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, September 28, 2004

1936 Ballot Discussion

“Alex the Great” appears to be the diamond from this group. Harry Heilmann, George Sisler, Dave Bancroft and Negro Leaguer Oliver Marcelle are the other strong candidates of ‘36 (especially “Slug”).

1936 (October 10)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

476 144.4 1911 Pete Alexander-P (1950)
356 98.1 1914 Harry Heilmann-RF (1951)
292 68.2 1915 George Sisler-1B (1973)
269 76.9 1915 Dave Bancroft-SS (1972)
235 65.6 1913 Cy Williams-CF (1974)
184 50.1 1920 Bob Meusel-LF/RF (1977)
153 42.9 1921 Curt Walker-RF (1955)
125 38.7 1919 Ira Flagstead-CF (1940)
121 36.8 1917 Hal Carlson-P (1930)
108 30.2 1921 Johnny Morrison-P (1966)
110 32.0 1921 Bubbles Hargrave-C (1969)

1936 (October 10)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

80% 18-30 Oliver Marcelle-3B (1897) #3 3b - 0 - 4*
00% 09-30 Bombin Pedroso-P/OF (??) - 0 - 1*
00% 15-30 Plunk Drake-P (1895) - 1 - 0*


Players Passing Away in 1935

HoMers
Age Elected

83 1898 Paul Hines-CF

Candidates
Age Eligible

88 1883 Harry Schafer-3B
72 1896 Hank O’Day-P/Ump
72 1896 Billy Sunday-RF/CF
71 1905 Tommy Tucker-1b
67 1908 Steve Brodie-CF
65 1906 Ted Breitenstein-P
60 1909 Gene DeMontreville-2b
59 1914 Case Patten-P

Thanks to Dan for the necrology!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:06 AM | 210 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:20 AM (#881232)
Dan, do you have the necrology for this year? Thanks!
   2. EricC Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:28 AM (#881273)
Interesting times are here. 1925-1934 era players may be overrepresented in the HoF. As we get into the heart of this era, more and more HoFers will become eligible who will have trouble making a more-balanced HoM.

Comments on the newbies.

Pete Alexander. Most similar pitcher: KID NICHOLS. A no-brainer.

Harry Heilmann. Most similar players (as I see it): BURKETT, K. KELLY, BROUTHERS, DELAHANTY, HINES, HAMILTON, CRAWFORD, CLARKE, KEELER, CONNOR, WHEAT. Like a throwback to the 19th century OF.

George Sisler. Most similar players: Veach, York, Tiernan, THOMPSON, STOVEY, Roush, Konetchy, SHECKARD. Has the unasterisked record for most hits in a single season. :-) Oh, what could have been. A rare player, like Jennings, who added absolutely nothing to his HoM case outside of a well-defined prime. He will (or should be) very controversial. Personally, I think that the HoMers that he resembles are among the most overrated ones, and he doesn't quite do it for me.

Dave Bancroft. Most similar players: Peckinpaugh, H. Long, Maranville, Doyle, Pratt. Denigrated by Bill James in The Politics of Glory as a terrible Frisch-era pick, was actually pretty good and deserves to make some ballots. I'll wait for Sewell.

Cy Williams. If you're an outfielder who played half of your career in the lively ball era, and none of your 10 best comps by similarity scores are HoFers, then you're not a HoMer.

Oliver Marcelle. Generally speaking, it seems that the big bats in the Negro Leagues played either the outfield or the toughest defensive positions (SS, C, even pitcher).

1936 prelim

1. Pete Alexander
2. Harry Heilmann
3. Joe Williams
4. Stan Coveleski
5. Cristobal Torriente
6. Roger Bresnahan
7. Jake Beckley
8. Harry Hooper
9. Jose Mendez
10. George "Rube" Waddell
11. Eddie Cicotte
12. Ray Schalk
13. Urbain "Blacques" Jacques Shockcor
14. Heinie Groh
15. George Van Haltren
   3. OCF Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:29 AM (#881276)
I've been reluctant to extend the RA+ PythPat pitcher system to the years before 1893 because there are so many things that are so hard to compare across that divide. But I decided to push it back a few years anyway to pick up the complete records of Young, Nichols, and Rusie. Since I had a set of defensive adjustments that applied to Willis, I applied the same to Nichols in the years they overlapped, with estimates for nearby years. The only pitchers I've tried doing defensive adjustments to are Nichols, Willis, and Brown. I've also been putting in a "big years score" that is the amount by which single-year equivalent FWP exceed 15, added up over a career. That looks funny for the early 1890's, so I changed that to the amount by which single-year FWP exceed 20 for the years 1889-1894.

With that said, here's the top of my list:

Pitcher          W   L   Big year score
Cy Young         519-298  255
Walter Johnson   427-230  208
Pete Alexander   369-208  149
Kid Nichols      352-210  147  (defense adjusted)
Lefty Grove      295-143  141
Chr. Mathewson   332-199  156
Eddie Plank      303-197   64


I'd say that Alexander is a career candidate, but he's a career candidate with a huge peak.His five best equivalent records are 31-11, 30-13, 28-12, 29-15, and 27-14. He's not better than Johsnon, but he's closer to Johnson than he is to Mathewson. I wasn't adjusting at all for league quality. If you do make that adjustment, you'll increase the gap between Alexander and Johnson, but I'd still take Alexander ahead of Mathewson, and what is more to the point for this ballot, I'll take Alexander ahead of Joe Williams.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#881304)
Prelim:

1) Alexander
2) Williams
3) Childs
4) Groh
5) Coveleski
6) Torriente
7) Heilmann
8) Pike
9) C. Jones
10) Willis
11) York
12) Beckley
13) Welch
14) Waddell
15) Mendez

A record seven pitchers on my ballot!
   5. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:36 AM (#881308)
Last year, someone commented that we may be short on the 00's decade. With the exception of Rogan's 1909, I think we're done with the first-ballot types that played in the 00's. Anyone have an updated #-of-HOM-ers per year readout?
   6. OCF Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:40 AM (#881320)
With Smokey Joe Williams on the verge of induction and Cy Williams on the ballot, I'd like to take another look at the two best "all-name" teams: Johnson and Williams. I've got plenty of position shifts to fill out rosters. (For the Williamses, we shift an outfielder to 1B and use another outfielder as DH, and for the Johnsons I moved an infielder into the outfield.) But it's hard to shift a non-shortstop to shortstop. Who's the SS for the Williamses? Best I could come up with is a late Negro Leaguer named Rosel, about whose career I don't know much. Any suggestions?

The two best all-name teams: Williams and Johnson. Negro Leagues players don't have stats quoted. For major league position players, I've listed games played and OPS+; for major league pitchers, actual W-L records, with saves if appropriate. For active players these stats are through 2003.

Johnson
C: Charles (active, 1060, 98)
1B: Deron (1785, 103)
2B: Davey (1435+Japan, 111)
3B: Judy (NeL, HoF)
SS: Grant (NeL, HoM)
LF: Indian Bob (1863, 138)
CF: Lance (1447, 94)
RF: Howard (1531, 118)
DH: Cliff (1369, 125)
SP: Walter (HoM, HoF, 417-279)
SP: Randy (active, 230-114)
SP: Syl (112-117)
SP: Ken (91-106)
SP: Hank (63-56)
RP: Jerry (48-51; 41)
reserves:
OF/PH: Roy (1155,107 )
3B: Billy (964, 102)
SS/2B/3B: Ernie (Ernest R.) (811, 81)
OF/PH: Alex (1322, 105)
P: Connie (40-39)
P: Jason (active, 39-30)
RP: Ernie (Ernest T.) (40-23; 19)
RP: Earl (40-32; 17)
RP: Bob (28-34; 12)
RP: Don (27-38; 12)

Williams:
C: Earl (889, 105)
1B: Billy (HoF, 2248, 132)
2B: Jimmy (1456, 115)
3B: Matt (1866, 113)
SS: Rosel? (NeL)
LF: Ken (1397, 137)
CF: Bernie (active, 1656, 131)
RF: Cy (2002, 125)
DH: Ted (HoF, 2292, 190)
SP: Smokey Joe (NeL, HoM, HoF)
SP: Lefty (82-48, banned)
SP: Stan (109-94)
SP: Woody (active, 92-76)
RP: Mitch (45-56; 192)
reserves
C: Rip (498, 97)
2B: Davey (517, 79)
3B/manager: Dick (1023, 92)
OF: Gerald (active, 1072, 82)
OF/PH: Walt "No Neck" (842, 91)
RP: Mike (32-54; 144)
P: Brian (26-38; 6)
   7. Howie Menckel Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:59 AM (#881410)
HOMers by year (10 G min)
But this includes Collins but doesn't include Lloyd, so it's one short most years 1905-29.
someone gave me years and teams for Lloyd-Williams-Torriente, but I didn't find it right away......

1856-59 - 1
1860-65 - 2 (3 in 1864)
1866-67 - 3
1868 - 5
1869-71 - 7 to 9
1872-78 - 11 (10 in 1877)

1879-80 - 16 to 17
1881-87 - 20 to 23
1888-89 - 25
1890-92 - 29 to 30
1893 - 26
1894-03 - 20 to 22
1904-11 - 23 to 25
1912-13 - 20 to 21
1914-16 - 16 to 19
1917-19 - 11 to 13
1920-24 - 7 to 8
1925-27 - 5 to 6
   8. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:11 AM (#881442)
Initial reactions...

Alexander will be number one on my ballot, assuming that Lloyd makes it this week (I haven't checked the results)

Heilman will be anywhere from 3-5 with Groh and Torriente. Looks like an HOMer to me, but will have to wait at least a year.

Sisler looks right now to be on the bottom half of my ballot, anywhere from 11-15, better than Beckley in my opinion.


Bancroft and Marcelle will be fighting for a top 20 spot with Bill Monroe, the Joneses, and Pete Browning.

I currently have Williams near Cravath, Sheckard, and Thomas in the early thirties.

Bob Muesel may make my top 50 but probably not.
   9. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:31 AM (#881507)
1894-03 - 20 to 22
1904-11 - 23 to 25


Thanks Howie... looks like the 00's aren't that bad off after all unless perhaps we do league-size adjustments.

(Plus we may not quite be done... 00s players may be looming in the backlog.)

OK... no special era-based reconsideration of 00's backloggers needed in my opinion.
   10. yest Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:44 AM (#881556)
how exactly sisler go from being considered one of the best players ever to a bordline candidate?
   11. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:54 AM (#881597)
how exactly sisler go from being considered one of the best players ever to a bordline candidate?

"April 15, 1924: George Sisler returns after missing a full year due to impaired vision caused by severe sinusitis."

Tail of Two Sislers:

CAREER
1915-1922

RUNS CREATED                    RATE   PLAYER   LEAGUE     PA     
1    Babe Ruth                   282      862      306     3121   
2    Ty Cobb                     220     1004      455     4711   
3    Rogers Hornsby              209      861      412     4281   
4    Tris Speaker                201      946      470     4833   
5    Joe Jackson                 187      572      306     3134   
6    George Sisler               184      886      482     4574   
7    Harry Heilmann              155      652      421     3858   
8    Ross Youngs                 155      484      312     3028   
9    Edd Roush                   152      599      394     3920   
10   Zack Wheat                  149      684      458     4547   


CAREER
1924-1930

1    Babe Ruth                   260     1229      473     4397   
2    Rogers Hornsby              232      989      427     3984   
3    Lou Gehrig                  210      961      458     3995   
4    Harry Heilmann              178      892      500     4227   
5    Al Simmons                  176      906      516     4191   
6    Paul Waner                  175      687      392     3392   
7    Hack Wilson                 174      809      465     3901   
8    Goose Goslin                158      876      554     4493   
9    Kiki Cuyler                 154      779      505     4157   
10   Bill Terry                  151      681      450     3650   
...
38   Taylor Douthit              106      496      466     3668   
39   Glenn Wright                106      488      459     3495   
40   Charlie Jamieson            106      519      490     3842   
41   Les Bell                    103      447      433     3295   
42   George Sisler               103      617      599     4439   
43   Ira Flagstead               102      432      422     3244   
44   Andy High                   101      432      426     3315   
   12. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:55 AM (#881599)
how exactly sisler go from being considered one of the best players ever to a bordline candidate?

From 1916 to 1922. he was an outstanding player. However, from 1924 to 1930, he was mediocre at best.

If you are a peak voter, he definitely belongs on your ballot. The rest of us have to deal with the padding of his stats (for the most part) after 1922.
   13. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:55 AM (#881600)
Oops... Tail Tale

:-)
   14. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:02 AM (#881630)
Pete Alexander

Short version: absolutely mediocore offensive support, nice defensive support, fantastic control, fantastic-er K/BB ratio. Don't know his MOWP stuff yet.
   15. jhwinfrey Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:20 AM (#881700)
Here's my preliminary ballot. Last year was the first with my new rankings. I've made a few adjustments, and the representation of the negro leagues is more reasonable now.

1. Grover Cleveland Alexander
2. Smokey Joe Williams
3. Cristobal Torriente
4. Jake Beckley
5. Mickey Welch
6. Max Carey
7. Ben Taylor
8. Tommy Leach
9. Carl Mays
10. Harry Heilmann
11. Jim McCormick
12. Vic Willis
13. Stan Coveleski
14. Jose Mendez
15. Dave Bancroft

Other newcomers:
17. Oliver Marcelle
26. George Sisler
27. Cy Williams

Meusel doesn't rank in the top 75 eligibles.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:24 AM (#881722)
Meusel doesn't rank in the top 75 eligibles.

I can't believe there was HOF support for this guy at one time.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:29 AM (#881744)
1936 Prelim.

1. Pete Alexander (new, PHoM now). Duh.

2. Smokey Joe Williams (was 2, PHoM 1935). I figger 350 wins MLE. No Wal.son, no Pete Alexander, just an NB HoMer most years.

(2A. Pop Lloyd (3, PHoM 1936)

3. Hughie Jennings (4, 1927). Once again, the highest peak of any eligible position player.

4. Harry Heilmann (new, 1937). Joins Torriente, Snider, Clemente in Tier 1.5. Not quite inner-circle but an NB.

5. Cristobal Torriente (6, 1937). His numbers sure don't say better hitter than Heilmann to me, and I don't think even a great CFer could make up the difference. I mean Harry hit ML pitching as well or better than Torriente hit NeL or Cuban pitching. Still an obvious HoMer.

6. Tommy Bond (10, 1929). Product of his time, sure, but huge value and in a single league environment. As good of competition as the stars of '84.

7. Heinie Groh (5, 1933). Second best 3B so far.

8. Lip Pike (7, 1928). Nothing to add.

9. George Sisler (new). Let the backlash begin. Er, well, I guess it has. An obvious PHoMer, not an obvious HoMer. All you Joe Jackson supporters: If George had just retired after '23 was he basically Shoeless Joe? Padding = 0, not a negative number.

10. Charlie Jones (8, 1921). Nothing to add.

11. Max Carey (9). And I'm a peak voter. If you like defense... He'll make my PHoM some day.

12. Jose Mendez (12). Still a boatload of uncertainty here. Might not make my PHoM.

13. Rube Waddell (11, 1931). Not quite enough Tier 2 pitchers, we seem to judge them more harshly than, say, Tier 2 LFers.

14. Dave Bancroft (new). A heck of a lot better HoFer than Freddie Lindstrom or Travis Jackson or Ross Youngs. I'd hesitate to put him in that class. A Gold Glove SS with an average bat is not an easy guy to replace.

15. Pete Browning (last on my ballot in 1933, go figger).

Dropped out: Childs (13, PHoM 1925)
Williamson (14, PHoM 1924)
Coveleski (15)
Did I say "we" were too hard on Tier 2 pitchers? Oops. I can see Stan as a PHoMer so what's he doing off my ballot? But similarly, what is Childs doing off my ballot for the first time since 1919? Or Williamson for the first time since 1912?

16-20. Duffy, Childs, Doyle, Monroe, Dunlap
21-25. Coveleski, Poles, Williamson, McCormick, Veach
26-30. Leach, Joss, Marcelle, Bresnahan, Whitney
31-35. Welch, Van Haltren, D. Moore, Burns (NL), Griffith
36-40. Sol White, Ryan, Cicotte, Tiernan, Chance
   18. sunnyday2 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:34 AM (#881760)
BTW, it is tempting to comment on guys with names like Bubbles and Plunk. Wish they coulda been a battery. I guess if Roger Clemens had pitched in the '20s theyda called him Plunk. And Piazza, well, some people call him worse than Bubbles even now.
   19. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:50 AM (#881805)
BTW, it is tempting to comment on guys with names like Bubbles

Bubbles Hargrave had a younger brother named Pinky.

Bubbles is best known for his controversial batting crown in 1926 where he won with a .353 batting average in only 365 plate appearances. The rules of the day for qualification was 100 games played.

Of course, second place that year went to Bubbles' teammate Cuckoo Christensen who only had 385 plate appearances himself. If modern rules applied, the batting champ probably would have gone to the 5th place finisher, rookie Paul Waner. (Hornsby had an off-year).
   20. Chris Cobb Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:57 AM (#881814)
12. Jose Mendez (12). Still a boatload of uncertainty here. Might not make my PHoM.

A quick note on Mendez that may decrease the uncertainty a little bit. I've been studying up on Dolf Luque, who pitched for many years in the Cuban Winter leagues.

Luque's (incomplete) winter-league record, compiled from Holway's data, is 90-50, his best stretch being 1919-29 (less 21 & 26), when he was 53-27.

Jose Mendez's (incomplete) winter-league record, compiled from Holway's data, is 59-18. (Phillybooster's sources have him at 64-15).

Although Mendez's pitching career was a good deal shorter than Luque's, at his peak he appears to have been notably better than Luque, unless he was pitching for much better teams.

I'm hoping some team data for the Cuban leagues is available somewhere. . .
   21. Howie Menckel Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:56 AM (#881996)
I think the Shoeless Joe vs Sisler comparison is pat, though I haven't studied it sufficiently yet.
I was one of those who didn't penalize Shoeless Joe significantly for the Black Sox debacle, but I sure as heck am not going to turn it into a "bonus" that puts him ahead of similar players (if Sisler stacks up) who had a long decline phase..
   22. Howie Menckel Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:56 AM (#881998)
by "pat" I mean "apt"

Damn that button won't unclick once you touch it..
   23. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:04 AM (#882125)
I love Heilmann as a candidate. The comparisons to Sheffield are dead on. Sheffield's 1996 and 2000 seasons are basically Heilmann's 1923 and 1927.

Sheffield has about 2 more years to get to Heilmann's career length.

Neither was the best player in his league because he was up against a monster usually (Bonds/Ruth).

Through 2003, relative to their leagues (AVG/OBP/SLG)

Heilmann +57/+57/+125
Sheffield +34/+66/+113

They are basically the same player - value wise, both easy HoMers if you ask me. Enough career value, with a monster peak. I'd have both of them slightly ahead of Dick Allen, whose career was significantly shorter, with a slightly higher peak.

************

Sisler is a tough one. I see him kind of like Don Mattingly. Through age 29, his comp list is:

P.Waner, J.Jackson, H.Manush, D.Brouthers, P.Browning, E.Flick, J.Burkett, J.Bottomley, H.Heilmann, R.Connor. That is good company, and if you think context is an issue, his OPS+ is 154, their's combined to 148. Mattingly had a 144 OPS+ through 1989 (Bottomley and Heilmann are on his list as well, along with Will Clark, Kent Hrbek, Jim Rice, Hal Trosky, Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, Orlando Cepeda and Eddie Murray) and context again, Mattingly's comps just a 138 OPS+.

Unfortunately over the rest of their careers, Mattingly's comps posted a 126 OPS+ (2 still active), Mattingly 104.

Unfortunately, over the rest of their careers, the comps posted a 133 OPS+, while Sisler posted a 97.

Did I mention that I love the new similarity tools on baseball-reference.com!

Seriously, though, I see Sisler as the Mattingly of his day though his career was about 2 years longer. I have no idea where to slot either of them - they are, IMHO two of the toughest players we'll deal with.
   24. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:06 AM (#882127)
Just in case I wasn't clear - I think if you were doing an all-time list, you'd have to have Sisler ahead of Mattingly, unless you had a serious time-line adjustment built in.

Pains me to say it as a Yankee fan :-)
   25. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:09 AM (#882133)
Sisler 5'11" 170, Mattingly 6'0" 175 - the similarities continue!
   26. Philip Posted: September 28, 2004 at 11:25 AM (#882353)
Same height and weight if you believe in timelining!
   27. Brad Harris Posted: September 28, 2004 at 11:30 AM (#882356)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the break in Sisler's career corresponds to the fact that he took time off for going blind and learned that he had sinusitis. He lived with double-vision the remainder of his life (and continued to hit .300 regularly, though without the power) under those conditions. Read that in a Mac Davis book. (Can't recall the title.)
   28. Howie Menckel Posted: September 28, 2004 at 11:52 AM (#882358)
In 1910, if you're living in Chicago, you can watch:
- the Cubs with HOMers Sheckard and Brown plus Tinker, Evers, and Chance
- the White Sox with HOMer Ed Walsh
- the Leland Giants with HOMers Home Run Johnson, Pete Hill, Rube Foster, and Pop Lloyd

In 1915 in Chicago, you could watch:
- the White Sox with HOMers Eddie Collins and Joe Jackson plus Cicotte and Faber
- the Cubs with, well, Roger Bresnahan
- the Federal League Whales with HOMer Brown plus Tinker (in Wrigley!)
- the American Giants with HOMers Pete Hill, Louis Santop, Rube Foster, and Pop Lloyd

Those are the first two Negro League teams with four HOMers.
   29. Rusty Priske Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:37 PM (#882368)
Prelim.

1. Smokey Joe Williams
2. Pete Alexander
3. Harry Heilmann
4. Max Carey
5. Cristobel Torriente
6. Jake Beckley
7. George Van Haltren
8. Mickey Welch
9. Lip Pike
10. Tommy Leach
11. Jimmy Ryan
12. Harry Hooper
13. Hugh Duffy
14. Hienie Groh
15. Bill Monroe

Two high ranking newcomers. The biggest shuffle is the 6-9 spots as I decided I was underranking Torriente and Beckley a bit, which forces two of my favorites, Van Haltren and Welch, down a bit. This may change back before the vote. Also, TOmmy Leach has moved up a few spots.

16-20. Griffith, Childs, Poles, Powell, Sisler
21-25. Doyle, Moore, Mullane, F.Jones, Willis
26-30. White, Gleason, G.J.Burns, Waddell, McCormick
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:05 PM (#882372)
Seriously, though, I see Sisler as the Mattingly of his day though his career was about 2 years longer. I have no idea where to slot either of them - they are, IMHO two of the toughest players we'll deal with.

That's a good comparison, Joe.
   31. karlmagnus Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:41 PM (#882388)
Sisler looks significantly better than Mattingly to me, both on peak and career. Depends what points you give for hanging around. If Dizzy Dean had hung around for another 5-6 years and gone an additional 50-50 with an ERA+ of 100 I'd have him higher up my mental list, I think, and the same should apply to Sisler -- hanging around at league average (as distinct from below league average) has very substantial value, and Sisler's peak is undeniable.
   32. DanG Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:51 PM (#882396)
yest:
how exactly sisler go from being considered one of the best players ever to a bordline candidate?


I took this question to be asking not what happened in Sisler's career to cause the drop, but to ask what happened in people's analysis of Sisler that he could change from being considered one of the gods of the game to one of the borderline glut.

Bill James addresses this in his top 100 rankings in his New HBA. I don't have it with me, but he tries to answser the question of why traditional analysis (and the casual fan today) has Sisler a top 50 player, while he ranks him outside the top 100.

Basically, the reason comes down to one word: sabermetrics. Sisler played in high offense leagues in a hitter's park. Adjust for context and you end up with a very mortal ballplayer.

The young Sisler was widely regarded as a complete player, fielding and baserunning with the best of them. He probably still ranks in the HoMer class, but it's only right that he lingers awhile before being elected.
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:03 PM (#882400)
hanging around at league average (as distinct from below league average)

I could be wrong, but he was below average as an all-around first baseman. after 1922.
   34. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:15 PM (#882410)
I could be wrong, but he was below average as an all-around first baseman. after 1922.

Probably true. Those RC+ numbers I posted are with the bat only. No positional adjustment. Sisler has -112 RCAP from 1924 to 1930 compared to -37 RCAA. From 1915-1922 he has 323 RCAP and 370 RCAA.

James labels him as a C- fielder, but I've always heard that Sisler that Sisler had a decent defensive rep. Is there a similar pre/post 1923 split in his fielding grade as well? It was a vision problem... makes sense that it might have hurt his fielding.
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:24 PM (#882417)
James labels him as a C- fielder, but I've always heard that Sisler that Sisler had a decent defensive rep. Is there a similar pre/post 1923 split in his fielding grade as well? It was a vision problem... makes sense that it might have hurt his fielding.

He never made the top-five in fielding WS again after 1922 for first basemen. He was consistently picking up 2.5 WS at first before 1922; after 1922, he never earned more than 1.5.
   36. TomH Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:33 PM (#882426)
His fielding rep wasn't "decent" - it was spectacular. But like his hitting, his fielding went south after 1921.
   37. Howie Menckel Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:19 PM (#882478)
SISLER
OPS+s as a star:
132 161 157 154 181 140 170 (and a 106 in a half-season as a rookie).
seven full years and roughly 1095 of OPS+, in effect a 156-157 or so annually.

OPS+s after 1922:
91 110 85 101 110 98 81
seven years and roughly 676 worth of OPS+, in effect a 96-97 or so annually.

Career OPS+ is 124.


Heilmann's peak seven years total 1172, or almost a 170 (lots of rounding here, but you get the point: lots better than Sisler's peak). Heilman then adds five more OPS+ years over 130, and two more over 120.
   38. PhillyBooster Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:20 PM (#882480)
The interesting thing about George Sisler, besides the sharp divide in his career, is how incredibly STABLE his competition was. It seems like practically every AL team had a contemporary whose career at first matched Sisler's, and those that didn't were taking turns playing George Burns.

Consider his AL-only career, and his peers:

George Sisler(Browns): 1916-1927
Wally Pipp (Yankees): 1915-1925
Joe Judge (Senators): 1915-1932
George Burns (Det/Phi/Bos/Cle): 1914-1928
Stuffy McInnis (Bos/Cle): 1916-1922
Chick Gandil/Earl Sheely (Chi): 1912-1926
Harry Heilmann/Lu Blue (Det): 1918-1927

I bet that for over 3/4 of his AL career, the other team's first baseman was these guys. And it's only 9 guys instead of 7 because Gandil was banned and Heilmann moved to the outfield!

Now consider their career WARP totals. I added together Gandil and Sheeley, and added Heilmann's 1918-1920 first base career to Lu Blue:

George Sisler: 88.1
Joe Judge: 80.5
Blue/Heilmann: 78.5
Gandil/Sheely: 78.2
Stuffy McInnis: 78.0
Wally Pipp: 67.4
George Burns: 64.2

While Sisler is clearly the best 1B of the bunch, it strikes me that having the best first baseman of the decade was hardly a huge advantage. The group as a whole looks pretty similar. Seems to me that if I know that's what the group will look like going in, I'm more than happy to trade Sisler for the #1 player at some other position, where the range would be wider.

Still, he was the best. Don't know what this means for my placement of Sisler, but I thought it was worth considering.
   39. andrew siegel Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:21 PM (#882481)
Emler Flick had ten years of basically fulltime play; Joe Jackson had nine plus the war year. Sisler had the seven year run top-quality run plus the post-injury years. I thought it would be a good exercise to line up the top 10 EQA's for each of these short-career, mostly offense guys. For Jackson I extrapolated the war year from the two surrounding seasons. For Sisler, I took his ten best; for the other two I used all their seasons:

Jackson Flick Sisler
.362 .348 .348
.359 .334 .339
.357 .332 .326
.339 .326 .320
.329 .323 .318
.321 .322 .313
.319 .318 .293
.318 .313 .289
.307 .309 .272
.299 .296 .289

At his best, Jackson was clearly the best hitter of the group, though Flick's 6th-10th seasons are a ringer for the Shoeless One's. Sisler is no match for Jackson; matches Flick for three years, stays within spitting distance of him for another three, and then rapidly falls out of contention.

If you think that Sisler had more defensive value than Flick and are a pure prime voter, you might have them roughly even. If you follow all the comprehensive metrics (which give Flick more value) and/or care even one bit about anything other than the player's top 6 seasons, Sisler trails Flick by a large margin.

I liked Jackson and Flick quite a bit, so the fact that Sisler trails them signficantly doesn't eliminate him from ballot consideration. Right now I have him somewhere between 12 and 25, depending on how he stacks up in a similar assessment against Jennings, Chance, Bresnahan, and McGraw. My guess is he's looking at the Hall of the Very Good.
   40. Chris Cobb Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:46 PM (#882542)
Andrew Siegel's comparison is very illuminating. Sisler was an excellent hitter, but he wasn't good enough to be a clear HoMer on peak batting value alone, the way Jackson and Flick were. If either Flick or Jackson were eligible for the first time this year, they would be in the middle of my ballot, not at the top, anyway, so Sisler, being a notch below them, is struggling for a ballot spot.

I'm not done with my prelim ballot yet, but I have Sisler right now at #16, just outside one of the strongest top 15s we've seen to date.
   41. DavidFoss Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:12 PM (#882596)
Andrew Siegel's comparison is very illuminating. Sisler was an excellent hitter, but he wasn't good enough to be a clear HoMer on peak batting value alone, the way Jackson and Flick were.

Even as a peak voter, I agree with Andrew. Sisler's peak is high, but not as high (or as long) as Joe Jackson's. The chart I posted above misses Jackson's top three seasons (1911-13). Preliminarily, I have Sisler at 14th.
   42. PhillyBooster Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:16 PM (#882604)
HoM PITCHERS per year, though 1920 (the last year with 20 HoMers). Further evidence that what is sometimes called the 1880s bulge is really an 1890s trough. Maybe a good time to (re)consider Welch and Griffith?

Year: Total (NL/AL/Neg.L)
1871: 1
1872: 1
1873: 1
1874: 1
1875: 1
1876: 1
1877: 1
1878: 1
1879: 2
1880: 3
1881: 4
1882: 4
1883: 4
1884: 5
1885: 5
1886: 5
1887: 5
1888: 5
1889: 6
1890: 8
1891: 8
1892: 7
1893: 5
1894: 4
1895: 3
1896: 3
1897: 3
1898: 3
1899: 3
1900: 3
1901: 5 (2/3)
1902: 5(1/3/1)
1903: 6(3/2/1)
1904: 8(4/3/1)
1905: 8(4/3/1)
1906: 7(3/3/1)
1907: 8(3/4/1)
1908: 8(3/4/1)
1909: 7(2/4/1)
1910: 7(2/4/1)
1911: 7(3/3/1)
1912: 6(2/3/1)
1913: 6(2/3/1)


   43. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:21 PM (#882722)
Well, Welch stopped pitching BEFORE the trough, so that would seem to be irrelevant.

Griffith probably does deserve another look, however:

The problem with this line of thinking may be shown by looking at who the best pitchers were during those years:

1892: Young, Stivetts
1893: Young, Rusie, Killen
1894: Rusie
1895: Hawley, Young
1896: Nichols, Young
1897: Nichols
1898: Nichols (Griffith?)
1899: Willis, Young
1900: McGinnity, Dineen

The best pitchers those years were either guys ALREADY in the HOM, or pitchers that simply didn't have enough other quality years.

Griffith was up there, but he never had that great one or two year run where he was the best pitcher in the game.
   44. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:29 PM (#882733)
RSAA RSAA IP
1 Kid Nichols 513 3367.2
2 Cy Young 491 3471.2
3 Amos Rusie 327 2473.2
4 Nig Cuppy 247 2190.1
5 Clark Griffith 227 2188.2
6 Frank Dwyer 156 2056.2
7 Jack Stivetts 112 1836.2
8 Ted Breitenstein 103 2920.2
9 Doc McJames 102 1270.1
10 Pink Hawley 101 2830.1
   45. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:29 PM (#882737)
For the 1892-1900 Time Period (above)....
   46. OCF Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:35 PM (#882746)
For the 1892-1900 Time Period (above)....
Backing up about 3 years before that, what about Bill Hutchison? (Not that I'd take him any more seriously as a candidate than I take Cuppy, Stivetts, or Breitenstein.)
   47. PhillyBooster Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#882754)
My point regarding Welch was aimed at those who felt that there are already "too many 1880s pitchers" and who wouldn't vote for "only" the 6th best.

The idea was that no one is making the same case against Rube Waddell on the theory that there are already 8 HoM pitchers from 1904-1908, and Waddell would be the 9th.
   48. yest Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:15 PM (#882826)
From 1916 to 1922. he was an outstanding player. However, from 1924 to 1930, he was mediocre at best.
I could be wrong, but he was below average as an all-around first baseman. after 1922.

1924 had 194 hits finishing 7th and a 305 batting avg
1925 had 224 hits finishing 4th and a 345 batting avg
1926 had 178 hits and a 290 batting avg
1927 had 201 hits finishing 3rd and a 327 batting avg
1928 had 179 hits and a 331 batting avg hitting 340 in the NL finishing 4th
1929 had 205 hits finishing 9th and a 326 batting avg
1930 had 133 hits and a 309 batting avg
This doesn’t look mediocre or below average

I took this question to be asking not what happened in Sisler's career to cause the drop, but to ask what happened in people's analysis of Sisler that he could change from being considered one of the gods of the game to one of the borderline glut.

that was my question (Bill James’s position on Sisler is the one I disagree with the most)
   49. Al Peterson Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:33 PM (#882869)
My system for position players has Sisler and Bancroft tied when it comes to value. They sure took two different paths to get there. The bad news for both of them is that right now that would be in the 30-40 range. I even would take Konetchy slightly ahead of Sisler.
   50. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:34 PM (#882874)
Yest,

George Sisler's EQA's from 1924 to 1930...

.249,.272,.246,.269,.293/.179*,.268,.247

*his splits for that season. The .293 was in 491 AB's for the Braves, the .173 in only 49 AB's for the Nats/Senators.

Teh average Eqa is .260. Sure Sisler could still hit for average, but it was a very empty average. He slugged .632,.560, .594 from 20-22 and .421,.479,.398 from 24-26. He never walked much.

He also played an offense first position, one which currently has an average Eqa of about .283, so he was decidedly below average offensively for his position, even if the average 1B Eqa was lower than it is now. Add in that FRAA has him taking a dive at that time and you get a below average player.
   51. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:38 PM (#882882)
Although I do think james overstates his case, he is still right. I would take Hernandez, Mattingly, Clark, Palmeiro, and Allen over Sisler. Those are just five guys I remember being in the 10-20 range of his rankings with Sisler being what 28?

If Sisler si still around at that point he will be very low, although Georgie ranks better among his peers than aa number of those gusy do and so he is just as likely to get in.
   52. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:43 PM (#882891)
On last question. I am new here so I missed the discussion sinvovling Mickey Welch. I currently have him at like 41 one or soemthing (dont' have my list in front of me, yet the consensus has him at as a bottom of the ballot guy. What am I missing? he seems to only have those wins and innings because of the era in which he played, one with fewer pitchers, hence more innings from those pitchers. he dosen' seem to be any better than his contemproaries and hsi ERA plus sint' very solid.

I guess I want the case made to me and am willing to reconsider here.

Also, why does Roy Thomas not get much consideration. He is threatening to be on my ballot.
   53. OCF Posted: September 28, 2004 at 07:02 PM (#882926)
I had Roy Thomas on my ballot at one point, but he slipped off. Had he continued for what he was doing for another 2 or 3 years, he'd have a much better case, but as it is, his career is on the short side. A leadoff hitter's job is to score runs, and there are two parts of it: getting on base, and self-advancement. Thomas was very, very good at getting on base, but not good at all at self-advancement, what with his unspectacular SB and his extreme lack of XBH. George Burns was a better leadoff hitter, and I have Burns now ahead of Thomas. Carey has the longevity that Thomas lacks, better self-advancement, and better defense, all of which compensate for the lower OBP.

Do you always type like that, jshmeagol?
   54. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 28, 2004 at 07:40 PM (#882994)
I am new here so I missed the discussion sinvovling Mickey Welch. I currently have him at like 41 one or soemthing (dont' have my list in front of me, yet the consensus has him at as a bottom of the ballot guy. What am I missing? he seems to only have those wins and innings because of the era in which he played, one with fewer pitchers, hence more innings from those pitchers. he dosen' seem to be any better than his contemproaries and hsi ERA plus sint' very solid.

Rather than re-writing it all, here's my info on Mickey Welch. (If there's a stat you don't get, just click on the link to it above the notes section & below the season-by-season section.
   55. PhillyBooster Posted: September 28, 2004 at 07:57 PM (#883037)
Chris seems to have all the bases covered in his post. For me, the tipping point was the realization that Welch and Keefe had nearly the exact same W/L record in their 9 years as teammates. Keefe had better peripherals, but they had the same results.

The rest of Chris's data goes toward explaining this effect. But to me, the relevant point is the result. Welch was either really, really, really lucky, or he was simply better than the peripherals show, and as good as the W/L indicates.

Keefe was inducted easily decades ago. If Keefe was better, and he probably was, it was only marginally.
   56. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 08:09 PM (#883072)
And for the opposing view:

Runs Saved Above Average:
Keefe - 377
Welch - 179

ERA+
Keefe - 125
Welch - 113

Support Neutral Fibonacci Win Points
Keefe - 338
Welch -225
   57. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 08:15 PM (#883087)
Backing up about 3 years before that, what about Bill Hutchison? (Not that I'd take him any more seriously as a candidate than I take Cuppy, Stivetts, or Breitenstein.)

Yes, Hutchison was the top pitcher in 1890 and 1891 ahead of Rusie and then Nichols, but still doesn't have a HOM career...
   58. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#883137)
Sorry guys I really have a horrible habit of typing too fast and then not editing anything. I apologize if my posts were hard to read.

I will reevaluate welch, the keefe comparison is interesting and not something I hadn't thought about. As for Thomas I just happen to like the 8 straight years with a 9+ WARP1 and nine straight years with at least 20 win Shares. That is quite a prime. I will look at the components of his game however.
   59. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 09:06 PM (#883209)
NEWBIE EVALUATION:

Grover Alexander - Behind Nichols and ahead of Mathewson, he'll be #1 on my ballot.

Harry Heilman - Similar to Pete Browning, but with more PA's, he'll be just ahead of Pete at #4.

Dave Bancroft - Cross between Ozzie Smith and Bobby Wallace, he may make the #15 spot on my ballot.

George Sisler - I'm probably in the minority, but I DO count below average seasons somewhat against a player. Sisler is a good match for Jimmy Ryan offensively, only Ryan has more defensive value, and since Ryan isnt' in my top 15, Sisler won't be.

Oliver Marcelle - Estimated 104 OPS+ with GREAT defense. If 3B in the 20's was like modern 2B, his best comp is probably Johnny Evers. Otherwise, would be Tim Wallach. Not good enough to make top 15...
   60. KJOK Posted: September 28, 2004 at 09:13 PM (#883223)
If 3B in the 20's was like modern 2B, his best comp is probably Johnny Evers. Oops, that should be Lonny Frey, not Johnny Evers...
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 10:15 PM (#883354)
George Sisler - I'm probably in the minority, but I DO count below average seasons somewhat against a player.

I do, too. The problem is that it's not enough for me.

I even would take Konetchy slightly ahead of Sisler.

Konetchy played almost his entire career during the Deadball Era when first base was more defense-oriented, so I have him above, too.
   62. mbd1mbd1 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 10:42 PM (#883388)
I have Alexander at the top of my ballot; Heilmann at #4, and Sisler at #11.

Konetchy and Sisler look pretty similar, career numbers wise, except Sisler has better Ink.
   63. Howie Menckel Posted: September 29, 2004 at 12:31 AM (#883565)
Just noticed that Smokey Joe Williams' first year in the "bigs" is 1910, with the Chicago Leland Giants - playing with HOMers HRJohnson, Hill, Foster, and Lloyd.

The "last" MLB team with five HOMers, at the moment, is 1900 Brooklyn. Their quintet: Dahlen, Keeler, Kelley, McGinnity, Sheckard.
   64. EricC Posted: September 29, 2004 at 12:34 AM (#883579)
All you Joe Jackson supporters: If George had just retired after '23 was he basically Shoeless Joe?

 
Player      Years      Games  OPS+  WS  WARP3 WS/162 W3/162     
Sisler      1915-1922  1047   154  190  59.0  29.4   9.1
Sisler      1924-1930  1008    93   93   9.1  14.9   1.5
J. Jackson  career     1330   170  294  75.8  35.8   9.2
McGraw      1891-1901  1020   136  199  65.2  31.6  10.4


(Sisler's comprehensive ratings include a small pitching credit.) Average WS/162 for a position player is 19 or 20. I give Sisler no credit nor penalty for padding his career totals with 1000 games of below average play. The above table argues for placing Jackson above Sisler, and my PHoM in/out line happens to fall between the two.

The comparison between young George and McGraw is intriguing. FOGS might consider taking another look at McGraw.
   65. EricC Posted: September 29, 2004 at 12:47 AM (#883619)
On last question. I am new here so I missed the discussion sinvovling Mickey Welch. I currently have him at like 41 one or soemthing (dont' have my list in front of me, yet the consensus has him at as a bottom of the ballot guy. What am I missing?

Nothing. Your rating looks good to me. :-) Seriously, pitching and pitcher usage changed so much and so rapidly in the years before 1893 that it is difficult to compare pre-1893 and post-1893 pitchers on an equal footing. Depending on your assumptions about how to make a fair comparison, it is possible to rate Welch anywhere from very highly to well below the ballot.

As for Thomas I just happen to like the 8 straight years with a 9+ WARP1 and nine straight years with at least 20 win Shares.

If you like Thomas, then you'll really like Fielder Jones. Jones also had 9 straight years with 20+ WS, 8 straight years with 8.8+ WARP1, and did more outside these stretches than Thomas did outside his.
   66. karlmagnus Posted: September 29, 2004 at 12:56 AM (#883652)
OCF (46) Nig Cuppy becomes a serious candidate if the group looks likely to elect Dizzy Dean. he was better, and had a longer career.
   67. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 01:10 AM (#883714)
OCF (46) Nig Cuppy becomes a serious candidate if the group looks likely to elect Dizzy Dean. he was better, and had a longer career.

All you have to do is check the leaderboards for both Cuppy and Dean to realize that Cuppy was no Dean.
   68. Chris Cobb Posted: September 29, 2004 at 01:30 AM (#883814)
Howie,

In 1910, Joe Williams pitched for Frank Leland's Chicago Giants. That is a different team from Rube Foster's Chicago Leland Giants, which the team for which he, Lloyd, Johnson, and Hill played.

Leland (owner) and Foster (manager) of the Chicago Leland Giants had a falling-out after the 1909 season, which led to Foster forming a rival team and a court battle over team names. The courts ruled (can't recall why) that _Foster_, not Leland, was entitled to the team name of the Leland Giants, even though Leland himself had no association with the team.

After 1910, Foster changed the name of his team to the Chicago American Giants, by which it would henceforth be known.

Leland's team, while it lasted, remained the plain Chicago Giants.
   69. karlmagnus Posted: September 29, 2004 at 01:30 AM (#883817)
Dean wasn't an exact contemporary of Cy Young, Kid Nichols and Amos Rusie. Actually, if Dean gets close my man Leever is a sure thing! This Ink stuff is far too sabermetric; the key is WINS, baby!
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: September 29, 2004 at 01:39 AM (#883869)
Thanks, Karl!
baseballlibrary.com had claimed, "Rube Foster signed [Williams] for the Chicago Leland Giants in 1910."

But of course you correctly had 'Chicago Giants' in your post explaining when and where Williams played. You da man....
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: September 29, 2004 at 01:40 AM (#883880)
damn itchy trigger finger.........

Thanks, Chris Cobb!
baseballlibrary.com had claimed, "Rube Foster signed [Williams] for the Chicago Leland Giants in 1910."

But of course you correctly had 'Chicago Giants' in your post explaining when and where Williams played. You da man....
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:20 AM (#884020)
Dean wasn't an exact contemporary of Cy Young, Kid Nichols and Amos Rusie. Actually, if Dean gets close my man Leever is a sure thing! This Ink stuff is far too sabermetric; the key is WINS, baby!

Fine, but Cuppy wouldn't be anywhere near Dean in wins during the thirties. For his time, Dean was much more durable than Cuppy could ever dream about.

BTW, Dean was a contemporary of Grove. He wasn't as good as Grove, but he was sure a lot closer to him than Cuppy was to Young, Nichols or Rusie.
   73. jimd Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#884123)
Player      Years      Games  OPS+  WS  WARP3 WS/162 W3/162     
Sisler      1915-1922  1047   154  190  59.0  29.4   9.1
J. Jackson  career     1330   170  294  75.8  35.8   9.2
(Emphasis added)

WARP-3 sees them as producing at similar rates, while Win Shares sees Jackson as decidedly more effective (22%). Intrigued by this discrepancy, I looked at their offense/fielding breakdowns:

78 FRAR (12.1/162) BRAR 411 (63.6/162) Sisler PRAR 27 (4.2/162)
96 FRAR (11.7/162) BRAR 584 (71.1/162) Jackson
16.1 FWS (2.5/162) BWS 176.0 (27.2/162) Sisler PWS 7.2 (1.1/162)
29.9 FWS (3.6/162) BWS 262.8 (32.0/162) Jackson

WARP sees Jackson as 12% better hitter; Win Shares sees Jackson as 18% better. This discrepancy is interesting in that I think we've always assumed that both hitting metrics were fairly equivalent, except for WARP's higher replacement level, but that should widen the discrepancy, not narrow it.

WARP sees a good first-baseman as essentially equivalent to a mediocre left-fielder. Win Shares sees the latter as more valuable (from a fielding point-of-view) by a whole Win Share per season.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Comments?
   74. jimd Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:47 AM (#884146)
the key is WINS, baby!

Then WINS should also be a key part of an offensive player's record also. Frankly, there are limits to what a pitcher can do with a bad team behind him.
   75. karlmagnus Posted: September 29, 2004 at 12:09 PM (#884729)
Eyeballing it, Dean had a much better team behind him than Cuppy did. Admittedly Cuppy missed out on the joys of the 1899 Spiders, but they weren't exactly a powerhouse except right at the beginning of the decade, whereas 30s St. Louis were about as strong as it gets.

In reality, the Cuppy comparison just demonstrates that Dean's a fair way from the HOM portals, IMHO. Leever's a lot better than either.
   76. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 29, 2004 at 12:21 PM (#884739)
Looking ahead, I think we will be back to backlog territory in a hurry. This year will obviously be Alexander and Williams, and next year we will presumably shepherd along Torriente and Heilmann. After that, though, we've got three elections that could go any which way. In 1938 Groh, Coveleski, Carey, Roush, Sisler, Bancroft, and Schang will all be competing with venerable backloggers Beckley, Pike, and Waddell--I could see any two of those winning, almost (although I sure hope one of them isn't Beckley). In 1939 we add a bunch of borderliners--Faber, Rixey, Sewell, Quinn, and Maranville--and in 1940 we get Mr. 2,987 hits Sam Rice, plus Burleigh Grimes, Joe Judge, and Herb Pennock. Those will be some interesting elections. I think it's likely Groh will make it through one of those years, and I'll be pushing hard for Pike, but all of those could go any which way. Then, of course, 1,250 Win Shares hit the ballot in the form of the greatest left-handed hitter ever and the greatest right-handed hitter ever in 1941.
   77. sunnyday2 Posted: September 29, 2004 at 01:15 PM (#884759)
Dan, I was looking ahead last night too and came up with the following list of HoMers through 1950. I agree, many of these are wild guesses, escept that there are so many great newly eligibles coming online that the current backlog will have a very difficult time through 1950. Not to say it will get easier after that, just that I haven't looked any further than that.

By 1950 I would bet that the backlog (top 15) will include no more than 2-3 of the "old backlog." We will elect 2-3 and the rest will simply fall behind the "new backlog."

BTW, I assume we're electing 2 per year through 1950 but haven't confirmed, and my rule with one exception was to elect "old backlog" in the order of 1935 voting. The one exception was to move Max Carey up--he is on more ballots and trails Pike by just 1 point.

1936--Alexander, Williams
1937--Torriente, Heilmann
1938--Groh, Coveleski from the "old backlog"
1939--Carey, Beckley (old backlog) or Sisler or Redding (new backlog)
1940--Rogan (newly eligible), Sewell (eligible 1939)
1941--Ruth, Hornsby--ya think?
1942--Roush, Rixey (new backlog) or Terry (newly eligible)
1943--Charleston, Cochrane (newly eligible)
1944--Gehrig, Goslin (newly eligible)
1945--Frisch, Foster (new backlog)
1946--Stearnes, Suttles (newly eligible)
1947--Grove (newly eligible), Simmons (eligible 1946)
1948--Bell, Gehringer (newly eligible)
1949--Mackey, Hubbell (newly eligible, and BTW love your telescope Carl)
1950--Dihigo, P. Waner (newly eligible)

So the parade of newly eligibles will be pretty dazzing beginning 1940 or 1942. And assuming it plays out as above (big assumption) the new backlog as of 1950 will include the following non-NBs who become eligible from 1936 on:

Sisler, Bancroft, Roush, Schang, Redding, Maranville, Faber, Rixey, Rice, Grimes, Traynor, Vance, Terry, Judy Johnson, Lundy, Cuyler, Ferrell, Averill, Dizzy Dean, Cronin, Klein, Lyons.

Bye-bye Lipman, bye-bye Rube, bye-bye Hughie, bye-bye Clarkie and Mickey and George and Hugh and Spots and Gavy. Been fun talkin' 'bout cha.
   78. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:06 PM (#884810)
In 1938 Groh, Coveleski, Carey, Roush, Sisler, Bancroft, and Schang will all be competing with venerable backloggers Beckley, Pike, and Waddell

I don't know how Sisler, Bancroft, Schang and Roush (though I don't see them as major competition except for maybe Schang) will do against Groh and Coveleski, but I do know that Beckley, Pike and Waddell (all three who are on my ballot, BTW) won't be inducted that year.
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:15 PM (#884815)
In reality, the Cuppy comparison just demonstrates that Dean's a fair way from the HOM portals, IMHO. Leever's a lot better than either.

I don't think Dean is a no-brainer choice by any means. The shortness of his career hurts him. I don't even know if he'll make my ballot. But Dean at his peak was a far better pitcher than Cuppy or Leever and was, without doubt, much more durable.
   80. karlmagnus Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:24 PM (#884830)
Dean pitched 1967 innings compared to 2284 for Cuppy and 2661 for Leever. All, except the first year of Cuppy, were post 1893. Dean was NOT more durable, though clearly he has a peak argument. He also has under 200WS, from the latest stats -- I don't think he has a very good case.
   81. Chris Cobb Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:26 PM (#884831)
there are so many great newly eligibles coming online that the current backlog will have a very difficult time through 1950. Not to say it will get easier after that, just that I haven't looked any further than that.

I agree. The backlog candidates will have a chance 1939 through 1942 (except in 1941), then they will be out of the picture until at least 1955. Following Sunnyday2's counting, I think there will be a new backlog beginning in 1943 that will be at least 7 deep by 1950. There will be at least a few Negro-League greats coming onto the ballot 1951-55 (Josh Gibson, Willie Wells) even if there are no strong ML candidates (and there most likely are), so there's no way that backlog will clear before 1955. I expect that we will feel quite celebratory when we start electing 3 candidates per year in the 1960s. We'll probably have a lot of players who we think of as legit HoMers who won't go in until then.
   82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 02:55 PM (#884880)
Dean pitched 1967 innings compared to 2284 for Cuppy and 2661 for Leever. All, except the first year of Cuppy, were post 1893. Dean was NOT more durable, though clearly he has a peak argument. He also has under 200WS, from the latest stats -- I don't think he has a very good case.

karlmagnus, don't you think pitching was a little different during the 1890s and 1900s? The thing to look at is where they ranked in innings pitched. I'm sorry, but Cuppy and Leever weren't Dean. Diz was a real workhorse.

Nobody talked about Cuppy or Leever in their day as they did about Dean during the thirties.

BTW, Dean would have easily pitched over 400 innings during his peak in the 1890s.
   83. DavidFoss Posted: September 29, 2004 at 03:02 PM (#884890)
karlmagnus, don't you think pitching was a little different during the 1890s and 1900s? The thing to look at is where they ranked in innings pitched. I'm sorry, but Cuppy and Leever weren't Dean. Diz was a real workhorse.

I'm going to be interested in hearing more detail of Dizzy's peak when we get to 1945. He was a "star" of the highest magnitude, but his ERA+ numbers don't line up with the great pitching peaks in history... and a historical pitching peak is what seems necessary with only 2000 IP. He looks similar to McGinnity in some ways, but I'd admit that if McGinnity was still eligible in 1945, he might not be high on many ballots.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 03:14 PM (#884902)
David:

Everything you said is true. I mentioned in a post last wekk that there are quite a few pitchers from the same era that have similar ( or greater) value to Dean. I don't think he's an outstanding choice for our Hall. I was only stating that he was better at his peak than Cuppy and Leever.

I should say that Leever might be comparable or better than Dean career-wise. I haven't fully compared Dean to his contemporaries yet, so he might wind up being ranked with Leever on my list.
   85. DavidFoss Posted: September 29, 2004 at 03:30 PM (#884928)
Oh yeah... no big issue... wow... 1946 is not *that* far away. There may be something about ERA+ that doesn't work well in the 1930s... who knows. It is looking like no-brainer-MLB's and Negro Leaguers for quite a while so it might just be Grove/Hubbell/Feller for 30s MLB pitchers until we get to the 3-a-year elections.
   86. DavidFoss Posted: September 29, 2004 at 03:33 PM (#884933)
It is looking like no-brainer-MLB's and Negro Leaguers for quite a while

Except of course for 38,39,40,42 (before 30s pitchers are eligible).
   87. ronw Posted: September 29, 2004 at 04:50 PM (#885078)
Ironic that George Sisler becomes eligible this week. The baseball gods must be telling us something.

New guys:

Alexander will be #1 on my ballot.

I still haven't decided whether Torriente or Heilmann will be #3.

Sisler - Among my 1B set, I have George behind the electees (ABC and Start). He also appears to be behind Beckley and Ben Taylor due to my career-weighted system. George did have enough of a career to rank just ahead of Ed Konetchy, and I think he is ahead of Chance as well. Nevertheless, the backlog is too big for George to make my ballot this year. An interesting comp is contemporary (and 1928 teammate) Joe Judge. Judge was a better hitter, worse fielder, and had a steadier career. Based on these values Joe is closer in overall merit/value, etc. to Sisler than I would have originally thought. I would still elect Sisler over Judge, however.

Dave Bancroft - Seems similar to Herman Long and Joe Tinker, neither of whom make my ballot. I also don't think Bancroft measures up to the elected HOM shortstops. I think both Sewell and Maranville were better.

Oliver Marcelle - Just looking at the All-Star selections Marcelle (4) and Judy Johnson (5) I wonder who was making the Negro League All-Star teams in the 20's and early 30's. Here, I think contemporaries Jud Wilson (11) and John Beckwith (7) may have been better than Marcelle and Johnson. Marcelle won't make my ballot.
   88. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 29, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#885180)
I agree. The backlog candidates will have a chance 1939 through 1942 (except in 1941), then they will be out of the picture until at least 1955. Following Sunnyday2's counting, I think there will be a new backlog beginning in 1943 that will be at least 7 deep by 1950. There will be at least a few Negro-League greats coming onto the ballot 1951-55 (Josh Gibson, Willie Wells) even if there are no strong ML candidates (and there most likely are), so there's no way that backlog will clear before 1955.

I tried looking this up a-ways back, and I figured that after the late '30s/early '40s stretch, the backlog will stay backlogged until around 1960, when it'll start breaking up & we'll never have a stretch of ever-increasing backlog again, thanks in part to the rise of the elect-3 years.
   89. Daryn Posted: September 29, 2004 at 06:36 PM (#885349)
Prelim

1. Pete Alexander – five consecutive win titles and three career triple crowns ought to do it.

2. Williams – I believe he would have had 350+ wins in the majors, and that puts him a close second on this ballot.

3. Harry Heilman – I like the batting average and the OPS+.

4. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data is helping Welch – those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe.

5. George Sisler – how can you keep the guy who has the best ever single season hit total out of the Hall of Merit? Hits impress me and he had a lot of them, plus a better peak than Beckley. I can’t see him lower than 11th on this ballot, and I like him here at 5.

6. Cristobal Torriente – nice ball player – maybe a little worse than Clemente will be.

7. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. Baseballreality.com has him as the best first baseman in baseball for a long time. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (soon to be HOMer) are two of his three most similars.

8. Roger Bresnahan – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor.

9. Rube Waddell -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+ and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown).

10. Lip Pike – 4 monster seasons, 4 more not too bad, plus 4 undocumented.

11. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected. That being said, he is barely better than what is now a 10 person pitching glut.

12. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

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

14. Tommy Leach – 300+ WS has to mean something.

15. Bill Munroe – I think he was pretty good. Any blackball player that is even talked about as among the best 70 years later is pretty good. I’ll take McGraw’s word for it.

16. Heinie Groh – hard for me to analyze – I know he is not better than Leach in my mind and he is definitely better than the rest of the thirdbasemen. He could go up or down.

17. Stan coveleski – I can’t really see a huge difference between Waddell (9) and Shocker (mid-30s). So Coveleski is somewhere in between. I really wish someone could do an analysis of the differences between the eligible pitchers who have between 190 and 215 wins. I can’t tell them apart without a program.

18. Jose Mendez – somewhere between here and Waddell seems about right.

19. Addie Joss – I don’t like short careers much, but I cannot ignore the second best all-time ERA, the 12th best ERA+ and the nice winning percentage.

20. Max Carey – I never thought 350 Win Shares could rank so low, but I don’t think he is much better than Van Haltren, who I have at 21.
   90. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 07:15 PM (#885514)
Welcome, Mr. Sisler! :-)

Your ballot looks fine, except for your low placement of Groh. :-(

BTW, is this Andrew?
   91. yest Posted: September 29, 2004 at 08:00 PM (#885674)
Posted by George Sisler's #1 Fan
I have him at second on the ballot

BTW is this Daryn
   92. DavidFoss Posted: September 29, 2004 at 08:17 PM (#885757)
George Sisler's #1 Fan

Its poster #5 from last week's ballot thread.

Keeps us all from changing our handles and posting as Happy Jack Chesbro and then changing back.

:-)
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 08:31 PM (#885825)
Well then, I take back my welcome! :-)
   94. OCF Posted: September 29, 2004 at 08:48 PM (#885899)
Yes, GS#1F is daryn. Compared to his 1935 ballot, he's found spots in his top 5 for Alexander, Heilmann, and Sisler, and he's flipped the order of Beckley and Torriente; from there on down, everyone simply moves down one slot.
   95. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 29, 2004 at 09:47 PM (#886146)
on Sisler/Shoeless Joe...

Win Shares gives credit for hitting with RISP and in close and late situations, so it is very possible that Jackson was simply better there, hence the big difference. I agree with this methodology if you want to tie a player to actual wins, however I don't know how we should take that kind of information. Should we give credit to a player who happened to be 'clutch', since clutchness has been proven not to be a real skill?
   96. karlmagnus Posted: September 29, 2004 at 10:00 PM (#886236)
I think if Shoeless Joe had gone on playing to 40 he'd be recognized as top 25 all-time, with numbers close to Tris Speaker's (he had 1770 hits at 170, stopping at age 31 vs Speaker 3419 at 158). Sisler even at his peak wasn't quite at that level, and after his injury he contributed value but not all that much. Absent the injury, he would have been Tris Speaker minus, say top 50; with the injury he's perhaps #100, equal to the actual jackson and well below Speaker. But that's still a clear HOMer.
   97. ronw Posted: September 29, 2004 at 10:01 PM (#886242)
Keeps us all from changing our handles and posting as Happy Jack Chesbro and then changing back.

I miss Happy Jack. Right now, he and Marquard are tied for the worst HOM-eligible HOF pitcher selection. McCarthy takes the worst HOM-eligible HOF player selection title hands down, until:

1938 - George Kelly
1942 - Fred Lindstrom
1943 - Chick Hafey

become eligible and give McCarthy a challenge.

Also in 1943 Happy Jack and Marquard permanently lose their status as worst HOM-eligible HOF pitcher selection, when my pick for second worst HOFer selection ever (Bulkeley's the worst) - Jesse Haines, becomes eligible.
   98. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 10:11 PM (#886285)
Win Shares gives credit for hitting with RISP and in close and late situations, so it is very possible that Jackson was simply better there, hence the big difference.

That's only from 1987 to now.
   99. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2004 at 10:16 PM (#886300)
McCarthy takes the worst HOM-eligible HOF player selection title hands down, until:

1938 - George Kelly
1942 - Fred Lindstrom
1943 - Chick Hafey

become eligible and give McCarthy a challenge.


I think Lindstrom shouldn't be in this group. Not that he is a HoMer, but I think he was clearly better than Kelly or Hafey.
   100. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 29, 2004 at 10:42 PM (#886368)
My bad. Nevermind my previous post, it never happened. NEVER HAPPENED! got that?
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9009 seconds
46 querie(s) executed