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, November 09, 2004

1939 Ballot Discussion

Some fine new candidates in a somewhat weak “year” will make it verrrrrryyy interesting for ‘39.

1939 (November 21)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

302 86.5 1913 Rabbit Maranville-SS (1954)
292 85.4 1914 Red Faber-P (1976)
315 78.5 1912 Eppa Rixey-P (1963)
277 87.8 1921 Joe Sewell-SS/3B (1990)
287 80.1 1909 Jack Quinn-P (1946)
141 36.3 1924 Ray Kremer-P (1965)
139 36.8 1924 Glenn Wright-SS (1984)
128 33.5 1924 Sam “Dolly” Gray-P (1953)
121 34.8 1924 Taylor Douthit-CF (1986)
110 29.2 1924 Harry Rice-CF/RF (1971)
104 26.4 1920 Bernie Friberg-3B/2B (1958)
090 27.3 1923 Sloppy Thurston-P (1973)
100 22.3 1922 Bob Fothergill-LF (1938)
099 21.4 1921 Lew Fonseca-1B/2B (1989)

1939 (November 21)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

20% 20-33 Nip Winters-P (1899) 5.5 - 6*
12% 22-33 Heavy Johnson-OF (1896) #8 lf - 0 - 4*
0% 19-33 Jelly Gardner-RF (1895) #8 rf - 0 - 1*
0% 20-33 Highpockets Hudspeth-1b (??) #7 1b - 0 - 0*

Players Passing Away in 1938

HoMers
Age Elected

43 1937 Cristobal Torriente-CF

Candidates
Age Eligible

82 1896 Guy Hecker-P/1B
72 1909 Tom Daly-2b
70 1903 Silver King-P
69 1907 Bill Everitt-1b/3b
65 1907 Pink Hawley-P
64 1913 Jack W. Taylor-P
60 1915 Hobe Ferris-2b
57 1917 Lee Tannehill-3B
40 1939 Bob Fothergill-LF

Thanks to Dan and Chris for the lists!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 09, 2004 at 02:10 AM | 249 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. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 02:40 AM (#958586)
Reposted from the Faber/Rixey Thread.

Urban Clarence "Red" Faber

Team: ChiA 1914-1933
Record: 254-213 / 3.15 ERA, 3.99 RA, 3.79 LERA / 1.21 k/w / 11.71 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 292 / 3 consecutive yrs: 93 / 7 non-consecutive yrs: 163 / per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 19.6 / 20 in a season: 4 / 25: 2 / 30: 2
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 2. STATS league all star: 2
Fibonacci Win Points: 179
ERA+: 119
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 22/161
Bill James Rank: 56
Top 10s: ERA 7 times with 2 firsts. ERA+ 5 times with 2 firsts. Wins 7 times. Win% 5 times. IP 4 times with 1 first. WHIP 6 times with 2 firsts. BB/9 8 times.
Interesting Fact 1: He just kicked the Tigers' A$$: He finished 54-28 against them.
Interesting Fact 2: In his 1920 season where he went 23-13 for the second place White Sox, Faber seemed to face an usually large number of good or name pitchers:
game 1: Dutch Leonard (10-17). 2. Coveleski (24-14). 3. Van Glider. 4. Coveleski (24-14) 5. Myers 6. Pennock (16-13) 7. Courtney 8. Naylor 9. Bagby (31-12) 10. Shocker (20-10) 11. Dauss (13-21) 12. Leonard (10-17) 13. Pennock (16-13) 14. Quinn (18-10) 15. Caldwell (20-10) 16. Leonard (10-17) 17. Weilman 18. Bagby (31-12) 19. Naylor 20. W Johnson (8-10) 21. Quinn (18-10) 22. Pennock (16-13) 23. Leonard (10-17) 24. Naylor 25. Mays (26-11) 26. Harper 27. Acosta 28. Ehmke (15-18) 29. Hariss 30. Courtney (8-11) 31. Shawkey (20-13) 32. Davis (18-12) 33. Ehmke (15-18) 34. Pennock (16-13) 35. Shaw (11-18) 36. Thormahlen (9-6) 37. Hariss 38. Mails (7-0) 39. Davis (18-12). (maybe this is just b/c of the # of pitchers who had long careers who were active at the time - though I didn't notice this concentration in any other year.)
Interesting Facts 3: Record against HoM( or assumed HoM pitchers) and other "names"
Grove: 1-5
W Johnson: 4-6
Coveleski 4-9
Shocker: 4-5
C Mays: 3-2
Bagby: 4-4
Shawkey: 0-3
Pennock: 8-5
Hoyt: 2-2
Dauss: 6-6
Ruffing: 4-1
Uhle: 3-1

Run Support and Defensive Win Shares Support for Faber:
Offensive: 101.04 - slightly above average support
Defensive: +2.9 (126/191)

I should have counted Sad Sam Jones and Jack Quinn but I didn't...

Against teams .500 or better: 121-130 .482
Against teams .500 or worse: 127-89 .588
Against teams finishing ahead of the Sox: 118-147 .445
Against teams finishing behind the Sox: 130-72 .644

Eppa (Jephtha) Rixey

Team: PhiN 1912-1920, Cin 1921-1933
Record: 266-251 / 3.15 ERA, 3.98 RA, 3.64 LERA / 1.25 k/w / 11.46 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 315 / 3 consecutive yrs: 73 / 7 non-consecutive yrs: 164 / per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 19.8 / 20 in a season: 8 / 25: 2 / 30: 0
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 6. STATS league all star: 5
Fibonacci Win Points: 152
ERA+: 115
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 27/134
Bill James Rank: 75
Top 10s: ERA 6 times. ERA+ 7 times. Wins 7 times with 1 first. Win% 5 times. IP 10 times with 1 first. WHIP 6 times. BB/9 6 times. SHo 9 times with 1 first. Ks 5 times.

Chris J.'s Run Support Analysis: 95.31 (160th of 191 pitchers analyzed)
Chris J.'s Defensive Win Shares Support: +8.6 (55th/191)

Quinn, Sewell, and Maranville writeups late tonight.
   2. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 09, 2004 at 02:57 AM (#958594)
Eppa Rixey

Red Faber

Jack Quinn. Less info on the last one, but it's better than nothing.

Re: Rixey vs. Luque - Luque faced some better teams when they were teammates together, but it's only a slight difference - a 7-8 point edge in MOWP+ the years they were together. Didn't check quality of opposing starting pitchers with those two.
   3. jimd Posted: November 09, 2004 at 03:11 AM (#958609)
A little bit more on Jennings:

4 year consecutive offensive peak using EQA, descending:

.331 .329 .322 .313 -- Hughie Jennings, age 26-29 (1895-1898)
.333 .324 .318 .315 -- Alex Rodriguez, age 25-28 (2000-2003)

He hit as effectively as ARod (actually more like Nomar before the wrist operation, though more OBP due to the HBPs and less slugging), and was a better fielder than ARod. (Note that EQA is adjusted for league scoring context and park.)

122 121 115 112 -- Hughie Jennings, age 26-29 (1895-1898)
111 108 107 107 -- Alex Rodriguez, age 25-28 (2000-2003)

This is an era when infielder fielding was much more valuable than now. The 1890's have a much lower percentage of strikeouts than any era after sidearm was legalized, and the OF's don't make any more plays than they do today. BP judges this combination (SS hits like ARod, better fielder) to accumulate as much WARP-1 as Barry Bonds does.

No matter what happened afterwards, is this peak worthy of the HOM?

Best player in baseball in 1895, 1896, 1898.
1897, missed by a whisker (.2) to George Davis because Hughie missed 20 games.
1894, 2nd-team SS behind Bill Dahlen, 10th best season in baseball.
   4. Paul Wendt Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:06 AM (#958662)
292 85.4 1914 Red Faber-P (1976)
287 80.1 1909 Jack Quinn-P (1946)
315 78.5 1912 Eppa Rixey-P (1963)
141 36.3 1924 Ray Kremer-P (1965)
128 33.5 1924 Sam “Dolly” Gray-P (1953)
090 27.3 1923 Sloppy Thurston-P (1973)</i>

The listed MLB pitchers are all down notably by
WARP3-Fall, after the lastest revision.
(down to 78.2, 65.4, 68.3, 33, 28.2, 24.4)

See much more on three known WARP revisions.
Uber-Stats (Win Shares & WARP) #22-24

Among all listed MLB players, the modest, biggest gain in WARP3 is
Joe Sewell, +1.1 to 88.9
   5. Michael Bass Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:15 AM (#958674)
Processed WARP's latest changes, and that caused some changes on my ballot this time. Big winner is Bobby Veach, who I've long liked, and WARP likes better than ever as compared to the rest of the group.

Newcomers:

- Like Faber a lot. Not giving war credit because I 100% agree with OCF's thoughts on war credit for pitchers with otherwise full careers. Too much of an unknown. Regardless, I love his peak, nice career, he slots in right behind Waddell on my ballot.

- Like Sewell a lot, too, on this ballot. He has, like Veach, the type of career that does well in my system. Good solid career numbers with lots of years where he was a very good (if less than superstar) player.

- Next up is Nip Winters, who is all peak, and nothing else.

- Rabbit Maranville. Nice long career (and he gets some war credit for me), but peakless, and that's not going to do well in my system.

- Rixey also is light on peak to do well with me. Not going to make my ballot. Simply nothing on the boards like Faber's outstanding pair of years to set him apart from about 8 billion other pitchers.

- Quinn. Same as Rixey, but much moreso.

- Haven't placed Heavy Johnson yet, but I don't anticipate him making my ballot.


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

1. Jennings
2. Veach (Big winner, my system just loves this guy, and I really do, too. Great player.)
3. Mendez
4. Waddell
5. Faber
6. Browning
7. Sewell
8. Schang (first white catcher I've ever voted for, and another winner of the reconsideration)
9. Redding
10. F. Jones (back, yet again. I just can't keep the man down)
11. Carey (another guy who jumps up)
12. Poles
13. Moore
14. Childs
15. Monroe
   6. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:27 AM (#958685)
I just sort of stumbled across this, but I found it interesting. Player A&B were exact contemporaries, starting in the same year. Player B's career lasted one year longer, but he also spent one season in an inferior league. Other than that, they were in the same league, with Player A consistently playing on better teams. Player A played a more important defensive position, but poorly, while Player B was a very good defensive player.

Here's their #s per 162 games: A/B
AB: 597/594
R: 88/76
H: 173/167
2B: 27/27
3B: 11/14
HR: 7/6
RBI: 73/77
SB: 27/20
CS: 2/0
BB: 57/54
SO: 25/42
BA: .290/.281
OBP: .357/.346
SLG: .408/.403
TB: 243/239
SH: 18/20
HBP: 5/6

Those are pretty damn comparable batting lines. Okay, time to take the blindfolds off (well, I'll disguise it a bit, if anyone's trying to guess). Player A is Yarrl Elyod. Player B is Drawde Yhctenok.

I'm not really sure what to make of this, it depends on how much you value their defense. But my instinct is that these two have to be pretty close to each other. Win Shares and WARP1 look like they agree with that, WARP3 doesn't.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:27 AM (#958686)
Prelim:

1) Sewell
2) Childs
3) Pike
4) C. Jones
5) Willis
6) York
7) Beckley
8) Welch
9) Faber
10 Waddell
11) Méndez
12) Konetchy
13) Rixey
14) Van Haltren
15) Duffy

I know one of my choices will be filleted because of the omission of a comparable candidate from my ballot. While I have reasons to support my decision, I will argue it another day (IOW, when somebody brings it up :-D).

As for Rixey, he may still move up. I haven't figured out what credit I should give him for 1918 yet. I'm looking at the #12 slot for him.
   8. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:42 AM (#958705)
Of course, that's the old WARP1 and WARP3 not the(ANOTHER?!?) new version.
   9. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:50 AM (#958713)
Thanks John... I might not rank him that high, but your post reminded me that I had forgotten Sewell. :-)
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:01 AM (#958724)
Thanks John... I might not rank him that high, but your post reminded me that I had forgotten Sewell. :-)

..and Mr. Foss guesses it right on the very first try! :-)

BTW, I totally forgot about Jack Quinn. I don't see him making my ballot, but he deserves the proper attention because of his credentials.
   11. Chris Cobb Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:12 AM (#958740)
So I'll bring it up -- how, John, do you justify having Joe Sewell #1 and Dave Bancroft not on your ballot at all? While you're talking about this pair of fine, but not extraordinary, shortstops, you might explain how it is that Sewell is #1 . . .
   12. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:21 AM (#958761)
..and Mr. Foss guesses it right on the very first try! :-)

What was I guessing? :-) You left of Jennings & Maranville?

Sewell looks good though. He's going to climb up to a conservative #7. Not bad for someone I had completely forgotten. WS & WARP agree his defense is top notch, but I'd like to hear more. There's been a lot of talk about Rixey & Faber so far, but I think they are going to debut in the high teens for me. They look a lot like Rick Reuschel or Mickey Lolich to me... I'm a bit wary for now and I feel good about the 3 pitchers ahead of them.

I'll expose my depth chart:

C -- Bresnahan-11, Schang-12, Petway
1B -- Sisler-10, Chance-15, Beckley, BTaylor, Konetchy, Daubert
2B -- Doyle-2, Childs-6, Monroe
SS -- Jennings-4, Sewell-7, Maranville, Moore, Bancroft
3B -- McGraw-5, Leach-13, Williamson, Gardner
LF -- CJones-3, Poles, Veach, Burns, KWilliams
CF -- Pike-1, Browning, Roush, Van Haltren, Duffy, Carey
RF -- Cravath, Hooper, Ryan
P -- Welch-8, Redding-9, Griffith-14, Rixey, Faber, Joss, Waddell, CMays

The Doyle/Konetchy comparison is interesting... shows that Doyle could really hit. I don't trust the positional adjustments of WS & WARP though (though admitted in the 1910s the both positions have shifted towards each other in the defensive spectrum compared to today.)

Rabbit Maranville is a famous guy, but he looks like he's behind Sewell despite the longevity. Plus, I'm a peak voter. Unless an Ozzie/Maz type of argument for defensive superlativity comes out, he'll have a tough time making my ballot.

The ballots are incredibly thin again, though there are a ton of guys who could fill the 10-30 slots.
   13. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:46 AM (#958795)
Rixey also is light on peak to do well with me. Not going to make my ballot.

FWIW, his RSI W/L record has him with seven 20-win seasons (1916, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1928).
   14. Chris Cobb Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:49 AM (#958798)
Michael Bass wrote of Rixey vs. Faber:

Rixey also is light on peak to do well with me. Not going to make my ballot. Simply nothing on the boards like Faber's outstanding pair of years to set him apart from about 8 billion other pitchers.

The electorate has mostly let peak vs. career voting habits pass unexamined for quite a long time now, and I think we need to start having those debates again, as voters seem to be gradually letting their personal predelictions outweigh their commitment to identifying value in weighing peak vs. career and considering the shape of peak, etc.

The loss of pennants added calculations has weakened our ability to talk about theses things, of course, but there's no reason that we shouldn't. I'm going to pick a bone with Michael about his assessment of peak here.

It's true that Rixey lacks the peak spike that Faber enjoyed, and those top pitcher seasons are attention getters. But was Faber's high peak really any better than Rixey's longer one, in terms of giving his team a chance to win a pennant?

Let me lay out their seasons in rank order by win shares.

Rixey

26, 26, 24, 23, 22, 22, 21, 20, 18, 15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 9, 8, 6, 5, 4, 0

Faber

37, 31, 25, 21, 17, 16, 16, 15, 15, 13, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5

Faber over Rixey by
+11, +5, +1, -2, -5, -6, -5, -5, -3, -2, -1, -2, -3, -2, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +1

Faber has a meaningful advantage over his best 3 seasons, earning +16 more win shares than Rixey, but over the next 10 seasons, Rixey beats Faber by 33 over next 10 seasons, all of which Rixey was at or above average in win shares for a pitcher. Is it reasonable to argue that Faber is a worthy HoM candidate on the basis of two great seasons, when Rixey was consistently better in another 10 good ones?

For a voter to rate Faber highly and not Rixey on the basis of a couple of big years is, I would argue, pure aesthetics, having almost nothing to do with an assessment of how much the players contributed to their teams, which is a more meaningful measure of merit.

Rixey was well above average in 8 seasons and average to a bit above average in 5 more. That’s a good peak. Faber was WAY above average in two seasons, well above average in 2 more, and average to a bit above average in 5 more. Faber’s higher peak is balanced or more than balanced by Rixey’s longer peak (at least according to win shares).

If you can find me about 8 billion other pitchers eligible to this point that were at or above average for 13 seasons as Rixey was, I'll take that as evidence that his peak really was pretty run-of-the-mill. But I think you'll find that there are only a handful, and that we have already elected them all.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:53 AM (#958804)
What was I guessing? :-) You left of Jennings & Maranville?

Actually, it was Bancroft, which leads me to the #1 man who I knew would be on my trail...

So I'll bring it up -- how, John, do you justify having Joe Sewell #1 and Dave Bancroft not on your ballot at all? While you're talking about this pair of fine, but not extraordinary, shortstops, you might explain how it is that Sewell is #1 . . .

Okay.

1) Slightly better competition during Sewell's era.

2) Slightly better career numbers for Sewell's era.

3) I'm much more impressed with Sewell's extended peak than Bancroft.

4) Sewell was a much better hitter and, while his defense wasn't as good as Bancroft, it was terrific.

5) Shortstops didn't have long careers during his time (Maranville and Peckinpaugh weren't true contemporaries). I gave him a little boost for that.

6) I have Sewell as the best major league shortstop for 1923, 1924, very close in 1925, 1926 and 1928; the best AL shortstop for 1921, 1922, 1925 and 1927; the best AL third baseman for 1929. That has some value for me.

4) #1 through #20 on my list are not that far apart. Bancroft is not that far from making my ballot. We're not talking about a huge chasm here. There are no "no-brainers" on my ballot, IMO.
   16. Esteban Rivera Posted: November 09, 2004 at 06:35 AM (#958864)
What I'd like to know is what is Bancroft selling that sets him apart from Maranville, Tinker and Long around here?
   17. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 07:55 AM (#958990)
Is it reasonable to argue that Faber is a worthy HoM candidate on the basis of two great seasons, when Rixey was consistently better in another 10 good ones?

An interesting comparison is WARP1 (or PRAR if you prefer). They are dead even in career value. In that case, I might be inclined to give the tie breaker to Faber. Rixey's got more bad seasons than Faber as well as fewer great seasons. That 67 ERA+ (0 WS) in 1914 might account for the full difference in their career ERA+. One perspective on Faber's 250-217 edge in RSAA is that he enjoyed a -14 to -44 edge in the negative seasons.

Its just so tight though. Rixey's got more hard-luck, Faber's in the tougher league. Faber's got black ink, Rixey the edge in grey. Rixey's got the W's, Faber the W%. Before I found out I forgot Sewell, I had one at #15 and the other at #16 and I kept switching back and forth. FWIW, this self-labeled peak voter puts Rixey ahead for now.
   18. OCF Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:31 AM (#959003)
I've been playing with a modified RCAA system, adjusted for run context. In the following, (in arbitrary units), the four numbers are in order: adjusted RCAA; a "big years" bonus score that gives especially big bonuses for especially big year; a scaled RC above 75% of average; and last, an arbitrary composite of these scores.

Doyle: 38, 21, 59, 128
Konetchy 20, 15, 55, 108.

So this system doesn't see Doyle and Konetchy as equivalent hitters, it sees Doyle as better. However, if you want to open this up to first basemen:

Chance 44, 34, 58, 153
Sisler 36, 29, 63, 142
Fournier 38, 28, 55, 136
Beckley 36, 15, 68, 126

So: Doyle hit like a first baseman - not quite Sisler or Fournier, but well up there.

Now shortstops (remember this is offense only, and rather peak-leaning, as evidenced by the high numbers for Chance):

Jennings 18, 15, 36, 77
Sewell 19, 8, 43, 75
Wallace 18, 6, 42, 69 (for comparison's sake)
Bancroft 9, 4, 33, 47
Tinker 5, 2, 27, 35
Bush 1, 1, 27, 30
Maranville -25, -8, 10, **

Of course this doesn't really measue career length. There just aren't many shortstops with 2500 game careers.
   19. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:43 AM (#959009)
Jack Quinn

Teams: NYA 1909-1912, BosN 1913, BalF 1914-15, ChiA 1918, NYA 1919-21, BosA 1922-25, PhiA 1925-30, Bro 1931-32, Cin 1933
Record: 247-218 / 3.28 ERA, 4.21 RA, 3.66 LERA / 1.55 k/w / 11.67 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 287 / 3 consecutive yrs: 55 / 7 non-consecutive yrs: 146 / per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 18.2 / 20 in a season: 2 / 25: 1 / 30: 1
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 1. STATS league all star: 1
Fibonacci Win Points: 160
ERA+: 114
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 10/141
Bill James Rank: 100-200 (I guess)
Top 10s: ERA 6 times. ERA+ 7 times. Wins 3 times. Win% 5 times. IP 3 times. WHIP 7 times. BB/9 13 times w/ 2 firsts.
Interesting Fact: Never won 20 except for the Federal League in 1914. 5 times with 15 or more in the American League with a high of 18, done three times - 1910, 1920, 1928.
Interesting Fact 2: From 1916-1918, he pitched in the PCL for Vernon. His record in those years:
year  W  L  %age   IP  H    K  BB   ER  R    ERA
1916  16 13 .552  289 292  149 85  125  94   2.93
1917  24 20 .545  409 415  160 84  155 107   2.35
1918  12  6 .667 

After 24 games with Vernon in 1918 he was claimed by both the White Sox and the Yankees. After pitching the rest of the season with the White Sox, the National Commission awarded him to the Yankees.
Credit to Daguerreotypes for the above info.
I would think it was pretty unique for a pitcher to increase his innings pitched by 120, but his strikeouts only went up 11 and his walks decreased.
Set many age records that either still exist or were broken by Phil Niekro.
Not a HoMer, but a unique career.
   20. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:50 AM (#959013)
Oh, one other thing with Mr. Quinn: Never pitch him a World Series Game.
Here are his line from his three games:
year W/L IP H R ER K BB ERA 
1921 L  3.1 8 4  4 2 2 9.82
1929 ND  5  7 6  5 2 2 9.00 (the 10-8 comeback game)
1930 ND  2  3 1  1 1 0 4.50 
   21. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:31 AM (#959036)
Walter James Vincent "Rabbit" Maranville

Teams: BosN 1912-20, Pit 1921-24, ChiN 1925, Bro 1926, StL N 1927-28, BosN 1929-35
Record: .258 / .318 / .340. 884 RBI (54 per 162 games). 1255 R (76/162 g).
Win Shares: career 302. 3 consecutive years 71. Best 7 years: 156. Per 162 games: 18.33. Years with 20/ 25/ 30: 6 / 1 / 0
All Stars: Win Shares: 2 times best in League, 2 times best in Majors. STATS: 2 times best in League.
OPS+: 82
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 2/50
Top 10s: Sacrifices 8 times. Triples 5 times. Stolen Bases 4 times. Walks 3 times. (His only Black Ink is for leading the league in ABs once).
Fielding: ShortStop: Win Shares rates at A+ with 5 Gold Gloves - 1914, 21, 22, 23, 30. Still has the 5th most innings at ShortStop ever. WS/1000 innings of 6.42 is 5th among 32 players with 15000 innings at short: Tinker, Wagner, Dahlen, Belanger, Maranville. Among the 82 players with over 10000 innings, he would rank 12th.

Joseph Wheeler Sewell

Teams: Cle 1920-30, NYA 1931-33
Record: .312 / .391 / .413. 1055 RBI (90 per 162 games). 1141 R (97/162 g).
Win Shares: career 277. 3 consecutive years 76. Best 7 years: 174. Per 162 games: 23.60. Years with 20/ 25/ 30: 9 / 3 / 0
All Stars: Win Shares: 8 times best in League - 21-23, 24-28 at SS, 29 at 3B, 5 times best in Majors - 23, 25, 26, 28, 29. STATS: 8 times best in League - 21-28.
OPS+: 109
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 3/75
Top 10s: Hit By Pitch 8 times. Doubles 7 times with 1 first. Times on Base 7 times. Sacrifices 6 times with 1 first. RBI 3 times. Walks 3 times. In top 100 for career BA and OBP.
Fielding: Shortstop. Win Shares rates A- with 3 Gold Gloves - 25, 26, 28. 5.87 WS per 1000. Third Base B+ with 1 Gold Glove - 1929. 4.61 WS/1000. Among the 66 players +/- 1000 innings at 3rd, he ranks 13th.
Unique/Interesting Fact: Played in 1103 consecutive games.
OH YEAH, HE NEVER STRUCK OUT - over his last 9 seasons he struck out 4, 6, 7, 9, 4, 3, 8, 3, and 4 times. Career total was 114.
   22. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:33 AM (#959038)
I forgot ...
Bill James Positional Rankings:
Maranville: 38
Sewell: 23
   23. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 10:00 AM (#959058)
In the interest of fairness (and to provide a comparison for another recent candidate at Short)

David James "Beauty" Bancroft

Teams: PhiN 1915-20, NYN 1920-23, BosN 1924-27, Bro 1928-29, NYN 1930.
Record: .279 / .355 / .358. 591 RBI (50 per 162 games). 1048 R (89/162 g).
Win Shares: career 269. 3 consecutive years 84. Best 7 years: 167. Per 162 games: 22.78. Years with 20/ 25/ 30: 8 / 3 / 1
All Stars: Win Shares: 5 times best in League, 3 times best in Majors. STATS: 4 times best in League.
OPS+: 98
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 1/59
Top 10s: Walks 9 times. Runs 5 times. Times on Base 5 times. Hits 3 times. Doubles 3 times. (His only Black Ink is for leading the league in games once).
Bill James Rank: 28
Fielding: ShortStop: Win Shares rates at A with 2 Gold Gloves - 1916, 20. 18th most innings at ShortStop ever. WS/1000 innings of 6.20 is 10th among 32 players with 15000 innings at short.
Interesting Facts from SABR's Deadball Stars of the National League: Batted 1st or 2nd while with Philies.
Part of a trade with two other future managers that was made so he could manage Boston - Stengal and Southworth.
Nickname of Beauty originated b/c he would call out the word when his team's pitcher would throw a good pitch.
Part of a 6-5-6 triple play. Runners on 2nd and 3rd, line shot to him, throws to 3rd, and then relay back to him.
   24. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 10:28 AM (#959080)
While it looks like the Carey Train is charging ahead, I am wondering if the FoMC could explain why. I missed 4-6 weeks when he came on the ballot and I haven't had the time to read everything I have missed. Why does Carey have such a large advantage over Roush?

Looking at some numbers they seem to be more evenly matched than where the electorate have them.
player: Carey Roush
Career WS: 351 314
3 Cons WS: 83 88
7 Any yrs: 181 191
Per 162g: 23 26
20+: 11 9
30+: 0 3
STATS All: 1 5
WS LgAStr: 6 5
WS MjrAS: 1 2
OPS+: 107 126
BInk/GInk: 32/148 14/125
BA: .285 .323
OBP: .361 .369
SLG: .386 .446
Runs/162: 101 91
RBI/162: 52 81
H+BB/162: 232 236
WS field: A+ A-
WS AuGlov: 10 5
BJames Rnk: 23 15
162g Seas: 15.28 12.14
Stolen B: 738 268

Looking at the above numbers, Carey has an advantage in stolen bases, fielding, and playing time. While Roush has more power and, from the above, a slightly higher peak.
Roush peaked from 1917-1920 while Carey peaked from 1921-25. Roush had injury troubles, Carey's production fell off a cliff.
World Series: Roush 1919, Carey 1925.
10 Most Similar Players: Carey's include 2 HoMers: Sheckard and Clarke. Plus 4 leadoff men - Cramer, Raines, Brock, Ashburn. Roush's include 2 HoMers: Kelley and Magee. Sort of odd is that George VH is on both lists, Carey at 8, Roush at 10.

Looking at the above information, why is there such a disparity between the two men?
   25. Kelly in SD Posted: November 09, 2004 at 10:37 AM (#959084)
1939 Ballot at first glance:
These 12 will be on in some order:
1. Welch
2. Browning
3. Childs
4. Leach
5. Duffy
6. Burns
7. Jones
8. Veach
9. Monroe
10 Roush
11 Chance
12 Sisler

Baker's Dozen of candidates for the other 3 spots in alphabetical order:
Beckley, Bresnahan, Carey, Doyle, Faber, Griffith, Jennings, Mendez, Pike, Redding, Rixey, Schang, and GVH.
Leaning toward a pitcher, catcher, and fielder...
   26. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 01:28 PM (#959117)
Looking at the above information, why is there such a disparity between the two men?

Lots of stuff in the 1937 Ballot Discussion thread.
   27. TomH Posted: November 09, 2004 at 01:29 PM (#959118)
Rehash / re-look of my ratings

For the 1939 ballot where we elect a backlog, I decided to re-look at how I had ranked players. Following is a summary of my findings.

In my quest to assess career value above mediocre, I came up with three ratings:
1.Win Shares, minus 13 times “years”, where “years” equals 648 plate appearances.
2.WARP1 minus 2.5 wins per year in MLB
3.RCAP adjusted for league scoring
(position players only)

None of the above are adjusted for timeline/league quality/length of schedule, or consistent versus peak/trough performance.

Method one gives credit beyond what a ‘replacement regular’ of 13 win shares per year would earn. Negative credit is possible in truly poor seasons. This hurts leadoff men (like Max Carey), who get more PAs per year. Win Shares divided by 3 give approximately extra “runs”.

Method two is a bit different, as it penalizes a season of 250 PAs as much as one of 600 PAs; sort of a ‘roster spot’ cost. This hurts guys like Schang. WARP divided by 10 gives “runs”. I threw out seasons at the beginning and end of careers lower than 2.5 WARP as not relevant.

Method three of course does not count defense, other than position played. I adjust RCAP by dividing by league avg runs per game, and normalizing to 5 runs a game, and 10 runs per win. Players hurt by this method are good defenders, and those who happened to have many all-stars play their positions during their career. Hooper is assessed as below average by this method.

I divided the players into two groups: C/2B/SS/3B, and 1B/OF. I put T Leach in both. I know, first base was not quite as big a hitter’s position back then, but it was closer to OF than C or SS. If I didn’t divide into two groups, the hitters’ spots would dominate.

I only looked at players whose careers centered around 1893 through 1920s. Top holdovers included Doyle, Childs, Leach, McGraw, Jennings, Bresnahan, Schang, VanHaltren, Roush, Carey, Ryan, Beckley, Duffy, Sisler, and Hooper. I then added incoming star Sewell to the mix.

By WS, top infielders were (Leach) Doyle Bresnahan. Top hitters (OF/1B) were VanHaltren Roush (Leach).

By WARP, top infielders were Childs (Leach). Top hitters were Carey VanHaltren (Leach).

By RCAP, top infielders were Doyle Childs Bresnahan. Top hitters were Chance and then Roush/Beckley/Sisler (a group of poor defenders in general)

Averaging all three, the top candidates are
………….2B ………3B/OF…………………OF
Doyle, Childs………..Leach………Van Haltren, Roush, & Carey a step behind
All in a knot! No Wonder I can’t make up my mind!

Groh came out at the top of this gang, so I’m glad to have him make the HoM. Bresnahan is not far behind this group either, and with some catcher bonus I think he definitely belongs.

New guy: Joe Sewell fairs very well. His RCAP is higher than any other player here. In fact, he blows everyone away. Was there a pile of lousy-hitting shortstops in his era or something? Overall he comes out even with Doyle and Childs, and by adding back in a bit of defense and league strength I could easily put him ahead. I’m usually a bit conservative with guys in their first year on a ballot, but SOMEBODY has to get an ‘elect me’ vote, and I’m uncomfortable with it being any of the others who are so paced together. Maranville does not fair as well; good WARP, not so hot with other metrics.

My first inclination is to bump the infielders up, but Doyle is maybe the poorest defender here, and Childs was not a gold glover. Leach comes out tied with Carey, but he also played at 3B. That would put him ahead of Carey, but Max is hurt in the WS and RCAP systems by his rotten last few years—not holding those against him boosts him up. Depending on your correction for league strength, I can see an argument for most anyone. I still go with Van Haltren by a nose, because I don’t penalize timeline for the 1890s, because his defense was good, and his pitching adds a bit too. But it’s very close. If you give extra credit for 1B defense being undervalued, Beckley and possibly Chance and Sisler can join this group also. My ranking as of today:

Joe Sewell – but could move down
George Van Haltren
Max Carey
Roger Bresnahan
Larry Doyle
John McGraw
Tommy Leach
Cupid Childs
Ed Roush
Jake Beckley / Hughie Jennings
Frank Chance / Wally Schang / George Sisler / Hugh Duffy / Jimmy Ryan / Harry Hooper

I didn’t include Lip Pike here since it’s difficult to line up his 1875 era stats, but if I have to separate the ‘in from the ‘out’ line, maybe Lipman gets my 2nd place vote this week (after Clark Griffith).
   28. TomH Posted: November 09, 2004 at 01:30 PM (#959119)
DATA FOR THE PREVIOuS POST:
(Win Shares minus 13 WS per 648 PA)/3
Infield
49Leach
47Doyl
43Groh
41Bres
39schang
37sewell
36mcgraw
35traynor
34Childs
33jennings

Hitters
55van hal
50Roush
49Leach
46Duffy
45Terry
45Carey
45chance
44Ryan
38Hooper
37Sisler
36beckley

WARP1 minus 2.5 wins per year
Infield
Childs77
Leach76
Groh73
sewell70
Doyl64
jennings56
mcgraw55
traynor54
Bres40
schang39

Hitters
Carey86
van hal79
Leach76
Roush71
beckley71
Duffy69
Ryan69
Terry65
hooper56
Sisler51
chance40

(RCAP adjusted for league avg rc/g)/10
Infield
36 Sewell
33Doyle
32Childs
31Bres
28mcgraw
28Schang
25Groh
21Traynor
20jennings
13Leach

Hitters
34Chance
28Terry
21Roush
21beckley
20Sisler
17Ryan
13Van hal
13Leach
12Duffy
5Carey
-2Hooper
AVG of 3 measures
Infielders
doyle48
Childs48
sewell48
Groh47
Leach46
mcgraw40
Bres37
jennings36
schang35

Hitters
van hal49
roush47
leach46
carey45
ryan43
beckley43
duffy42
chance40
sisler36
hooper31
   29. TomH Posted: November 09, 2004 at 02:43 PM (#959150)
WARNING STRONG OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN

Continuing Chris Cobb's thots in post 14:

"The electorate has mostly let peak vs. career ... pass unexamined for quite a long time now, and I think we need to start having those debates again, as voters seem to be gradually letting their personal predelictions outweigh their commitment to identifying value ..."

Agree! While there can be differences in preference as to what makes a great ballplayer, let's not go overboard and assume a great year or two or three makes a great peak argument for the HoM. The Pennants Added list was an attmept to turn career value of wins into pennants by assigning SLIGHTLY more value to big seasons; in other words, sometimes a ten is worth more than two fives. But this can be waaay overdrawn.

I will gladly give a player a bonus for a peak year if it led his team to a close pennant victory (Pretty obvious, ain't it?). But it is not always true that a few peaks mixed in with a few blahs beat out a steady run of "goods".

Exhibit A: Roy Campanella
Truly great catcher. Won 3 MVPs: 1951, 53, 55. Had very poor years in 54 and 56, good years in 50 and 52. If he had been consistent in 1950-56, he may have Zero MVPs. Would that make him a worse player? Asked another way, would the Dodgers have suffered? Answer: No, they might have been better off.

year place GB/GA Campy AVG HR
1950 ..2 ....2 .........281 31
1951 ..2 ....1 .........325 33
1952 ..1 ....4 .........269 22
1953 ..1 ...13 .........312 41
1954 ..2 ....5 .........207 19
1955 ..1 ...13 .........318 32
1956 ..1 ....1 .........219 20

If Campy's 50 had been a bit better, Brooklyn may have won. He was great in 51, but not great enough. He was good in 52. He was great in 53 and 55, but they would have won both years even if he was poor. He stunk in 54, and it cost them a pennant. He was lousy in 56, and it almost cost them a pennant.

When I assess Canpy's career, I'm not going to give him any bonus for big years; I will let his career totals tell the story. And I think we as voters oughta be cautious about giving large amounts of credit for huge years,m and not dedcuting credit for poor ones, unelss we have very good reasons.
   30. Howie Menckel Posted: November 09, 2004 at 02:52 PM (#959154)
HOM ELECTEES
1890-92 - 29 to 30
1893 - 26
1894-1903 - 20 to 22
1904-14 - 24 to 27
We also have 21 in 1915, a bump back to 26 in 1916, and then a slide from 20 in 1917 on down (many from those later years will soon join the HOM).

Not sure if this reflects anything, but it might. The mid to late 1890s were among the toughest times to play, given the small number of teams.

Are we giving enough credit to those numbers put up, compared to numbers of the early 1900s?
Or were there just more superstars coming along as we returned to two-league play?
   31. Rusty Priske Posted: November 09, 2004 at 02:52 PM (#959155)
I have Sewell currently at #34. I'll be reading very closely this week to see what I have missed.

Childs slides off my ballot as two newcomers trumps the one elcted player (Coveleski was not on my ballot...or even close to it).

1. Max Carey
2. Mickey Welch
3. Jake Beckley
4. Lip Pike
5. George Van Haltren
6. Tommy Leach
7. Eppa Rixey
8. Edd Roush
9. George Sisler
10. Jimmy Ryan
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Harry Hooper
13. Rabbit Maranville
14. Clark Griffith
15. Bill Monroe

16-20. Childs, Doyle, Faber, Powell, Mullane
21-25. Redding, Poles, Willis, McCormick, Moore
26-30. White, Burns, Quinn, Gleason, Jennings
   32. PhillyBooster Posted: November 09, 2004 at 03:21 PM (#959171)
Player A: 215-142, 3082 IP, 14 Yrs, 127 ERA+
Player B: 205-170, 3180 IP, 13 Yrs, 123 ERA+
Player C: 192-159, 3085.3 IP, 14 Yrs, 125 ERA+

Now, these three guys look pretty identical to me, or at least all within a reasonable margin of error of each other. Who are they?

Player A is, obviously, new inductee Stan Coveleski.

Player B is Eppa Rixey minus his 8 worst seasons by ERA+ -- eight seasons in which he went 51-81 with an essentially average (97) ERA+.

Player C is Red Faber, minus his 6 worst seasons by ERA+ -- six seasons in which he went 62-54 (a winning record!), and sported an ERA+ of exactly 100.

While my low ranking of Coveleski is now a moot point, the comparison to at least Rixey and Faber is clear. Rixey is Coveleski plus 1300+ league average innings. Faber is Coveleski plus 1000+ league average innings.

Unless you think 6 or 8 seasons of filler HURTS a players' credentials, I don't see ranking either of these two below where you ranked Coveleski.
   33. TomH Posted: November 09, 2004 at 03:53 PM (#959191)
......only if ERA+ tells the whole story. The BP cards (WARP) indicate Stan pitched behind worse defenses and against tougher competition, lowering his ERA+ by 1.5 w.r.t. Faber and 2.5 w.r.t. Rixey. So player "A" above has an ERA+ advantage of 127 to 120-or-121 over player "B", or 90 runs over his career, which is MORE than enough to make up for 8 seasons of slightly-below-average pitching.
   34. TomH Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:22 PM (#959198)
Roush vs Beckely
as hitters
Roush's batting avg was 45 pts better than lg avg (adjusted for park) over his career. Beckley is +33.
Roush OBA, +33. Beckley, +20.
Roush SLG, +64. Beckley, +67.
Roush had better OPS+, 126.5 to 124.7.
Defense? Roush played CF, Beckley 1B.
League strength? Roush played 15-20 years later.
Career length? Beckley has 3 more years.

Seems to me that it's a real stretch to give Beckley a big edge as many voters have done based solely on '3 more years'. I'm confused as to why the strong consensus last ballot was in Beckley's favor.
   35. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#959206)
Asked another way, would the Dodgers have suffered? Answer: No, they might have been better off.

Its sort of an accident that this happened this way... that Campanella's teammates provided more help in his big years. Normally when an up-and-down player's big years line up with the pennants, then that's an argument *for* using peak value. (Note that Johnny Bench's 70-72 is eerily similar to Campy's 53-55... including the level of help from teammates.)

In my opinion, there is something to be said about several consecutive seasons of high level play, though. This wouldn't apply to Bench & Campy above because they had off years mid-peak, but a sustained level of greatness is worth noting when evaluating a player. The hypothetical 5-7 year contract, so to speak.
   36. karlmagnus Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#959207)
Beckley had 2,930 hits, Roush 2,376. The two aren't remotely comparable. Plus Beckley was a power hitter for his era, being close to the all time record for triples (home runs were very difficult in his home park) and he played in the single league 1890s, when competition was tougher. Also, he played shorter seasons -- but for that, he would be well over 3,000 hits, and we presumably wouldn't STILL be having these arguments.
   37. TomH Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:49 PM (#959231)
Beckley made 6596 outs, Roush made 4987. The two aren't remotely comparable. Plus Roush walked more often, and he played in both deadball era and thru 1930, when competition was tougher than 1901-1905. Also, Beckley played shorter seasons -- but for that, Beckley would be around 7,000 outs, and we presumably wouldn't STILL be having these arguments.
---- :)
Look, I can see it both ways. My problem is that the "peak crowd" might get Jennings elected, and the "career crowd" vote Beckley in, while those players who are a good mix get neglected.
   38. Evan Posted: November 09, 2004 at 04:50 PM (#959233)
A new version of the ballot counter is on the Yahoo group, which should make finding entry errors a whole lot easier. If there are any feature requests (OCF - I'd looove to be able to add the similarity scores... if I knew how they worked!) please let me know, otherwise, this should be the last version.
   39. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:03 PM (#959251)
Three cheers for Evan!

Hip hip...
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:14 PM (#959260)
..hooray! :-)
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:23 PM (#959272)
Also, he played shorter seasons -- but for that, he would be well over 3,000 hits, and we presumably wouldn't STILL be having these arguments.

I would, because I don't see the magical nature of 3,000 hits (or 300 wins, 500 homers, etc.). That shouldn't be construed as a knock on Beckley, however, since he is now #7 on my ballot.
   42. karlmagnus Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:54 PM (#959300)
If everybody consitently put Beckley #7 on their ballot, he'd have been elected in 1929, with 672 votes, beating out Thompson for the 2nd spot :-))
   43. Michael Bass Posted: November 09, 2004 at 05:57 PM (#959309)
Two separate responses to the Faber vs. Rixey argument:

1) I simply do not agree with the linear distribution that Chris implies above. We all know about the pyramid distribution of talent, and it is my view that 31 WS vs. 26 is a significantly larger difference than 20 vs. 15 because of this. You only have so many roster spots and innings with which to work, and the 2 extra wins @ 31 are much, much harder to come by than the 2 extra wins @ 20.


2) I know this is a relatively unpopular opinion around here, but I buy the BP/WARP system which sees a large difference between the AL and NL of this era. I think their methodology is sound, and I am unconvinced by other attempts to guage the difference.

With that in mind: top 10 WARP3 for each

Faber: 14.5, 10.5, 5.8, 4.6, 4.6, 4.2, 3.9, 3.8, 3.6, 3.5

Rixey: 7.3, 6.0, 6.0, 5.2, 5.4, 4.8, 4.1, 3.9, 3.8, 3.6

Difference: 7.2, 4.5, -0.2, 0.6, -0.8, -0.6, -0.2, -0.1, -0.2, -0.1


With that view, I believe my rankings of the two to be justified. I understand those that don't value peak as much as I do, and I understand those who don't buy the WARP3 league quality system, but I do value peak, and I do but the system.
   44. Michael Bass Posted: November 09, 2004 at 06:03 PM (#959325)
Add-on: To the extent I am justifying my ranking of Sewell vs. Bancraft, see point 2 in my above post.
   45. Jim Sp Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:02 PM (#959432)
I agree with John on Sewell, his hitting is much better than Bancroft so I don't see the two as comparable.

1)Sewell--Good hitter, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). On this ballot he’s comfortably ahead of the other eligibles by my reckoning.
2)Doyle— His hitting is legitimately outstanding, he played 2nd base, and a C+ defender by Win Shares. 126 career OPS+, compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. #19 all time in innings at 2B. Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
3)Beckley— Behind the big 3, much better than other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production.
4)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115, with the career length he joins my PHom this year.
5)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
6)Schang--His rate stats would put him in the HoM, but a look at each individual year isn’t impressive at all. Still, a hitting catcher with his career length isn’t common...looking for similar players I found Bresnahan, Lombardi, Munson, Walker Cooper, and Darrell Porter. Bill James rates him a C+ fielder in Win Shares, but says he was a good catcher in the NHBA.
7)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
8)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
9)Faber—Takes Coveleski’s spot on my ballot. I have them about as equal as any two pitchers could be.
10)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so he’s not quite as impressive as I thought at first glance.
11)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.
12)Joss—Comp is Koufax…a terrible hitter.
13)Mendez--I rate him right below Joss.
14)Ben Taylor--Not a lot of confidence in this placement.
15)Lave Cross—great fielder. Caught some too. Only hit well in weak leagues, but still that’s a lot of career value…2645 career hits with a lot of defensive value. All time leader in Win Shares / 1000 innings at 3B.
   46. mbd1mbd1 Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:17 PM (#959453)
I think Faber, Rixey, and Sewell will all make the bottom of my ballot. Quinn is close. Maranville is not.
   47. andrew siegel Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#959470)
A very early guesstimate ballot:

(1) Jennings (1st)
(2) Childs (2nd)
(3) Van Haltren (3rd)
So sue me--I think the 1890s are noticeably under-represented.
(4) Pike (4th)
(5) Duffy (7th)
(6) Chance (8th)
(7) Charley Jones (9th)
(8) Rixey (new)--Doesn't blow me away but has lots of positives. Might go as high as #5.
(9) Sewell (new)-- Bancroft plus 5-10% plus one year of peak Jennings play.
(10) Roush (10th)
(11) Ryan (11th)
(12) Willis (12th)
(13) Faber (new)--Close to--but behind--Coveleski, Rixey, and Grimes in my current calculations; might belong a few spots higher.
(14) Carey (13th)
(15) Sisler or Veach-- Re-examination of Veach shows him pretty much dead-even with Sisler; lean towards Sisler just for positional diversity.
   48. Chris Cobb Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:32 PM (#959474)
Two separate responses to the Faber vs. Rixey argument:

1) I simply do not agree with the linear distribution that Chris implies above. We all know about the pyramid distribution of talent, and it is my view that 31 WS vs. 26 is a significantly larger difference than 20 vs. 15 because of this. You only have so many roster spots and innings with which to work, and the 2 extra wins @ 31 are much, much harder to come by than the 2 extra wins @ 20.

This what we could be quantifying better. My recollection from Pennants Added discussions of perhaps a year ago and more is that while it is true that the five additional WS that come when Faber earns 31 to Rixey’s 26 are more valuable than the 5 additional WS that come when Rixey earns 21 and Faber earns 16, the difference is not all that great, not so much as to make Faber’s +16 WS in his three best seasons outweigh Rixey’s +30 WS in their next ten best.

Now that Joe D. is going to be around more, perhaps he could comment on this with reference to the Pennants Added formula?

2) I know this is a relatively unpopular opinion around here, but I buy the BP/WARP system which sees a large difference between the AL and NL of this era. I think their methodology is sound, and I am unconvinced by other attempts to gauge the difference.

If you buy WARP3, then you’ll have Faber ahead of Rixey, no question. There you have two basically equal pitchers except that Faber has this great peak and Rixey doesn’t. Myself, I agree that the AL was probably a bit better, but WARP appears to overstate the difference, and the way that the degree of difference keeps shifting doesn’t increase my confidence.

But I won’t try to argue you or anyone out of placing weight on WARP3. I will continue to try to argue for an approach to peak value that places considerable weight on all value above average (at least until I am corrected by those with better knowledge of the non-linear nature of peak value . . . )
   49. OCF Posted: November 09, 2004 at 08:39 PM (#959490)
Rabbit Maranville is a tough one to figure. He did have a 2670 game career, 2153 games of it at SS. (Most of the rest is 2B: an isolated year at 2B in midcareer, and ending his career in his 40's at 2B.) The career length alone gaurantees that few players will be truly similar to him. Dahlen had as many games at SS and only a couple hundred fewer overall. Of course, Dahlen was a really good hitter and Maranville wasn't, which is the whole problem. The career length connects the Rabbit to Luis Aparicio and Ozzie Smith, but those guys won't be eligible for a long time, so that's no help.

For Maranville to have any argument at all, he has to have been an A/A+ defensive SS for a large fraction of his career. Assuming he was that, and assuming you would want to use his career length to move him ahead of the other glove-first candidates like Herman Long, then what?
We can't pretend that offense doesn't matter, and we can't pretend that Maranville was a good offensive player. He wasn't hopeless, of course. He did hit triples, he ran pretty well, he drew a semi-respectable number of walks, especially in the years (like 1922) when he must have been batting leadoff. But if we do elect him, he'd be the worst-hitting position player in our hall.

But Max Carey is on the brink of induction - another glove-first long-career player. (And sometime teammate of Maranville.) Do the factors that have brought Carey this far also apply to Maranville? Yes, Carey is a much better offensive player - but he's also a CF, which is different than SS, and there are CF with quite a bit more offense than Carey.
   50. Evan Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:00 PM (#959535)
Maranville is always the player I have least understood why he is in the hall. He didn't play with Frisch, he couldn't hit to save his own life and struck out a lot for his time. I realize he was a popular player, but who did he have compromising photos of to get himself elected? Was it a sympathy vote, as he died that year?
   51. Al Peterson Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:21 PM (#959594)
Maranville is always the player I have least understood why he is in the hall. He didn't play with Frisch, he couldn't hit to save his own life and struck out a lot for his time. I realize he was a popular player, but who did he have compromising photos of to get himself elected? Was it a sympathy vote, as he died that year?

You've answered your own question I think. You have a flashy fielding SS, generally popular with fans, teammates, and the press. Since he was around 20 years, people looking back couldn't hardly imagine baseball in the teens and 20s without Rabbit. They are the Hall of Fame, and Merit the way we define wasn't as huge of an element for election. Sometimes it's good to remember the characters of the game.
   52. Buddha Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:24 PM (#959600)
"He just kicked the Tigers' A$$: He finished 54-28 against them."

Red Faber is officially OFF my ballot. : )
   53. Dolf Lucky Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:39 PM (#959643)
Not really pertaining to the discussion at hand, but I just finished a thoroughly disappointing book called "A Mathemician at the Ballpark", or something like that. I bring it up because TomH (Tom Hanrahan) and Rob Wood were alluded to in one of the appendices dealing with SABR essays and research that the author used to write the book. I thought they should get their due props on this board for appearing in print, such as it was.

Well done, boys.
   54. Howie Menckel Posted: November 09, 2004 at 09:51 PM (#959673)
I have read somewhere (James' NHBA) that Rabbit's death lead to some emotion of getting him into the Hall of Fame.

Meanwhile, try to picture what this guy was like, just from an excerpt here off baseballlibrary's voluminous review. Not saying he's a HOMer, or even worth a vote, but he did loom large in people's memories:

"Rabbit was a 5'5" baseball clown with a goblin face full of laugh lines. His humor was antic and visible to the fans: handing an umpire a pair of glasses or mocking slow pitchers and ponderous batters in pantomime. Photographers loved him. He would pull the bill of his cap over one ear - baseball's oldest comic gesture - and jump into the arms of his biggest teammate. He was an after-hours roisterer, too. After a few drinks with kindred souls like banjo-playing Charlie "Jolly Cholly" Grimm, he became the hotel ledge walker, the goldfish swallower, the practical joker."

FYI, he spent 1918 in the Navy for those who keep score on such things..
   55. Daryn Posted: November 09, 2004 at 10:29 PM (#959745)
I’m inadvertently gunning to replace Chris Cobb as #1 among the pitcher lovers.

1. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data shows those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his oft repeated record against HoMers.

2. 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 (HOMer) are two of his three most similars.

3. George Sisler – how can you keep the guy who has the second best 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’ve put Beckley ahead of him because I’m a career voter.

4. Red Faber – both Faber and Rixey could get a little war credit if you are so inclined. Faber has a better peak. I have them slightly better than Coveleski was (13th when elected) -- they were Coveleski plus a half dozen average years, as was pointed out by PhillyBooster. Quinn is not really far behind at 35th or so. If they were firstbasemen Faber would be Sisler and Rixey would be Beckley, which doesn’t explain why I have the orders reversed.

5. Eppa Rixey – Dead heat with Faber. These two (and Redding for that matter) could move as high as 2 and 3.

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

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

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. I like him better than Schang because he compared better to his contemporaries, if you count him as a catcher.

9. Dick Redding – probably the 6th or 7th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams, Paige, Foster, Foster and Rogan), and that is good enough for me.

10. 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.

11. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

12. 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.

13. Joe Sewell – I’m assuming he was Tony Fernandez on defense -- which is a compliment.

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

17. 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. Could be below Duffy. Eight pitchers in my top 17.

18. Schang – I’d like more catchers in the HoM, but this isn’t a cocktail party.

19. Jennings – Big bump up from me (see the 1936 ballot thread about the Orioles’ pitchers not being very good) -- he may get more consideration from me a few decades from now, when Koufax starts to exist. But he was no Koufax.

20 to 25.

·Max Carey – I never thought 350 Win Shares could rank so low, but I don’t think he is much better than Van Haltren.
·George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated. Pretty good adjusted win shares.
·Spotswood Poles – Van Haltren seems like a good comp.
·Edd Roush – little difference between Carey, GVH, Poles, Roush, Ryan and Duffy.
·Jimmy Ryan – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs.
·Hugh Duffy – 10 strong seasons, good black ink.

26. Maranville
   56. DavidFoss Posted: November 09, 2004 at 10:39 PM (#959761)
Since he was around 20 years, people looking back couldn't hardly imagine baseball in the teens and 20s without Rabbit. They are the Hall of Fame, and Merit the way we define wasn't as huge of an element for election. Sometimes it's good to remember the characters of the game.

Exactly. He was a big "star" and one of the great characters of the day. He won't make my HOM ballot, but I no complaints about him being in the HOF due to the differences in the two halls.

No smoke-filled vets committee room put him in either. The writers sailed him in ahead of Dickey & Terry in 1954. I think Dimaggio, Greenberg & Vance were also eligible (though the writers had a quirky way of underrating newly eligibles back then.
   57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 09, 2004 at 10:42 PM (#959764)
Does anyone have any information on Redding and Mendez vs. Rixey and Faber? I believe both of the latter will make my ballot, but right now I would like to know if they shoudl be considered better than the negro League guys. I know that Redding was considered a real ace in his time and I don't get the feeling that either of these guys were really elite. Right now Redding is my #6 returnee with Waddell at #7 (I like him more than most I will admit) and Mendez at #10. This is without the newbies, of course. So should Faber and/or Rixey be considered better than Redding or Mendez?
   58. jimd Posted: November 09, 2004 at 11:17 PM (#959810)
Maranville was the Ozzie Smith of this period. His career was even longer, and he hit like Oz (82 OPS+ to 87 OPS+ for Ozzie). The defense is also similar (108 BP Rate to 111 for Ozzie). If Ozzie's automatic, then Maranville is also probably in; if Rabbit's out, then Ozzie has a tough fight.
   59. jimd Posted: November 09, 2004 at 11:21 PM (#959816)
Unless the timeline plays a significant role.
   60. OCF Posted: November 09, 2004 at 11:59 PM (#959866)
jimd - although I obviously see the similarity between Rabbit and Ozzie (and Luis Aparicio), I don't accept that their cases are equivalent. You've already said that Ozzie has an OPS+ edge on Maranville, but OPS+ also underates Ozzie worse than it does Maranville (Ozzie had better relative OBP than Maranville, Ozzie was a much better base stealer.) I've gone ahead and put Ozzie into my RCAA-based system; it shows Ozzie in the same neigborhood as Long and Bush, which is well ahead of Maranville. Both of them have defense as the core of their cases, but Ozzie's defense was better. Maranville has about 3 seasons worth of being a second baseman; Ozzie is all SS. None of these differences individually are huge, but they all point in the same direction.
   61. karlmagnus Posted: November 10, 2004 at 12:03 AM (#959869)
Damn this system, which wipes out comments. Repeating, 6% on offense and 3% on defense is significant, though Ozzie isn't first ballot either. I won't be pushing for Mazeroski (84 OPS) either. Maranville's OPS+ is less than Carl Mays' and pitcher is even more valuable than SS.

We should look long and hard at Lave Cross (OPS 100) before Maranville, also not rush too fast to enshrine the overrated (by WS) Carey.

Maranville has one claim over Cross and Carey: he was the leader in the 1914 Braves championship (who else was there?) when he had an excellent year, Nomaresque.
   62. jhwinfrey Posted: November 10, 2004 at 12:13 AM (#959880)
Preliminary ballot for 1939.

I've got 9 pitchers on my ballot at the moment--I could see that number dropping to 7, perhaps, but the fact is that most of the unelected near-greats are pitchers. We need to induct a few more.

1. Mickey Welch
2. Jake Beckley
3. Ben Taylor, or as I like to call him, Beckley 2.0.
4. Max Carey
5. Carl Mays
6. Eppa Rixey--best career of the newbies.
7. Tommy Leach
8. Jim McCormick
9. Vic Willis
10. Rabbit Maranville--good glove, great durability.
11. Edd Roush
12. Red Faber
13. Jack Quinn--Quinn's career was a little longer than Faber's, but Faber's was more productive. Do I get my peak voter certificate now?
14. Jose Mendez
15. Dick Redding
16. Nip Winters--I can't really differentiate between this trio of negro league pitchers, but this looks like the right order.

Other newcomers:
28. Joe Sewell--just ahead of George Sisler, whom he greatly resembles, to me.
65. Heavy Johnson--down in Harry Hooper territory.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2004 at 12:33 AM (#959894)
We should look long and hard at Lave Cross (OPS 100) before Maranville, also not rush too fast to enshrine the overrated (by WS) Carey.

Since Carey was elected to the HOF when James was in school, I don't think we can blame Bill for this. :-)

As for Maranville, if he lands on anybody's ballot, that voter should have the record for the most shortstops on a ballot. IOW, I'll take Sewell, Bancroft, Jennings or Long over him anyday.
   64. jimd Posted: November 10, 2004 at 12:57 AM (#959913)
karl, according to WARP, there are 3 serious candidates for MVP of the Miracle Braves: Maranville, Evers, and pitcher Bill James. No question that Rabbit is forever linked with that incredible story.

OCF, I agree that there are a number of small markers that indicate that Ozzie would rank ahead of Rabbit. None change my central point: if Ozzie is automatic, then Maranville must be considered a serious candidate; if Rabbit is out, then Ozzie is no better than marginal. The in/out line could be drawn between them but that leaves Ozzie uncomfortably close to that line.
   65. TomH Posted: November 10, 2004 at 01:09 AM (#959919)
I had a book as a kid, which I sadly lost, by Mac Davis (I think) published around 1970. It was his list of the 50 greatest ballplayers. The first "ranking" I ever read. Looking back, it was a good one; fine blend of eras, pitchers/hitters, offense/defense, understood walks before that was popular, etc. Anyway, he included Maranville as one of his 6 or so shortstops; by my memory, the others were Wagner, Banks, Appling, and I forget the rest. Anyway, he gave great weight to Maranville's leadership or spark that led more than one team (including the 14 Miracle Barves) to a surprise pennant. FWIW, I believe Rabbit's range factor just dwarfed the other SS in his league that year.

merely passing on info. I don't think Rabbit makes my top 20.
   66. Howie Menckel Posted: November 10, 2004 at 02:21 AM (#959958)
The current HOM roster (71 total) includes:

SP (19) - Spalding, Galvin, Clarkson, Keefe, Radbourn, Caruthers, Young, Rusie, Nichols, McGinnity, Mathewson, Brown, Walsh, Plank, Foster, W Johnson, Alexander, Williams, Covaleski (Ward)
C (6) - White, Kelly, Ewing, McVey, Bennett, Santop
1B (4) - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor
2B (6) - Barnes, Richardson, Grant, McPhee, Lajoie, E Collins
3B (4) - Sutton, J Collins, Baker, Groh
SS (9) - Pearce, Wright, Ward*, Glasscock, Dahlen, Davis, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
OF (23) - O'Rourke, Hines, Gore, Thompson, Stovey, Delahanty, HR Johnson, Hamilton, Hill, Burkett, Keeler, Kelley, Sheckard, Clarke, Flick, Magee, Jackson, Crawford, Wheat, Cobb, Speaker, Torriente, Heilmann

So that's 19 pitchers, 29 infielders, and 23 outfielders, if we call Ward an SS, McVey and Kelly Cs, etc.
These are in rough but not exact chronological order, just a quick hit..
   67. Howie Menckel Posted: November 10, 2004 at 02:49 AM (#959980)
Congrats to Lip Pike for taking the all-time lead in career 'voting points. It only took him 41 elections.

ALL-TIME LEADERS
1. LIP PIKE 12,381
2. Sam Thompson 12,349
3. Charlie Bennett 11,503
4. Bob Caruthers 10,704
5. HUGH DUFFY 10,064
6. G VAN HALTREN 9928.5
7. Harry Stovey 9576
8. HUGHIE JENNINGS 9415
9. PETE BROWNING 9117.5
10. JAKE BECKLEY 9033

ACTIVE LEADERS
1. LIP PIKE 12,381
2. HUGH DUFFY 10,064
3. G VAN HALTREN 9928.5
4. HUGHIE JENNINGS 9415
5. PETE BROWNING 9117.5
6. JAKE BECKLEY 9033
7. JIMMY RYAN 8990
8. RUBE WADDELL 7372
9. CLARK GRIFFITH 7315
10. CUPID CHILDS 6797
(Welch 6652, Bresnahan 4877, Williamson 3886)
   68. DavidFoss Posted: November 10, 2004 at 04:53 AM (#960009)
Great work Howie, thanks.

The only correction I can find is that HR Johnson's plaque says SS/2B (Did he also play in the OF?)
   69. ronw Posted: November 10, 2004 at 08:02 AM (#960229)
Wow, 1939 and we have no 1B who played a game in the 20th century. That's a huge gap, which will end shortly with either Beckley (or Sisler's) election or the Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg triumvirate in the 40's-50's.

In fact, 1B and 3B surprisingly have the same number of electees. 3B has tradtionally been a weak position, but until this project, I thought that 1B was strong.
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: November 10, 2004 at 01:50 PM (#960422)
Right, Johnson is an SS-2B. Funny, I had been torn where to put him (I think SS is best, as he slid over later), and I somehow put him in the OF instead!

SP (19) - Spalding, Galvin, Clarkson, Keefe, Radbourn, Caruthers, Young, Rusie, Nichols, McGinnity, Mathewson, Brown, Walsh, Plank, Foster, W Johnson, Alexander, Williams, Covaleski (not counting Ward)
C (6) - White, Kelly, Ewing, McVey, Bennett, Santop
1B (4) - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor
2B (6) - Barnes, Richardson, Grant, McPhee, Lajoie, E Collins
3B (4) - Sutton, J Collins, Baker, Groh
SS (10) - Pearce, Wright, Ward*, Glasscock, Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
OF (22) - O'Rourke, Hines, Gore, Thompson, Stovey, Delahanty, Hamilton, Hill, Burkett, Keeler, Kelley, Sheckard, Clarke, Flick, Magee, Jackson, Crawford, Wheat, Cobb, Speaker, Torriente, Heilmann


So that's 19 pitchers, 30 infielders, and 22 outfielders, if we call Ward an SS, McVey and Kelly Cs, etc.
   71. TomH Posted: November 10, 2004 at 02:03 PM (#960426)
prelim depth chart
C Bresnahan (6) Schang
1B Beckley (16) Chance Sisler
2B Doyle (7) Childs (12) Monroe
3B McGraw (10) Leach (11)
SS Sewell (3) Jennings (17)
OF Pike (2) Van Haltren (4)
...Carey (5) Roush (13)
...Duffy Jones Ryan
P Griffith (1) Waddell (8)
...Faber (9) Joss (14) Welch (15)
...Shocker Redding Rixey
   72. Michael Bass Posted: November 10, 2004 at 03:26 PM (#960462)
Ron, I think a lot of that impression comes from the modern game, where star/HOM-calibre 1Bs are plentiful. I imagine once we start inducting players from the 70s/80s/90s, 1Bs will be going in by the truck load. Just seems like there are a lot of times in the past when there simply were not any great first basemen. Not just the current drought, but as John pointed out, Gil Hodges was probably the best at the position for a decent amount of time. I suspect we won't be leaping to induct him either.
   73. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 10, 2004 at 03:32 PM (#960470)
I agree with Michael, and except for the Brett/Schmidt/Boggs,Evans group there really is never an era that was gifted with a bunch of HOM worthy 3B. I guess unless you count Killebrew as a 3B, giving you Santo, Kill, and Brooksy.
   74. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 10, 2004 at 07:02 PM (#960767)
Thinking about Sewell, thinking about Bancroft, thinking about middle infielders in general...

Taking a look at these three groups of middle infielders [WS adj to 162 game seasons]:

Group 1
Sewell
Best any 3: 88
Best any 5: 138
Best any 10: 245
Career: 291
Lead lg (hitters only): 0
Top 5 (Hitters only): 2

Bancroft
3: 88
5: 133
10: 236
c.: 286
Lead: 0
Top5: 2

Evers
3: 86
5: 135
10: 239
c.: 282
Lead: 0
Top5: 2 (i think, I didn't compile this info for him yet, and I don't have WS in front of me to confirm, and this is what a search of netshrine's winter fun discussion board listings brings up; I think it's right, but could be 3).
========

Group 2

Childs (with 5% reduction for 1890 AA)
3: 101
5: 154
10: 255
c.: 275
Lead: 1
Top5: 1

Moore (estimates based on C. Cobb's data with three years war credit)
3: 100-105
5: 155-160
10: 245-255
c.: 245-255
========

Group 3
Doyle
3: 95
5: 149
10: 253
c.: 306
Lead: 0
Top5: 3

Monroe (based on a short-form WS analysis of his i9s projection)
3: 85-90
5: 140-145
10: 255-260
c.: 320-330

Long (with 5% reduction for 1889 AA)
3: 95
5: 144
10: 245
c.: 306
Lead: 0
Top5: 2

[Disclaimer: it's always possible my math is off, let me know if something seems wrong.]

Just eyeballing these totals, there's not much seperating any of the guys within these groups, and the strengths and weaknesses of each group often counterbalance one another.

I'm better at asking questions than creating answers, so here's some questions these numbers bring up about middle infielders:
1) Where's the love out there for Monroe and to a lesser extent for Moore?
2) Are we focused too squarely on the newer guys (Sewell v. Bancroft), and are they even the best available middle infielders or SS?
3) Do we need to reconsider Herman Long ahead of Bancroft and Sewell? Or is the timeline effect so strong that he drops from looking like he's superior to them to being behind them?
4) Do Johnny Evers' totals suggest he might deserve one more look from the electorate before all the big names come up over the next 20 or 30 elections and he's consigned to the dust bin of HOM history?

[special note: To head off the question, I purposely didn't include Hughie Jennings.]
   75. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 10, 2004 at 07:52 PM (#960842)
Just for yips

Maranville [WS adj to 162 G]
best any 3: 79
best any 5: 124
best any 10: 218
career total: 318
   76. Paul Wendt Posted: November 10, 2004 at 08:14 PM (#960865)
Howie Menckel #70
That's 19 pitchers, 30 infielders, and 22 outfielders, if we call Ward an SS, McVey and Kelly Cs, etc.

FYI, the distribution of 19c Players in the Hall of Fame with variable treatment of fielding position (Ward, Kelly), "19c" (Clarke, JCollins, Wallace), and "Players" (GWright, Cummings):
: 8-10 pitchers
: 4-9 {C 3B SS 2B}
: 12-15 {OF 1B}

This does not count Lajoie, Wagner, McGinnity, and younger men . . . or Hanlon, Comiskey, Mack, McGraw, Robinson, Griffith.
   77. Paul Wendt Posted: November 10, 2004 at 08:22 PM (#960880)
1914
Evers, Maranville and pitchers Bill James, Dick Rudolph finished 1-2-3-7 in the Chalmers MVP vote. http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/mvp.detail.chalmers.html

The Braves and Phillie (1915 pennant w/ Bancroft) suffered, or rather enjoyed, more turnover than most thanks to the Federal League.
   78. Paul Wendt Posted: November 10, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#960898)
OCF #49
Dahlen had as many games at SS and only a couple hundred fewer overall. Of course, Dahlen
was a really good hitter and Maranville wasn't, which is the whole problem. The career length connects the Rabbit to Luis Aparicio and Ozzie Smith, but those guys won't be eligible for a long time, so that's no help.


Wallace and Aparicio may be better comps than Dahlen and Smith.

David Foss #12
Sewell looks good though. He's going to climb up to a conservative #7. . . . WS & WARP agree his defense is top notch, but I'd like to hear more.

If you give credit to Ray Chapman for 1921 and even later, it should come from somewhere. (Isn't there a Conservation Law?) Take it from Joe Sewell, who should have been a sub.
;-)
   79. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 10, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#960912)
Dr. Chaleeko - I can understand why you left out Jennings, but what about Del Pratt? I have him right in the mix with Bancroft, Long, Doyle and Moore in the 16-30 section of my ballot.
   80. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 10, 2004 at 08:54 PM (#960940)
Just based on how I was grouping players, Pratt comes in a notch below the others:

Pratt
3: 79
5: 123
10: 224
c.: 258

Pratt's comprable to Maranville's middling/low peak/prime, but he's got career totals in the Moore area.

To my mind he's definitely a HOVGer in the realm of Lonnie Frey or Buddy Lewis and behind Evers/Bancroft at this juncture.

Even if you discount the NL a little bit as the weaker league, your mark down would have to be something around 7-10% to even things up between him and Evers (IMO the weakest of the guys I mentioned). In 2004speak, that would be roughly the same difference as MLB and Japan, or MLB and AAA. I'm pretty conservative about quality of play markdowns, and more than 5% in this instance *feels* a little bit steep to me.
   81. Chris Cobb Posted: November 10, 2004 at 09:14 PM (#960970)
Prelim Ballot

This is the hardest ballot yet . . . There’s so little difference between so many very good players. On the one hand, that makes it hard to get it right; on the other hand, it makes it easy. There are players who aren’t on my ballot who’d I’d be quite content to see elected, so I’m not going to lose too much sleep over the outcome of this election. My belief is that the best candidates are pitchers and Hughie Jennings, though.

1. Griffith – On a doubtful ballot, I’m going with the best player at an underrepresented position in an underrepresented period.
2. Jennings – Best peak available, by far.
3. Rixey – With no doubts about the quality of NL play in the teens and twenties, he’d be number one. Having some doubts, I’m bringing him down to Faber’s level for now.
4. Faber – Not the sort of career shape I prefer, but the value is there.
5. Redding – Best remaining candidate from the teens, now that Groh is in.
6. Mendez – Best pitching peak on the ballot.
7. Carey – If he’s elected, I won’t complain; he’s deserving, but we’ve been undervaluing pitchers and some infielders relative to outfielders, so I have a backlog of them to clear before Carey rises to an elect-me spot on my ballot.
8. Van Haltren – Very similar in value to Carey.
9. Roush – Very similar in value to Carey.
10. Leach – Very similar in value to Carey.
11. Pike – If he’s elected I won’t complain; he’s deserving. My gut wants to move him up, but my system has him here.
12. Welch – Discussion has raised doubts about my analysis of him. Need to study him again before I give strong support to his election. (The latest WARP2/3 version really takes it to the early pitchers, btw. Welch is down to a career WARP3 of 3.5. Bond is at -25.3, HoMer Albert Spalding a mere -4.5. Bobby Mathews is a good candidate for the lowest WARP3 all-time. He's at -98.0!)
13. Shocker – A consistently excellent performer.
14. Sisler – Nice peak
15. Maranville – OPS is sad-looking, but his run from 1914 to 1930 was superior to the careers of Sewell and Bancroft.

Joe Sewell – Not enough peak or career; shouldn’t benefit just because there were no great white shortstops in the 1920s.

Nip Winters – Truly great for five years, but very little outside that time. Not quite Mendez’s equal at peak, and lacks all of Mendez’s additional value outside of his peak.

Heavy Johnson – career tailed off too soon for an outfielder. Needs more study, though, before I rule him in or out.
   82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2004 at 11:07 PM (#961104)
Joe Sewell – Not enough peak or career; shouldn’t benefit just because there were no great white shortstops in the 1920s.

That's not what I'm doing, Chris, though my attrition bonus wasn't taking into account the Negro Leaguers, so that might be screwing things up. At any rate, the idea that Sewell would be that far off the top of anybody's ballot is kind of silly, IMO, for the voters who combine peak and career. There are no players eligible that have excellent peaks and careers this time, so I can understand and respect someone else's differing opinion on how to construct their ballot.

BTW, I can't see any argument for placing Maranville over Sewell. Only a sliver better career (because the Rabbit played a gazillion years), while his extended peak is not even close to Sewell. Sewell was also averaging about 5 more WS per year than Maranville. I honestly don't see it.
   83. PhillyBooster Posted: November 10, 2004 at 11:09 PM (#961114)
I PASSED THE NEW JERSEY BAR!!!!!!!!!!

I took and easily passed the Pennsylvania Bar 5 years ago, but that was before I had a full time job and two kids that took up all my time.

I was completely sure I failed, and am now going to leave work at 5:00 on a work day.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2004 at 11:09 PM (#961115)
At any rate, the idea that Sewell would be that far off the top of anybody's ballot is kind of silly, IMO, for the voters who combine peak and career.

What I mean by that is the difference between your top player and Sewell, not that Sewell should be on top of everybody's ballot.
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2004 at 11:11 PM (#961118)
I PASSED THE NEW JERSEY BAR!!!!!!!!!!

Congrats, Matt!
   86. PhillyBooster Posted: November 10, 2004 at 11:50 PM (#961168)
In honor of the Rabbit, who deserves to be recognized, but likely will not be on my ballot:

All Animal Team

C -- Birdie Tebbetts/ Doggie Miller
1B -- Buck Leonard/ Andres Gallaraga
2B -- Cub Stricker
SS -- Rabbit Maranville
3B -- Robin Ventura
LF -- Goose Goslin/ Ducky Medwick/ Chick Hafey
CF -- Turkey Stearnes/ Robin Yount
RF -- Dave Philley/ Rob Deer/ Jimmy Wolf

Pitchers -- Catfish Hunter/ Goose Gossage/ Robin Roberts/ Ted Lyons/ Mark Fidrych
   87. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 11, 2004 at 12:00 AM (#961189)
Phillybooster: now the only question is whether you want to be called a Phildelphia Lawyer or not. ; )

Congrats!
   88. EricC Posted: November 11, 2004 at 12:31 AM (#961216)
1939 prelim. A wide open election with no inner-circle HoMers- a good time for lots of preliminary ballots and discussions.

I believe that there should be about as many catchers in the HoM as players at other positions, that pitcher representation across eras should yield a roughly constant percentage of win shares for HoM pitchers, and that league differences are real and about as large as Clay Davenport has computed. "Career" and "Peak" are combined, but not in a conventional linear manner. These beliefs largely explain my ballot and consensus top 10 omissions.

While there are 3 new pitchers, that is a coincidence. A look at players who should make my ballot in the next 5-10 years shows a proportionate number of pitchers.

1. Wally Schang
2. Red Faber
3. Joe Sewell
4. Roger Bresnahan
5. Eppa Rixey
6. Harry Hooper
7. Jake Beckley
8. Jose Mendez
9. Ray Schalk
10. George "Rube" Waddell
11. Jack Quinn (Quit too young.)
12. Urban Shocker
13. Eddie Cicotte
14. George Van Haltren
15. Lip Pike
   89. OCF Posted: November 11, 2004 at 01:45 AM (#961256)
RF -- Dave Philley/ Rob Deer/ Jimmy Wolf

Why limit yourself to land animals when Tim Salmon is available? And how about a Trout on the mound?
   90. OCF Posted: November 11, 2004 at 01:54 AM (#961262)
... and not just one species, but an entire ecosystem in the bullpen. (Think 1990's.)
   91. Esteban Rivera Posted: November 11, 2004 at 02:12 AM (#961272)
This is something I'v been wanting to post for a while. When Harry Heilmann became eligible, there was a lot of talk about his "defensive prowess" or lack thereof. Also, we were again reminded about how win shares is not too kind to corner outfielders in regards to its fielding ratings. Well, giving Heilmann the once over before placing him on my ballot, I cracked open the win shares book and was reminded of the details we sometimes forget when we have new numbers to "play" with.

In this case, it is a paragraph on page 136. This is the part of the book that explains how win shares does in regards to gold glove winners. The paragraph reads as follows, giving all credit to Bill James:

"Outfielders are different, because "outfield" is really three defensive positions which, due to the laziness of 19th century statisticians, we are compeled to treat as one. This creates data problems of all kinds, one of which is that a player who rates as outstanding for a left/right fielder--let's say, 2.6 Win Shares per 1000 innings--would still rank below the norms for a center fielder, since the center fielder is assigned a larger defensive responsibility. There are players who are regarded as very good defensive right fielders, who do not rate well when they are compared to center fielders, just as top-flight third basemen probably would not rate so well if compared to shortstops."

Basically, what this means is that the oufield scale used in the book is not really an outfield scale at all, it is a center field scale. That's why corner outfielders seem to be low on the scale. Same thing would happen if you put the third basemen in the shorstop scale, they will all appear low on it.
   92. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 11, 2004 at 02:21 AM (#961280)
Basically, what this means is that the oufield scale used in the book is not really an outfield scale at all, it is a center field scale. That's why corner outfielders seem to be low on the scale. Same thing would happen if you put the third basemen in the shorstop scale, they will all appear low on it.

I had mentioned this a while back, Esteban, but it still appears that Heilmann was at the bottom of the rightfielder pack.
   93. Esteban Rivera Posted: November 11, 2004 at 02:26 AM (#961285)
I then started wondering if there was a way to get a corner outfielder fielding scale. The only clue so far is that an outstanding corner outfielder would rate a 2.6 per 1000 innings.

Looking around on the other scales I found a way to do it. In each scale used by Mr. James, he took the threshhold of what he considered to be outstanding for each position and he divided it by 6 to get the range for the different classes. For example, at first base he established 2.00 win shares as an "A" fielder. Divide 2 by 6 and you get .33. Hence, each class is a third down. At catcher it is 6.30 which, when divided by 6 gives you 1.05. You round the number to 1 and you end up getting the difference in classes.

All the positons held to the same pattern, except that he usually rounded the numbers.
So if you want to fairly evaluate a corner outfielder by win shares, you take 2.6 divided by 6 which gives you .43, which rounds to .4.

Using this for the range in classes you get:

2.6 or better is an "A" fielder,
2.2 to 2.59 is a "B" fielder,
1.8 to 2.19 is a "C" fielder,
1.4 to 1.79 is a "D" fielder,
and less than 1.4 is an "F" fielder, or in other words, you're better off having a statue out there.

I hope someone finds this helpful.
   94. Esteban Rivera Posted: November 11, 2004 at 02:29 AM (#961287)
Yeah, John, that's the funny part. The one who made me take a closer look, Heilmann, still ended up right where he was rated. Funny how things work. :)
   95. Chris Cobb Posted: November 11, 2004 at 02:33 AM (#961289)
BTW, I can't see any argument for placing Maranville over Sewell. Only a sliver better career (because the Rabbit played a gazillion years), while his extended peak is not even close to Sewell. Sewell was also averaging about 5 more WS per year than Maranville. I honestly don't see it.

Well, WARP1 has Maranville a long way ahead of Sewell, for example.

For myself, I give Maranville credit for a very good season for 1918 -- he clearly lost a year of his peak to wartime service. That plus my modification of fielding win shares puts Maranville ahead of Sewell in career win shares by 60 instead of the 25 in raw win shares. That's a considerable difference. Sewell was extremely durable at a position where durability was difficult, which helps his peak, but game for game at his best he was not all that much better than Maranville: I have Sewell's peak rate at 27.59 to Maranville's 26.78. That's not a bit difference, and neither it nor the height of peak is enough, in my view, to offset Maranville's career advantage.
   96. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 11, 2004 at 03:18 AM (#961302)
For myself, I give Maranville credit for a very good season for 1918 -- he clearly lost a year of his peak to wartime service.

I agree with that.

As for BP, are you sure about those numbers? Since they change them every other week, they might have different conclusions again. :-)
   97. jimd Posted: November 11, 2004 at 03:38 AM (#961311)
But Win Shares never improve, so they remain as flawed as ever. :-)
   98. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 11, 2004 at 03:50 AM (#961328)
But Win Shares never improve, so they remain as flawed as ever. :-)

:-)
   99. Chris Cobb Posted: November 11, 2004 at 04:04 AM (#961339)
As for BP, are you sure about those numbers? Since they change them every other week, they might have different conclusions again. :-)

As of this morning, that's what the numbers said. I can't vouch for what has happened in the last twelve hours or so :-) .
   100. jimd Posted: November 11, 2004 at 04:13 AM (#961345)
BTW, comparing Dickey Pearce to Rabbit Maranville at the same age yields very comparable numbers. Pearce was a full-time major-league SS at ages 35-39 from 1871-75. Maranville was too, 1927-31 (hurt? in 1927). Pearce had an OPS+ of 80 during that time, Maranville 75. BP's defensive ratings at SS put Pearce at 104, Maranville at 105. After those seasons, Pearce dropped into a backup role for 2 years, Rabbit became a full-time 2B for 2 more years. (More a curiousity than an argument.) Sewell at age 35? Retired.
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
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8357 seconds
51 querie(s) executed