Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, November 29, 2004

1940 Ballot

Will Bullet Joe Rogan, Burleigh Grimes, John Beckwith, Sam Rice, Dolph Luque or Hack Wilson allow us to have more consensus than last “year?”

Top returnees include Lip Pike, Joe Sewell, Hughie Jennings, Eppa Rixey, Clark Griffith, George Sisler, Jake Beckley and Rube Waddell.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 29, 2004 at 02:39 AM | 152 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 06, 2004 at 07:13 AM (#999123)
Another interesting year. I think I'm tending towards guys who have a lot of very good qualities, as opposed to a few great ones. Rogan and Leach make my PHoM this year.

1. Joe Rogan (new) Let's see, didn't get into organized ball until he was 27 (although he played several years before that), one of the top 5 pitchers in Negro League history by almost all accounts, hit well enough to play the outfield. Have zero qualms about putting him #1. Makes my PHoM this year.

2. Lip Pike (1) Seems to have been among the best 5 or 6 players in baseball for almost a decade, which no one below him on the ballot can say. FWIW*, the Pennants Added are 2nd among non-pitchers in my consideration group WITHOUT the pre-NA years. Made my PHoM in 1919.
(*There's so many assumptions in those numbers that I'm not strongly advocating using them. But it certainly looks good.)

3. Joe Sewell (2) I see him as just a little better than Childs. Both middle infielders, good hitters, Sewell was a little better fielder. Similar career lengths, were both best at their positions in a decade (among white ball players). Sewell was probably playing in a better league, although WARP 3 might over-correct for this. Not the most sure-fire HoMer ever, but on this ballot, he ranks highly. Made my PHoM in 1939.

4. Tommy Leach (8) Winner of this year's "Excuse to keep GVH out of Devin's PHoM award." (No, not really, it just feels that way sometimes.) Excellent fielder at important positions, OK hitter. Among the candidates, has one of the best career arguments, and not a bad peak at all. I'm not so sure that the 1900s aren't the underrepresented decade. Makes my PHoM this year.

5. Cupid Childs (3) He could hit the ball pretty well for a 2B and his defense was decent. I'd say his defensive advantage outweighs Doyle's offensive one. His career is on the short side, but he was the best second baseman of the 1890s, whatever you feel that's worth (among white players, at least). Made my HoM in 1932.

6. Bill Monroe (4) A good player at an important defensive position, with a great reputation for his fielding. Have him close to Childs, and if Joe’s suggestions on his WS are accurate, he’s worthy of induction. Well ahead of DeMoss. Made my PHoM in 1939.

7. George Van Haltren (5) Ahead of Ryan, but not by much. Either way, they're close enough that I don't understand why GVH is significantly ahead in the balloting. I know he was a CF, but he only made the top 10 in OPS+ 3 times, and was 10th twice (in 1888 and 1901) and 7th once (in the 1891 AA). That just doesn't seem like a HoMer to me.
(7A Max Carey)

8. Dick Redding (6) If I was sure he was the #5 pitcher in Negro Leagues history, he’d be in my PHoM. But I’m not, so he’s not.

9. Jimmy Ryan (9) Drops behind GVH after another look at his post-accident drop-off. Never going to get that far away from him.

(9A Red Faber, 9B Sam Thompson)

10. John Beckwith (new) Oh, great, another infielder. Could hit the heck out of the ball, questionable defense at big positions, not the friendliest guy to be around. Might move up.

11. Hughie Jennings (12) His peak still leaps out at you, but there's just so little around it that I can’t put him higher than this.

12. Jose Mendez (11) A very good pitcher who had some excellent seasons, but doesn’t match up to Redding.

(12B Rube Foster)

13. Eppa Rixey (13) I'm not really sure any of this group of pitchers besides Coveleski should be in, but I might be too strict on pitchers.

14. Spotswood Poles (14) His numbers seem similar to Monroe's, but he's an OF instead of a 2B. His defensive reputation appears good. Does anyone like him as much as Bill (might make his Top 100) James?

15. Bobby Veach (15) Has good peak value and a halfway decent career value. Packed more punch into his career than Hooper. Seems like a good fielder for a corner OF.

16. Larry Doyle. (17) Amazingly similar to Ed Konetchy, but definitely a worse fielder. Is the 2B offense better than the 1B Defense?
17. Rube Waddell (19) Every time I check the numbers recently he moves up, but still not that much meat on the bones.
18. Ben Taylor (17) A little better than Beckley and Sisler to me for now. Top-3 Negro League 1B isn’t necessarily enough for me to put him in the HoM, though.
19. Jake Beckley. (18) There is a TON of career value, but his average season is just too average to give him that much credit.
20. Clark Griffith (20) Unlike Waddell, his numbers keep working against him. I think the 1890s will have to suffer with 3 HoM pitchers,
21. Dave Bancroft (18) Not a major embarrassment to the HoF (and James said as much), but not much to separate him from the MI glut.
22. Harry Hooper (23) Similar to Wheat in some ways, but not as good. Pretty low OPS+ for a corner OF candidate.
23. Roger Bresnahan (24) I was underrating catchers, and didn’t realize how good his CF years were. But the career’s still too short.
24. Burleigh Grimes (new) Another pitcher from the 20's clump, doesn't measure up to Rixey and Faber.
25. George Sisler (26) His peak is good, but doesn't stick out like Jennings', and his career value isn't anything special.
26. Vic Willis (39) Does well by Pennants Added, did have a lot of pretty good years.
27. Lave Cross (28) The lesser Beckley, but I had been too harsh on him.
28. Charley Jones (37) Hard to be sure how much credit to give for the blacklisted years.
29. Mike Griffin (27) Doesn't quite match up to the other OFs, but it's close. Wish he hadn't retired when he did.
30. Sam Rice (new) Like Harry Hooper, except not so much.

41. Mickey Welch (36) I don’t buy the hype. I don’t think he was as good as McCormick, and we’ve got enough 1880s players anyway.
   102. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 07:24 AM (#999154)
FYI, this election is anything but over.
   103. Sean Gilman Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:56 AM (#999396)
Pick Lip!!
   104. Guapo Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:41 AM (#999481)
1. Joe Sewell- An easy #1 choice. The American League is about 40 years old right now. Sewell has been the best shortstop for about 25% of the league’s history. His credentials clearly meet the standards of the HOM.
2. Larry Doyle- Finished in top 10 in league in OPS+ 7 times, in HR 6 times, in XBH 6 times, in times on base 5 times. He was a dominant offensive player in the league, comparable to Clarke and Magee, except he was a second baseman. As for his defense... Win Shares gives him a C+, John McGraw was apparently willing to live with him, and he was well regarded by his contemporaries (see BJHA, 1984 version). In other words, he doesn’t deserve a penalty that negates his offensive preeminence.

We have elected only 3 National League infielders who played a significant amount in the 20th Century. (Dahlen, Wagner, Groh)

3. Wilbur Cooper- He was one of the very best pitchers in his league for 10 years- unless you completely discount the NL from 1914-1924, he meets the standards of the HOM.
4. Burleigh Grimes- Slots in slightly ahead of Rixey, who I had slightly ahead of Coveleski. I’m getting a little nervous about the rate with which we keep electing pitchers... Both look like eventual electees.
5. Eppa Rixey-
6. George J. Burns- - OBP master- great leadoff hitter.
7. Hack Wilson- My low consensus scores are fueled by my love of high peak guys. Here’s one of the all-time greats. Yeah, the flashy stats are skewed somewhat- but check out those walk totals. This guy was one seriously well-rounded offensive powerhouse, and a CF to boot.
8. Bullet Rogan- My dilemma with Rogan- when I evaluate the Negro League pitchers, I don’t see him that far ahead of Redding or Mendez (or even the long-forgotten John Donaldson). It’s hard for me to see Rogan, Redding, and Mendez on different sides of the in/out line. Their similarity affects them all negatively. In Mendez’ case, since he comes out as #3, he falls off the ballot altogether.
9. Jack Fournier- - Similar player to Cravath, had a great 5 year run. If I have to pick one first baseman to fill our first base dearth, this is the guy.
10. Gavvy Cravath- Had a great 5 year run at the top of the league.
11. Ed Konetchy - Another great first baseman, largely forgotten because of the era and teams for which he played.
12. Ross Youngs- This is without any additional credit for his untimely death. Youngs was a terrific player- just didn’t live long enough to accrue career “points.” Nine full-time seasons, career avg. of .322 and OBP of .399. Led NY to 4 straight pennants from 1921-1924.
13. Dick Redding- See Rogan comment. I have no idea how to arrange 6 through 13 on this ballot.
14. Fielder Jones- A superior player at the turn of the century, great centerfielder, underrated because he played in a very hostile offensive environment.
15. George Sisler- Sneaks on to the ballot, barely edging off Tommy Leach and Ed Roush. You can’t argue with his peak... another two years like that, and he might have been a first ballot inductee.
   105. Guapo Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:43 AM (#999485)
Notable Omissions:

Lip Pike- Will he be elected in time for Hannukah? Another candidate for the #15 spot, Pike is in my PHOM, has made my ballot before and will probably get elected before he makes it again.

Hughie Jennings- Ranks around #20 right now. Made my PHOM in 1912. May get elected before I get him back on the ballot.

Clark Griffith- I have voted for him before, took another look at him, was not impressed, and dumped him. There are no pitchers off my ballot whose election I would be inclined to advocate, with the possible exception of Mendez.

Jake Beckley: A personal fave, but he was the fourth best 1B for most of his career and was never one of the truly great players in the league. I found an old thread that compared him to Mark Grace, which sounds about right to me. Will never make my ballot.

Rube Waddell- We’ve elected a bunch of his mound peers. His career does not stand out compared to those elected.

George Van Haltren: The lowest ranked member of the outfield glut for me, he surged ahead of the other contenders for reasons I don’t understand.I much prefer Duffy. Will never make my ballot.

Cupid Childs: PHOM 1913. I always want to vote for him, but there’s a lot of people between him and the ballot. He’s probably around #22 right now. Dominated his position like few on the ballot, but I don’t see him as a superstar of the ‘90s.

Tommy Leach- probably #16 right now. May well make my PHOM, as I continue to build it.

Mickey Welch- Still on the radar. Don’t see him as particularly more compelling than McCormick and Mullane.

Pete Browning- I understand why others might support him, but I have eight eligible centerfielders ranked ahead of him.

John Beckwith- Not fully convinced. I want to see how he compares to Dick Lundy.

Sam Rice- Will never make my ballot. The introduction of the lively ball hurt his chances of being a superstar, although he adjusted well enough to have a productive career.

Dolph Luque- Will never make my ballot. There are just too many other, more qualified pitching candidates from his era.
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 03:20 PM (#1000183)
Still missing Joe (he'll be voting), Dan Rosenheck, mbd1mbd1, dan b, Chris Cobb, Brian H, jimd, Max Parkinson and Tiboreau. Your ballots could swing things one way or the other, so don't sit the election out!

At this moment, I count 44 ballots.
   107. PhillyBooster Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:10 PM (#1000242)
Your ballots could swing things one way or the other, so don't sit the election out!

Please, if possible, use your ballots to swing things one way -- not the other.
   108. Chris Cobb Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:10 PM (#1000243)
1940 Ballot

What a challenging group this year! Haven’t studied everything as thoroughly as I like to, but I’m ready to go with the following rankings. I want to do more with pennants added (discussion of which has been great!), but haven’t had time to bring it into the system this year.

1. Joe Rogan (n/e). Not the shoo-in he would have been if he had been almost 31 when he debuted and not almost 27, but he’s clearly the best this year. At his best as a hitter, he was comparable to Ken Williams, and his career support-neutral ERA+ was about 116. I still haven’t finished my season-by-season win share estimates for his pitching, but with credit for three seasons of baseball in the military, I have him at 385 season-adjusted win shares, 1917-1930. That’s with a very conservative treatment. Even if he’s elected I’ll keep working on him to finish a full account of his win share projections, but I know enough now to be comfortable placing him in the #1 slot.
2. Clark Griffith (1). Best 1890s candidate available, and the need to elect another 1890s pitcher is clear. His relation to his peer pitchers is similar to that of Faber and Rixey. His raw peak is higher than theirs because pitchers threw more innings per season while his career value is lower because pitchers tended to burn out sooner, but his standing relative to his peers is close. Quality of competition considerations give him a slight edge over Rixey.
3. Eppa Rixey (2). Long, solidly above average career.
4. Hughie Jennings (3). Best peak available, by far. Would represent 1890s well.
5. George Van Haltren (5). Pennants added should remind the electorate that Van Haltren was a heck of a player. Even if WS overrates centerfielders and VH gets a boost from pitching, he’s a candidate who oughtn’t to be slipping towards oblivion just yet.
6. Edd Roush (7). Very similar in value to VH. Both he and Leach ought to be getting more support.
7. Tommy Leach (8) Very similar in value to Roush. Another player who ought to be getting more support.
8. Lip Pike (11). Back with the center-field cluster this year. If he’s elected I won’t complain; he’s deserving.
9. Dick Redding (9). Still working on Negro-League pitching WS. The flood of new, complicated candidates means I won’t have revised figures for this election, so Redding and Mendez stay put.
10. Jose Mendez (10). Best pitching peak on the ballot.
11. John Beckwith (n/e) I think his placement just above Sisler and Doyle makes sense. His career length is similar, he shares the great hit/indifferent defense profile with Pike and Doyle. Haven’t gone back and redone my estimates in light of all of gadfly’s biographical info, so he could move up a bit next time. At least he’s on everybody’s radar, which he surely deserves to be.
12. George Sisler (12). Nice peak.
13. Larry Doyle (14). Appreciating his hitting more.
14. Urban Shocker (16) I’ve dropped him slightly in my rankings since 1938, though not as far as Welch, out of concerns for overrating pitchers at the expense of infielders. I see him as being very similar in value to Sisler, Beckwith, and Doyle. My system says he slightly better, but I am ranking him slightly lower for now.
15. Burleigh Grimes (n/e). Study of Grimes’ record is not yet complete, but right now this is where I have him. An innings eater, but not very far above average on an inning-for-inning basis. A small competition adjustment lands him behind Shocker.

Returning top 10- players not on ballot.

Jake Beckley. Pennants added helps his case. I’m definitely back to seeing him as a borderline candidate rather than as somebody who’s in danger of dropping out of my consideration set. But he’s still doesn’t make my ballot. We’ll see what happens next year when I bring PA into the system.

Rube Waddell. Another borderline candidate. I prefer Shocker’s wins to Waddell’s Ks.

Joe Sewell & Cupid Childs. I like Childs much better than Sewell. His peak is good enough to keep him close, despite his career shortness. Sewell is a bit short on both peak and career. I may be underrating infielders slightly, but the ones I think are the best—Jennings, Leach, Beckwith, and Doyle, are making my ballot. Childs is just short; Sewell is quite far down.
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:18 PM (#1000255)
Please, if possible, use your ballots to swing things one way -- not the other.

:-)
   110. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:29 PM (#1000286)
I have him at 385 season-adjusted win shares, 1917-1930.

I came up with something similar (not as precise as your usual equivalents, Chris, mind you), so I decided I could post my ballot without your analysis posted on the Rogan thread. I am glad that you came to a similar conclusion, though. :-)
   111. mbd1mbd1 Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:38 PM (#1000301)
1940 ballot.: Rogan and Rice make my ballot, while Grimes and Wilson are just off. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around Beckwith, and for now he's off ballot. I'm slightly less OF friendly this time, I think.

1. Bullet Joe Rogan (NA) - The biggest standout on a weak ballot. Good thing for him that he became eligible this year, though.
2. George Van Haltren (2) - These two are probably the only ones I feel strongly about.
3. Jimmy Ryan (5) -
4. Hugh Duffy (3) -
5. Edd Roush (4) - GVH, Ryan, Duffy, Roush, and Veach all had OPS+ over 120 and nice long careers.
6. Sam Rice (NA) - Yet another outfielder for the glut. He looks a lot like Hooper to me.
7. Harry Hooper (7) - Rice, Hooper, Leach and Burns had OPS+ between 110 and 120 and long careers.
8. Jake Beckley (11) - Moves up a few spots as I try for a little more balance.
9. Larry Doyle (13) - Same.
10. Bobby Veach (9) - Veach land lower on my ballot than the other 120+ OPS+ guys because he just didn't do it as long. Cravath, Browning, Young, Wilson were also great hitters, but with less career value. And that puts them in Purgatorio, at least on my ballot.
11. Tommy Leach (6) -
12. George Sisler (10) - I can't decide if I really like Sisler or Beckley better. This week it's Beckley.
13. George J. Burns (8) - Leach and Burns are the victims of my rebalancing attempt.
14. Eppa Rixey (15) - Can't ignore 4500 IP.
15. Joe Sewell (14) - I love his consistency.

next five: Browning, Waddell, Willis, Bresnahan, Grimes. Pike is way down my list of OF. Jennings doesn't appeal to the career voter in me. I have Griffith in the mid 20's.
   112. dan b Posted: December 06, 2004 at 06:32 PM (#1000552)
1.Rogan I have to believe those leaving Bullet Joe off their ballots advocate enshrining only a few NeL players.
2.Rixey (9) More career value than any other pitcher in his era not answering to Walter or Grover put him in PHoM 1939. 4th in his era in Pennants Added.
3.Jennings (13) – PHoM in 1908. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar. 1st in 3 and 5-year peaks.
4.Duffy (1). PHoM in 1912. 1st in 8 and 10-year peaks.
5.Leach (7) 6th in 8-yr peak, 3rd in career. PHoM 1926. Joe’s pennants added agrees – he should be in the HoM.
6.Griffith (2) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, PHoM in 1913.
7.Beckwith An HoM with 25 NeL players should include him.
8.Cooper (4) Another player the updated Pennants Added likes.
9. Mays (5) And another.
10.Bresnahan (28) 19th in WS/162, but 3rd in WS/600PA. Big position bonus to fill the void behind the plate. HoM will be flawed if we do not induct at least one Major League catcher who played between Buck Ewing’s retirement in 1897 and Gabby Hartnett’s debut in 1922. Dead ball era committee has him #1. PHoM 1928
11.Roush (2) Composite rank better than any single component.
12.Redding Good enough to enshrine.
13.Burns,GJ (4) 2nd in 8 and 10 year peaks. 2nd best hitter.
14.Sisler (15) – Best hitter on ballot. Future PHoM.
15.Sewell NHBA has him as 5th best SS eligible to date
   113. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 07:32 PM (#1000764)
BTW, I'm going to be extremely strict with the time this election when it ends tonight due to how close it is so far. If there is a problem with this, please let us know now.
   114. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:17 PM (#1000922)
Buddha may not be the only one, but he is the only one that I noticed (#56) without a single NeLer anywhere on his ballot...?
   115. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:21 PM (#1000927)
Kelly #21-22 questions Lip Pike's competition and why he moved around so much.

Oh, and has Joe Rogan #1. I could make exactly the same arguments against Rogan. A timeline in disguise or some other reasoning?
   116. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:49 PM (#1000998)
More wild revision this week . . . looking forward to upcoming no-brainer elections!

The PA computations don't account for WS systematic early century issues (like overrating CF and underrating 1B). I make a mental adjustment for that - a mental adjustment that I try to put a number on.

PA = Pennants Added
WSaR = Win Shares above replacement
WS = Win Shares

WS are adjusted to a 162 game season, based on team decisions. Replacement level has been tweaked upward (from 6.5 to 8.8 WS/season). ~337 IP = 162 G for a hitter.

I feel pretty good about the top of the ballot. The bottom could go any one of a million ways, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

I'm having an especially tough time with the new pitchers - I don't want to systematically underrate them because of the era they pitched in. But other than Rixey, I don't see any great pitchers on the ballot from that time.

1. Lip Pike (1) - (.810 PA, 206 WSaR, 277 WS) He was a great hitter. 155 OPS+ do not grow on trees . . . his mainstream statistically documented career doesn't include his accomplishments before age 26.

2. Eppa Rixey (5) - (280-237 CJ, .690 PA, 206 WSaR, 331 WS) I have no idea where to slot the pitchers among the position players. None. Rixey is clearly the top pitcher on this ballot. He'd be over 300 CJ wins (and around .770 PA and 370 WS) if he hadn't served in the military in 1918-19. 300 game winners are a rare breed (especially after 1892) and in just about any other conditions before 1985, Rixey would have been one.

3. Charley Jones (3) - (.716 PA, 197 WSaR, 287 WS) Give him credit for his blackballed years at .0875 per year and he's at .891 PA. That's basically his 1878, he was better than that in 1879, 1884 and 1885. Throw in 33 WS per year and we're at 343. Top 7 in OPS+ in the league every year he played from 1876-85, and he played some CF too. Wow.

4. Bill Monroe (6) - (Esitmated 344 WS if you give him credit for A defense) Still not convinced he was better than Grant or Johnson, but I am confident he was a star.

5. Gavy Cravath (n/r) - (.534 PA, 152 WSaR, 220 WS) Too much to ignore - either he was a freak of nature or there's a lot missing. Just giving him 4 years of extra credit at .075 PA, or 29 WS per season (he was better than that 3 times in his 30s) moves him to 336 WS, .834 PA.

6. Jake Beckley (4) - (.714 PA, 215 WSaR, 369 WS) A very good player for a very long time, much better than an average player. 11 seasons over 20 WS, which is understated by about 2-3 per season because of WS undervaluing 1B in his era. That has a lot of value in my opinion.

7. Clark Griffith (11) - (231-152 CJ, .769 PA, 217 WSaR, 320 WS). He rates as the top post 1893 pitcher on the ballot, by a long-shot - though earlier pitchers seem to have an advantage on PA (more innings in a season = more pennant impact). He falls behind Rixey when Rixey's war credit is included. It was also tougher for pitchers to have the same pennant impact in Rixey's era, so ties tend to go to the modern pitcher on this basis.

Also, I cannot find an method that list McGinnity ahead of Griffith. Chris J record? 231-152 is basically equal to 234-154. McGinnity only gets .668 PA, 185 WSaR, 296 WS. Under the old numbers, Griffith had McGinnity by 9 or 10 WARP1 and WARP3, and the margins were similar on PA. Why the rush on McGinnity and the stonewalling of Griffith? I just don't get it. I think we were way too friendly to McGinnity, but I can't see how he'd be in and Griffith - Griffith absolutely deserves eventual induction.

8. Bullet Joe Rogan (n/e) - (no estimated numbers yet). Everyone seems to think he was Caruthersesque, but better. I've got him a lot higher than I had Caruthers. Very conservative ranking out of the gate, I'm looking forward to Chris Cobb's estimates.

9. George Van Haltren (2) - (.879 PA, 254 WSaR, 412 WS) - Most WS and WSaR among position players on the ballot. Nice, long, consistent career, very good player for a long time. Not a bad fielder, but not a great one either, pretty good hitter. Never had a monster year, he didn't make any Stats All-Star teams, but he also played mostly in a one-league era, where only 3 All-Star OFs were named per year, not 6.

10. Tommy Leach (12) - (.778 PA, 226 WSaR, 355 WS) Win Shares loves this guy. He's underrated as a 3B and overrated as a CF because of the time he played in, but in the end it's a wash. Sure it wasn't a great league, but that's an awful lot of WS to turn your back on.

11. Dobie Moore (15) - (Estimated 300-340 WS depending on war credit and defensive quality). Great player, career cut short.

12. Wally Schang (14) - (.569 PA, 174 WSaR, 262 WS) The best white catcher we've seen since Buck Ewing. 117 OPS+ that was OBP heavy (career .393 OBP) and he lasted 19 years, though he never played more than 134 games in a season. He rates higher on WS than Charlie Bennett (.527, 154 WSaR, 239 WS).

Schang is miles ahead of Schalk (.392 PA, 120 WSaR, 206 WS), and as far as I can tell, any white catcher of the era 1910-30 era.

13. Edd Roush (9) - (.798 PA, 228 WSaR, 340 WS) Great player from 1917-1920. His peak was every bit as good as Sisler. Sisler 1916-1922: 145 WSaR. Roush's best 7 seasons 152 WSaR. Sisler, one season at 25 WSaR. Roush two above that and another at 24. The remainder of their careers isn't close. I can't see voting Sisler over Roush. Even giving Sisler at 10% overall bonus for 1B not being measured correctly (which wouldn't even apply to 2nd half of Sisler's career, where 1B became a more offensive position Roush is ahead on all three measures.

14. Jimmy Ryan (7) - (.787 PA, 229 WSaR, 368 WS) Great player from 1888-92, and a very good player during the remainder of his long career.

15. Ben Taylor (n/r) - (Estimated 326 WS) Almost a direct replica of Beckley. Says a lot about the tightness of the ballot.
   117. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:50 PM (#1001000)
Dropping out:

16. Hugh Duffy (13) - (.822 PA, 231 WSaR, 348 WS) What? The guy I bashed, bashed and bashed again? I guess I was discounting his 1891 too heavily. It needs to be deflated, but not as much as I had. I also laughed away his 1894 as a very good year, but not a historic one in context - again, I was probably too harsh there.

22. George Sisler (15) - (.659 PA, 190 WSaR, 317 WS) Most of what I want to say about him is covered in the Roush comment. Additionally, Sisler was a great player from 1916-22. 1B had more defensive responsibility and Sisler still hit like a great outfielder. I see as quite similar to Don Mattingly, but Sisler was able to sustain his greatness a little bit longer and would have to rank ahead if forced to choose among them. I give him a 7.7% bonus for playing 1B - this is the percentage of his pennants added that game before 1923 (the date I generally use as my cutoff for deadball the deadball 1B bonus).

Others within shouting distance:

17. Vic Willis (251-203 CJ, .739 PA, 207 WSaR, 322 WS)
18. Spotswood Poles (~332 WS)
19. Dolph Luque (with 3 bonus seasons at roughly .500 I see him at 239-199 (207-166 CJ), .670 PA, 197 WSaR, 297 WS)
20. Frank Chance (.650 PA, 185 WSaR, 257 WS)
21. Roger Bresnahan (.581 PA, 170 WSaR, 249 WS)
23. Mickey Welch (302-215 CJ, 1.432 PA, 345 WSaR, 536 WS) - I can't tell if RSI or WARP tells the true story. Extremely divergent opinions.

Close but can't even order them at this point: Dick Redding, Jose Mendez, Urban Shocker, Carl Mays, Burleigh Grimes (should I be giving him any military service credit?), Jim McCormick, Rube Waddell, Jack Quinn, Eddie Cicotte, Herb Pennock, Harry Hooper, Ed Konetchy, Joe Sewell, John Beckwith, Ed Williamson, Lave Cross, Hughie Jennings, Herman Long, Sam Rice, Fielder Jones, Mike Griffin, Larry Doyle, Cupid Childs, John McGraw, Rabbit Maranville, Joe Tinker, Dave Bancroft, Mike Tiernan, Pete Browning.

That works out to 51 players under consideration.
   118. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:55 PM (#1001008)
The highest I could possibly see me moving Welch would be #8 (when compared to those on this year's ballot), but really more like #12.

I can't see any way fathomable to put him ahead of Griffith for example. I was drinking the Kool-Aid for awhile, but I'm seeing it less and less. 23 was a compromise, he easily could have been down with the masses below. I need to go back and re-study him I guess.
   119. OCF Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:07 PM (#1001042)
Buddha may not be the only one, but he is the only one that I noticed (#56) without a single NeLer anywhere on his ballot...?

Through the ballots cast so far, there are three voters with no Negro League candidates on the ballot: Buddha, yest, and karlmagnus. The most such candidates on one ballot is 7, by Thane of Bagarth and Michael Bass. (Tiebreak goes to Thane of Bagarth who has Rogan 2nd and Redding 3rd, as opposed to Rogan 3rd and Mendez 4th.)

Both extremes tend to result in lower than average consensus scores.
   120. Tiboreau Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:24 PM (#1001077)
Slipping in a quick ballot at the last minute after a hectic week. . . .

1. Bullet Joe Rogan—Of all the candidates, Rogan is the one I feel most comfortable about. Considered by many to be among the top 3 pitchers of the Negro Leagues.
2. Lip Pike—After Negro Leaguers, Pike and Cravath are the hardest for me to judge. Gotta give credit to a man who reputedly outran a horse, though. . . . He also benefits from credit for his playing time prior to the NA, and from seasonal length adjustments.
3. Hughie Jennings—Jennings had the highest peak of any of the available candidates. His peak also comprised of 73.3% of his warp1 and 70.1% of his WS. In the end, the brilliance of his peak outshines any questions I have regarding his career value.
4. Clark Griffith—While Waddell has better peak value (51.2 warp1 & 145 WS in 5 consecutive years vs. 45.7 & 143), Clark Griffith’s career advantage (45 more games, 320+ more IP, and 33 more WS) is enough to edge ahead of the Rube.
5. Rube Waddell—See comments on Clark Griffith.
6. Dobie Moore—Based off projections, estimates, and anecdotes, the Negro Leaguers are the wild cards of my HoM ballot. Considering the comparisons to Jennings, I decided to place Moore a few spots higher. Called the “best unrecognized player” of the Negro Leagues by Bill James.
7. Larry Doyle—Siding with Win Shares interpretation of his defense, combined with an adjustment for Childs’s 1890 AA competition, gives Doyle the edge over Childs.
8. Hugh Duffy—With the election of Max Carey, my top 10 consisted of 1 outfielder . . . and 5 infielders. I’ve taken a closer look this “year,” comparing infielders to outfielders, and feel that I have been overrating infielders. So, Hugh Duffy, who I had as the 3rd best outfielder and 16th best player in ’39, climbs to the middle of my ballot.
9. Edd Roush—Nearly indistinguishable from Duffy: 126 ops+ vs. 122; 109.7 warp1 and 315 WS (25.86 per 162) vs. 100.3 and 295 (27.51), giving Roush a slight career advantage IMO; 46.2 warp1 and 136 WS in best five consecutive years vs. 48.1 and 144, giving Duffy a slight advantage peak-wise.
10. John Beckwith—His Win Share projections are remarkably similar to Doyle’s, so this seems to be the safest spot to put Beckwith until I get a better handle on him.
11. Cupid Childs—Suffers from my re-evaluation of infielders. Cupid also represents the difficulty in comparing Peak vs. Career ballplayers. For now he’s here; next time he could be higher or he could be lower.
12. Joe Sewell—Good offense to go along with great defense at shortstop puts Joe Sewell on my ballot.
13. George Sisler—Slips back onto my ballot with my re-evaluation of infielders. The first half of Sisler’s career merits HoM consideration, the second half solidifies a spot on the bottom half of my ballot.
14. Eppa Rixey—Did not have a great peak, but Eppa was consistently real good for a long time. Best name on the ballot.
15. Burleigh Grimes—Just loses out to Rixey for the 14th spot on my ballot due to Eppa’s career value edge.

Disclosures:
Jake Beckley—Very good career numbers, however, his peak numbers are the lowest of any candidate. Even with fielding adjustments, there are still other very good career, good peak guys I'd put ahead of him.
   121. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:31 PM (#1001088)
I got in touch with Brian H and he says he should have a ballot ready on time.

Still missing Dan Roseneheck, jimd and Max Parkinson.
   122. jimd Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:47 PM (#1001129)
From the 1910 discussion on Lip Pike's "revolving":

I don't know where Pike played before 1870, but he's listed with the Brooklyn Atlantics that season. The Atlantics stayed on the sidelines when the NA started in 1871, so a number of them signed with other clubs, Pike with Troy. Troy would go under midseason 1872; Pike may or may not have have sensed that, but in any case Pike (and York and Craver) "revolved" to the well-financed new team, the Lord Baltimores that would finish second in 1872 and 3rd in 1873. Just about everybody left that team after 1873; Pike would manage the new Hartford team in 1874. Replaced by old Atlantic teammate Bob Ferguson as manager, Pike would go to the new St. Louis team for 1875 and 1876 that was managed by another old Atlantic teammate, Dickey Pearce in 1875. In 1877 he moved to Cincinnati as player-manager again, though the manager part didn't last long; the team finished last. McVey was brought in to manage and had the team in contention in 1878 (bringing along Deacon White with brother/pitcher Will didn't hurt). Pike didn't last the season, though his offensive stats still look good (but slipping); BP has his defense as below replacement in both 1877 and 78. The new Providence team gave him a tryout at 2B (York is now playing there) and that was it (until the Worcester callup in 1881).

I find it difficult to really question any of the individual moves in either the sense of "Why didn't he stay?" or "Why did the team let him go?" The overall pattern may seem excessive but that could just be circumstance.
   123. jimd Posted: December 06, 2004 at 11:38 PM (#1001386)
Ballot for 1940

Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

In the midst of revising my system (yet again). Maybe next election.

1) H. JENNINGS -- Using rolling 5-year peaks for WARP-3, of those eligible, only he can claim to have been the "best player in baseball". All of the others have already been elected or are not yet eligible; elected to my PHOM a quarter-century ago.

Thought experiment: Pick your favorite "no-brainer" HOMer. If you cut his career short due to a Sisler/Delahanty tragedy, at what point is it too short and no longer a HOM career?

2) J. SEWELL -- Nice combination of WARP peak and career.

3) C. CHILDS -- Best offensive 2b of the 90's.

4) F. DUNLAP -- Great two-way player; looked at new WARP and liked what I saw.

5) T. LEACH -- Pennants Added convinced me that my system underrates him.

6) H. DUFFY -- Underrated.

7) B.J. ROGAN -- Proceeding cautiously.

8) G. VAN HALTREN -- Not much more to say.

9) B. VEACH -- Good peak relative to great competition.

10) R. MARANVILLE -- Long solid career.

11) H. HOOPER -- Long solid career.

12) J. RYAN -- All been said before.

13) G. SISLER -- I know, mostly peak, but it's not bad.

14) E. RIXEY -- Long solid career.

15) J. BECKWITH -- Unusually hard to evaluate.

Just missing the cut are:
16-19) Ned Williamson, Fielder Jones, Herman Long, Wally Schang,
20-24) Edd Roush, Dick Redding, Jim McCormick, Jose Mendez, Del Pratt,
25-28) Gavy Cravath, Roger Bresnahan, Sam Rice, Tommy Bond,
29-34) Rube Waddell, Lip Pike, Clark Griffith, Jake Beckley, Roy Thomas
   124. Kelly in SD Posted: December 06, 2004 at 11:44 PM (#1001405)
This will be short b/c I'm studying for finals.

Re: Pike. I haven't voted for him because I am not sure he deserves it. When a player played is no matter to me - 6 of my top 8 are pre-1900.

He is just one of the most difficult for me to place. I have read the 1871-76 recaps on this site and gone through his bb-ref page and compared his performances to other HoMer active at the same time. I have read posts on this site and other places that questioned his "desire" at least toward the end of his career. I have questions about all the players from the early period of baseball about how they performed against the good teams and against the bad teams because there was such a spread between them. I know he had great hitting stats. I know his fielding varied. I know he switched teams a lot - and so did some others. I don't have a good handle on him so I have not voted for him. I like to be sure of my votes. AND as my post said, I am reevaluating Pike (and York) after finals.

Back to corporate tax
   125. Max Parkinson Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:44 AM (#1001548)
1940 ballot:(MP HoMers in bold, this year’s inductees are Rogan and Beckwith)

1. Hughie Jennings

Still crazy after all these years… Hughie remains the only player on the ballot with the “Best Player in the Game” belt. I’m not sure that a good chunk of you will ever be convinced of my argument, but I’d rather a superduperstar for 5 years, with a blah 6 or 7 than a pretty good player for 15. For those 5 great years, Hughie was more valuable offensively than A-rod in his prime, and was otherworldly in the field. 5 possible MVP years are much more than anyone else here can claim…

2. Joe Rogan

One can only dream of a world where all of the best players could play together...

3. Lip Pike

The best player not yet elected from the NA. I’m not ready to call that decade done (Well, actually I am, as I’ve elected Pike to the MP HoM).

4. Clark Griffith

As discussed in the Mickey Welch thread, Griffith is the best pitcher not yet inducted from a pretty damn good era of baseball, the one-league late ‘90s, where the other 3 are inner-circle types in Young, Nichols and Rusie. Contrast Welch, who would be at best the 7th best pitcher from his decade.

5. John Beckwith

I went with the assumption that Beckwith in the big leagues wouldn't have lasted long at 3rd base, and would've ended up at 1st or left field. Taking Chris Cobb's WS estimates, I compared him to his contemporaries at the bat-first positions of LF,RF and 1B. He falls behind the no-brainers, but was comparable to Konetchy, Sisler and Keeler (not a true contemporary). Assuming average defensive value at 1B or LF, which is no stretch at all, he falls just ahead of Ed.

6. Ed Konetchy

Ahead of Sisler? Well, it’s close but yes. Whereas Rixey had the better extended prime than Faber, it wasn’t better by enough to overcome Faber’s peak lead. Here, Konetchy’s prime is better by enough to overcome Sisler’s peak. Take defense for example. Sisler was acknowledged as a great glove man, but it was really only true while he was young. Konetchy was as good as that for most of his career. Konetchy never had Sisler’s great few seasons, but he wasn’t nearly as bad at his worst.

7. Dick Redding

I think he slots in best here. But really, I’ve got a system that has a possible point range from 0 to 5950. The Babe is #1 with just over 4600, and 5 other players are above 3000. 14 more are better than 2000. I’ve got 46 players (retired and active) between Jennings (1618) and Eddie Cicotte (1420), a gap of less than 200 points. If I think Redding’s in this region, the margin of error puts him anywhere from 2 or 3 to 35 on this ballot.

8. Harry Hooper
9. George Burns

The next two outfielders from the teens (and 20s). I’ve got a question for the electorate: Why is Jake Beckley getting so much more attention than Hooper? 18 people voted for Beckley last year, while passing on Hooper, including 5 who voted for Beckley in an elect-me position!

I would think that most of Beckley’s supporters are Win Shares people, so let’s look at Win Shares. Granted, I use modified WS, but my 3 mods should help Beckley as compared to straight WS. First, pre-1893 I apportion 50% of Pitching WS to position players, more in fielding than batting. This helps Beckley but not Hooper. Next, I use a 2/3 power to account for shorter seasons (This is like old WARP, new WARP uses ½). Last, I use ½ of the league adjustment of BP between leagues of the same year. Beckley played in the best available league for his entire career save the last 6 years. Hooper played in the best league save for his last 2. Slight edge to Hooper.

Anyhow, here’s what I get from my modified WS

_________________JB____HH

Career__________352___337
Best 3___________73____85
Best 5__________116___130
Best 7__________156___171
Best 10_________215___231
5 Cons._________108___127
6 Cons._________127___147
7 Cons._________148___167
8 Cons._________167___188
9 Cons._________178___204
10 Cons.________195___226

Hooper’s best year is better than Beckley’s best. So’s his 2nd best. And 3rd, 4th, 5th right to 12th. Beckley then takes over, and his 13th best through 20th best is better than Hooper’s. But 15 Win Shares over a career is enough to have Beckley 1 and Hooper never heard of ya? When any look at peak or prime says that Hooper was better? Sorry to rant, but I just don’t get it.
   126. karlmagnus Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:49 AM (#1001560)
I'm not a WS man, it appears to underrate 90s 1st basemen. Beckley has 300 more hits than Hooper and 11 more points of OPS+. It's a no-brainer, IMHO.
   127. Max Parkinson Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:51 AM (#1001563)
10. Rube Waddell

A beneficiary of my correction for previously overpenalising poor-hitting and poor-fielding pitchers. He was certainly both. But those K’s…

11. Bobby Veach

Peak was higher than Hooper, but prime not as long. Was the 3rd best OF in the AL a few times; not too shabby when the other 2 are Cobb and Speaker.

12. George Sisler
13. Bill Monroe

I’ve probably been underrating Monroe…

14. Burleigh Grimes

Good career, decent peak - possible MP HoMer down the road.

15. Joe Sewell

Slightly behind Bancroft with the glove, and more than slightly ahead with the bat lands him here and Bancroft 23rd. C’est la vie, no?

Others:

16-20. Rixey, Mendez, Uhle, Maranville, F. Jones
21-25. Shocker, Luque, Roush, Moore, C. Jones
26-30. Mays, Bancroft, Petway, Cicotte, Pennock
31-35. Taylor, Duffy, Quinn, Leach, Seymour
36-40. Fletcher, Tinker, Shawkey, Rommel, Buffinton


Required:

Beckley – see Hooper’s comment. 47 on my ballot.
Welch – please see the Mickey Welch thread. Above 100 on my ballot.

Again, a question for those that vote for Mickey Welch, what does he have on Jim McCormick? McCormick is ahead of Welch in Pennants Added. During Welch’s best 7 year stretch, 1880-1886, McCormick was better, albeit slightly. Welch was never the best pitcher in any one season, McCormick was (1880). Welch’s career Win Share lead of 18 is built up entirely in 3 seasons (1882,1887 and 1891) where Welch was anywhere from below average to atrocious. I’m not in a rush to elect either pitcher, as we’re well-inundated with ‘80s pitchers, but when the time comes, McCormick should get in first.
   128. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:56 AM (#1001573)
Welch was never the best pitcher in any one season,

I have him as the best of 1885.
   129. Buddha Posted: December 07, 2004 at 01:04 AM (#1001589)
"Buddha may not be the only one, but he is the only one that I noticed (#56) without a single NeLer anywhere on his ballot...?"

And?
   130. karlmagnus Posted: December 07, 2004 at 01:13 AM (#1001610)
It's OK Buddha, you're not the only one. I think as we get closer to the 1930s we are in danger of being seduced by the wave of sentimentality and PCness that the HOF cast over the NL of that period. The HOF is OK on numbers, or a little high, with 17 NLers, based on demographic considerations, but it has the wrong ones -- it's missing several we have already elected, and several of the 1930s ones in the HOF almost certainly shouldn't be in the HOM.

Having said that Rogan probably deserves to be in (though he's not Lloyd/Williams), but I didn't have the figures, and din't want him to sweep in on the first ballot. It appears he will win anyway, which makes this point academic. However, I hope very much that we can avoid affirmative action in selection of NL players -- we may already have had some in Hill, Grant and Foster (Grant and Hill would be in my PHOM, however, so I may be guilty of it too.)
   131. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2004 at 01:20 AM (#1001625)
I think as we get closer to the 1930s we are in danger of being seduced by the wave of sentimentality and PCness that the HOF cast over the NL of that period.

My impression is that in the 1970's, there really needed to be a campaign to prove to the public that these guys not only were robbed of a chance to play in the major leagues... but they deserved enshrinement in the HOF. Thus, the hagiographies, glorifications, etc, etc, etc.

But, there just aren't a lot of great white candidates to compete someone like Bullet Joe in 1940. I mean, not many were really excited about Faber either. Ten years from now, that will change. It'll be interesting to see which NeL-HOFers, if any, we end up giving thumbs down to in the next 15 ballots.
   132. Buddha Posted: December 07, 2004 at 01:29 AM (#1001648)
"I hope very much that we can avoid affirmative action in selection of NL players"

I hope to avoid it as well. I voted for Williams #2 and Torriente in the top 10, but I'm not sold on the some of the others. Quite frankly, if I could do it again, i might not have voted Torriente that highly. And I was shocked to see people put them above players like Eddie Collins and Harry Heilmann.

Simply because they weren't allowed to play doesn't mean they were better than the ML-ers at the time. And anecdotal stories and barnstorming tales don't do it for me. I'd rather go by real stats than made up ones.

That being said, it's not like I'm never going to vote for NL-ers, I already HAVE voted for them. I'm just more cautious about them than others here seem to be.

But I don't like the tone of #114 that seems to imply there is something devious about the way I voted.
   133. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 01:32 AM (#1001655)
Let's try to be careful about veiled racism accusations (or not so veiled affirmative action accusations) around here. I believe all three of the non-Negro League balloters have had African-Americans on their ballots before, while there are many Negro Leaguers that the alleged "quota patrol" have barred their entry into the HoM.

Speaking for myself, all of the Negro Leaguers on my ballot are there because I believe they belong there because the numbers lead me to that conclusion. If I'm wrong, it's because of inferior analysis, not because I need to be a do-gooder white guy trying to make up for the sins of my ancestors (who had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow, anyhow).
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 01:52 AM (#1001702)
Remember: no ballots will be accepted after 8 PM. If it's dated 8:01, it won't be counted.

The election for the second spot is one heck of a nail-biter!
   135. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:02 AM (#1001739)
test
   136. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:02 AM (#1001741)
5:02
   137. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:03 AM (#1001745)
5:02

Sorry... 8:02 PST
   138. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:03 AM (#1001746)
The election is now over. I'll have the results up as fast as I can, but not as fast as a Bullet, I'm afraid (and don't give me any Lip about it!) :-)
   139. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:04 AM (#1001748)
Sorry... 8:02 PST

EST!

EEP! Ok... maybe a little excited for the results this week. Sorry! :-)
   140. DavidFoss Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:04 AM (#1001751)
The election is now over. I'll have the results up as fast as I can, but not as fast as a Bullet, I'm afraid (and don't give me any Lip about it)! :-)

WHOA!!!!
   141. karlmagnus Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:35 AM (#1001853)
Polls close at 8.00 EST not PST, so where are the results?
   142. Max Parkinson Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:37 AM (#1001861)
John,

By what measure do you have Welch better than John Clarkson?

Clarkson pitched 623 innings at a 165 ERA+
Welch pitched 492 at 161.

Clarkson had 37.1 WS (adj. for season length) to Welch's 35.2. The difference is far greater in PRAR, with Clarkson up 147.2 to 82.7.

I think the PRAR difference is based on the DERA gap (3.50 for Clarkson to 3.98 for Welch) based on Welch's infield defense.

......Chicago.......New York.....Advantage
C...Kelly/Flint..Ewing/Deasley.....Welch
1B.....Anson.........Connor........Welch
2B....Pfeffer.......Gehrhart.......Welch
SS.....Burns..........Ward.........Welch
3B..Williamson.....Esterbrook.....Clarkson

So the fact that WS, which in my opinion drastically understates the difference between the two pitchers, still has Clarkson better than Welch seals the deal.
   143. karlmagnus Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:38 AM (#1001864)
Sorry John, didn't mean to bug you, but I wanted to scotch any thought of an 8.00 PST close -- I am now definitively middle aged, and 11pm EST is PAST MY BEDTIME!
   144. jimd Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:39 AM (#1001866)
Welch was never the best pitcher in any one season,

I have him as the best of 1885.


Over Clarkson?

Clarkson beats him in ERA+ 165-161 with 131 extra IP. BP asserts that Mickey had a better defense behind him also (though Clarkson's was pretty good too). I just don't see it.
   145. PhillyBooster Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:40 AM (#1001870)
We'll Chesbro out the results after John Murphy is done McCarthying them all up (hint, hint).
   146. Chris Cobb Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:46 AM (#1001880)
Let me put in a pitch for a 1941 ballot discussion thread. It's going to be a hotly contested election and all, and we don't even have discussion threads up for the two leading newbies yet . . . :-) .

I'm personally looking forward to an easy year at the top.
   147. karlmagnus Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:51 AM (#1001888)
Clarkson had an ERA in 1885 of 1.85 compared to Welch's 1.66. The only way his ERA+ is better is through park adjustments. If you think sabermetricians can park adjust accurately for the 1885 NL I've got a bridge to sell you!

I agree Clarkson had more IP, and Welch's 44-11 is a close match to Clarkson's 53-18 (though a better W/L pct.)
   148. Kelly in SD Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:55 AM (#1001892)
Over Clarkson

Reasons could include Welch facing Clarkson 7 times and defeating him each time. Clarkson went 53-9 against the rest of the NL and 0-7 against Welch. Welch was teammates with Keefe so there was no need to pitch him as often.
   149. jimd Posted: December 07, 2004 at 03:28 AM (#1001990)
If you think sabermetricians can park adjust accurately for the 1885 NL I've got a bridge to sell you!

The methodology is the same, as long as the game scores/locations are accurate. OTOH, modern park factors are a significant problem too.
   150. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 03:46 AM (#1002042)
Re: Welch

Baseballreference.com's mixing of the outlier year of 1884 with their park factors skewers Clarkson's ERA+, IMO.

Win Shares, for the 19th century, only uses one-year factors because of the many changes in the parks for the teams. I think James made the right call here.
   151. jimd Posted: December 07, 2004 at 04:15 AM (#1002154)
Different method for calculating park factors? Happens all the time.

I still think Clarkson had the better season due to the defense and the IP, but I also see that it's closer than I thought.
   152. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 04:28 AM (#1002192)
I still think Clarkson had the better season due to the defense and the IP, but I also see that it's closer than I thought.

I have it as very close between them, so I could see it going either way.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9599 seconds
49 querie(s) executed