Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, August 16, 2004

1933 Ballot Discussion

1933 (August 29)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

560 197.9 1907 Walter Johnson-P (1946)
380 95.2 1909 Zack Wheat-LF (1972)
272 83.5 1913 Heinie Groh-3B (1968)
239 69.9 1912 Roger Peckinpaugh-SS (1977)
225 73.6 1916 Urban Shocker-P (1928)
223 65.5 1913 Bob Shawkey-P (1980)
231 50.9 1913 Jack Fournier-1B (1973)
191 62.7 1913 Ray Schalk-C (1970)
178 50.8 1915 Baby Doll Jacobson-CF (1977)
191 46.0 1915 Lee Meadows-P (1963)
179 40.9 1914 Jack Tobin-RF (1969)
146 42.0 1912 George Mogridge-P (1962)
151 34.4 1917 Dutch Ruether-P (1970)
156 36.9 1915 Jesse Barnes-P (1961)
137 36.1 1915 Sherry Smith-P (1949)
161 38.4 1918 Irish Meusel-LF (1963)
139 43.1 1914 Frank Snyder-C (1962)
141 36.5 1915 Billy Southworth-RF (1969)
107 26.6 1920 Aaron Ward-2B (1961)
100 33.2 1921 Johnny Bassler-C (1979)

HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star
04% 21-27 Pablo Mesa-OF (1902) - 0 - 0*
00% 16-27 Bartolo Portuondo-3B (??) - 0 - 3*


Not as good as the crop from 1934 (what other year is?), but this year’s candidates are a strong bunch in their own right. 


Players Passing Away in 1932

HoMers
Age Elected

74 1902 Dan Brouthers-1B

Candidates
Age Eligible

77 1895 John Morrill-1B
72 1903 Fred Pfeffer-2B
68 1898 Charlie Getzein-P
62 1911 Candy LaChance-1B
55 1914 Sammy Strang-3B/2B

Future Candidates
29 1937 Chino Smith-RF


Thanks to Dan G. for the necrology!

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 16, 2004 at 03:35 PM | 262 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. Kelly in SD Posted: August 20, 2004 at 08:09 AM (#808874)
Prelim ballot for 1933:

1. "The Farting Dog" - obscure reference
2. Mickey Welch
3. Pete Browning
4. Tommy Leach
5. Heinie Groh
6. Cupid Childs
7. Hugh Duffy
8. George Burns
9. Zack Wheat
10. Jake Beckley
11. Charley Jones
12. Bobby Veach
13. Bill Monroe
14. Jose Mendez
15. Frank Chance
Consideration set includes: Bresnahan, Fournier, Cooper, Konetchy, Thomas, Van Haltren, Williamson, F. Jones, Pike.
Highly doubtful set includes: Ryan, Moore, Jennings, Griffith
   202. Kelly in SD Posted: August 20, 2004 at 08:43 AM (#808879)
I take Leach over Groh because of Leach's versatility. 3 times best in league at 3rd by win shares and second once. 2 times top 3 in OF and 2 other times fourth. At 3rd, Leach was a top 10 position player in league 3 times, outfield 4 times. And Leach was a Gold Glover at both.

I am leaning to Burns over Wheat by balancing the following: Wheat leads in career win shares (by a bunch), Burns leads in peak (3 consecutive yrs, by 7), Wheat leads in prime (best any 7 years, by 6), Burns leads in per 162 games. They are tied in 20+ win share seasons. Burns has more 30+ seasons 3-2. Burns was a win shares all star 5 times while Wheat was 6 times, but Burns was a major league all-star 3 times, while Wheat was 0 times. Burns has more Black Ink (33-8), Wheat more Grey Ink (227-165). Wheat has better OPS+. Wheat hit for more power while Burns walked a lot more. Both were "B-" fielders per win shares.
Currently, I find Burns just a hair better (for ex: making a major league top 3 3 times against Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, and Cravath) though Wheat's longevity could win out.

I compare a player both to the ballot pool AND to the compatriots in the HoM. I want a player who standsout amongst the current eligibles AS WELL AS is comparable to those at his position who are already enshrined. Leftfield is a loaded position, both in the HoM and in pre-lively ball baseball. I don't reduce Burns or Wheat's rankings because there are a lot of LFs in the HoM, I reduce them because they fit in to the bottom of the HoM LFs - in my opinion. YMMV.
   203. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 20, 2004 at 01:59 PM (#808940)
I take Leach over Groh because of Leach's versatility.

Doesn't the fact that Groh didn't have to move leftward on the defensive spectrum work in his favor, Kelly?
   204. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 20, 2004 at 02:00 PM (#808941)
Of course, you have Groh at #5, so it's not like I'm complaining or anything. :-)
   205. PhillyBooster Posted: August 20, 2004 at 02:23 PM (#808958)
Well, I am not going to tell you in my 144th post (that would be this one) how comfortable I am or am not with my ballot. But it is likely I have spent somewhere in the range of 1/8th to 1/30th as much time on it as some others have done. So I guess your invitation probably applies to me too.

Quite the contrary.

First, I doubt seriously there is any correlation between total posts and thoughtfulness of the ballot. Voters with systems much more intricate than mine will not find it necessary to post and "think through" as much. They can rely on previous throught and data entry. Many of us without systems rely more on discussion and smell tests that require many more posts.

Second, Brad's suggestion was to base his ballot, by about 2%, on my ballot. For from suggesting that my ballot was more thoughtful that his (either because I post more or for any other reason), I was suggesting that he rely his own half-assed guesses, not on my (and everyone else's) half-assed guesses. The suggestion was not that Brad should not vote, but that it is better to not vote than the simply copy the ballots of others.

Generally, if you have 100 people guess how many jelly beans are in a jar, the average guess will be very close, even if no individual guess is. That average will become less accurate the more people don't make their own guesses, but instead rely solely on the guesses of others.
   206. Chris Cobb Posted: August 20, 2004 at 02:26 PM (#808962)
Sunnyday2,

Please don't take offense at what Chris J. said.

When you quote him as saying:

If you're too busy to prep a ballot that you're comfortable with, then don't vote

he is responding specifically to Brad's plan to cast a ballot that exactly follows the consensus, rather than presenting his own analysis, because he's not satisfied with it.

Nobody is saying Brad doesn't have the right or the credentials to cast a ballot if he wants to.

All they're saying is that, if a person finds himself (as Brad says he has) uncomfortable casting a ballot that represents his own views and instead he is planning to let the consensus order his ballot until he is more satisfied with one's analysis, it might be better for him to consider instead skipping the voting for a round or two until he feels ready.

Nobody is judging Brad's readiness to vote but himself. Indeed, the responses to Brad are not challenging his credentials as a voter but are affirming the importance of everybody voting their conscience and not simply following someone else's judgment.
   207. Howie Menckel Posted: August 20, 2004 at 02:40 PM (#808975)
I'll second Chris Cobb's entire post.
   208. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: August 20, 2004 at 02:52 PM (#808988)
Brad said something in his 57th post since the big server snafu, and Chris J. in his 3,335th post

It's not my 3335th post since the server snafu. It's my 3335th post ever. My old posts carried over. Didn't happen to everyone but it did to me. I was listed as having about 2600 posts by early May. Most of the ones since have been garbage posts in the lounge.

Well, I am not going to tell you in my 144th post (that would be this one) how comfortable I am or am not with my ballot. But it is likely I have spent somewhere in the range of 1/8th to 1/30th as much time on it as some others have done. So I guess your invitation probably applies to me too.

Not at all. If can post a ballot that you feel fairly confident in & comfortable with, by all means you should post it. (Note: this doesn't mean a ballot you fell 100% reflects your beliefs or that you have absolute certainty in - if that were the standard, no one would ever submit a ballot). And I have no idea how much/little time that takes a person - for some it may take hours, others minutes. As long as you can put down a ballot you feel does a decent job capturing your sentiments I have no problem with it.

The problem I had with Brad's ballot is that it sounded like he was letting the consensus choose his ballot for him. His ballot is the top 12 returnees in the same order they appeared in the '32 election results with 3 newbies plugged in. That would be fine with me if his own personal beliefs happened to coincide with the concensus, but he states that until he can get a personal voting system he likes he's just going to follow the consensus.

It's not the time put into a ballot that I'm concerned with, it's whether a ballot reflects an individual's point of view. As long as your ballot reflects your feelings on the players you could spend as much/little time in preparing it as you want.
   209. Kelly in SD Posted: August 20, 2004 at 10:44 PM (#809774)
Posted a breakdown for Jim McCormick on the pitchers thread.

Against Tim Keefe, McCormick was 8-0 until his final year, 1887.

Pud Galvin is his most comparable by age for most of his career. Compared to Welch, he performs worse against HoMers, though he does have a two game advantage over Welch 20-18 in head to head competitions. McCormick seems to have the reputation of having pitched for poor teams. But compare the teams for whom he pitched to Welch's over the 8 years they were both pitching, 1880-87:
1880: McCormick 3rd, Welch 4th. 5.5 games
1881: Welch 5th, McCormick 7th. 3.0 games
1882: McCormick 5th, Welch 7th. 7.5 games
1883: McCormick 4th, Welch 6th. 8.5 games
1884: Welch 4th, McCormick 7th. 27 games at season's end, 15.5 games when McCormick jumped to Union Assoc.
1885: McCormick 1st, Welch 2nd. 2.0 games
1886: McCormick 1st, Welch 3rd. 12.5 games
1887: Welch 4th, McCormick 6th. 13.5 games

McCormick's teams finished 4.0 games ahead of Welch's. I don't think either player had an advantage because of better team.

Against teams based on where they finished, McCormick had a better record against 1st place teams, 22-30 to 24-31, and against 5th place teams, 36-25 to 32-30, while Welch had a better record against 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th place teams.

Welch pitched 500+ IP more than McCormick in his career with a better winning percentage while McCormick allowed about .8 fewer baserunners per 9 innings and had a slightly better ERA+ 118-113. Welch pitched better against HoM pitchers and against most teams based on finishing position.

I don't have winshares info with me so I can't compare that facet, but I think Welch is better in enough categories that Welch is a ballot-worthy candidate. McCormick places in the second tier with many others.
   210. BryceB (Radiation-Free Tanketra) Posted: August 21, 2004 at 10:52 AM (#810834)
Quick prelim for 1933:
Changes for this ballot (besides the obvious entry of a half-dozen or so valid candidates for consideration and one ionic-energy being) reflect the initial attempt at adding a WARP mirror of the WS ranking system I'd been using as a starting point.
1. Walter Johnson (n/e; PHoM 1933). That smoking pile of refuse back there is the PHoM ranking system after the Big Train ran through it.
2. Hughie Jennings (6, PHoM 1919). There's enough people handing out gold watches, so I don't feel too bad about leaning towards the candles that burned faster but brighter.
3. Heinie Groh (n/e; PHoM 1933). Takes over the Tommy Leach position of the underrated player at an underrated position who is, paradoxically, probably overrated on my ballot.
4. Clark Griffith (4; PHoM 1931).
5. Zack Wheat (n/e). Halfway to the podium to pick up his PHoM plaque before I actually sat down to crunch numbers.
6. Tommy Leach (2; PHoM 1930). I like Groh's highs better than Leach's career, but I still like Leach.
7. Hugh Duffy (9). The BP numbers are strong enough that I feel more confident moving him up.
8. Addie Joss (7; PHoM 1930).
9. George van Haltren (5; PHoM 1926).
10. Spotswood Poles (8).
11. Mike Griffin (OB). The W3-only version of this ballot actually puts him #2 behind Johnson. I don't really buy that ... but for now, I will buy that I've been overlooking him.
12. Charley Jones (13).
13. Dobie Moore (11).
14. Lip Pike (15).
15. Urban Shocker (n/e). Holds his own in the W3 version even without the "nudge" I tended to give pitchers. First-ballot inductee into the Hall of Cool Names.

Down-ballot notables:
16-20: F. Jones, Burns, Browning, Childs, Mendez.
21-25: Veach, Welch, McGraw, Monroe, Waddell.
Bresnahan: 28th in the home list, but could have ended up as high as 12th and not bothered me. Still trying to get a handle on how much of a positional bias to deal with.
Beckley: 37th after the shake-up; WARP doesn't do any favors.
   211. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: August 21, 2004 at 05:08 PM (#811000)
Not that it'll affect the voting worth a fart, but I got down the comments & info on Walter Johnson on my site.
   212. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 21, 2004 at 05:19 PM (#811026)
Not that it'll affect the voting worth a fart, but I got down the comments & info on Walter Johnson on my site.

Is there anyone not placing Walter Johnson in the top slot?
   213. Howie Menckel Posted: August 21, 2004 at 05:33 PM (#811052)
McCormick went 21-3 with a 1.54 ERA in the Union Association. It clearly was, in terms of the skill level of the players, a minor league - no offense, Mr. Dunlap.
Major league baseball made a mistake in recognizing it as a major league, but there's no reason why we have to. I discount (as in ignore) UA stats, since they're of little relevance. I'm sure plenty of HOM candidates had at least one great minor-league season, but I don't count those, either.
   214. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 21, 2004 at 06:10 PM (#811162)
I discount (as in ignore) UA stats, since they're of little relevance.

Discount? Of course. Ignore? That's extremely unfair, Howie. How can you ignore Dunlap who would have been an All-Star in any league at that time?
   215. Howie Menckel Posted: August 21, 2004 at 07:58 PM (#811355)
Well, to be "fair," I'd have to factor in all minor-league stats for all players, right, Grandm-(wait, I won't do it)?
I think most of us completely ignore minor-league stats, beyond some giving Gavy Cravath credit, and so forth.
I realize I may seem to be extreme, but my approach makes a lot more sense than pretending that 21-3 was against more than a dozen or so real hitters.
Best of all is consideration of every single player's complete minor-league record. I doubt anyone does that. Or do they?

Look at it this way: If MLB hadn't blundered and made the UA a 'major league,' McCormick and Dunlap would get only passing consideration for their efforts.
   216. Howie Menckel Posted: August 21, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#811380)
Huh.
I hadn't reiterated my McCormick UA 'dismissal' in at least six months, when coincidentally Kelly in SD posts something similar last night on the Pitchers thread.
Then today I revive my rant, maybe an hour before noticing his.

Coincidence is always a head-scratching event.
   217. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 21, 2004 at 09:06 PM (#811435)
Howie:

I actually will include minor league performances if it would have been above average in the majors. But I understand why someone wouldn't for the beginning or end of a player's career.

However, Dunlap and McCormick were in a minor league in the middle of their careers at or near their peaks. IMO, it's really not the same scenario as including Lefty Grove's Baltimore years.

Grandm-(wait, I won't do it)?

Watch it, Menckel. I have an itchy keyboard finger which can erase your posts at a moments notice! :-D
   218. sunnyday2 Posted: August 21, 2004 at 09:07 PM (#811436)
>If the MLB hadn't blundered and made the UA a 'major league,' McCormick and Dunlap would get only passing consideration for their efforts.

Howie, with all due respect, this is wrong. Dunlap was a regular for 10 documented seasons, 9 of which were in the NL. I discount the UA by .65 (I only award .35 value). Even if I discounted it by 100 percent, we would still know that Dunlap was a hell of a player. He had a huge peak if you accept the WARP eval. of his fielding. For a career voter, 9 years or 10 wouldn't matter. For a peak voter, 9 years or 10 doesn't matter. The fact that he spent 1884 in the UA doesn't change who he was.

McCormick took a regular turn for 9 years, only half of one year in the UA. That half year has nothing to do with his ranking. I mean he pitched 4200+ innings, just 300 less than Radbourn and Clarkson and at a better ERA+ than Welch. I give him .35 value for the UA but again it could be .00. He was a dominant pitcher between Spalding and the Big Five of the '80s.

It's like saying that Williamson's HRs in 1884 had negative value, which somebody once said (don't know that it was Howie). They didn't. They helped his team.

Another analogy is Dobie Moore. We want to know how good he was. If he had NOT played prior to the Negro Leagues, we would assume he wasn't good enough. But he played for a ringer Army team, which siggests he was good even then (but for racial discrimination he might have been a MLer), and that coupled with his Negro League record adds up to a complete picture of what kind of player Dobie Moore was. We don't have any stats to discount, but we can discount (figuratively) all we want. It doesn't change who he was.

Needless to say, the four players mentioned--Dunlap, McCormick, Moore and Williamson--have all been on my ballot. It sometimes sounds like their UA or army play or 1884 HRs diminish their total record and that's wrong. They just don't add up as fast, which is different.
   219. Howie Menckel Posted: August 21, 2004 at 09:39 PM (#811478)
What I wrote:
If the MLB hadn't blundered and made the UA a 'major league,' McCormick and Dunlap would get only passing consideration for their efforts.

What I was trying to say:
If the MLB hadn't blundered and made the UA a 'major league,' McCormick and Dunlap would get only passing consideration for their efforts FOR THEIR UA STATS IN 1884. BOTH ARE LEGIT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR ACTUAL CAREERS.
   220. Kelly in SD Posted: August 21, 2004 at 10:06 PM (#811523)
These are late, but my wife and I have been in Seattle preparing for an upcoming move. What a FUBAR trip...

I encourage everyone to also take Chris J.'s information into account. This can be found on his website: runsupportindex.blogspot.com.

Urban Shocker

Teams: NYA 1916-1917, StLA 1918-1924, NYA 1925-1928.
Record: 187-117 .615 WL%, 3.16 era/3.78 runsallowed LgERA 3.88, K/W 1.50, WH9IP=11.3
Win Shares: Career 225; 3 yrs cons 84; 7 best yrs 166; per 40 starts 24. Seasons with 20+: 5. Seasons with 30+: 1.
AllStars: STATS 5, WS 3
Fibonacci WinPoints: 185
ERA+: 124
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 15/179
Bill James Rank: 71
Top 10s: BBH/9IP 9 times. ERA and BB/9IP 8 times with 2 firsts in BB. Wins 7 times with one first. SHo 7 times. WL%, IP, CG 6 times. Strikeouts 5 times with one first, K/9 5 times.
World Series: 1926, 1927 (didn't pitch)
Run Support Index: 101.77 - approx 38th for pitchers up through 1930
Defensive Support: 5.5 wins shares better than an average defense - approx. 44th

Bob Shawkey

Teams: PhiA 1913-1915, NYA 1915-1927.
Record: 196-150 .566 WL%, 3.09 era/3.68 runsallowed, LgERA 3.54, K/W 1.34, WH9IP=11.46
Win Shares: Career 223; 3 yrs cons 71; 7 best yrs 158; per 40 starts 21. Seasons with 20+: 4. Seasons with 30+: 0.
AllStars: STATS 2, WS 4
Fibonacci WinPoints: 157
ERA+: 113
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 12/143
Bill James Rank: 95
Top 10s: Wins, Ks, K/9 7 times. SHo, WL%, BBH/9IP, H/9IP 6 times. ERA 3 times with one first. Home Runs Allowed 10 times.
World Series: 1914, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1926
Run Support Index: 107.95 - approx 16th among pitchers up through 1930.
Defensive Support: 7.2 - approx 38th
   221. Kelly in SD Posted: August 22, 2004 at 01:30 AM (#812040)
Doesn't the fact that Groh didn't have to move leftward on the defensive spectrum work in his favor

To go a little more in depth...(from SABR's Deadball Stars of the National League) In 1905, Leach suffered 2 broken ribs in a collision at home plate with Jake Beckley. Beckley had thrown the ball away when he tried to throw it to Jack Taylor covering first. Leach was rounding third. Beckley chose not to chance a throw home and ran to home to tag out Leach. Becks dove headfirst into Leach, who was sliding feet first, and broke two of his ribs. Leach had trouble throwing after he returned from the injury so he started to play centerfield.

Me again:
It looks like Leach did not heal until 1908.
In 1904, he played 146 games at 3rd and zero everywhere else.
In 1905, he played 58 games at 3rd, 51 at CF, 22 other OF.
In 1906, he played 65 at 3rd, 44 at CF, 16 other OF.
In 1907, 109 in CF, 33 in 3rd.
In 1908, 150 at 3rd, 2 in CF.
In 1909, 138 in CF, 13 at 3rd.
Once he had difficulty throwing, his speed was an asset in CF. The following are his range factors, league, rank among NL CF.
1905 2.38 vs 1.93 - 3rd: Thomas 2.72, Seymour 2.5
1906 2.28 vs 1.86 - 4th: Thomas 2.48, Maloney 2.48, Seymour 2.38
1907 2.69 vs 1.94 - 1st, 2nd place was 2.46
1909 2.50 vs 2.01 - 1st
1910 2.79 vs 2.10 - 1st, Paskert had 2.73
1911 2.51 vs 2.07 - 5th,
1912 2.69 vs 2.16 - 1st,
1913 2.36 vs 2.08 - 4th, Paskert 2.91, (Mitchell 2.57) Snodgrass 2.49, Stengal 2.40
1914 2.48 vs 1.97 - 2nd, Paskert 2.52

I am not sure if there is a point here, but I hope the information is helpful. Also, under WS, he grades out as an A+ at both 3rd and CF.
   222. Kelly in SD Posted: August 22, 2004 at 01:36 AM (#812054)
Reposting from the 1932 Ballot Discussion Thread to give some background.

Heinie Groh: BOTTLE BAT
Teams: NYG 1912-13, Cin 1913-21, NYG 1922-26, Pit 1927.
Record: .292/.373/.384. 566 RBI, 920 R
Win Shares: Career 272; 3 yrs cons 95; 7 best (BOTTLE BAT) yrs 191; per 162g 26.3. Seasons with 20+: 6. Seasons with 30+: 2.
AllStars: STATS 4, WS 6, Majors 5
OPS+: 118
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 14/90
Bill James Rank: 21
Defense: Third Base, WS "A-" with 3 Gold Gloves.
Top 10s: Walks 8 times. OBP 6 times with 2 firsts. Runs 5 times with (BOTTLE BAT) 1 first. Doubles 5 times with 2 firsts. OPS+ 4 times. 3 BA and SLG.
Other
Batting Order: 1913 - 3rd, 1914 - 4th, 1915 -5th, 1916 - 1st, 1917 - 1st, 1918 - 1st, 1919 - 3rd.
Went to 5 World Series: 1919, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1927.
Secret Origin of the Bottle Bat. McGraw suggested he use a bat with a bigger barrel, but his small hands could grip the bigger handle so he went to Spalding Sporting Goods where they whittled the handle down and built up the barrel.
Best fielding percentage of any 3rdbaseman in NL pre 1920s.

Zack Wheat:
Teams: Brook 1909-1926, PhiA 1927.
Record: .317/.367/.450. 1289 RBI, 1248 R
Win Shares: Career 380; 3 yrs cons 82; 7 best yrs 199; per 162g 25.4. Seasons with 20+: 10. Seasons with 30+: 2.
AllStars: STATS 4, WS 6, Majors 0
OPS+: 129
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 8/227
Bill James Rank: 23
Defense: Left Field, WS "B-" with 3 Gold Gloves.
Top 10s: Homeruns and SLG 11 times each with 1 first in SLG. Hits and Total Bases 10 times. BA, Doubles, OPS, OPS+ 9 times each. RBI and Triples 8 times each.
Other
Batting Order: 1910, 1911 - 3rd, 1912 - 5th, 1913-1916 - 4th, 1917-5th, 1918-19 - 4th.
Changed his batting style when he reached majors from bunting and running to standing flat footed and slugging at the ball. He disdained the bunt because he thought he was more valuable hitting for power. Also, one of the first hitters to go for a lighter bat to increase bat speed.
Liked to hold out for more $ most every off-season.
Had a natural batting philosophy that enabled him to exploit the lively ball.
Was a patrolman in Kansas City after the Depression forced him to sell his large farm/ranch. Nearly died in a high speed crash.
   223. Kelly in SD Posted: August 22, 2004 at 01:41 AM (#812065)
Reposting from 1932 Ballot Discussion Thread:

Groh and Wheat team and league positional rankings:

Groh:
year WS TmRk-WhoAhead / LgPosRk-WhoAhead
1912 2
1913 13 4th Bescher, Tinker 17, Bates 15 / 8th-All regulars 23-14.
1914 19 2nd Herzog 21 / 3rd Evers 25, Huggins 22.
1915 25 1st / 1st.
1916 24 1st / 2nd Hornsby 28.
1917 37 1st / 1st (only Alexander 40, Hornsby 38 had more in NL.
1918 28 1st / 1st (tied most in NL with Hollocher and Vaughn)
1919 30 2nd Roush 33 / 1st (Only Roush and Burns 32 had more).
1920 28 2nd Roush 33 / 1st
1921 15 3T Bohne 20, Roush 18 / 5th Frisch 31, Johnston 24, Boeckel 23, Stock 17.
1922 12 8th All Regulars / 5th
1923 18 6th / 3rd Traynor 28, Friberg 23.
1924 19 5th / 1st
1925 1
1926 0
1927 1

Wheat:
year WS TmRk-WhoAhead / LgPosRk-WhoAhead
1909 4 9th /
1910 21 1st / 9th (leaders: Magee 36, Hofman 31, Schulte 26)
1911 16 3rd Daubert 20, Hummel 18 / 14th (Schulte 31, Sheckard 30, Snodgrass&Bates; 23)
1912 16 2nd Daubert 17 / 10th (Paskert&Wilson; 24, Bescher 23).
1913 16 3rd Smith 19, Daubert 17 / 11th (Cravath 29, Leach 24, Burns 22)
1914 26 1st / 5th (Burns 31, Magee 29, Cravath 28, Leach 27).
1915 24 2nd Daubert 27 / 3T (Cravath 35, Magee 26, Burns&Hinchman; 24)
1916 32 1st / 1st - most WS by position player
1917 16 2nd Stengal 20 / 11th (Burns 34, Kauff&Roush; 30)
1918 16 1st / 8th (Burns&Paskert; 23, Carey, Roush, Youngs 22)
1919 21 2nd Myers 23 / 6th (Roush 33, Burns 32, Youngs 27)
1920 28 1st / 3rd Roush, Youngs 33
1921 23 2nd Johnston 24 / 4T (McHenry 25, Carey&Powell; 24)
1922 27 1st / 2nd (Carey 29)
1923 15 3rd Fournier 27, Johnston 22 / 12th (Carey 29, Roush 28, Statz 26)
1924 35 1st / 1st (only Hornsby 38, Vance 36 had more)
1925 27 2nd Fournier 29 / 2nd (Cuyler 34)(Only Hornsby 36, Cuyler, Fournier, Donahue 28 had more)
1926 10 5th / 22nd
1927 7 9T
   224. Kelly in SD Posted: August 22, 2004 at 01:57 AM (#812100)
Just for fun, here is a background for The Big Train.

Walter Johnson

Teams: WasA 1907-1927.
Record: 417-279 .599 WL%, 2.17 era/2.89 runsallowed/ LgERA 3.24, K/W 2.57, WH9IP=9.54
Win Shares: Career 560; 3 yrs cons 139; 7 best yrs 291; per 40 starts 30. Seasons with 20+: 15. Seasons with 30+: 8. Seasons with 40+: 3.
AllStars: STATS 11, WS 11
Fibonacci WinPoints: 388
ERA+: 146
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 150/420
Bill James Rank: 1
Top 10s: Just go to Baseball Reference
World Series: 1924, 1925
Run Support Index: 95.44 - approx 60th (out of about 70) for pitchers up through 1930
Defensive Support: 8.0 wins shares better than an average defense - approx. 36th
   225. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 22, 2004 at 02:59 AM (#812152)
What I was trying to say:
If the MLB hadn't blundered and made the UA a 'major league,' McCormick and Dunlap would get only passing consideration for their efforts FOR THEIR UA STATS IN 1884. BOTH ARE LEGIT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR ACTUAL CAREERS.


Howie, why didn't you say so? :-)

BTW, thank you Kelly for all of your work. It's much appreciated!
   226. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2004 at 12:25 PM (#812252)
1. "The Farting Dog" - obscure reference


Excellent children's book! :-) As great for gag gifts as well. No one will try to Rob a home that has Walter living there. I think there's a sequel, too, but I haven't read it.
   227. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2004 at 12:36 PM (#812254)
Top 10s: Just go to Baseball Reference


Yup... and we all should go there at least once in the next week. It won't affect our rankings, but its worth looking just to gawk. Sometimes the inner-circle guys don't get a good look. A good look isn't needed, but its fun.

1st or 2nd career in Black/Grey ink and HOF standards/monitor.

His 110 shutouts are 20 ahead of 2nd place and 31 ahead of 3rd place.

Three triple crowns. Two MVP's. (weird time for MVPs, yes, but winning more than one was rare).
   228. OCF Posted: August 22, 2004 at 03:45 PM (#812311)
It won't affect our rankings, but its worth looking just to gawk.

My vote for him will contain no comment at all. Sometimes, when there's so much to say, you don't have to say anything.
   229. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2004 at 01:33 AM (#813146)
A little late, but..
Anyone game to list for me their best call on years played for Santop and Foster?
basically:
token - 10G or fewer, or equivalent
part-time - likely fewer than half the games
full-time - anything more

also teams, while I am being so needy.
I have seen various listings, but trust more the 'experts' here.

I've got the "HOMers per year," "HOMer teammates," and a few others still up to snuff, will try to revive some others lost to the changeover. That was so frustrating that it's taken me months to contemplate a new assault. I think lists of HOMers by position and a few of the others are helpful for all of us.
Not for 'quotas,' but as a general guide....
   230. Chris Cobb Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:06 AM (#813396)
I posted my best guesses on Foster and Santop on the 1932 results thread, but it vanished when the thread disappeared for a while.

Here are my best estimates:

Foster
1902 Chicago Union Giants (Full-Time)
1903 Cuban X-Giants (FT)
1904-06 Philadelphia Giants (FT)
1907-1910 Chicago Leland Giants (FT)
1911-1914 Chicago American Giants (FT)
1915-1917 Chicago American Giants (PT or Token; hard to judge with pitchers where to draw the line)

Santop
1909 Philadelphia Giants (Token)
1910 Philadelphia Giants (FT)
1911-14 New York Lincoln Giants (FT)
1915 Chicago American Giants/New York Lincoln Stars (FT)
1916 New York Lincoln Stars/Brooklyn Royal Giants (FT)
1917 New York Lincoln Stars/Brooklyn Royal Giants (FT)
1918 Brooklyn Royal Giants / Hilldale Daisies (PT -- missed time in military service)
1919 Brooklyn Royal Giants / Hilldale Daisies (PT -- military service)
1920 -24 Hilldale Daisies (FT)
1925-26 Hilldale Daisies (PT, token)
   231. DanG Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:19 AM (#813455)
Some one asked about Jack Fournier's minor league record. Between his White Sox and Cardinals stints, he played for Los Angeles in the PCL 1917-19.

1917: 144 G, 512 AB, 76 R, 156 H, 29 D, 6 T, 7 HR, 38 SB, .305 BA, .989 FA.

1918: 104 G, 400 AB, 52 R, 130 H, 26 D, 13 T, 4 HR, 37 SB, .325 BA. (Led league in doubles and triples; season was apparently cut short like MLB.)

1919: 169 G, 638 AB, 108 R, 209 H, 36 D, 19 T, 11 HR, 44 SB, .328 BA, .995 FA. (Led league in triples and fielding ave.)

Those were his age 27-29 seasons, obviously he was of MLB quality those years. A conservative estimation of his Win Shares: based on 1914-16 (WS total 54) and 1920-22 (WS total 56), it seems reasonable that he would've had at least 55 total in 1917-19. He actually did earn 5 with the Yankees in 1918 (the year of a player shortage).

So, if we add 50 WS to his 231 that brings him up to 281 career win shares. His five best years he had 34-29-28-27-24.

Let's try a stretch. Does it seem reasonable to say that a player with that sort of peak would've likely had more than 55 WS in his age 27-29 seasons? If you assume 75 in those three seasons that would put his career total over 300 WS, into HoMer territory.

Fans of Cravath may want to consider if Fournier deserves the same sort of consideration.
   232. Brent Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:42 AM (#813475)
Does it seem reasonable to say that a player with that sort of peak would've likely had more than 55 WS in his age 27-29 seasons?

Given that Fournier was actually playing during those years, it seems to me that the more relevant question is whether his accomplishments during those 3 seasons are worth more than 55 WS. If he'd had the same statistics in the major leagues during those years, I'd think they would easily be worth more than 55 WS. But if we were to take 20 or 30 points off his average each year for facing minor league competition, then 55 WS seems about right. Do you happen to know anything else about the quality of competition? How close he was to league leaders in other categories, such as average or HR? Anything about offensive context - park factors or average runs per game?

I agree with your point that Fournier comes close to being ballot-worthy, and with enough push from strong minor league statistics he could merit serious consideration.
   233. Kelly in SD Posted: August 23, 2004 at 10:26 AM (#813545)
Here's another profile for a newly eligible candidate: Jack Fournier

John Frank "Jack" Fournier:
Teams: ChiA 1912-1917, NYA 1918, StLN 1920-1922, BroN 1923-1926, BosN 1927.
Record: .313/.392/.483. 859 RBI (91/162 g), 821 R (87/162g)
Win Shares: Career 231; 3 yrs cons 90; 7 best yrs 178; per 162g 24.5. Seasons with 20+: 5. Seasons with 30+: 1.
AllStars: STATS 4, WS 5, Majors 5
OPS+: 142
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 10/136
Bill James Rank: 35
Defense: First Base, WS "C-" with NO Gold Gloves.
Top 10s: HBP 8 times with 3 firsts. BA, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Home Runs 7 times each with one first in SLG. OBP, XBH 6 times each. RBI 5 times. Triples and Runs 4 times.
Stuff: Approx 25th in career OPS+ among players up to 1930 (including "active" players). Approx 35th in career BA among players up to 1930. Approx 30th in career OBP among players up to 1930.
Fielding Issues - More Info: years with 60+ games in first, games, field pct, lg pct, place
1914: 97 / .978 / .985 / 8-8
1915: 65 / .986 / .987 / tied w/3 others in 4th
1916: 85 / .976 / .988 / 8-8 (by .009 pts)
1920: 138/ .983 / .990 / 8-8
1921: 149/ .987 / .990 / 7-8 (2-8 only .008 apart)
1922: 109/ .982 / .990 / 8-8
1923: 133/ .985 / .990 / 8-8
1924: 153/ .985 / .989 / 7-8
1925: 145/ .989 / .989 / tied w/2 others in 4th
1926: 64 / .986 / .989 / DNQ - would tie for last if enough games
1927: 102/ .989 / .989 / tied w/2 others in 5th

1914: The other Chi infielders had much higher than average errors which MAY indicate Fournier had difficulty catching, though he had a poor reputation as a fielder in any case.
I don't have enought interest to look at his other infielders for other years.

I'm not sure how much impact his fielding had on his teams. When he was at least a semi-regular, his teams finished .487 or better in 1915, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Played football in high school in Tacoma and said he enjoyed it more than baseball. After he retired, he was a football scout.

He may have not minded playing in the PCL as he was from the West Coast. Though in 1918, the PCL did not have a team north of the Bay Area/Salt Lake City.

Hope this helps.
   234. DanG Posted: August 23, 2004 at 02:39 PM (#813665)
Brent wrote re Fournier:

Do you happen to know anything else about the quality of competition? How close he was to league leaders in other categories, such as average or HR? Anything about offensive context - park factors or average runs per game?

I wish I had more info. AFAIK, nobody has tried to produce good MLE's for old-time minor league performance.

There are a ton of players 1900-60 putting up good numbers in the minors, especially the PCL, who probably deserve some credit in our analyses. You see a lot of guys debuting at age 25-27 with immediate outstanding seasons. You know they could've starred in the majors sooner, especially when you see their numbers in the high minors.
   235. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: August 23, 2004 at 05:13 PM (#813866)
Happy birthday George Davis.
   236. Rob_Wood Posted: August 24, 2004 at 01:06 AM (#814879)
I only have one comment to add to the discussion so far. Where's the luv for Urban Shocker? He'll be in the middle of my ballot, maybe even higher. Please take another look at him.
   237. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 24, 2004 at 01:26 AM (#814971)
I only have one comment to add to the discussion so far. Where's the luv for Urban Shocker? He'll be in the middle of my ballot, maybe even higher. Please take another look at him.

I also like him, Rob, and was disappointed that he didn't make it on my ballot (though he was close). As it is, I have Johnson, Willis, Welch, Waddell and Mendez on my ballotr.
   238. Howie Menckel Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:01 AM (#815142)
Thanks, Chris, for the Santop and Foster teams and years!
As the risk of being a pest increases, still looking for:

Pearce 1866 - was he parttime with TWO Brooklyn teams?
Grant - Did he play at 'major league level' in 1885? Also confused on his teams for 1890, 1891, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1901.
HR Johnson - I have 1894-1921, but no teams or sense of part-time vs fulltime vs token.
Hill - I have 1901-21, parttime 1922-24, token 1925, but no teams.
   239. Chris Cobb Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:46 AM (#815355)
Grant - Did he play at 'major league level' in 1885? Also confused on his teams for 1890, 1891, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1901.

Did not play at major-league level in 1885. According to Riley, he was playing semipro ball for a team in Plattsburgh, NY.

1890 -- played for Harrisburg in the Eastern Interstate League and the Atlantic Association (no team name listed in Holway or Riley).
1891 -- played for the NY Big Gorhams (who represented Ansonia in the Connecticut State League, until the league folded)
1896 -- played for the Cuban Giants
1898 -- played for the Cuban X-Giants and the Page Fence Giants
1900-01 -- played for the Genuine Cuban Giants.

All these seasons would be full time.


HR Johnson - I have 1894-1921, but no teams or sense of part-time vs fulltime vs token.

Johnson's play at what would be considered major-league level ran from 1895 to around 1917. Here's the breakdown:

In 1894, Johnson played semipro ball for the Findlay Sluggers of Findlay, Ohio. I don't think this could count as major-league equivalent play.
1895-98 -- Page Fence Giants
1899 -- Chicago Columbia Giants
1900 -- Chicago Union Giants
1901-02 -- No record
1903-04 -- Cuban X-Giants
1905-06 -- Philadelphia Giants
1907-09 -- Brooklyn Royal Giants
1910 -- Chicago Leland Giants
1911 -- Chicago Giants and New York Lincoln Giants
1912 -- New York Lincoln Giants and Brooklyn Royal Giants
1913 -- New York Lincoln Giants

All play through 1913 is full time.

1914-15 -- No record
1916-17 -- New York Lincoln Stars (part time or token)

From 1916-21 he played also for the Pittsburgh Colored Stars of Buffalo; this was a lesser team.

Hill - I have 1901-21, parttime 1922-24, token 1925, but no teams.

1901-02 -- Cuban X-Giants
1903-07 -- Philadelphia Giants
1907-10 -- Chicago Leland Giants
1911-18 -- Chicago American Giants
1919-21 -- Detroit Stars
1922 -- No record, but my guess is the Milwaukee Bears, who joined the Negro National League in 1923 with Hill as manager. I suspect he joined the team in 1922 to help them get ready to join the league the following season.
1923 -- Milwaukee Bears
1924-25 -- Baltimore Black Sox
   240. Howie Menckel Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:26 AM (#815408)
Thanks!!

Something back from me in return.
We are almost closing the door on the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, as we turn to the superstars of the 1900s and 1910s.

HALL OF MERIT PLAYERS
listed in order of induction

1856-1865 (DONE, no HOM candidates with 100 votes)
1856 - Pearce BKN ATL
1857 - Pearce BKN ATL
1858 - Pearce BKN ATL
1859 - Pearce BKN ATL
1860 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1861 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1862 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1863 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1864 - GWright NY GOTH, Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1865 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL


1866-79 (Done unless Lip Pike 507 gets in, C Jones w/234 starts 1875)
1866 (3) - GWright NY GOTH/MOR, Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL/BKN EXC
1867 (3) - GWright WAS, Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1868 (5) - Barnes RKF, GWright MOR, Spalding RKF, Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1869 (7) - White CLE, Barnes RKF, GWright CIN, Spalding RKF, Start BKN ATL, McVey CIN, Pearce BKN ATL
1870 (8) - White CLE, Barnes RKF, GWright CIN, Spalding RKF, Sutton CLE, Start BKN ATL, McVey CIN, Pearce BKN ATL
1871 (9) - White CLE, Barnes BOS, Wright BOS, Anson RKF, Spalding BOS, Sutton CLE, Start NY, McVey BOS, Pearce NY
1872 (11) - White CLE, Hines WAS, Barnes BOS, O'Rourke MDL, Wright BOS, Anson PHI, Spalding BOS, Sutton CLE, Start NY, McVey BOS, Pearce NY
1873 (11) - White BOS, Hines WAS, Barnes BOS, O'Rourke BOS, Wright BOS, Anson PHI, Spalding BOS, Sutton PHI, Start NY, McVey BAL, Pearce BKN
1874 (11) - White BOS, Hines CHI, Barnes BOS, O'Rourke BOS, Wright BOS, Anson PHI, Spalding BOS, Sutton PHI, Start NY, McVey BOS, Pearce BKN
1875 (11) - White BOS, Hines CHI, Barnes BOS, O'Rourke BOS, Wright BOS, Anson PHI, Spalding BOS, Sutton PHI, Start NY, McVey BOS, Pearce STL (Galvin STL 8-58)
1876 (11) - White CHI, Hines CHI, Barnes CHI, O'Rourke BOS, Wright BOS, Anson CHI, Spalding CHI, Sutton PHI, Start NY, McVey CHI, Pearce STL (25/64)
1877 (10) - White BOS, Hines CHI, Barnes CHI (22/59), O'Rourke BOS, Wright BOS, Anson CHI, Spalding CHI, Sutton BOS, Start HART, McVey CHI (Pearce 8/60)
1878 (11) - White CIN, Hines PRV, O'Rourke BOS, Kelly CIN, Ward PRV, Wright BOS, Anson CHI, Sutton BOS, Start CHI, McVey CIN, Bennett MIL (Spalding CHI 1-60)
1879 (16) - White CIN, Hines PRV, Gore CHI, Barnes CIN, O'Rourke PRV, Kelly CIN, Ward PRV, Wright PRV, Brouthers TRY, Anson CHI, Glasscock CLE, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF, Start PRV, McVey CIN


1880-84 (DONE unless Mickey Welch 380 gets in, or Browning 347, who starts 1882)
1880 (17) - White CIN (35/80), Hines PRV, Gore CHI, O'Rourke BOS, Kelly CHI, Ward PRV, Keefe TRY, Ewing TRY (13/83), Anson CHI, Connor TRY, Glasscock CLE, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF, Start PRV, Stovey WOR, Bennett WOR (Wright BOS 1-84, Brouthers TRY 3-83, Radbourn BUF 6-82 2B-OF)
1881 (20) - White BUF, Hines PRV, Gore CHI, Barnes BOS, O'Rourke BUF, Kelly CHI, Ward PRV, Keefe TRY, Brouthers BUF, Ewing TRY, Anson CHI, Connor TRY, Glasscock CLE, Radbourn PRV, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF, Start PRV, Stovey WOR, Bennett DET (Wright BOS 7-83)
1882 (21) - White BUF, Hines PRV, Gore CHI, O'Rourke BUF, Kelly CHI, Ward PRV, Keefe TRY, Wright PRV, Brouthers BUF, Ewing TRY, Anson CHI, Connor TRY, Glasscock CLE, Radbourn PRV, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF, Start PRV, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey WOR, Bennett DET (Clarkson WOR 3-84)
1883 (20) - White BUF, Hines PRV, Gore CHI, O'Rourke BUF, Kelly CHI, Ward NY, Keefe NY (AA), Brouthers BUF, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock CLE, Radbourn PRV, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF, Start PRV, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett DET
1884 (22) - White BUF, Hines PRV, Gore CHI, O'Rourke BUF, Kelly CHI, Clarkson CHI, Ward NY, Keefe NY (AA), Brouthers BUF, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock CLE and CIN (UA), Radbourn PRV, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF, Start PRV, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett DET, Caruthers STL (AA) (23/107)

Starts getting trickier the rest of the 1880s.
To Welch and Browning, add Ryan 348 (1885), Van Haltren 533 (1887), Beckley 498 (1888), Duffy 298 (1888)

1885 (23) - White BUF, Hines PRV, Gore CHI, O'Rourke NY, Kelly CHI, Clarkson CHI, Ward NY, Keefe NY, Brouthers BUF, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock STL, Radbourn PRV, Richardson BUF, Sutton BOS, Galvin BUF (NL) and PIT (AA), Start PRV, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett DET, Thompson DET, Caruthers STL (AA)
1886 (25) - White DET, Hines WAS, Gore CHI, O'Rourke NY, Kelly CHI, Clarkson CHI, Ward NY, Keefe NY, Brouthers DET, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock STL, Radbourn BOS, Richardson DET, Sutton BOS, Galvin PIT (AA), Start WAS (31/120), McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett DET, Grant MER (EL)/BUF (IL), Thompson DET, Caruthers STL (AA)
1887 (23) - White DET, Hines WAS, Gore NY, O'Rourke NY, Kelly BOS, Clarkson CHI, Ward NY, Keefe NY, Brouthers DET, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock IND, Radbourn BOS, Richardson DET, Sutton BOS, Galvin PIT, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett DET (46/124), Grant BUF (IL), Thompson DET, Caruthers STL (AA)
1888 (25) - White DET, Hines IND, Gore NY (64/131), O'Rourke NY, Kelly BOS, Clarkson BOS, Ward NY, Keefe NY, Brouthers DET, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock IND, Radbourn BOS, Richardson DET (58/131), Hamilton KC (AA) (35/132), Sutton BOS (28/134), Delahanty PHI, Galvin PIT, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett DET, Grant BUF (IL), Thompson DET (56/131), Caruthers BKN (AA)
1889 (25) - White PIT (55/132), Hines IND, Gore NY, O'Rourke NY, Kelly BOS, Clarkson BOS, Ward NY, Keefe NY, Brouthers BOS, Ewing NY, Anson CHI, Connor NY, Glasscock IND, Rusie IND, Radbourn BOS, Richardson DET, Hamilton KC (AA), Delahanty PHI (56/127), Galvin PIT, McPhee CIN (AA), Stovey PHI (AA), Bennett BOS, Grant CUB GIA, Thompson PHI, Caruthers BKN (AA)
   241. Rick A. Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:22 PM (#815786)
OK, after basically trashing Heinie Groh in the discussion thread, I took a closer look at him this weekend, and I'm very surprised. Took a look at him compared to other 3rd basemen of his time, and also compared him closely with McGraw, who I compared him to, and he pretty much blows them all away. Best 3rd baseman in baseball (aside from Baker) for at least 5 years.

Not sure why my system ranks him so low, but clearly it is a quirk in my system. Since this seems to be the first time I've found a flaw in my system since I implemented it in 1909, I think I just need to tweak it a little. I've been trying hard to balance career and peak in my system, trying not to make one of them measure to much, that maybe I've overcompensated by ignoring important information that I should be including.

Groh still hasn't made my ballot this year, but he is just outside my ballot, and may climb as I evaluate him further. Right now, I like Leach's career a little better, but Groh is not that far from him, and he may move up to where Childs is ranked.
   242. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2004 at 02:00 PM (#820362)
Wheat vs Van Haltren
300+ plate-appearance seasons, OPS+s, best to worst
111= "11," for example

Wheat 63 50 46 44 42 40 34 30 30 29 27 24 21 20 15 11 07
Van H 39 38 36 35 34 29 27 27 21 16 11 04 01 -28

Now, I know you don't have to be Zack Wheat to be a HOMer, but Wheat isn't Ted Williams, either.
   243. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2004 at 02:02 PM (#820367)
P.S., suppose we granted GVH a "120" and a "110" and a "95" for his pitching. Doesn't help enough.
   244. DavidFoss Posted: August 26, 2004 at 02:43 PM (#820436)
Pearce 1866 - was he parttime with TWO Brooklyn teams?


Whoops... missed this thread for a couple of days.

Yes, I found it odd, but it appears to be true. Pearce was a long-time ATL players, but he appears to have "moonlighted" for six games with the Brooklyn Excelsiors that year. His playing time for the Atlantics appears to have been affected, but he did play over half his teams games. That information is from the Marshall Wright book. I have not seen any anecdotal recollection of what Pearce was doing in 1866.
   245. DavidFoss Posted: August 26, 2004 at 03:05 PM (#820483)
Sorry... Pearce played *five* games for BKN-EXC in '66.

1860 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL
1861 - Start BKN ATL, Pearce BKN ATL


Correction here: Start played for Brooklyn Enterprise in 60-61. Also, the Plaque Room is missing these years.
   246. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2004 at 06:23 PM (#820980)
It's tough to link the Negro League stars together, but here's one try. This would exclude what appear to be only token appearances. The intersections are reminiscent of the 1870s stars, who naturally gravitated toward each other.
Looks like Pete Hill played with all of 'em so far.

FRANK GRANT
with HR Johnson PAG FEN GIA 1898
with Hill PHI GIA 1903

HOME RUN JOHNSON
with Grant PAG FEN GIA 1898
with Foster CUB X-GIA 1903; PHI GIA 1905-06; CHI LEL GIA 1910; CHI AM GIA 1911
with Hill PHI GIA 1905-06; CHI LEL GIA 1910; CHI AM GIA 1911

PETE HILL
with Grant PHI GIA 1903
with Foster PHI GIA 1904-06; CHI LEL GIA 1907-10; CHI AM GIA 1911-16
with HR Johnson PHI GIA 1905-06; CHI LEL GIA 1910; CHI AM GIA 1911
with Santop CHI AM GIA 1915

RUBE FOSTER
with HR Johnson CUB X-GIA 1903; PHI GIA 1905-06; CHI LEL GIA 1910; CHI AM GIA 1911
with Hill PHI GIA 1904-06; CHI LEL GIA 1907-10; CHI AM GIA 1911-16
with Santop CHI AM GIA 1915

LOUIS SANTOP
with HR Johnson NY LINC GIA 1911-13
with Hill CHI AM GIA 1915
with Foster CHI AM GIA 1915
   247. TomH Posted: August 27, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#822986)
pitcher workload comparison (2 examples, one deadball and one live ball)

Rube Waddell tossed 2840 IP in 10 full years
Urban Shocker tossed 2600 IP in 11 mostly full years

However, here are their appearances on the league-leader board for IP:
Waddell 3, 4, 4, 10
Shocker 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10

Quite a different story - it seems conditions did change rapidly, and we ought to be adjusting for these conditions, and not using merely win shares or WARP or RSAA to compare pitchers from 1905 to 1925.
   248. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 27, 2004 at 06:45 PM (#823135)
Quite a different story - it seems conditions did change rapidly, and we ought to be adjusting for these conditions, and not using merely win shares or WARP or RSAA to compare pitchers from 1905 to 1925.

I'll second that, Tom. The flip side, though, is that Waddell's era created shorter length careers for pitchers on average (for whatever reason) during the first decade of the 20th century.

There are multiple things that need to be looked at in regard to shifting pitching standards that makes our job much more fun. :-)
   249. Chris Cobb Posted: August 27, 2004 at 06:49 PM (#823140)
The flip side, though, is that Waddell's era created shorter length careers for pitchers on average (for whatever reason) during the first decade of the 20th century.

John, do you have any data on average career lengths? How much does average pitcher career length change, and when? How exactly do you measure it?
   250. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 27, 2004 at 07:01 PM (#823159)
How exactly do you measure it?

Very carefully. :-)

Nothing real fancy, Chris. I just compare the pitcher in question to his era (being mindful of outliers) to get an idea of the difficulty level for that era.

I didn't say that it was easy. :-D
   251. Chris Cobb Posted: August 27, 2004 at 07:25 PM (#823199)
I'm always interested in quantifying these things if possible, so I'd love to see somebody produce results that went something like this:

Looking at pitchers whose careers begin between 1897 and 1906 and who throw at least 1000 innings, we find that they averaged X seasons in which they threw at least 50% of league avg. innings for a full-time starting pitcher and that they averaged Y total seasons and Z career innings.

Not that I have such data myself, but I'd be interested in some portion of it.
   252. DavidFoss Posted: August 27, 2004 at 08:50 PM (#823439)
Chris's suggestion would be good.

I'm having trouble coming to grips with the non-shoo-in pitching candidates of the first half of the 20th century. Gomez, Ruffing & Harder vs Waddell, Joss & Willis.
   253. jimd Posted: August 27, 2004 at 09:00 PM (#823459)
full-time starting pitcher

Coming up with this definition can be a problem.
   254. Kelly in SD Posted: August 27, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#823560)
Full time starting pitcher def:

a: 10 starts
b: 15 starts
c: 20 starts
d: top 4 in starts on their team
e: top 4 in starts on their team as long as more starts than relief appearences
f: top 4 in innings on their team
g: innings pitched total equal to 50% of the average of the top 5 innnings pitched total in the league
h: none of the above
i: write-in

do any of these sound good?
if you are doing this on a scantron, substitute ab for f, ac for g, ad for h, and ae for i.
   255. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: August 27, 2004 at 09:58 PM (#823567)
Kelly in SD - I'd go with choice "C."

Sounds like an interesting project, assuming someone other than me does it.
   256. jimd Posted: August 27, 2004 at 11:06 PM (#823658)
c: 20 starts

20 starts means different things when the league leader is posting 26 starts (1981, 1994) or 75 starts (1879, 1883). (This isn't as easy as it appears at first glance. ;-)
   257. jimd Posted: August 27, 2004 at 11:17 PM (#823683)
I think that G is pretty good. It could be modified to be based on starts instead of IP. It would correspond to about 17-19 starts for most seasons post 1924 and would adapt to the unusual seasons and the 19th century quite well.
   258. Chris Cobb Posted: August 27, 2004 at 11:29 PM (#823714)
The numerical criteria will indeed change with time.

What I _have_ done, in a somewhat impressionistic fashion, is identify the typical number of full-time starters (one might want to call them something like "front-line pitchers" from 00-20 or so when starting pitchers are also doing a lot of relief work) teams are employing during each season through 1930. With that established, I have then gone through and figured out average innings pitched for full-time starters for each season through 1930. These numbers are trickiest and most impressionist during times when usage patterns are changing (some teams using 1 starter, some teams 2, etc.), and one might want to tinker with the way boundaries between different usage patterns are drawn or develop a formula. Since I was working for myself, I just trusted my judgment, but in figuring this for public consumption, a formula would be better.

In case anyone is interested, here's how I have defined full-time starters over the years we've looked at so far:

1871-1882 -- top 1 pitcher in innings per team
1883 -- top 1.5 pitchers per team
1884-1891 -- top 2 pitchers per team
1892 -- top 3 pitchers per team
1893-94 -- top 2 pitchers per team
1895-97 top 2.5 pitchers per team
1898-1913 top 3 pitchers per team
1914-1921 top 3.5 pitchers per team
1922-30 top 4 pitchers per team

I could post my calculated average ip for full-time starters, if anyone is interested.
   259. jimd Posted: August 28, 2004 at 12:12 AM (#823869)
I've been doing something somewhat similar, based on the concept of a "median ace". I take the number of teams in MLB, N, and then grab the top N pitchers in whatever counting stat (GS or IP) and take the median. That's the median "ace". I then divide the team average (GS or IP) by the "median ace" and that's the number of "aces" that a team would require to cover it's schedule. This yields an ideal number of starters/pitchers for MLB, ideal in the same sense than an 8 team league would require 8 shortstops, even though the number of actual full-time starters may vary from, say, 6-9 depending on injuries, trades, replacement, etc.

My numbers are less "conservative" than yours.

1871-1880 1 starter/pitcher
1881-1886 2 starters/pitchers
1887-1897 3 starters/pitchers
1898-1908 4 starters/pitchers
1909-1923 4 starters (GS) 5 pitchers (IP)
1924-1954 5 starters/pitchers

The two counting stats yield different dates when a fifth pitcher is added, I suppose due to the slow rise of the relief pitcher (probably more due to the rise of the pinch hitter for late inning offense rather than any desire to get the starter out of there).

This also agrees pretty well with the STATS All-Stars dates for adding more pitchers to their All-Star teams (1882, 1886, 1898, 1924), though I will note that STATS adds a relief pitcher instead of a starter in 1924. This is probably justified in part because 1923 was the landmark year when Complete Games dropped below 50%.
   260. Chris Cobb Posted: August 28, 2004 at 09:02 PM (#825173)
jimd,

Your "median ace" analysis seems like an formula for determining how many pitchers to include per team when figuring average sp innings. Have you used your formula for this purpose? If so, I'd appreciate seeing the results you've gotten.

As you note, my system is "conservative," and deliberately so. I'm comparing pitchers to hitters for whom I know I have used a "conservative" approach to assigning an average value, it seemed appropriate to stay on the conservative side with pitchers, also, especially pre-1893. I'm curious as to how much difference there is between "average" as your formula identifies it and as mine does.

If anyone wanted to do a pitching career study looking at number of seasons within a set percentage of average innings pitched, I think jimd's formula for identifying the number of starting pitchers in the league in each season would be a very sound starting point.
   261. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: August 28, 2004 at 09:50 PM (#825270)
c: 20 starts

20 starts means different things when the league leader is posting 26 starts (1981, 1994) or 75 starts (1879, 1883). (This isn't as easy as it appears at first glance. ;-)


But it'll almost always mean a guy who's starting a lot. In the NA 1870s a guy with 20+ starts is probably his teams' only pitcher (or only one of two pitchers). Later on as multi-pitcher staff develops a 20 GS season still means the guy's getting a good chunk of work.

About the only years it wouldn't work would be for the strike years 1981 and 1994.
   262. Brent Posted: August 29, 2004 at 12:38 AM (#825729)
On the pitchers thread I've posted the data that I've been looking at to try to understand transitions in workload. I've looked at IP of the 5th highest pitcher in the league, figuring this would represent a "full" pitching workload without the volatility of outliers. I list both the pitcher's IP and his IP as a percent of his team's IP (to adjust for changes in scheduled games). I see pretty much the same break points as Chris Cobb and jimd, though I notice that the transitions usually take 2 to 5 years to work their way through.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9780 seconds
49 querie(s) executed