regarding positions, which turns out to only make minor changes (at least with these eligibles).

prelim:
1. GVH (1)
2. Ryan (3)
3. Beckley (5)
4. Hooper (NA)
5. Duffy (6)
6. Willis (7)
7. Veach (NA)
8. Leach (8)
9. Foster (9)
10. Burns (NA)
11. Poles (10)
12. Welch (12)
13. Cicotte (11)
14. Griffith (13)
15. Konetchy (NA)
   151. PhillyBooster Posted: July 22, 2004 at 08:12 PM (#749743)
10/1/1874 at Boston 29 - Brooklyn 0 (Spalding vs Bond)

Assuming Bond pitched the whole game and the runs were earned, subtracting this game from his record boosts his ERA+ from 89 to 106 in 1874!
   152. DavidFoss Posted: July 22, 2004 at 08:26 PM (#749783)
Assuming Bond pitched the whole game and the runs were earned, subtracting this game from his record boosts his ERA+ from 89 to 106 in 1874!

Well, it was 55/55 in CG for him that year. baseball-reference is missing R/ER data though.
   153. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 22, 2004 at 08:40 PM (#749821)
Assuming Bond pitched the whole game and the runs were earned,

Never assume all runs are earned in the NA. Actually, you're better off assuming they're all unearned. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but go to retrosheet & look up Tommy Bond - they have RA & ER there for the NA. A large majority of runs were unearned back then.
   154. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 22, 2004 at 08:41 PM (#749824)
Suddenly became unlazy. In 1874, Tommy Bond allowed 440 runs - 176 of which were earned.
   155. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 23, 2004 at 02:33 AM (#750351)
Re: 1930 results

I only received one tally this week, and it was from someone who doesn't send it in a really workable format.

John sent me his, but he sent the wrong one - as soon as I get a tally that's in a good enough format to work with, I'll get the results up.

It should be some time tonight, as I'll make the one that isn't too workable workable, if nothing else comes across but that will take some time.

I also spent 3 hours on the phone with Dell support tonight, my new laptop is going back, and an entire day was shot today.

Just in case anyone didn't figure it out, Sheckard and Caruthers were elected, if for some reason I don't get the results posted tonight, they may not be up until Sunday. Sorry for the delay . . .
   156. Howie Menckel Posted: July 23, 2004 at 02:37 AM (#750358)
FYI,
You guys are doing a great job up and down on Welch.
I feel like a star minor leaguer now struggling to hit major league pitching. I'm just happy to have been one of Welch's few supporters a decade or more ago when I knew he at the very least wasn't getting the proper consideration.
Electee or no, we'll never say that again.

Best I can hope for at this point is to be a 'reality check' if we start to let the wrong people fall off the radar.
Tempted to make Pete Browning my next pet project..
   157. PhillyBooster Posted: July 23, 2004 at 03:20 AM (#750411)
Tempted to make Pete Browning my next pet project..

He is now, unquestionably, the top AA star currently not in the HoM. He's hovering on my radar to expend my reserve "Caruthers energy" on just below Lip Pike, the top NA star currently not in the HoM, Gavvy Cravath, the top "non-traditional career" player currently not in the HoM, and either Rube Forster or, soon, Jose Mendez, as the top Negro League pitcher not in the HoM (there being no Negro League pitchers in the HoM).

Having dipped down into Wallace/ Sheckard territory that delineates the fuzzy line separating the HoM from the Hall of Very Good, I am becoming more inclined to the "special pleading" cases of players who were undoubtedly unique in their own way, but have some gaping hole somewhere in their resume. Even losing Caruthers, I'm looking now at having "special pleading" guys Pearce, Pike, Foster, Cravath, Browning, and Monroe on my ballot this time. Welch is near the "special pleading" category too, and we parse his seasons by game and inning. Were they great? I don't know. But I'm coming to the realization that for a lot of the other guys hanging around the ballot, the answer is more clearly "No." At this level, lack of information is becoming more of a positive, forming a firewall between the greats and the good. What you don't know can't be statistically demonstrated to only be the 25th best player of his era.
   158. KJOK Posted: July 23, 2004 at 03:38 AM (#750428)
If anyone cares, I've started posting Win Shares for the "Major HOM Candidates" broken down by Batting, Fielding, and Pitching by each year on the HOM Yahoo egroup in the FILES section.
   159. KJOK Posted: July 23, 2004 at 03:40 AM (#750430)
   160. PhillyBooster Posted: July 23, 2004 at 04:00 AM (#750446)
Woo hoo!

Thanks, KJOK.
   161. TomH Posted: July 23, 2004 at 06:33 PM (#751157)
I, like most of us, haven't put Frank Chance on my ballot yet. However, here's one piece of info that makes him look real good:

career win shares per "year" (648 plate appearances), as compiled on Cy Morong's home page

1 Babe Ruth 39.92
2 Mickey Mantle 36.95
3 Ted Williams 36.74
4 Honus Wagner 36.16
5 Ty Cobb 35.79
...
20 Mel Ott 30.18
21 Frank Chance 30.12
22 Mike Schmidt 30.08
23 Dan Brouthers 29.97
24 Hank Aaron 29.89
Next highest on our ballot is Bresnahan and then McGraw. Yes, he didn't play more than 130 games but once. But I gots to do some more thinkin' about the Peerless Leader, especially if I have Jennings and Roger and Mugsy on my ballot...
   162. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 23, 2004 at 07:23 PM (#751247)
Provisional ballot:

1. Jake Beckley (5,5,4,3,2). Began as the best non-ABC first basemen in the league & remained the best of the very good for almost two full decades as a starter. Even with his non-peak he was the best 1Bman in baseball at the turn of the century for a few years. 1 OPS+ under 100 in his first 18 seasons. I began this project as the #1 friend of Jake Beckley and now I'm happy to have him at the top of my ballot.

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

3. Clark Griffith (12,12,8,6,5). Personal favorite 1890s pitcher. Nice career, nice prime. The median winning percentage of his opponent one of the highest of the pitchers I've checked. Leaps ahead of BC as I'm more impressed by the level of competition he faced & his durability. Jumps past Welch due to both the overall quality of play in the 1890s & his Median Opponent W/L Pct.

4. Mickey Welch (8,7,6,5,4). Thank you retrosheet. Turns out he earned those 300 wins. Offensive support only gave him 3-4 wins. Defensive support, though a little above average, was actually worse the defensive support of all major non-Galvin pitchers in the 1880s. Usually matched up against tougher opposing pitchers when he & Keefe were on the same team. In 1885, against the Cubs, he faced off against John Clarkson 7 times & won every game.

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

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

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

8. Cupid Childs (17,15,14,12,10). Looking at him again & I think he's better than the infielders I was putting just above him. Good fielder who had a great run & is very impressive (for a 2Ber) OPS+ undervalues his offense because he's so OBP-centric. The D & OBP keep him above Larry Doyle.

9. Larry Doyle (18,18,16,13,11). Don't have much time this or next week to take a closer look, so I'm leaving him here - he could move up when I have the time to really look at him more. Looking at him again, I'd say he's about as close to Childs as Ryan is to GVH, so they're now also yoked together.

10. Charlie Jones (19,19,17,14,12). Great hitter for a while. First really good Deep Southerner (first Deep Southerner of any type?) I get the feeling he would have been an NA standout from 1871/2 if he'd been born in Pennsylvania. Looks more like Sam Thompson every time I look at him.

11. Gavvy Cravvath (20,20,19,15,13). Toughie to figure. The late start of this CAer reminds me of the late start of the above NCer. Gets some minor league credit, but loses some due to park factors (a homer champion hitting all his homers at home? Sure you could argue that it shows he's really taking full advantage of his home park, but I'd like to see my sluggers be able to hit the ball in other parks also. In trying to weigh out the different factors, I'll give him enough credit for his minor league days to just get him on the ballot.

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

13. Bobby Veach (new). Very good player for a time. A little longer or a little better and he'd be considerably higher.

14. Spot Poles (18,15). For me, he needs a longer career and a better prime. I don't see any reason to get too excited about him. I don't see him being better than any of the outfielders ahead of him.

15. Harry Hooper (new). This must be what others see when they look at Beckley. He was a B/B- outfielder for a loooong time. Never a great hitter, but almost always a good hitter. Nice defensive prime during Boston's heydey in its giant right field. About 20-25 guys off the ballot were better players, but none had a better career. It's that value that merits his spot here.

16-20: Lip Pike, Herman Long, Harry Hooper Addie Joss, Joe Tinker.
21-25. Eddie Cicotte, Ed Williamson, Lave Cross, Rube Waddell, Larry Gardner.
26-30. Hugh Duffy, Tommy Bond, Silver King, Johnny Evers, Jack Clement.
31-35. Rube Foster, Hippo Vaughn, Ed Konetchy, Bruce Petway, Del Pratt.
36-40. John Donaldson, Mike Tiernan, Charlie Buffington, Roger Bresnahan, Harry Davis.
41-45. Roy Thomas, Topsy Hartsel, Jake Daubert, John McGraw, Jimmy Lyons,
46-50. Fielder Jones, Vic Willis, Tony Mullane, Hughie Jennings, Frank Chance.
51-54. Dave Brown, Jim McCormick, George Burns, Rube Marquard.
   163. dan b Posted: July 23, 2004 at 10:12 PM (#751504)
From the ballot of Commissioner Joe D -

47. Hugh Duffy (46) - 52.0 aWARP1. 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. Easily the most overrated player by the group. Convince me why I might be wrong, please, I'm just not seeing it.

Since I had Duffy about 46 places above you in 1930, Joe, I offer the following WS numbers (if my numbers differ slightly from yours, I have short seasons prorated to 154 games and fielding adjustments pre 1893. Time begins 1876):

10 Consecutive seasons
1.Duffy 265
2.Burns 262
3.Veach 244
4.F. Jones 243
5.Van Haltren 240

8 Best seasons
1.Duffy 227
2.Burns 222
3.Veach 214
4.Leach 213
5.Tiernan 208

5 Consecutive seasons
1.Jennings 166
2.Duffy 153
3.O’Neill 147
4.Burns 146
5.Chance 145

3 Best seasons
1.Jennings 106
2.O’Neill 101
3.Burns 100
4.Duffy 98
5.Chance 96

NHBA Ranking
1.Bresnahan 16
2.Jennings 18
3.Duffy, Leach and Doyle 20

Given the above, IMO Duffy is a HoMer. George Burns looks pretty good as well.
   164. KJOK Posted: July 24, 2004 at 03:01 AM (#752458)
OK, I'm done posting the yearly batting, fielding, and pitching Win Shares for 24 players - basically the top new guys this year plus the top returning guys that weren't either Negro Leaguers or early 1870's and prior. If someone has a request for someone I've missed, just let me know.

Link is here:

Win Shares by Year broken down by batting, fielding and pitching for top HOM candidates
   165. DavidFoss Posted: July 24, 2004 at 04:46 AM (#752512)
Thanks KJOK!

I have the Digital Update for the Win Shares book. Is all of the information in your files in there? Or has there been updates since then.
   166. Chris Cobb Posted: July 24, 2004 at 10:05 PM (#753319)
1931 Preliminary Ballot

In the final year of the drought, no new candidates reach the ballot, though George J. Burns comes close, and Harry Hooper and Bobby Veach both break the top 30 as well.

1. Dickey Pearce. (2) Back at #1, where he last stood on my ballot in 1926. The data posted by DavidFoss shows clearly that Pearce as the second-best player of the 1860s after Joe Start. Dick McBride may have had a better peak, but not by much, and Pearce’s career was significantly better.
2. George Van Haltren (3) The best remaining player from the underrepresented 1890s. Tenth best player of the 1890s.
3. Clark Griffith. (4) I think he has an argument to have been better than Rusie. Eleventh best player of the 1890s.
4. Mickey Welch. (5) 8th-10th best player of the 1880s.
5. Hughie Jennings (6) The third 1890s star now featured prominently on my ballot. While I understood those who favor Cupid Childs, I’m just not convinced that the “best second baseman” argument matters, and Jennings, at his best, was the best position player of the era. During his 1894-1898 peak, he was the best player in baseball, and better than a pair of contemporary first-ballot HoMers, Billy Hamilton and Ed Delahanty, who were also at their peaks during these years. Twelfth best player of the 1890s.
6. Rube Foster. (10) The biggest star in black baseball in the aughts. Re-examined his career this year, and it looks better than I had realized. Might move him higher: waiting to what discussion of my analysis of his career shows before I put him quite as high as it indicates. Significantly more career than Ed Walsh, and nearly as good a peak. 13th best player of the 1900s.
7. Spotswood Poles (7) His peak was short, but strong in relation to his contemporaries, as is shown by his ranking above his near-exact contemporaries Burns, Hooper, and Veach. 15th best player of the 1910s.
8. Lip Pike. (9) Career wasn’t long, but he was a regular longer than Hugh Duffy, Pete Browning, or Sam Thompson. As the seventh best player of the 1870s, he’s the last serious 1870s candidate, I think, though I've promised Tommy Bond another look before I submit this year’s ballot. Pike’s clearly better than Tom York or Davy Force or John Clapp.
9. Tommy Leach (8) He’s a borderline candidate, but that makes him mid-ballot in 1931. Slips slightly due to re-evaluation of Foster. 16th best player of the 1900s.
10. Larry Doyle (11). He’s a borderline candidate, but now I see him as just on the good side of my in-out line. 17th-best player of the 1910s.
11. Hugh Duffy (12). Thirteenth best player of the 1890s.
12. Jimmy Ryan (13) Fourteenth best player of the 1890s.
14. Gavvy Cravath (15). Further settling of 1910s stars moves him past Bresnahan this year. #18 among 1910s players.
14. Roger Bresnahan (14) Top catcher of the aughts. Genuinely great player (his peak rate trails only (Jennings, Chance, McGraw, and Pike among eligible position players), but not enough playing time or defensive value to be a definite HoMer. 17th best player of the 1900s.
15. Cupid Childs (16) Back on my ballot. #17 among 1890s players. Slightly higher than my system has him.

Off Ballot
16. George Burns (ne) #19 among 1910s players
17. Bill Monroe (17) #18 among 1900s players.
18. Herman Long (19) #16 among 1890s players.
19. Rube Waddell (34) #19 among 1900s players. Moves up in reconsideration of pitchers.
20. Harry Hooper (ne) #20 among 1910s players
21. Charley Jones (20) #18 among 1880s players
22. Fielder Jones (21) #19 among 1900s players
23. Bruce Petway (22) #21 among 1910s players
24. Jake Beckley (23) Beckley is in the consensus top 10, but he just doesn’t appear outstanding in comparison to his contemporaries. Lack of better first-basemen could give him a positional boost, but right now I don’t see the justification for a positional bonus for first base. #18 among 1890s players.
25. Bobby Veach (nr) #22 among 1910s players
26. Frank Chance (25) #20 among 1900s players.
27. Tom York (24) #9 among 1870s players.
28. Tony Mullane (26) #20 among 1880s players.
29. Dick McBride (27) 3rd best player of the 1860s. McBride looks to have been rather similar to Tony Mullane in career length and in versatility, so I think my new cross-period ranking system has produced a good result in pairing them up. #3 among 1860s players.
30. Lave Cross (28) #19 among 1890s players.
31. Ed Konetchy (29) #26 among 1910s players.
32. John McGraw (30) #20 among 1890s players.
33. Joe Tinker (31) #21 among 1900s players.
34. Johnny Evers (32) #22 among 1900s players
35. Ed Williamson (33) A significant casualty of the new system. Too many other better players in the 1880s for Williamson to look very strong. He, Cross, and McGraw may all deserve to rank a bit higher as third basemen, but I’m not sure how much, so no bonus for third-basemen yet. #21 among 1880s players.
36. John Donaldson (35) Data is very sketchy so I could be overrating him by bringing him into the top 40, but his reputation was formidable. Need to look at him again in light of i9s projections. #28 among 1910s players.
37. Davy Force (36 #10 among 1870s players.
38. Addie Joss (37) # 24 among 1900s players.
39. Eddie Cicotte (38) #29 among 1910s players
40. Jim McCormick (39) #22 among 1880s players.



Dropped out of top 40

Mike Tiernan (40). Tiernan drops only to 41, but it’s fitting that three glut outfielders arriving should drop an outfielder out of the picture, probably for good.
Other new arrivals worth a note:

George Shively would have been a good major league player; he’s around 100 in my rankings.

Jimmy Lyons would have been a good major league player; he’s not close to the top 100.

Rube Marquard does not place among the top 100.
   167. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 24, 2004 at 11:36 PM (#753768)
FWIW, just spent some time adjusting everyone's games played. Pretty basic: a players games divided by team's games that he played for, times 154. Add up all season total & divide by 154 to get seasons played. Here are the results for the players I checked on:

1. Jake Beckley 16.8
2. Harry Hooper 15.2
3. Jimmy Ryan 14.6
4t. George Van Haltren 14.2
4t. Tommy Leach 14.2
6. Herman Long 13.4
7. Bobby Veach 12.4
8t. Ed Williamson 11.5
8t. Larry Doyle 11.5
10. Cupid Childs 10.5
11. Pete Browning 9.5
12. Charlie Jones 9.3
13. Gavy Cravvath 8.1
14. Lip Pike 7.5

Obviously, this doesn't include minor league play or pre-NA play.
   168. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 25, 2004 at 01:19 AM (#754055)
You know what I just (belatedly) realized? You know who Harry Hooper is? He's Lave Cross. Better bat, but not as good a glove. Long, solid career - Hooper was more consistent, but he was never as good nor as bad as Cross was at certain points; & Cross's career was actually a little lonnger - exactly 16 seasons by the above method. This isn't good news for Hooper, though it might help Cross a bit.
   169. DavidFoss Posted: July 25, 2004 at 03:21 AM (#754160)
37. Davy Force (36 #10 among 1870s players.

Someone's rating him... so I'll add him to the list of pre-NA guys. As usual, from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870...


DAVY FORCE

1867 -- Washington Olympic (10-5)
-- Pos -- 3B-SS
-- Competition -- Wash/Phi/Bal
-- Hitting -- 1st on team with 4.29 R/G (WBurchard 3.7, Williams 3.38, Denison 3.2)
1868 -- Washington Olympic (12-11-1)
-- Pos -- SS
-- Competition -- Philly/Wash/Bal/Alb/NYC+/Cin/Lans
-- Hitting
---- 3rd on team with 3.15 H/G (ECope 3.32, BDick 3.21)
---- 2nd on team with 3.25 R/G (BDick 3.84, HMcLean 3.18, ECope 3.16)
1869 -- Washington Olympic (22-14) (Pro: 9-12)
-- Pos -- SS-3B
-- Competition -- Wash/Bal/Cin/Lou/Cle/NYC+/Phi/Ohio
-- Hitting (all games)
---- 2nd on team with 3.97 R/G (FMalone 4.0, NYoung 3.81)
---- 2nd on team with 3.76 H/G (FMalone 3.64, NYoung 3.0)
---- 2nd on team with 6.03 TB/G (FMalone 5.76, NYoung 4.15)
1870 -- Washington Olympic (29-21) (Pro: 10-18)
-- Pos -- SS-C
-- Competition -- Bal/Phi/NYC+/Was/Bos/Cin/Ind/Cle/Buf/Roch/Up-NY/Rock/Chi
---- Hitting (Pro games only)
---- 2nd on team with 2.41 H/G (NYoung 2.60, GFox 2.16)
---- 2nd on team with 3.56 TB/G (NYoung 3.80, HBurroughs 3.08)
   170. DavidFoss Posted: July 25, 2004 at 03:41 AM (#754172)
27. Tom York (24) #9 among 1870s players.


I think York shows up on Grandma John Murphy's ballot I believe. As usual, from Marshall Wright's NABBP:1857-1870...

TOM YORK

1869 -- Brooklyn Pawhatan (5-12-1) (Amateur Team)
-- Pos -- OF
-- Competition -- NYC+
-- Hitting (all games)
---- T6th on team with 2.36 R/G (Berger 3,43 (7G), Bass 2.85, Hartman 2.46)
1870 -- Union Lansingburgh (30-15-1) (Pro: 11-13-1)
-- Pos -- SS-C
-- Competition -- NYC+/Rock/Phi/Chi/Bal/Buf/Cin/Was/Up-NY/
---- Hitting (Pro games only)
---- 3rd on team with 2.97 H/G (SKling 3.23, CFisher 3.06, DFlowers 2.95)
---- 3rd on team with 4.47 TB/G (CFisher 4.63, SKling 4.61, DFlowers 4.17)
   171. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: July 25, 2004 at 10:44 AM (#754244)
I haven't posted a ballot in about 15 "years" or so. It's been fun researching and reading the threads to get back on the horse.

My System
First, I take Win Shares and adjust them for season length, defense and timeline. I give a "catcher bonus" based on the percentage of defensive games played, with a maximum bonus of 25 percent. I rank the players based on how much value they had "above average". Now, this does not penalize players who were mediocre for a few seasons as full-time players because I only consider seasons which meet the above average criteria. What you will see is that long-career, no-peak players like Jake Beckley, Harry Hooper and Jimmy Ryan won't sniff my ballot.

For Negro Leaguers, I take the i9s projections, run the numbers for offensive Win Shares, make a reasonable projection for defensive value and playing time, then give a 5 percent discount.

In cases where the numbers are close, I'll give the edge to Negro Leaguers and players who played more demanding defensive positions.

My Ballot
1. Dickey Pearce. One of the top two or three players of the 1860s. The way he revolutionized shortstop defense gave his teams a sustained competitive advantage over the oppostion. Arguably the greatest shortstop until the duo of George Davis and Bill Dahlen.

2. Frank Chance. I was surprised when I saw how highly Chance ranked in my system. Sure, he was injured a lot, but he was a dominant player in all facets of the game while managing and acquiring the personnel that steamrolled the National League in the middle of the 1900s.

3. Rube Foster. Big tips of the hat to Chris Cobb and Chris Jaffe for their work on Foster. We don't know how dominant he was, but given why we don't know any better, I'm inclined to place him here. Gets a boost from his hitting ability.

4. Rube Waddell. An exemplar of the dominant frontline starter who could push his teams to a pennant. Seems to be a forgotten man in the HOM discussions, which is a real shame.

5. Hughie Jennings. Much like the climb up Alpe d'Huez, Jennings' peak is hors category. Stood tall as the best player in the only game in town.

6. Pete Browning. The guy could rake -- he's absolutely the best hitter eligible. I ignore the AA discount given that he was playing with an inner-ear ailment that drove him to alcoholism, insanity and an early grave.

7. Spotswood Poles. Fights his way onto the ballot because I give him full credit for the 1918 season, when he was fighting in World War I. Compares well with Hugh Duffy, though I see Poles as slightly better at the plate and on the basepaths while Duffy was superior in the field.

8. Lip Pike. Great player. Hit for a high average, fast, had light-tower power. But I just can't seem to pull the trigger and put him higher on the ballot.

9. Tommy Leach. Underrated, but hitting slightly above league average and playing Gold Glove-caliber defense for about 15 years has a way of sneaking up on you.

10. Roger Bresnahan. Played catcher for about 1,000 games and was an on-base machine. To quote the 2001 Baseball Prospectus, "two great tastes that taste great together."

11. John McGraw. Speaking of on-base machines, he's the biggest beneficiary of my ranking system. I want someone who I know was great for a relatively short period of time over someone who was pretty good for a while and filled a space the rest of the time.

12. Larry Doyle. The ballplaying ancestor of Jeff Kent. The best second baseman in National League history to this point.

13. Clark Griffith. Not much to say about him. Great peak from 1894-1901, spanning most of the one-league era.

14. Hugh Duffy. Spotswood Poles' white twin; Duffy's career stats are similar to my intrepretation of Poles' i9s stats. The AA season, Poles' 1918 season and my policy of giving Negro Leaguers the benefit of the doubt in close cases is what places them seven spots apart on a very tight ballot.

15. Gavy Cravath. My favorable interpretation of his minor-league career would have him fighting for one of the top five to seven spots on my ballot, but I can't trust that projection with enough confidence to do so. That puts him here.
   172. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: July 25, 2004 at 10:44 AM (#754245)
Consensus Top 10 players left off of my ballot
Jake Beckley. I feel very strongly that the electorate will be making a grave mistake if we elect Beckley, who was the Harold Baines of his time. He is credited as being the best first basemen outside of the Anson-Brouthers-Connor troika, but what kind of accomplishment is that, really? He was often the second or third-best position player on mostly mediocre teams.

Season W/L records for teams where Beckley was one of the three best position players, based on Win Shares:

66-68
61-71
60-68
55-80
65-65
71-61
76-56
83-67
62-77
52-87
70-70
75-79
58-96

854-945.475

Season W/L records for teams where Beckley was not one of the three best position players:

80-73
81-48
65-65* (average of NYG and PIT records in 1896; Beckley had 5 WS for each team)
92-60
74-65

392-311.558

Only three of Beckley's teams enjoyed winning records when he was one of their three best position players. Two more finished at .500. Both times that Beckley was the best position player on his team, the team finished with a losing record.

On the other hand, four of the five teams where Beckley was not among the top three position players had winning records -- the other team finished at .500 (see note above).

There were 12 seasons in which Beckley was one of the five best players on his team, pitchers included. Only two of those teams finished with winning records, the 1895 Pittsburgh Pirates, who finished 7th with a 71-61 record in the 12-team National League and the 1899 Cincinnati Reds, who finished 6th with an 83-67 record in the 12-team NL.

(Incidentially, both seasons ended up with exceptionally bad doormats in the National League. The 1895 season had the Washington Senators, St. Louis Browns and Louisville Colonels far down at the bottom of the standings:

WSH 43-85 .336
STL 39-92 .298
LOU 35-96 .267

Those three teams alone were bad enough to allow the other nine to finish with a winning record, something which almost happened again in 1899. This time, it was the historically bad Cleveland Spiders that pushed most of the teams above .500 with a truly dreadful 20-134 (!) record, good for a .130 "winning" percentage. The Spiders finished 84 games out of first place and 35 games out of 11th place. Eight teams finished above .500 and the Washington Senators fell just two games short of that break-even mark.)

I would argue that every one of the HOM selections thus far, with the possible exceptions of Bid McPhee and Pud Galvin, could be the best player for a pennant-winning team. Jake Beckley doesn't come close to meeting that standard.

George Van Haltren. Very good player for a long time, but gets pipped at the post by players who had higher peaks.

Jimmy Ryan. His counting stats are buoyed because he was mostly durable and mediocre for the last decade of his career, with the exception of 1898.

Mickey Welch. The Van Haltren of pitchers. He's ninth on my depth chart of eligible pitchers. A nice little career, but he didn't dominate the way his peers did.
   173. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2004 at 01:12 PM (#754261)
James Newburg--Nice to see another peak voter joining the fray. Have you considered Charley Jones? Hewas really a dominant player from 1875-85, minus two unfair blacklist years. Take a look...
   174. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: July 25, 2004 at 01:21 PM (#754263)
Dan,

I have Charley Jones 16th in my rankings, giving him full credit for the two blacklist years.

To the voters,

I'm having a devil of a time figuring out where to place John Donaldson. Intuitively, I'm thinking he belongs in the bottom third of my ballot, but I'm not sure. Anyone have good information or an analysis of his i9s projections?
   175. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 25, 2004 at 03:39 PM (#754314)
Big tips of the hat to Chris Cobb and Chris Jaffe for their work on Foster.

All I did was spend five minutes piggybacking on Cobb's work.
   176. Michael Bass Posted: July 25, 2004 at 04:54 PM (#754339)
Just in case anyone didn't figure it out, Sheckard and Caruthers were elected, if for some reason I don't get the results posted tonight, they may not be up until Sunday. Sorry for the delay . . .

If you still need results, I have them in Excel format. E-mail me at MichaelABassATyahooDOTcom and I'll send 'em your way.
   177. TomH Posted: July 25, 2004 at 05:29 PM (#754348)
more thinking about Frank Chance:

we are not to give Chance credit for his managing the Cubs to multiple pennants.

However, how possible is it that his managing career took AWAY from his value as a player? Is it at all likely (or even probable) that Frank Chance as a non-manager might have played MORE games per season than he did while actually doing double-duty? One might conclude that Chance's actual value as a player-manager was HoF worthy, and his actual value as a player-only was NOT HoM worthy, but his theoretical value as a player-only WOULD HAVE BEEN HoM worthy; he was that good, but didn't play enough games to put up the monster season totals. So we penalize him for managing??? That's what apears to be happening. Hmmmm....
   178. Chris Cobb Posted: July 25, 2004 at 07:02 PM (#754405)
Re Frank Chance:

This from the Constitution:

Voters are strongly encouraged to consider only a player's on-field accomplishments and other factors which had an impact on the outcomes of the player's baseball games. . . . Accomplishments by the teams that the player managed should not be given consideration (unless he was the team's player-manager).

That last parenthetical remark indicates that it is allowable to give credit for managing value to player-managers. I'm not sure anyone has been doing this, or whether voters generally favor the idea, but the possibility is there.

Tom H's remarks on Frank Chance brought this to mind, but there are other eligibles for whom this would be relevant. In chronological order:

Harry Wright, 69-74
Dickey Pearce, 72, 75
Jim McCormick, 79-80
John McGraw, 99, 01-02
Hugh Duffy, 01
Clark Griffith, 01-05
Fielder Jones, 04-08
Frank Chance, 05-11
Rube Foster, 07-15
Roger Bresnahan, 09-12, 15
Johnny Evers, 13
Joe Tinker, 13-15
Gavvy Cravath, 19-20
Bruce Petway, 22-25

It would seem wrong to me to give a huge boost for being player-manager, but Wright, McGraw, Griffith, Jones, Chance, and Foster were all notably successful managers and were surely worth some wins to their teams in that capacity.
   179. Kelly in SD Posted: July 25, 2004 at 07:06 PM (#754408)
From the numbers at BBRef and SABR's Deadball Stars of the National League, it appears that Frank Chance stopped playing because of the effects of his numerous times hit by pitch.
As early as 1909, he would suffer shooting pains throughout his head and body and by 1912 he was hospitalized for brain surgery to remove blood clots on his brain. Also, due to beanings he lost the hearing in one ear and partially in the other.
These injuries were the result of a batting style where he crowded the plate. Witness his 9 straight top 10 finishes in HBP - 1900-1908 and 10 out of 11 years - also 1910.
His lack of playing time was at least partially and I would say mainly attributable to the way he chose to play to game.
   180. DavidFoss Posted: July 25, 2004 at 09:42 PM (#754601)
Thanks for the info on Chance, Kelly. I'll have to run out and get that book.

What about Bresnahan? His playing time went down quite a bit when he took over as manager of the Cardinals. He still had quite a bit of hitting ability left in him as shown by his excellent part-time numbers.

His Cardinal teams didn't perform *that* well, although it was a tough rebuilding assignment. You'd have to wonder if the Cardinals would have done better if someone else was managing and Bresnahan could have played more.
   181. DavidFoss Posted: July 25, 2004 at 09:45 PM (#754603)
FYI -- I updated the MWright data in the Yahoo Groups Files section.

-- Candidates Force and York added
-- HOM-ers McVey, Sutton, White, Barnes, Spalding added.

New Zip file contains a README with all the changes.
   182. KJOK Posted: July 26, 2004 at 01:11 AM (#755102)
Most changes I've had in awhile with a complete re-evaulation, so posting my preliminary:

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. 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.
   183. Howie Menckel Posted: July 26, 2004 at 01:50 AM (#755243)
I put Chance back in my top 10 several years ago, making that very distinction.
Not crediting his managing per se, but recognizing that he had a key role in so many ways to those championship teams.
   184. Chris Cobb Posted: July 26, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#755431)
SPOTWOOD POLES, CF Oscar Charleston and Pete Hill the only Negro League contemporary outfielders that were better.

KJOK, are you counting Torriente as one of Poles' Negro League contemporaries? I have Torriente ahead of Poles, but I'd be interested to see how you have them.
   185. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 26, 2004 at 04:53 AM (#755803)
"This from the Constitution:

Voters are strongly encouraged to consider only a player's on-field accomplishments and other factors which had an impact on the outcomes of the player's baseball games. . . . Accomplishments by the teams that the player managed should not be given consideration (unless he was the team's player-manager).

That last parenthetical remark indicates that it is allowable to give credit for managing value to player-managers. I'm not sure anyone has been doing this, or whether voters generally favor the idea, but the possibility is there."

That's a mistake in the Constitution, we discussed it awhile back. Thanks for the reminder I needed to change that in the Constitution. Managing credit is NOT allowable. I will update it as soon as I get a chance.

The 1930 results will be posted shortly . . .
   186. PhillyBooster Posted: July 26, 2004 at 11:37 AM (#755865)
Jake Beckley. I feel very strongly that the electorate will be making a grave mistake if we elect Beckley, who was the Harold Baines of his time. He is credited as being the best first basemen outside of the Anson-Brouthers-Connor troika, but what kind of accomplishment is that, really? He was often the second or third-best position player on mostly mediocre teams.

As one of several, I think, who will be moving Jake Beckley to the top spot for the first time, I thought this deserved a response.

First, Harold Baines would have been a much more valuable if he had played the 60% of the games that he DH'd in the field playing average or better defense. So, even if they were comparable offensively, the fact that Beckley played 100% of his games at 1B (instead of 40% at RF) vaults him well above Baines.

Second, Beckley is not exactly comparable to the A-B-C troika, because they were, respectively, 15, 9, and 10 years older than him. They retired in 1896-7, which Beckely played until 1907. That's comparable to considering Harold Baines to be Reggie Jackson's contemporary. I don't think the existence of Reggie Jackson helps or hurts Baines's case much.

Finally, even though Beckley was, overall, the 4th best first baseman, in any given year he was always the best or second best first baseman. Even if the years when Baines played the field, he was just part of the pack, never standing out over the Hall of Famers (Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield) or even the pack of Hall of Very Gooders (Kirk Gibson, Dwight Evans, Larry Parrish, Von Hayes, Tony Armas, Jesse Barfield). Baines only made 6 All-Star Games (some of them marginally), Beckley would have made 9 or 10. That's a big difference.
   187. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 26, 2004 at 12:24 PM (#755876)
KJOK--I'm a huge Browning fan, and can't believe how little support he gets, but he was not baseball's premier hitter in the 1880's. That title almost certainly belongs to Dan Brouthers or Roger Connor.
   188. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 26, 2004 at 02:19 PM (#755964)
That title almost certainly belongs to Dan Brouthers or Roger Connor.

Brouthers was the greatest for the entire 19th century, IMO.
   189. KJOK Posted: July 26, 2004 at 03:33 PM (#756091)
KJOK--I'm a huge Browning fan, and can't believe how little support he gets, but he was not baseball's premier hitter in the 1880's. That title almost certainly belongs to Dan Brouthers or Roger Connor.
July
I agree Brouthers was definitely a better hitter, and, position and playing time-adjusted, Connor was also. OK, Browning was the THIRD best hitter of the 1880's, and the first two breezed in to the HOM.....
   190. Howie Menckel Posted: July 26, 2004 at 03:44 PM (#756115)
Voting points, Through 1930

Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
Caruthers 10704
H. Stovey 9576
PIKE 8947
Start 8378.5
McGinnity 8232
McVey 7985.5
Grant 7969.5
DUFFY 7684.5

PEARCE 7412
RYAN 6933
VAN HALTREN 6806.5
BROWNING 6705.5
Galvin 6585
Sheckard 6377
JENNINGS 6330
Sutton 6070
McPhee 5921
Wallace 5808
BECKLEY 5653
   191. Howie Menckel Posted: July 26, 2004 at 03:58 PM (#756135)
HOMers by year, 10 G minimum
1871 only - 8
1872-78 - 10-11
1879-80 - 16-17

1881-84 - 20-22
1885-89 - 23-25

1890-92 - 29-30
1893 only - 25
1894-1907 - 20-23
1908-10 - 18-19

1911-13 - 14-16
1914-16 - 10-12
1917 only - 8
1918-19 - 5-6

1920-24 - 1-3


Interesting that we're just about 'done' getting any new candidates from the 1894-1907 stretch in which we have 20 to 23 HOMers each year.
   192. Paul Wendt Posted: July 26, 2004 at 05:11 PM (#756279)
Catching Tim Keefe and Mickey Welch
Walt Wilson, Chicago, tallies the catchers for all starts and shutouts by HOF pitchers. Two pitchers are covered in each bimonthly issue of the SABR Baseball Records Cmte newsletter. Keefe and Welch, Feb 2002:

Tim Keefe (594 starts, 39 shutouts)
GS ShO Catcher
185 13 *Bill Holbert (31%)
164 15 *Buck Ewing (28-%)
60 1 *Jim O'Rourke
50 2 Jack Clements
41 5 *Pat Deasley
40 2 *Willard Brown
14 0 Lave Cross
09 0 Charlie Reipschlager
07 0 Pat Murphy
40 0 other

Mickey Welch (549 starts, 41 shutouts)
277 28 *Buck Ewing (50+%)
73 5 *Bill Holbert (13+%)
42 2 *Pat Deasley
32 1 *Jim O'Rourke
20 1 *Willard Brown
20 0 Pat Murphy
18 1 Artie Clark
16 0 John Humphries
14 1 Dick Buckley
37 1 other

Mickey Welch
525 complete games, 517 W-L decisions.
The all-time leader in excess complete games, 8.
   193. Paul Wendt Posted: July 26, 2004 at 05:15 PM (#756283)
Buck Ewing caught 39% of Keefe-Welch starts and 54% of Keefe-Welch shutouts.
   194. jimd Posted: July 26, 2004 at 06:21 PM (#756391)
All-Star Games, Beckley would have made 9 or 10

I suppose it depends on who's doing the picking...

NL 1B All-Stars 1889, (1890 PL), 1891-1905
      Win Shares     WARP-1
1889  28 Brouthers   10.0 Connor
1890P 25 Connor      14.9 Connor
1891  23 Connor      10.5 Connor
1892  34 Brouthers   14.8 Brouthers
1893  17 Beckley     10.0 Connor
1894  21 Brouthers    6.5 Doyle
1895  19 LaChance     8.8 Cartwright
1896  17 Doyle        5.2 Doyle
1897  21 Lajoie       9.5 Lajoie
1898  22 Wagner      10.1 McGann
1899  25 Tenney       8.8 Tenney
1900  21 Beckley      6.5 McGann
1901  18 Beckley      7.3 Beckley
1902  25 Tenney       8.4 Tenney
1903  31 Chance       9.9 Chance
1904  29 Chance       9.1 Chance
1905  25 Chance       9.4 Chance
Win Shares picks Beckley as the best 1B-man three seasons of 17, WARP-1 picks him once.
   195. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 26, 2004 at 06:33 PM (#756418)
Win Shares picks Beckley as the best 1B-man three seasons of 17, WARP-1 picks him once.

I would have picked him only for 1900.
   196. ronw Posted: July 26, 2004 at 06:57 PM (#756477)
Ah, the old "All-Star" debate. (As opposed to RonStars).

Many people define All-Star as the best player in the league at his position. jimd's list gives that definition of an All-Star. At the end of the season, you have 8 position All-Stars, and that's it. Under that definition, Jake Beckley is a 1-3 time All-Star.

Many other people define an All-Star in a broader fashion, as one of the top players at a position in the league. If a position has more good players, it might have more All-Stars. Generally, there are at least two All-Stars for each position, but there could be as many as four or five in any given year. The MLB All-Star game is similar to this definition, and is what PhillyBooster was alluding to. Under this definition, Beckley does make the list at least 9-10 times, probably more.
   197. Michael Bass Posted: July 26, 2004 at 07:03 PM (#756492)
Yeah, I ditto what Ron says. I say this as a EOJB, but PhillyBooster's AS definition (referencing Harold Baines' apperances) would pick at least 2, maybe more 1Bs per league.
   198. DavidFoss Posted: July 26, 2004 at 07:25 PM (#756546)
Ron and Michael have good points, but jimd's list does have merit though. Its kind of a black ink/grey ink thing... though the All-Stars would be a darker shade of grey than what we usually think of as grey ink. Maybe jimd's list just needs to be renamed to differentiate itself from the mid-summer classic. Its kind of like a Silver Slugger, but with fielding included... *shrug*. First Team?
   199. Michael Bass Posted: July 26, 2004 at 07:30 PM (#756560)
All-Star appearances, of course, have their own set of flaws. They're based (normally) on only a half-season of stats, the fan voting can be clueless, the manager picks can be even worse, the one per team requirement, etc.

I think a better measure for both Beckley and Baines is to set a standard you're comfortable with (first team, pick your own 25 man roster from the league, whatever), and then pick the team yourself.
   200. DavidFoss Posted: July 26, 2004 at 07:51 PM (#756590)
They're based (normally) on only a half-season of stats, the fan voting can be clueless, the manager picks can be even worse, the one per team requirement, etc.


Yeah... just as our HOM is an attempt at making a better HOF. Our All-Star lists here would be an attempt to make a better All-Star. John Murphy is already doing this in his ballots.
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2980 seconds
49 querie(s) executed