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 23, 2004

1940 Ballot Discussion

Interesting group. Many long career types this “year.”

1940 (December 5)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

327 86.7 1916 Sam Rice-RF (1974)
286 72.0 1917 Burleigh Grimes-P (1985)
270 60.9 1916 Joe Judge-1B (1963)
241 67.6 1918 Dolf Luque-P (1957)
231 73.9 1919 George Uhle-P (1985)
240 60.3 1912 Herb Pennock-P (1948)
224 63.6 1924 Hack Wilson-CF (1948)
201 67.2 1923 Willie Kamm-3B (1988)
202 61.6 1921 Marty McManus-2B/3B (1966)
190 57.1 1921 Riggs Stephenson-LF (1985)
193 49.4 1923 George Grantham-2B/1B (1954)
156 51.3 1919 Muddy Ruel-C (1963)
144 39.7 1923 Sparky Adams-2B/3B (1989)
144 37.8 1923 Lefty O’Doul-LF (1969)
102 34.7 1924 Milt Gaston-P (1996)
105 31.8 1929 Johnny Frederick-CF (1977)
128 25.9 1922 Andy High-3B (1981)
106 27.3 1923 Joe Shaute-P (1970)
097 22.6 1921 Ray Kolp-P (1967)

1940 (December 5)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

HF 17-38 Bullet Joe Rogan-P/OF (1889) - 7 - 4*
56% 16-34 John Beckwith-SS/3B/C (1902)#6 3b-2-7*
28% 16-34 David Malarcher-3B (1894) #5 3b - 0 - 1*
16% 17-35 Alejandro Oms-CF(1895) #5 rf - 0- 3
00% 20-34 Dink Mothel-OF/IF (1897) #10 2b - 0 - 0*

Players Passing Away in 1939

HoMers
Age Elected

91 1898 Deacon White-C/3B

Candidates
Age Eligible

82 1890 Fred Goldsmith-P
81 1897 Abner Dalrymple-LF
69 1901 Scott Stratton-P/RF
69 1906 Frank Killen-P
59 1921 Frank LaPorte-2b
46 1932 Allen Sothoron-P
40 1938 Cliff Heathcote-RF

Many thanks to Dan and Chris for the lists again!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2004 at 03:43 AM | 197 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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2004 at 03:57 AM (#978500)
If anybody wants another player thread set up, let me know.
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:09 AM (#978514)
Could you add Malarcher to the Beckwith thread (title)? Or can somebody just let us know about him?

And can somebody help me with Alejandro Oms? A very interesting character, probably not ballot-worthy, but I seem to remember him also being something of a terror in Cuban, maybe even comparable to Torriente if only few awhile. Rather than a new thread, maybe somebody can provide some info here and if he looks for real then maybe.
   3. Michael Bass Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:29 AM (#978532)
OK, I've looked over the white players, and 10* of the 11 are off my ballot. 11 has to be some sort of record for my consideration, though.

* - Luque is off pending a decision on any credit he should receive for his Cuban pitching.

The player who does have a shot at my ballot (though I suspect he finishes 16th after Beckwith and Rogan are added) is, oddly enough, George Uhle. He hasn't received any talk leading up to this, but he has a decent, though certainly not great, career (200 wins) propped up by two huge seasons.

His 1926 is pretty self-evidently great, with the most innings in the AL (by 25) and the second best ERA+. But his 1923 was excellent as well. His 105 ERA+ is nothing to write home about, but compare his 357 innings to the rest of the league. That's 40 innings more than 2nd place!

I'm not advocating George for induction or anything (15th/16th on this ballot is nothing to write home about), but I do think he deserves a bit of attention.
   4. KJOK Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:38 AM (#978536)
Uhle was also a VERY good hitter.
   5. Michael Bass Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:39 AM (#978537)
Also a fine point, in the aforementioned 1923, he had a 126 OPS+, and a very respectable 86 OPS+ mark for his career.
   6. KJOK Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:40 AM (#978539)
Uhle's career batting Runs Created Above Position was 95, which is higher than Max Carey's....
   7. Brent Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:03 AM (#978553)
In 1922 the White Sox paid San Francisco $100,000 for Willie Kamm, which I believe was a record at the time. Did he do anything in the PCL that was amazing enough that it would make him worth looking at?
   8. robc Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:18 AM (#978566)
Hmmm, Deacon White just died. So who is the oldest living HoMer now? Or was Deacon not the oldest?
   9. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 06:40 AM (#978678)
I'm planning to have pennants added numbers up this week - possibly as soon as Wednesday morning.

I've got all of the current candidates (through 1939 anyway) calculated, but I've got a gap in that I don't have numbers for new players that were elected over the last 30 years or so. Gotta get them caught up.

I'll probably list players by primary position this time to make the lists 1) more managable 2) easier to spot positional biases.

What makes more sense, one big thread with all of them, or a separate thread at each position?

Also it looks like I'm only going to be doing Win Shares from here out. 1) it's much less to maintain 2) with WARP constantly in flux I end up having to re-do everything every so often, and that's a ton of data to input.
   10. robc Posted: November 23, 2004 at 06:56 AM (#978710)
Just did a comparison between us and that upstart in Cooperstown. They arent having an election for the next two years for some reason. Excluding people they have obviously included for nonplaying reasons, here is a comparison. They have elected 19 players so far, 14 of them are in the HoM. Ruth and Gehrig arent yet eligible for us, and we havent elected (yet) McGraw, Sisler, and Cummings.

If we assume that McGraw is in the HoF for his managerial skills, and Cummings as an inventor and not as a player, it makes them look better. Sisler was 8th for us, so those guys in NY arent doing too bad. So far.
   11. KJOK Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:07 AM (#978727)
In 1922 the White Sox paid San Francisco $100,000 for Willie Kamm, which I believe was a record at the time. Did he do anything in the PCL that was amazing enough that it would make him worth looking at?

As best I can make out from the washed-out TSN:

Willie Kamm, 1921, PCL
G-168
AB-619
R-86
H-178
2B-39
3B-8
HR-4
RBI-83
AVE-.288
SB-23
CS-20
SH-27

Willie Kamm, 1922, PCL
G-170
AB-650
R-137
H-222
2B-36
3B-9
HR-20
RBI-121
AVE-.342
SB-35
SH-26
   12. Kelly in SD Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:12 AM (#978734)
Edgar Charles “Sam” Rice

Teams: Was 1914-33, Cle 1934
Record: .322 / .374 / .427. 1078 RBI (73 per 162 games). 1514 R (102/162 g).
Win Shares: career 327. 3 consecutive years 72. Best 7 years: 165. Per 162 games: 22.00.
Years with 20: 10
Years with 25: 0
Years with 30: 0
All Stars: Win Shares: NEVER a top 3 player in his league or majors. STATS: NEVER selected to a STATS all-star team.
OPS+: 112
Bill James Position Ranking: 33
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 13/153
Top 10s: Hits, Triples, and Stolen Bases basically. Stolen Bases 12 times with 1 first. Hits 12 times with 2 firsts. Triples 8 times with 1 first. Runs 8 times with no firsts. Batting Average 8 times with NO firsts. Total Bases 7 times with no firsts. Zero apps on OPS+ leaderboards.
Fielding: Win Shares has him as a “B-“ rightfielder with 1 retro gold glove

Joe Judge:
Teams: Was 1915-32, Bro 1933, BosA 1933-34
Record: .298 / .378 / .420. 1034 RBI (77 per 162 games). 1184 R (88/162 g).
Win Shares: career 270. 3 consecutive years 59. Best 7 years: 135. Per 162 games: 20.
Years with 20: 2
Years with 25: 0
Years with 30: 0
All Stars: Win Shares: NEVER an all-star in his league or majors. STATS: NEVER selected to a STATS all-star team.
OPS+: 114
Bill James Position Ranking: 44
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 1/ 48
Top 10s: Triples 6 times. On Base %, Sacrifice Hits, Walks 4 times.
Fielding: Win Shares has him as a “B-“ firstbaseman with NO retro gold glove


Lewis Robert Hack Wilson:
Teams: NYN 1923-25, ChiN 1926-31, Bro 1933 – 34, Phi 1934
Record: .307 / .395 / .545. 1063 RBI (128 per 162 games). 884 R (106/162 g).
Win Shares: career 224. 3 consecutive years 95. Best 7 years: 189. Per 162 games: 26.9.
Years with 20: 6
Years with 25: 5
Years with 30: 3
All Stars: Win Shares: 4 times top 3 outfielder in NL (1927, 1928, 1929, 1930) and twice in majors (1929, 1930). STATS: 5 times (1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930).
OPS+: 144
Bill James Position Ranking: 19
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 31/110
Top 10s: Homeruns 7 times with 4 firsts. Walks 7 times with 2 firsts. Slugging Percentage, OPS+, adjusted OPS+ 6 times each with 1 first each. RBI 6 times each with 2 firsts. 5 times in Batting Average with no firsts.
Fielding: Win Shares has him as a “C+“ centerfielder with NO retro gold glove

Marty McManus:
Teams: StLA 1920-26, Det 1927-31, BosA 1931-33, BosN 1934
Record: .289 / .357 / .430. 996 RBI (88 per 162 games). 1008 R (89/162 g).
Win Shares: career 202. 3 consecutive years 56. Best 7 years: 131. Per 162 games: 17.9.
Years with 20: 3
Years with 25: 0
Years with 30: 0
All Stars: Win Shares: 1 times top 3rd Baseman in AL (1930) and NEVER in the majors. STATS: 3 times (1926, 1929, 1930).
OPS+: 83
Bill James Position Ranking: 58 at second
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 4/60
Top 10s: Home Runs: 5 times (w/ between 9 and 18), Nothing else more than 3 times. Led league once in doubles and stolen bases each.
Fielding: Win Shares has him as a “B-“ Second Baseman with NO retro gold gloves and as a “B” Third Baseman with 1 retro Gold Glove
Question: If all of his all-star appearances are at 3rd, why does James have him listed at 2nd even if he played more games there?

Willie Kamm:
Teams: ChiA 1923-31, Cle 31-35
Record: .281 / .372 / .384. 826 RBI (79 per 162 games). 802 R (77/162 g).
Win Shares: career 201. 3 consecutive years 61. Best 7 years: 137. Per 162 games: 19.2.
Years with 20: 4
Years with 25: 0
Years with 30: 0
All Stars: Win Shares: 5 times top 3rd Baseman in AL (1923, 1925, 1925, 1928, 1932) and 2 time in the majors (1923, 1932). STATS: 1 time (1932).
OPS+: 97
Bill James Position Ranking: 62 at Third
Black Ink/ Grey Ink: 3/23
Top 10s: Sacrifice Hits 7 times, Walks 5 times with 1 first. Nothing else more than 3 times.
Fielding: Win Shares has him as an “A” Third Baseman with 6 retro Gold Gloves
   13. Kelly in SD Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:21 AM (#978753)
Burleigh Grimes “Ol Stubblebeard”

Team: Pit 1916-17, Bro 1918-26, NYN 1927, Pit 1928-29, BosN 1930, StLN 1930-31, ChiN 1932-33, StLN 1933-34, Pit 1934, NYA 1934.
Record: 270-212 / 3.52 ERA, 4.41 RA, 3.79 LERA / 1.17 k/w / 12.29 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 286
3 consecutive yrs: 72
7 non-consecutive yrs: 181
per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 20.1
20 in a season: 7
25: 4
30: 2
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 6 time (1918, 1920, 1921, 1924, 1928, 1929) with 1 time best in NL (1921). STATS league all star: 5 (1918, 1920, 1921, 1928, 1929)
Fibonacci Win Points: 209
ERA+: 107
Chris J.’s Tools: Run Support Index 106.67 (48th all-time out of 191), Defensive Win Shares Support 4.1 (108th / 191)
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 38/212
Bill James Rank: 62
Top 10s: ERA 6 times with 2 firsts. ERA+ 6 times with 1 first. Wins 11 times with 2 firsts. Win% 7 times with 1 first. Ks 8 times with 1 first. IP 10 times with 3 firsts. WHIP 5 times. H/9 5 times. K/9 8 times with 1 first.

Dolf Luque “The Pride of Havana”

Team: BosN 1914-15, Cin 1918-29, Bro 1930-31, NYN 1932-35.
Record: 193-179 / 3.24 ERA, 3.95 RA, 3.93 LERA / 1.23 k/w / 11.60 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 241
3 consecutive yrs: 80
7 non-consecutive yrs: 154
per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 20.2
20 in a season: 3
25: 2
30: 1
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 3 times (1921, 1923, 1925) with 1 time best in NL (1923), 1 time best in Majors (1923). STATS league all star: 1 (1923)
Fibonacci Win Points: 114
ERA+: 117
Chris J.’s Tools: Run Support Index 91.81 (180th all-time out of 191), Defensive Win Shares Support 9.0 (51st / 191)
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 27/134
Bill James Rank: Not listed in top 100, I assume 100-200
Top 10s: ERA 6 times with 2 firsts. ERA+ 4 times with 2 firsts. Wins 3 times. Win% 4 times with 2 firsts. Ks 5 times with 1 first. IP 5 times. WHIP 7 times with 1 first. H/9 6 times with 3 firsts. K/9 3 times.

Herb Pennock “The Knight of Kennett Square”

Team: PhiA 1912-15, BosA 15-17, 19-22, NYA 1923-33, BosA 1934.
Record: 241-162 / 3.61 ERA, 4.24 RA, 3.97 LERA / 1.34 k/w / 12.18 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 240
3 consecutive yrs: 73
7 non-consecutive yrs: 147
per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 17.8
20 in a season: 4
25: 1
30: 0
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 2 times (1924, 1925). STATS league all star: 4 times (1923, 1924, 1926, 1928)
Fibonacci Win Points: 223
ERA+: 106
Chris J.’s Tools: Run Support Index 111.83 (21st all-time out of 191), Defensive Win Shares Support 1.9 (134th / 191)
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 13/157
Bill James Rank: Not listed in top 100, I assume 100-200
Top 10s: ERA 5 times. ERA+ 4 times. Wins 6 times. Win% 9 times with 1 first. Ks 4 times. IP 3 times with 1 first. WHIP 6 times with 2 firsts. H/9 2 times. K/9 3 times. BB/9: 10 times with 3 firsts.
Knack for being on winners: Pennant winners 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1932.

George Uhle “The Bull”

Team: Cle 1919-28, Det 1929-33, NYN 1933, NYA 1933-34, Cle 1936.
Record: 200-166 / 3.99 ERA, 4.72 RA, 4.21 LERA / 1.17 k/w / 12.64 WH9IP
Win Shares: career: 231
3 consecutive yrs: 67
7 non-consecutive yrs: 157
per 40 gs (start + .6(relief appearances): 20.3
20 in a season: 4
25: 2
30: 1
All-Stars: Win Shares league all star: 2 times (1923, 1926), best in AL 1923, 1926, best in Majors 1926. STATS league all star: 2 times (1923, 1926)
Fibonacci Win Points: 143
ERA+: 105
Chris J.’s Tools: Run Support Index 106.65 (49th all-time out of 191), Defensive Win Shares Support (-4.1)(181st / 191)
Black Ink/Grey Ink: 25/119
Bill James Rank: 91
Top 10s: ERA 3 times. ERA+ 3 times. Wins 4 times with 2 firsts. Win% 3 times with 1 first. Ks 4 times. IP 5 times with 2 firsts. WHIP 4 times. H/9 4 times. K/9 3 times. BB/9: 4 times.
   14. Kelly in SD Posted: November 23, 2004 at 08:35 AM (#978872)
Is Grimes this year’s shiny new toy?
Grimes vs. Faber

Grimes won 16 more games and lost 1 fewer.
Faber had a better ERA by .37 runs.
They had basically the same K/W ratio: Grimes 1.17 to Faber’s 1.21.
Faber allowed about one half a baserunner fewer per 9 innings: 11.71 to 12.29
Faber had 6 more career win shares.
Faber had 21 more win shares in his best 3 consecutive seasons
Grimes had 18 more win shares in his best 7 any seasons.
Grimes averaged half a win share more per 40games
Grimes had 20 or more win shares 7 times vs. Faber’s 4
Grimes had 25 or more win shares 4 times vs. Faber’s 3
Both had 30 or more win shares 2 times.
Grimes was league all-star 6 times by win shares, 5 times by STATS
Faber was league all-star 2 times by win shares, 2 times by STATS
Grimes never led the majors in win shares, his league 1 time
Faber led the majors 2 times in win shares and his league 2 times
Grimes leads in Fibonacci Win Points 209-179
Faber leads in ERA+ 119 to 107
Grimes has more Black Ink 38 - 22
Grimes has more Grey Ink 212 – 161
Top 10s:
ERA: Faber has 7 with 2 firsts, Grimes has 6 with 2 firsts
ERA+: Grimes has 6 with 1 first, Faber has 5 with 2 firsts
Wins: Grimes has 11 with 2 firsts, Faber has 7 with NO firsts
Winning%: Grimes has 7 with 1 first, Faber has 5 with NO firsts
Strikeouts: Grimes has 8 with 1 first, Faber has no apps
Innings Pitched: Grimes has 10 with 3 firsts, Faber has 4 with 1first
WHIP: Faber has 6 with 2 firsts, Grimes had 5 with NO firsts
K/9: Grimes has 8 with 1 first, Faber has no apps.
Walks/9: Faber has 8, Grimes has 1
H/9: Grimes has 5, Faber has 4 with 1 first.

Similarity Scores:
They are each others most similar pitcher with a score of 926.

Win Shares year by year
RFaber 37 31 25 21 17 16 16 15 15 13 13 12 11 10 09 07 07 06 06 05
Grimes 32 30 29 25 23 21 21 19 16 15 15 11 09 06 04 04 03 02 01

WARP1
RFaber 16.0 11.4 6.8 6.1 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.0 2.0 1.7
Grimes 10.6 10.3 9.9 7.3 7.3 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.3 4.5 3.6 3.5 3.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4


So all of the voters for Faber, where will you have Grimes? Will Faber’s 2 years of performance dramatically out of context for the rest of his career be seen as better than Grimes’ many years of high level consistency? Faber has the best 2 years, but Grimes is better for the next EIGHT or NINE seasons, before Faber again takes the lead when both pitchers are finishing out the string or just getting their feet wet.
   15. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 23, 2004 at 08:56 AM (#978907)
When is Dick Lundy eligible? i9s has his last year as 1934. He'd be an easy Top 5 pick on my ballot.
   16. Kelly in SD Posted: November 23, 2004 at 08:57 AM (#978909)
When I make my ballot I try to follow this passage from the Politics of Glory, pp. 130-132. I am paraphrasing a bit. I think they are sensible guidelines. What do other people use? What do other people consider?

1. We are looking for the BEST candidate, not merely a qualified candidate.
Ask, is he the best pitcher who is not in the Hall of Merit? is he the best shortstop not in the Hall of Merit? Once the best have been identified, ask who is the Best of the best. Also, care about the Hall of Merit - keep it, its history, and its future in mind.

2. No one argument places a man at that pinnacle. It's the weight of the evidence; it's always the combined weight.

3. The fact that a comparable player is in the Hall of Merit is a point in favor of another candidate.

4. The fact that several comparable players are Hall of Meriters is an important element of proof for any Hall of Merit candidate.

5. It is important, in evaluating a Hall of Merit candidate, to show awareness of comparable players who are NOT in the Hall of Merit.

6. The HIGHEST Common Denominator Argument: This combines 4 and 5. There are many players with comparable records who are in the Hall of Merit, and there are NO players with comparable records who are NOT in the Hall of Merit.

7. The fact that a player meets the statistical standards of previous Hall of Merit selections should be counted in his favor. What standards should do is shift the ground of the argument. Start by asking, "Why should he be in the Hall of Merit?" Then, look at the established standards, if the candidate is at or above them, then ask, "Why shouldn't he be in the Hall of Merit?"

8. If a player is truly in a group of Hall of Meriters - in the middle of the group - that should be counted in his favor.
   17. TomH Posted: November 23, 2004 at 02:07 PM (#979007)
Player description: Stud hitter. Played centerfield, but not very well. Career not very long (essentially done after 11 years), but put up some mean numbers when he played.

Am I discussing Pete Browning, or Hack Wilson?
   18. DanG Posted: November 23, 2004 at 02:18 PM (#979010)
Must be Wilson. Browning played only 41% of his career in CF, playing more as a corner OF.
   19. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2004 at 02:27 PM (#979012)
Best Sam Rice comparison: Baines, Staub, Al Oliver, Steve Finley, Valo, etc?
   20. Chris Cobb Posted: November 23, 2004 at 03:43 PM (#979085)
When is Dick Lundy eligible? i9s has his last year as 1934. He'd be an easy Top 5 pick on my ballot.

Lundy will be eligible in 1943. I9s posts major-league equivalent careers, which means they have made a judgment call about when a player would have dropped below major-league quality play. Our eligibility dates are based on the real careers of Negro-Leaguers, and Lundy was active at the top level of Negro-League competition through 1937.
   21. TomH Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:01 PM (#979114)
Self-analysis. Three guys I have much higher than group consensus (my 1939 ballot position vs composite finish) were:

Brenahan 7 vs 19
McGraw.. 8 vs 28
Chance… 16 vs 35

These three all were great when they played, but missed time most years, and so had very few of the BIG seasons for which many voters give extra credit. I’m not big on the ‘huge year’ thing, and I’ll save my rant for another post, but at least I see where I differ from the majority.
   22. mbd1mbd1 Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:11 PM (#979149)
Anyone got their copy of Win Shares handy? I'm looking for the pitching and hitting breakdowns for Smokey Joe Wood.
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:15 PM (#979157)
So all of the voters for Faber, where will you have Grimes?

Looks like I may have Grimes slightly over where I had Faber by placing him in the eight spot. He gets a little more help in my system for pitching a greater share of his career in the more demanding twenties than Faber; Grimes also had a better extended prime, IMO. Still working on him, so need for anyone to go ballistic on me at this time. :-)
   24. Michael Bass Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#979175)
Faber leads in ERA+ 119 to 107

Add in AL (Faber) vs. NL (Grimes) in this time period and you have a significant difference between the two, at least in my system.


For the record, Luque will not make my ballot though, like Uhle, he will be just off of it. Gave him a little Cuban League credit, but just short of the amount he needed to get.
   25. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#979177)
My initial estimate has Grimes a smidge ahead of Faber, but like most of us I didn't have Faber first last time.
I'll be looking particularly closely once again at the top 10; very important to be as accurate as possible on those this year..
   26. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:29 PM (#979187)
Joe Wood

Year B-F-P
1908 x0.0 x.x x0.6
1909 x0.0 x.x 12.8
1910 x1.4 x.x 12.7
1911 x1.9 x.x 24.5
1912 x3.7 x.x 40.4
1913 x0.9 x.x 12.3
1914 x0.0 x.x x8.5
1915 x1.3 x.x 18.7
1916 DID NOT PLAY
1917 x0.0 x.x x0.6
1918 12.7 3.0 xx.x
1919 x5.2 1.0 x0.3
1920 x3.9 1.0 x0.0
1921 x8.8 1.1 xx.x
1922 14.1 2.1 xx.x

Hopefully that formats okay . . .
   27. Chris Cobb Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:31 PM (#979194)
A very deep pool of new eligibles this year!
Here are initial takes on the notable ones.
Any of these judgments seem way off?

Beckwith: Truly great hitter. Career length an issue. I think he will make my ballot, but a win-shares analysis is definitely needed.

Grimes: Not as good as Rixey. Peak somewhat better, but career not as good. No league-quality issues like those that gave Faber an edge. Will probably make my ballot.

Judge: Nice career. Not going to make my top 40.

Kamm: Great defensive third baseman. Not going to make my ballot.

Luque: Career shape more like Faber's. One monster year, and then lots of good but not great seasons. Not as good as Rixey but probably makes the ballot. Above or below Grimes? No idea yet.

Malarcher: Good player, but didn't hit enough to be a serious candidate. A lot like Oliver Marcelle and Willie Kamm.

Pennock: Nice career. Not near my ballot.

Rice: Excellent career. Lack of any peak worth mentioning will keep him off my ballot.

Rogan: Initial view: OPS+ 110 -115, ERA+ 103 to 113, all at the same time. Wouldn't be a HoMer as a hitter only or as a pitcher only, but as both, he's probably going to be #1 on my ballot this year.

Uhle: Couple of big years, yes, very good hitter, yes. As good as Carl Mays? Latest WARP thinks so. Probably won't make my ballot, but definitely deserves a longer look than I originally thought.

Wilson: Very nice peak, but not enough career to get close to my ballot.
   28. TomH Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#979198)
A tale of two players, Rock and Electric.
Both played similar positions, same league, same time, similar defensive value.

Rock played 12 years, during 10 of which he practically never missed a game. He had one major injury which cost him a year and a half, but in the end didn’t affect his abilities.

Electric played 15 years, and often battled injuries and ailments. In the end, he accumulated the same # of games and plate appearances as Rock, but it was spread out over a longer period.

Career stats ..AB OBA SLG EqA OWP RCAP WS WARP3
THE ROCK 6400 .360 …480 .300 .650 .300 ..280 ..75
ELECTRIC. 6400 .370 …480 .306 .665 .328 ..289 ..78

Lining up their seasons in decreasing order of Win Shares, we get
THE ROCK 34 32 31 29 28 25 23 23 21 19 15
ELECTRIC 30 28 28 27 23 20 20 20 17 16 14 14 12 11 9

By this, it sure looks like ROCK had a much better peak and prime. But did he? NO HE DID NOT. He played more, so yes he had more valuable years to his team (except for the injury year); but by rate stats he was actually a bit worse. ELECTRIC was at least as good when he played, but his teams had to make up for his missed time with backup players, who surely generated a few wins for their team in his absence.

Who was the better player?

ELECTRIC had better rate stats, AND more career total value. ROCK had more big years.

Those of you who play sim games like Scoresheet or DMB, don’t you value the guys who play stupendously, even if they miss some time; in the 1950s, Whitey Ford who didn’t lead in IP, but led in ERA? Ted Williams who only had 520 PA but out-OPSed the world? In the 1990s, Barry Larkin, or a great ace reliever (Mariano) who could do more for your team in 75 IP than many others in 200? Yes, there is a cost of being on the roster, but I think it is MUCH lower than our group has effectively made it.

I find this whole thing of ‘best consecutive 5 years of WS’ or highest WARP seasons a bit off track. ‘Best seasons of RCAP’ might be much better. Many guys had very valuable years playing 130 games, and will miss the R/RBI/RC/WS/WARP/RSAA leader boards; but in terms of what they contributed to their clubs when they played, just assuming a Little bit of production when they were out, I think we as a group are underrating them.

And so, I beg a group look at the triumvirate of Chance/Bresnahan/McGraw this ballot. Ya know, maybe there are good reasons they are each in the Hall of Fame….

End of rant. Responses cordially accepted :)
   29. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:54 PM (#979228)
On Grimes, Faber and Rixey . . . the numbers below do not give credit for military service.

Pennants Added, Win Shares (updated for 1940):
Rixey .625
Faber .611
Grimes .607

WSaR
Rixey 188
Faber 182
Grimes 175

WS
Rixey 329
Faber 310
Grimes 308

RSI record (included defense adjustment)
Rixey 280-237 (195 Fib. wins)
Faber 256-213 (183)
Grimes 255-227 (163)

WARP3
Faber 78.3
Rixey 67.9
Grimes 62.0

WARP1
Faber 95.4
Rixey 94.5
Grimes 86.9

So there you have it - the league adjustments coming into play again. I thought things leveled off in the 1920s, but apparently they did not. At least not according to WARP.
   30. mbd1mbd1 Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:58 PM (#979230)
Thanks, Joe.

And I have Grimes pretty much dead even with Faber, which puts him just a bit ahead of Rixey. Grimes, Rogan, and Rice all look to make my ballot. Wilson just misses.
   31. DavidFoss Posted: November 23, 2004 at 04:59 PM (#979231)
Player description: Stud hitter. Played centerfield, but not very well. Career not very long (essentially done after 11 years), but put up some mean numbers when he played.

Hack Wilson was an interesting player. John McGraw had given up on him. I think in Bill James managerial spotlight on Joe McCarthy, James wrote that McCarthy knew that Wilson needed constant reassurance and was able to get more out of Wilson that most other managers. Wilson's peak certainly did coincide with McCarthy's tenure with the Cubs.

I have Wilson similar to Cravath & Browning. High peak guys who have been on my ballot before (though not last year).
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:00 PM (#979233)
Tom - in most sim leagues you get to play a guy 110% or 115% of what he actually played. In that case obviously you go for the better rate stats.

If forced to use a player at his regular usage, it would boil down to my chances of making the playoffs. If it were a league where only one team in each league made the playoffs, I'd tend to go for steady Eddie. In a league where 1/3 of the teams make the playoffs, I'd go for the guy with the higher rate stats, because I'll likely be able to use him full-time in the post-season, and my odds of getting their despite his missing time are higher.

This is similar to a Jeter or Nomar question.

Since they've both been in the league, Nomar has generally been the better player when playing - but Jeter has been much more valuable (and the player I'd rather have 1997-2004) because he's been on the field more. In that case, Nomar's been out so much that even having him for the post-season isn't enough to make me change my mind, but generally that's how I'd make the decision.
   33. karlmagnus Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:01 PM (#979236)
Wilson, Rogan and Rice look like being the 3 of this year's large bunch that make my ballot, Wilson highest at #7. Wilson's hitting stats are like Heilmann's, because he knew how to take a walk, and in 1930 they aseem to have pitched him like Barry Bonds (103BB) and he STILL got 190 RBI. He's Jennings/McGraw/Bresnahan, but with a truly historic peak, which they didn't have.

Rice is Beckley minus, but we should have elected Beckley 20 years ago so he's a decent candidate.
   34. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:04 PM (#979240)
mbd1mbd1 . . . no problem.

I suppose I could see ranking Faber ahead of Rixey based on their peaks (not that there is a huge difference there) and the fact that Faber played in the better league apparently . . .

But how can you have Grimes even with Faber or ahead of Rixey? Grimes comes in last on every metric. Easily in most cases.

Rixey played for some terrible teams - his ERA+ is 115 over 4500 IP, compared to Grimes 107 over 4200 IP. I just don't see how it's possible, unless raw W-L is the only criteria.
   35. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:10 PM (#979242)
Hack Wilson had a truly historic peak Karl?

We're talking 3 seasons of 30 Win Shares, topping out at 37 if you adjust for schedule length. Jennings had 5 seasons of 30, 2 at 36 and 1 at 44.

Electing Wilson would be like electing George Foster. Actually, it'd probably be worse.
   36. PhillyBooster Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:10 PM (#979244)
Grimes will definitely not make my ballot. My top pitchers for the era are 1. Faber 2.Rixey 3. Luque 4.Vance/Coveleski. To get to a sixth pitcher, I think I'd need evidence that pitching was extra-important in that era. I don't think I'll find that evidence for the 1920s.
   37. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:11 PM (#979248)
"Jennings had 5 seasons of 30, 2 at 36 and 1 at 44."

Just to clarify that's 5 total seasons above 30 for Jennings, two of which were at 36 and one of which was at 44.
   38. karlmagnus Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:12 PM (#979252)
Raw W/L is the only criterion (actually not true, but for me it's at least 50% oweighting in the decision.) And Wilson's RBI record gets huge points from me -- Ichiro may finally have taken out Sisler after 84 years, but I don't see anyone making a run at 190 RBI any time soon.

As you know, I'm suspicious of sabermertic formulae, which frequently introduce rather than remove inaccuracies. I think this group pays too little attention to old-fashioned numbers like RBI or W/L that, to the players concerned, were what they lived by.
   39. DavidFoss Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:14 PM (#979253)
He's Jennings/McGraw/Bresnahan, but with a truly historic peak, which they didn't have.

Even without any league adjustment (which I don't like here anyways), Heilmann's peak is actually higher than Wilson's. Heilmann's got the edge in career rate numbers as well.

Wilson does have a great peak, but a great peak in the outfield is not as uncommon as a great peak in the infield. Cravath & Browning are not bad comps.
   40. mbd1mbd1 Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:19 PM (#979263)
Joe - It was a razor thin margin....I had Grimes a spot or two ahead of Rixey. Then I realized I was using the old W3 for Grimes and the new (lower) W3 for Faber and Rixey. Now I'd put Grimes a couple of spots behind Rixey. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.....
   41. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:38 PM (#979302)
Karl, the National League averaged 5.68 runs per team per game in 1930.

Even in our booming offense era, the NL averaged 4.64 this year. Hack Wilson played in one of the greatest RBI environments ever.
   42. ronw Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:50 PM (#979330)
Making my ballot: Grimes, Beckwith, Rice, maybe Luque.

Herb Pennock has a personal tie to my family, as my grandfather still tells stories about playing cards with Pennock in Philadelphia. He says that Herb was a very nice man. He still won't make my ballot.

Joe Judge is surprisingly underrated. Judge had even less of a peak than fellow low-peak, long-career Senators like Sam Rice or Clyde Milan.

Griffith Stadium was murder on Senators players. Perhaps Goose Goslin and Joe Cronin were the only Senators players to really have a peak. However, the Senators did seem to have an abundance of long-career, low-peak guys. With Rice and Judge up this year, I started to wonder if it was the players, or if something is amiss with the stadium evaluations. It seems like too much of a coincidence.

From 1901-1940, the Senators had four 30+ win shares players, in 8 seasons. Only once did a Senators player reach 35 win shares.

Here are the players:

1902 - Delahanty - 31
1925 - Goslin - 31
1926 - Goslin - 33
1930 - Cronin - 33
1931 - Cronin - 35
1932 - Cronin - 31
1933 - Cronin - 34
1935 - Myer - 33

Do our sabermetric systems adequately rate long-career players who play in poor hitters parks?
   43. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:51 PM (#979331)
Karl,

Lineups at the time were also geared for Big RBI men. As Bill James explains in the NBJHBA, there were more 'leadoff' type guys, fast guys without power at the tops of lineups. Today, even the #1 and 2 hitters hit 15-20 home runs, could you see Stan Hack (or whomever) having the power of even a Derek Jeter? Thus, while there were still plenty of runs, the big home run hitters of the era got higher RBI totals than their raw numbers should indicate, becuase they were the only ones with extra base power. That we are at the tail end of maybe the greatest run scoring era ever and the all-time single season RBI list is dominated by players from Wilson's era should tell you something.

Though, I still like Wilson.
   44. Daryn Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:56 PM (#979343)
I'll go first with a prelim. Beckwith and maybe Judge could make my top 30.


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. Joe Rogan – I think he is pretty funny on Fear Factor. A unique talent. As Cobb points out (our Cobb) his great conditioning probably allowed him to be a more effective two way player than anyone in history. Probably should be Number 1.

3. Sam Rice – clearly better than Beckley, almost better than Welch. Much closer to 1 than 4 here.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Burleigh Grimes – takes Faber’s spot on my ballot. I like the wins, don’t like the ERA+. Welch-lite.

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

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

12. Eppa Rixey – I’ve moved him down a bit – as I trust the consensus on pitchers relative to each other in cases where I don’t feel I have a good sense of it. Nonetheless, HOM worthy.

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

14. Joe Sewell – I’m assuming he was pretty good on defense.

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

16. 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.

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

18. 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. Nine pitchers in my top 18.

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

20. Hack Wilson – all peak, no career. Lip Pike lite.
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2004 at 05:57 PM (#979348)
Karl, the National League averaged 5.68 runs per team per game in 1930.

Even in our booming offense era, the NL averaged 4.64 this year. Hack Wilson played in one of the greatest RBI environments ever.


IOW, Hack was a lucky guy that year. :-)
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: November 23, 2004 at 06:06 PM (#979369)
I am just realizing that this year's ballot will be terribly complicated by the newcomers. I had quickly looked at it and decided that Rogan and Beckwith are the top two and the only two that will make my ballot.

Then I thought, well, maybe Luque depending on his non-ML work. But probably not.

But while Rogan and Beckwith are probably the only ones to make the ballot, surely there are a bunch of guys who are top 50 caliber and therefore need to be slotted in for eventual backlog consideration (in the 1960s perhaps).

Rice--off the top (no real research here) he looks like Beckley, around #25-30

Grimes--possibly like Rixey, maybe anywhere from #10-25 until I get a better fix

Judge, Uhle and Pennock--no, not top 50

Hack Wilson--with his high peak, which I like, he should be in Dobie Moore territory down around #15

But like I said I don't really think any of them will make my ballot.

Also count me as believers in the Shiny New Toy theory. I mean, we've always had a shiny new toy thing going here. Not to say that Sewell or Faber was overrated, just "new"-rated. But the real proof is Jack Quinn, IMO.

Now maybe the new toy phenomenon is just a case of timelining, but how much timeline is there, really, from 1936 to 1939? Not that much. So that leaves some shiny new toy effect, too.

I think part of it is also restlessness. I admit to some restlessness. IOW I am not happy to just leave my ballot alone week to week, year to year, players are always bouncing around. And new players to pick from facilitate that constant re-evaluation. Some voters don't do that, your ballot stays very constant year to year. But for others that shiny new name is another reason and another way to stay immersed in all of this a little bit deeper.

Anyway, thanks all for the info on Rogan and Beckwith, now I gotta focus more just on the MLers, but for right now today (* is a PHoMer):

1. Jennings*
2. Rogan--PHoM 1940
3. Bond*
4. Sisler*
5. Pike*--flip flops with Pike (for today)
6. Waddell*
7. Sewell
(7a. Zack Wheat--right now it's either he or Sewell for the other PHoM slot 1940)
8. D. Moore--continuing to march upward
9. C. Jones*
10. Williamson*
(10a. Faber--best HoM/not PHoM pitcher)

11. McCormick--big jump back up as a result of moving Mendez and Redding down
12. Doyle--moves ahead of Childs (for today)
13. Bancroft--Joe D. is right, this guy was immensely valuable, not just a friend of Frankie
14. Monroe or Beckwith--defense or offense???
15. Roush or Browning
(15a. Joe Kelley--still kickin' around)

18-20. H. Wilson, Rixey, Redding
(20a. Sheckard, Sutton, Hill, Keeler, Stovey all still kickin' around and roughly comparable in this range. Very possible PHoMers someday.)

(eventual in/out line about here???)

21-25. Childs*, Mendez and/or Griffith and/or Grimes, Duffy
26-30. Veach, Leach, Bresnahan, Poles, Luque
31-35. Welch, Van Haltren, Beckley, Sam Rice, Tinker or one of about a half dozen pitchers who probably belong here or higher but I can't keep 'em straight!
   47. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 23, 2004 at 06:07 PM (#979371)
Also, concerning out lack of player from the 1890's, I dont' think the problem is that we are underrating them. I mentioned in my ballot taht I think we are just championing different candidates. Griffith, Jennings, Childs, Beckley, Duffy, GVH, and to a lesser extent Jimmy Ryan all recieve strong support.

This is in contrast to the 1920's where our arguments tend ot be yes/no instead of either or. Check out the sewell discussion in his thread. Those comparing him to Long and Bancroft arent' really championing the latter two as much as taking down the former.

For the 1890's the discussion tends to be career guys like GVH or Beckley, or peak guys like Childs and Jennings, or for a 4th pitcher, Griffith. Everyone thinks there should be more players from the 1890's, but since there is a divided electorate concerning which players, no one gets in.

My solution? We should all vote for Childs and Jennings in 1940! If you don't it is because you are timelinging too much and like shiny new toys! ;-)
   48. jingoist Posted: November 23, 2004 at 06:08 PM (#979372)
First time poster; long time reader.
I find the construction of the HoM a fascinating process. As a layman who is not up-to-speed with how some of the mathmatical models such as WARP3 are developed and applied I find that I rely on WinShares, OPS+ and ERA+ to agree/differ with poster logic when presenting arguments for and against various candidates.
This year Sam Rice seems to be the kind of candidate who gives the electorate fits: long career of steady production; no significant peak. Especially troubling if the candidate is and OF as Sam was.
Good luck with all your future efforts HoM electors; I'll be eagerly watching your votes!
   49. ronw Posted: November 23, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#979509)
Interesting follow up to my question:

Are we underrating long-career players who play in poor hitters parks?

AL players with 40+ WS in one season 1901-1940:

NYY - 10 (Ruth 7, Gehrig 3)
Det - 8 (Cobb 8)
PhiA - 5 (ECollins 2, Foxx 2, Lajoie 1)
Clev - 3 (Lajoie 2, Speaker 1)
BosR - 3 (Speaker 2, Ruth 1)
ChiW - 1 (ECollins 1)
Wash - 0
StLB - 0

No brainers all. Conclusion: You get 40+ WS in a season, you are really, really good.

AL players with 30+ WS in a single season 1901-1940:

Det - 35
NYY - 31
PhiA - 25
Clev - 22
BosR - 13
ChiW - 11
Wash - 9
StLB - 4

Players:

Det 35 - (Cobb 12, Crawford 6, Greenberg 5, Heilmann 4, Gehringer 4, Veach 3, McIntyre 1)

NYY 31 - (Gehrig 12, Ruth 11, DiMaggio 4, Dickey 1, Combs 1, Lazzeri 1, Rolfe 1)

PhiA 25 - (ECollins 6, Foxx 6, Baker 4, Simmons 4, Cochrane 2, Lajoie 1, Hartsel 1, Davis 1)

Clev 22 - (Lajoie 6, Speaker 5, Flick 3, Jackson 3, Averill 3, Boudreau 1, Chapman 1)

BosR 13 - (Speaker 6, Foxx 2, Williams 2, Cronin 1, Ruth 1, Stahl 1)

ChiW 11 - (ECollins 4, Jackson 4, Felsch 2, FJones 1)

Wash 9 - (Cronin 4, Goslin 2, Delahanty 1, Myer 1, Milan 1)

StLB 4 - (Sisler 1, Stone 1, Williams 1, Manush 1)

Apparently, Washington was better than St. Louis. Maybe it was not the park, as Sportsmans was hitter-friendly. Conclusion: Most are no brainers. Anyone with more than 4 is a no-brainer.

I'll look at the NL later, unless someone beats me too it.
   50. OCF Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:17 PM (#979576)
Some of my context-adjusted RCAA-related numbers for various candidates. There are four numbers here. The first is essentially context-adjusted RCAA, in units that are something like wins. The second is a "big years bonus" that makes each additional run above average more valuable than the one before, within a season. The third is like the first except that the baseline is set at 75% of average rather than average. The fourth is some kind of composite of the three.

First, some centerfielders:

Van Haltren   40   21   67  138
Duffy         38   25   62  136
Ryan          36   20   64  131
H. Wilson     36   28   52  130
Roush         37   21   60  129
Thomas        37   23   55  127
(Carey        31   13   58  109)
F. Jones      31   13   54  104

Then some flank outfielders. I have enough doubts about Wilson's defense, that I'm more inclined to see how he rates with this group.

Tiernan       41   29   61  146
Burns         34   25   57  128
Cravath       36   27   49  126
Browning      37   22   48  122
Youngs        33   25   47  118
Hartsel       35   21   50  117
Hooper        31   13   60  111
Rice          32   11   62  111
Veach         30   18   52  109

Approximate conclusions: Rice = Hooper, and I haven't been voting for Hooper. Hack Wilson = Gavy Cravath without the minor league back story. Ross Youngs is another one to compare to Wilson.
   51. OCF Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:22 PM (#979587)
The player who does have a shot at my ballot ... is, oddly enough, George Uhle.

In the RA+ system, I have Uhle's three best years as 24-12 (1926), 23-17 (1923), and 17-9 (1930). His overall equivalent record works out to 186-160. Now that's valuable. If I'm a GM, I want this guy. But it puts him somewhere between Nap Rucker and Rube Marquard. There are too many pitchers like that for me to vote for any of them.
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#979601)
My solution? We should all vote for Childs and Jennings in 1940! If you don't it is because you are timelinging too much and like shiny new toys! ;-)

:-D
   53. OCF Posted: November 23, 2004 at 07:41 PM (#979637)
Lineups at the time were also geared for Big RBI men. As Bill James explains in the NBJHBA, there were more 'leadoff' type guys, fast guys without power at the tops of lineups. Today, even the #1 and 2 hitters hit 15-20 home runs, could you see Stan Hack (or whomever) having the power of even a Derek Jeter?

Well, if you look specifically at the 1930 Cubs, Woody English hit 14 HR. I'd guess from the R and RBI that English batted leadoff and Kiki Cuyler batted 3rd. English had an XBH line of 36-17-14, while Cuyler was 50-17-13. What Wilson had going for him wasn't so much that fact that Cuyler left all the runs for him to drive in (Cuyler did have 134 RBI himself) but that there were just so many baserunners everywhere. English reached base 320 times and Cuyler 310 times. The team had an OBP of .374, which means a high rate of lineup turnover and lots of opportunities for everyone.

One other slight enhancement: Cuyler was the team's only base stealer, with 37 SB. Add that to 67 doubles and triples, and Wilson had a huge number of opportunities with RISP. Wilson did draw a career-high 105 BB, suggesting that some teams did pitch to him carefully, but he still got plenty of opportunities.

Of course it looks like the Cubs batted their worst-hitting regular, Footsie Blair with his .306 OBP, in the #2 spot. I guess he must have had "bat control" and made "productive outs."
   54. ronw Posted: November 23, 2004 at 08:24 PM (#979754)
NL players with 40+ WS in one season 1900-1940:

Pitt - 6 (Wagner 6)
StLC - 3 (Hornsby 2, Medwick 1)
NYG - 1 (Hornsby 1)
ChiC - 1 (Hornsby 1)
Cin - 1 (Seymour 1)

Our first 40+WS season by a non-HOMer or non-future HOMer. Seymour's 1905 has to rank as the biggest fluke season ever.

NL players with 30+ WS in a single season 1900-1940:

Pitt - 29
NYG - 24
StLC - 16
ChiC - 15
Phil - 11
Broo - 8
Cin - 7
BosB - 4

Pitt 29 - (Wagner 13, PWaner 6, Vaughan 6, Cuyler 1, Clarke 1, Leach 1, Beaumont 1)

NYG 24 - (Ott, 8, Burns 3, Frisch 3, Donlin 2, Terry 2, Hornsby 1, Lindstrom 1, Doyle 1, Kauff 1, Youngs 1, Bancroft 1)

StLC 16 - (Hornsby 6, Medwick 3, Mize 3, Frisch 1, Bottomley 1, RCollins 1, Burkett 1)

ChiC 15 - (Wilson 3, Chance 2, Hornsby 1, Steinfeldt 1, Tinker 1, Hofman 1, Schulte 1, Sheckard 1, Zimmerman 1, Galan 1, BiHerman 1, Hack 1)

PhilP 11 - (Magee 3, Flick 2, Klein 2, Delahanty 1, Thomas 1, Cravath 1, O'Doul 1)

Broo 8 - (Wheat 2, Sheckard 2, Lumley 1, Fournier 1, BaHerman 1, O'Doul 1)

Cin 7 - (Roush 3, Groh 2, Seymour 1, Lobert 1)

BosB 4 - (Berger 3, Hornsby 1)

The NL seems to have had many more flash in the pan players. Still, everyone over 3 on this list is a no-brainer. This little exercise has also shown me that perhaps the WARP league quality calculation may not be that far off.
   55. ronw Posted: November 23, 2004 at 08:26 PM (#979760)
For those really interested here's the Federal League:

FL players with 40+ WS in a single season:

None

FL players with 30+ WS in a single season:

BroF - 2 (Kauff, Evans)
IndF - 1 (Kauff)
KCF - 1 (Kenworthy)
ChiF - 1 (Zwilling)
   56. Mike Webber Posted: November 23, 2004 at 08:51 PM (#979827)
I have always suspected that Beckwith was a very poor fielder.

If you have read much about the Negro leagues, you will see it repeated over and over that nearly every player was a tremendous fielder. And while that seems crazy, in a way it is probably true, after all Eric Hinske would probably be one of the best fielding AA third basemen, and would look amazingly good if he was playing down the street from you in the local Babe Ruth League.

With the mixed quality of the Negro Leagues, where there were everything from Inner Circle HOM guys on the same field as what might be generously described as NAIA All-Stars, its undoubtedly true that when people saw Newt Allen or Dick Lundy they stuck out like sore thumbs as defensive players.

So, why would I suspect that Beckwith was poor? No one ever raves about his defense. If everyone else is raved about and you are omitted, well that is a loud silence.

He was a big athletic guy, that played catcher, outfield and third. Just like Jimmie Foxx, or maybe Cliff Johnson or Earl Williams or Gil Hodges. Or Dick Allen, who could play third when he was a skinny kid, but not after age 26 or so.
   57. Buddha Posted: November 23, 2004 at 09:13 PM (#979872)
I love George Uhle. He's about the best thing on my 1925 DMB team. Of course, he's headed for another last place finish, but that's not his fault...

Speaking of which, I think we still need some more GMs if anyone is interested.
   58. Howie Menckel Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:08 AM (#980210)
ALL-TIME PTS LEADERS
1. LIP PIKE 12,903
2. Sam Thompson 12,349
3. Charlie Bennett 11,503
4. Bob Caruthers 10,704
5. HUGH DUFFY 10,392
6. G VAN HALTREN 10,316.5
7. HUGHIE JENNINGS 9917
8. Harry Stovey 9576
9. JAKE BECKLEY 9465
10. PETE BROWNING 9446.5

ACTIVE LEADERS
1. LIP PIKE 12,903
2. HUGH DUFFY 10,392
3. G VAN HALTREN 10,316.5
4. HUGHIE JENNINGS 9917
5. JAKE BECKLEY 9465
6. PETE BROWNING 9446.5
7. JIMMY RYAN 9165
8. CLARK GRIFFITH 7782
9. RUBE WADDELL 7764
10. CUPID CHILDS 7165
(Welch 6990, Bresnahan 5018, Williamson 3935, C Jones 3758, Leach 3618, McCormick 3060)
   59. jimd Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:18 AM (#980227)
Hmmm, Deacon White just died. So who is the oldest living HoMer now?

Deacon White was the oldest of the original 4 elected in 1898, but lost the title when George Wright was elected in 1901 (10+ months older).

At his election 1912, Joe Start became the Oldest Living HOMer until his death in 1927 at the age of 84. George Wright then re-assumed the title until his death in 1937 at the age of 90 (he was elected to that other Hall the same year, though I couldn't tell you the ordering of the two events).

White has enjoyed the status for the past 22+ months, and now passes the title to Jack Glasscock, who celebrated his 80th birthday 15 days after the Deacon's passing.

(Is there a good source online for Negro Leagues birthdates/deathdates? I don't have them in the Lahman database.)
   60. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:32 AM (#980254)
How can I put data in a table format for a post here? I tried using table generators and they wouldn't work.
   61. OCF Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:37 AM (#980265)
James - the simplest thing is to use the "pre" tag. Compose your table in a text editor or word processor, but make sure you use a monospaced font (like Courier) and position your elements using spaces, not tabs. Then put (<)pre(>) before your table and (<)pre(/)(>) after it, only without the parentheses.
   62. DavidFoss Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:42 AM (#980270)
Yup... save your post in a .txt file before you enter it into the box as well... so you don't lose it.

Also, use the "Preview Your Comment" link first. A few times I've posted unreadable garbage and it was very frustrating and embarrassing for me.
   63. jimd Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:52 AM (#980288)
(<)pre(/)(>)

Does that work? (It doesn't with italics.)

I usually use (<)(/)pre(>)
   64. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 24, 2004 at 12:59 AM (#980295)
Before 2004, 29 pitchers in baseball history have pitched at least 3000 innings or had 200 support-neutral Wins after their age-28 season. (I also added Dazzy Vance, who fell just short on both counts, giving us a group of 30 pitchers.)

Player      ERA+     snW      snL     snWPCT    RSAA      IP
Grove       149      249      111      .692     593     3223.0
Johnson     135      227      135      .627     276     3136.0
Alexander   136      283      149      .655     417     3851.0
Young       135      395      222      .640     551     5500.1
Keefe       129      212      132      .616     242     3068.2
Spahn       126      310      227      .577     266     4556.2
Gibson      128      207      121      .631     284     3022.0
LUQUE       123      209      153      .577     201     3124.0
Faber       121      221      163      .576     218     3400.2
Seaver      121      194      140      .581     220     3141.2
Perry       120      293      203      .591     307     4573.2
Radbourne   121      247      168      .595     205     3736.0
Plank       125      251      165      .603     223     3599.0
Rixey       116      211      167      .558     164     3328.0
Ryan        116      240      199      .547     154     3933.1
McGinnity   118      230      158      .593     238     3441.0
Sutton      114      207      177      .539     108     3524.2
Wynn        112      224      188      .544     120     3497.0
Quinn       113      230      173      .571     212     3406.0
John        110      200      173      .536     88      3331.2
Niekro      110      331      249      .571     320     5264.1
Hutchison   109      195      150      .565     156     3061.0
Carlton     109      223      174      .562     169     3606.0
Hough       107      216      187      .536     103     3548.2
Koosman     106      188      165      .533     145     3100.1
Newsom      104      192      173      .526     95      3244.1
Kaat        102      179      160      .528     59      3015.1
M. Brown    141      215      106      .670     260     2759.0
Hubbell     134      209      125      .626     288     2957.0
Vance       127      197      136      .592     258     2933.1


Out of this group of 30, Luque ranks 12th in ERA+ at 123. All 11 pitchers ahead of him are in the HOM or are first-ballot selections when they become eligible. The next eight pitchers on the list are in the HOM or will be serious candidates for induction when they become eligible. The ten closest to Luque in ERA+:

Tim Keefe* 129
Bob Gibson 128
Dazzy Vance 127
Warren Spahn 126
Eddie Plank* 125
DOLF LUQUE 123
Red Faber* 121
Tom Seaver 121
Gaylord Perry 120
Old Hoss Radbourne* 120
Joe McGinnity* 118

Out of this group of 30, Luque is tied with Carl Hubbell for 20th in snW. Sixteen of the 19 pitchers ahead of him are in the HOM or serious candidates for induction. The three who I have questions about are Jack Quinn, Early Wynn and Charlie Hough. Three of the next five behind Luque are first-ballot HOMers and the others are Don Sutton and Tommy John:

Red Faber* 221
Charlie Hough 216
T.F. Brown* 215
Tim Keefe* 212
Eppa Rixey 211
DOLF LUQUE 209
Carl Hubbell 209
Bab Gibson 207
Don Sutton 207
Dazzy Vance 200
Tommy John 200

Out of this group of 30, Luque is tied with Warren Spahn for 15th in snWPCT. The ten closest pitchers to Luque:

Joe McGinnity* .593
Dazzy Vance .592
Gaylord Perry .591
Tom Seaver .581
DOLF LUQUE .577
Warren Spahn .577
Red Faber* .576
Phil Niekro .571
Jack Quinn .571
Bill Hutchison .565
Steve Carlton .562

All statistics from The Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia.
   65. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 01:04 AM (#980304)
When is Dick Lundy eligible? i9s has his last year as 1934. He'd be an easy Top 5 pick on my ballot.

1943. I9s sometimes shortens careers if the player's MLE's seem to be below major league quality at at that point.
   66. jimd Posted: November 24, 2004 at 01:09 AM (#980311)
Jack Glasscock, who celebrated his 80th birthday

BTW, Mickey Welch is still alive and 22 days older than Jack.
   67. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 24, 2004 at 01:21 AM (#980334)
I just noticed that Lefty O'Doul was eligible. What are the details on his minor-league career?
   68. OCF Posted: November 24, 2004 at 01:40 AM (#980357)
jimd (#63): my typo, slash in the wrong place. Since James's table has appeared, we'll assume he got the correct message.

James: interesting. My only issues with it are that "after age 28" may not be that useful an idea. For many of the pitchers on that list, this is nearly all of their careers (McGinnity, Niekro, Brown, Vance) or it is by far the best part of their careers (Gibson, Faber, Spahn, Hubbell). You can't take a pitcher's "old" record and extrapolate it forward to create a "young" record; career paths vary too much to do that.
   69. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 02:07 AM (#980380)
Newbie Evaluation:

Hack Wilson, CF. .685 OWP! 325 RCAP! Only 5,556 PA's. Defense: POOR.

Similar to Pete Browning, only not quite as dominate offensively. Will be around 11th on my ballot.


John Beckwith, 3B/SS. Perhaps THE BEST hitting 3B in the NeLgs. Defense: POOR. Defense probably makes him around the 4th best Negro League 3rd baseman. Very close to making ballot at #15.


Dolph Luque, P. 3,221 IP. 189 RSAA. 173 Neutral Fibonacci Points. 117 ERA+. Very close to making ballot with slight credit for Cuban Leagues.


Alejandro Oms, RF. Maybe considered the equal of Torriente as a hitter, but not as a fielder. Around 4th best Negro League RFer. Just off of ballot.


Sam Rice, RF. .572 OWP. -2 RCAP (Ruth effect). 10,245 PA's. Defense: VERY GOOD. Comp is Harry Hooper. Will not make ballot.


Burleigh Grimes, P. 4,180 IP. Only 129 RSAA. 175 Neutral Fibonacci Points. 107 ERA+. Below the other contemporary high inning guys. Not even that close to Quinn. Will not make ballot.


Joe Judge, 1B. .572 OWP. 40 RCAP. 9,170 PA's. Defense: AVERAGE. Comp is Jake Daubert. Will not make ballot.


Willie Kamm, 3B. .476 OWP. 93 RCAP. 6,935 PA's. Defense: EXCELLENT! Comp is Larry Gardner. Will not make ballot.


Marty McManus, 2B/3B. .488 OWP. 115 RCAP. 7,563 PA's. Defense: VERY GOOD. Below Childs, Monroe & Doyle. Will not make ballot.


Dave Malarcher, 3B. Probably around the 5th or 6th best Negro League 3rd baseman. Will not make ballot.


George Uhle, P. 3,119 IP. 84 RSAA. 119 Neutral Fibonacci Points. 105 ERA+. Even his very good hitting won't get him on the ballot.


Herb Pennock, P. 3,558 IP. 74 RSAA. 134 Neutral Fibonacci Points. 106 ERA+. A worse HOF mistake than Grimes. Will not make ballot.


Dink Mothel, 2B. Below the "elite" group of Negro League 2nd baseman. Will not make ballot.
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: November 24, 2004 at 02:35 AM (#980406)
HOM Pitchers by year
minimum 10 G pitched in that year

1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877 (0)
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890-91 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1892 (7) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (4) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1895 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1896 (2) - Young Nichols
1897-98 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1899-00 (3) - Young Nichols McGinnity
1901 (5) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (5) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster
1903 (6) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown
1904 (7) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown
1905 (8) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh
1906 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh
1907-08 (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson
1909 (7) - Young Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson
1910 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams
1911 (9) - Young Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams Alexander
1912-13 (8) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams Alexander
1914-15 (8) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber
1916 (9) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1917 (6) - Plank Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1918 (4) - Johnson Williams Faber Covaleski
1919-26 (5) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1927 (4) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber
1928 (4) - Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1929 (3) - Williams Alexander Faber
1930-32 (2) - Williams Faber
1933 (1) - Faber

Welch would be 1880-91
Griffith would be 1891 and 1894-1906
Waddell would be 1899-1910
Mendez would be 1908-09 and 1912-25 (roughly)
Redding would be 1911-17 and 1919-30 (roughly)
Rixey would be 1912-17 and 1919-33
Grimes would be 1917-34
Luque would be 1918-34
Uhle would be 1919-34
Pennock would be (1912-15 and 1917 and) 1919-34
   71. OCF Posted: November 24, 2004 at 03:14 AM (#980419)
Rixey...Grimes...Luque...Uhle...Pennock would be...

Grove would be 1925-1941. Hubbell would be 1928-1943. It's not like the late 20's and 30's are going uncovered.
   72. DavidFoss Posted: November 24, 2004 at 03:42 AM (#980429)
Grove would be 1925-1941. Hubbell would be 1928-1943. It's not like the late 20's and 30's are going uncovered.

BFoster 23-37
Paige 27-53

Caruthers is on the list, so Rogan's P-years would be added if he's inducted as well.
   73. Howie Menckel Posted: November 24, 2004 at 03:47 AM (#980434)
OCF and David,
The list of "would-bes" includes only those eligible in this year's election. I think the point was missed.

I should, however, had added:
"Rogan would be 1920-29 (roughly)"
   74. Howie Menckel Posted: November 24, 2004 at 04:00 AM (#980438)
I must say, the 1917 Pirates are up there among the wackier teams I've seen.
51-103 record.
Burleigh Grimes, age 23, goes 3-16, 3.53 ERA and 80 ERA+.
Wilbur Cooper, 17-10, 2.36, 120 ERA+.
Honus Wagner is your 43-year-old part-time 1B-3B.
Max Carey is thriving in CF.
They try a total of 32 batters, including 21-year-old George 'Highpockets' Kelly and a worn-out Wildfire Schulte.
Eight of the nine pitchers are age 23-25, with Frank Miller (10-19) the exception at age 31.
Three managers, including Wagner, with an attendance averaging 2,600 per game.
   75. OCF Posted: November 24, 2004 at 04:03 AM (#980440)
Oh, I got the point, and I knew you were including only this year's eligibles. The comment was really directed to the declining numbers at the end of the long list with which you you started the post. It was just to say that that's not really a gap, that the retirements of Johnson, Alexander, and Coveleski won't in the long run leave us short-handed for the time that follows.
   76. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 05:22 AM (#980466)
1895 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1896 (2) - Young Nichols
1897-98 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1899-00 (3) - Young Nichols McGinnity


Looks like a very strong argument for Griffith to me. I mean, we're not going to suddenly have to consider Stivetts or Cuppy or McMahon or Hutchison or Weyhing if we open the door to Griffith...
   77. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 05:49 AM (#980482)
NEWBIES UPDATED:

Ooops, left off Bullet Joe Rogan:

Bullet Joe Rogan, P/INF. I estimated Rogan's MLE Lifetime OPS+ at 120 over 4,640 PA's. Hopefully someone will come up with an ERA+ to go with that, but based on the info available Rogan will be in my top 5.
   78. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 06:14 AM (#980497)
Is there a discussion thread for Oms? He's better than some of the other outfielders we had threads for....
   79. Paul Wendt Posted: November 24, 2004 at 08:32 AM (#980647)
Kelly #13
Team: Pit 1916-17, Bro 1918-26, NYN 1927, Pit 1928-29, BosN 1930, StLN 1930-31, ChiN 1932-33, StLN 1933-34, Pit 1934, NYA 1934.

make that NYA 1934, Pit 1934.


Kelly #14
Faber leads in ERA+ 119 to 107
. . .
So all of the voters for Faber, where will you have Grimes? Will Faber’s 2 years of performance dramatically out of context for the rest of his career be seen as better than Grimes’ many years of high level consistency? Faber has the best 2 years, but Grimes is better for the next EIGHT or NINE seasons


HOM voters are not so closely aligned with Bill James as you think. Experience tells me that a significant minority considers that ERA+ margin (if not Grimes' 107 in itself) decisive, and support for Grimes will never approach that for Faber.


jingoist #48
First time poster; long time reader.
I find the construction of the HoM a fascinating process. As a layman who is not up-to-speed . . . . Good luck with all your future efforts HoM electors; I'll be eagerly watching your votes!


Well, I have never submitted a ballot and I don't know that it has ever mattered to the outcome. How many outcomes have turned on anyone's vote?

This year Sam Rice seems to be the kind of candidate who gives the electorate fits: long career of steady production; no significant peak. Especially troubling if the candidate is an OF as Sam was.

Sam Rice
- where was he as a youth?
- acc/ something I read for the shadow HOF series organized by sunnyday a few years ago, left field in Griffith Stadium was immense during the time of Goose Goslin and hence Sam Rice. LF Goslin was practically a second centerfielder. (as I read for 1912-1915 LF Max Carey in Forbes Field)


Ron Wargo:
Our first 40+WS season by a non-HOMer or non-future HOMer. [Cy] Seymour's 1905 has to rank as the biggest fluke season ever.

Rash, rash.
   80. Rusty Priske Posted: November 24, 2004 at 02:19 PM (#980804)
PHoM: Sam Rice, George Sisler

Prelim:

1. Mickey Welch
2. Jake Beckley
3. Sam Rice
4. Eppa Rixey
5. Lip Pike
6. George Van Haltren
7. Tommy Leach
8. George Sisler
9. Edd Roush
10. Joe Sewell
11. Harry Hooper
12. Hugh Duffy
13. Cupid Childs
14. Jimmy Ryan
15. Bill Monroe

16-20. Moore, Griffith, Willis, Powell, Rogan
21-25. Doyle, Redding, McCormick, Poles, Mullane
26-30. Burns, White, Gleason, Grimes, Maranville
   81. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 24, 2004 at 03:10 PM (#980831)
Regarding Alejandro Oms.

IIRC from Riley, he left the U.S. in the mid-30s and returned to Cuba where he played the rest of his career. Riley doesn't really say exactly why he left the U.S.

Does anyone know if he left because he was no longer above replacement (as suggested by the i9s projection) or did he leave for other reasons which the projection does not capture?
   82. jhwinfrey Posted: November 24, 2004 at 04:32 PM (#980910)
Here's my preliminary ballot, and first take on the newcomers:

1. Wilber Rogan--Looks like an automatic inductee to me.
2. Mickey Welch
3. Jake Beckley
4. Ben Taylor
5. Burleigh Grimes--Grimes threw a lot of innings, which I value highly.(see Willis & McCormick) I give him the edge over Rixey because he has more gray ink and was clearly better at fielding and hitting. As pitchers, they're very close.

6. Carl Mays
7. Eppa Rixey
8. Tommy Leach
9. Jim McCormick
10. Vic Willis
11. Rabbit Maranville
12. Edd Roush
13. Jack Quinn
14. Jose Mendez
15. Dick Redding

17. Dolf Luque--I give him a little bit of credit for his years in Cuba. He ranks just below Coveleski.

22. John Beckwith--I have him ranked pretty close to Oliver Marcelle. One is great-hit, no-field, the other is good-hit, great-field. I'd probably take Marcelle.

29. George Uhle--Ranks just ahead of Eddie Cicotte. Uhle was a much better hitter than Knuckles.

39. Sam Rice--Similar to Bobby Veach. Veach was the better fielder, but Rice had a longer career.

40. Herb Pennock--I have him just ahead of Urban Shocker. Pennock lasted longer, so he's closer to my ballot.

74. Marty McManus--A slightly longer career than Kamm, with quite a bit more gray ink.

79. Willie Kamm--Not all that bad.

85. Hack Wilson--A great hitter, but not for very long. Just not my kind of player.

91. Joe Judge--A long career, but not the most productive one. I have him ranked just below Fielder Jones.

Riggs Stephenson & George Grantham rank just outside of my top 100.
   83. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 24, 2004 at 05:14 PM (#980961)
FWIW:

OPS+s for different pitchers who pitched around this time:

86 George Uhle
82 Carl Mays
61 Wilbur Cooper
58 Burleigh Grimes
55 Urban Shocker
54 Dolf Luque
50 Babe Adams
31 Herb Pennock
31 Earl Whitehill
29 Jack Quinn
22 Eppa Rixey
21 Waite Hoyt
20 Lee Meadows
13 Jesse Haines
10 Red Faber
10 Dazzy Vance
9 Stan Coveleski 


Grimes wasn't a first-tier hitter, but he's definately a best-of-the-rest'er.
   84. Paul Wendt Posted: November 24, 2004 at 05:30 PM (#980978)
140 games were scheduled in 1900-1903 and 1919, 132 in 1893-1897, and about 126 games were played in 1918. By simple extension and projection, these player-seasons should be added to lists that Ron Wargo provided in #49 and #54-55 above.

30+ Win Shares projected to 154 games scheduled
Name (YY); * means 40+ Win Shares

1919-1918
- AL
CollinsE (19)
Speaker (19 18)
Hooper (18)
- NL
Youngs (19) - career two?
Groh (18)
Hollocher (18)

1903-1892
- AL
Bradley (03)
Dougherty (03)
CollinsJ (01 NL98 NL97)
- NL
Beaumont (03)
Bresnahan (03)
Clarke (02 01 97) - career four?
Leach (02) - career two?
Wagner (01*)
Burkett (01* 99 96 95*)
Selbach (00)
WilliamsJ (99)
Delahanty ([AL01] 99* 98 96 95 93)
ThomasR (99)
Kelley (99 97 96 95 94)
StahlC (99)
McGraw (99 98)
Jennings (98 97 96* 95)
DavisG (97)
Hamilton (97 96 95 94)
Duffy (94 93)
Keeler (97)
SmithE (96 92)
Childs (96 92)
Dahlen (96 92)
Thompson (95)
Lange (95)
Griffin (95)
Stenzel (95)
Long (93)
Brouthers (92)

That's all for me, here at the first NL monopoly, first 154-game season, and first star of an earlier era.

The "simple" extension and projection uses thresholds
30,40 WS in 1899 98 92
27,36 WS in 1919 03 02 01 00
26,35 WS in 1897 96 95 94 93
25,34 WS in 1918

Bill James uses integers and the "simple" projection must live with that. I think it is reasonable to project 27,26,25 to 30 and 36,35,34 to 40. 27-->30 is favorable to the player, given 10% increase 140-->154 in the schedule, but 26.5-27.5 plus 10% is 29.15-30.25 and 68% of the latter range rounds to 30. The Win Shares roundoff to integers is not uniform because it depends on teammate fractions but let me keep it simple ;-)

33--> is almost as reasonable, in which case give a "40" to Hugh Duffy 1894.
   85. andrew siegel Posted: November 24, 2004 at 05:37 PM (#980986)
Prelim:

(1) Bullet Joe Rogan (new)-- At worst, he was Bob Caruthers as a pitcher and Bid McPhee as a hitter with a career somewhere between 150% and 200% as long as Caruthers. Comfortably in the HoM.

(2) Hughie Jennings (1st)
(3) George Van Haltren (3rd)
(4) Lip Pike (4th)
(5) Cupid Childs (2nd)-- I've downgraded the defensive value of pre-1900 SS's, taking him down a few pegs and Dunlap out of the top 40.
(6) Frank Chance (6th)
(7) Charley Jones (7th)
(8) Hugh Duffy (5th)--Losses coin flips with the two guys above this week.
(9) Eppa Rixey (8th)
(10) Burleigh Grimes (new)-- I think I'm going to be one of his biggest fans. From 1918 to 1931, he was 252-170 with an ERA+ of somewhere around 115. He'd slot here based on those numbers and I'm neither going to penalize nor reward him for his poor 1916-1917 and 1932-1934 numbers.
(11) Edd Roush (10th)-- Slightly better than Carey; jumps Sewell this week.
(12) Joe Sewell (9th)-- Slides ever so slightly b/c/ he doesn't lead Bancroft by quite as much as I'd thought.
(13) Vic Willis (11th)-- Very similar to Grimes and Faber.
(14) Dobie Moore (14th)
(15) George Sisler (off)-- Had an historic peak according to early Sabermetric measures (including TPR and early version of James's offensive metrics), so why the sudden drop off in his assessment by the newer generations of Sabermetric measures (WS, WARP, etc.)?

John Beckwith is still under consideration though I suspect that his defense would not have allowed him to play a key defensive position in the majors. He'll proably end up in the low twenties.

When park, era, and defense are factored in, Hack Wilson's peak wasn't good enough to make the ballot with his career numbers. He ranks slightly behind Crvaath and Tiernan for me, so somewhere around 35.

None of the other newbies are close.

Next 20 in rough order: Ryan, Griffith, Beckley, Bresnahan, Schang, McGraw, Beckwith, Veach, Doyle, Mendez, Bancroft, Fournier, Cooper, Griffin, Browning, Redding, Welch, Monroe, Cravath, Tiernan.
   86. ronw Posted: November 24, 2004 at 06:05 PM (#981002)
Thanks for the update Paul (#84)!

Our first 40+WS season by a non-HOMer or non-future HOMer. [Cy] Seymour's 1905 has to rank as the biggest fluke season ever.

Rash, rash.


Of course you are right. I should have said between 1900-1940. Or looking at your list, I could now say 1892-1940. I also should have qualified it as my opinion.
   87. Chris Cobb Posted: November 24, 2004 at 07:01 PM (#981061)
John Beckwith is still under consideration though I suspect that his defense would not have allowed him to play a key defensive position in the majors. He'll proably end up in the low twenties.

I would suggest caution in moving Beckwith down on the defensive spectrum in creating major-league equivalents. The commentary on Beckwith suggests that he was a great athlete, and that it was attitude rather than ability that was responsible for his poor fielding reputation. It seems to me that his attitude would either a) have kept him out of major-league baseball entirely or b) have been substantially improved by the improved economic and social circumstances that would have gone along with a less racist society.

I also suspect his defensive reputation may be lower than his actual value. He was never shifted to first base or to the outfield, except (as far as I can tell), by Rube Foster in 1922-23 when Beckwith played for the Chicago American Giants.

Foster placed tremendous value on defense, and was, in the Negro League context, prepared to sacrifice a lot of offensive value for defensive prowess (witness the career of Bingo DeMoss, who couldn't hit a lick). According to Riley, Beckwith split time between the corners during his play for Foster.

Foster thus appears to have experimented with Beckwith at first, but never taken him off third base completely. Given that Foster tended to field a team that would have been above average defensively by major-league standards, I infer that Beckwith would have been good enough to play third in the majors. Maybe he should be considered a C- or a D+ third baseman rather than a C, but if he was good enough to be used at shortstop (does anyone know if Bobby Bonilla or Richie Hebner or any other notoriously bad third baseman played shortstop in the high minors? It would be a useful comparison), I conclude that he was probably not a terrible defensive player.
   88. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 10:35 PM (#981356)
(does anyone know if Bobby Bonilla or Richie Hebner or any other notoriously bad third baseman played shortstop in the high minors? It would be a useful comparison)?

Maybe Chipper Jones?
   89. KJOK Posted: November 24, 2004 at 10:37 PM (#981357)
and definitely Greg Jefferies..
   90. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 24, 2004 at 10:47 PM (#981380)
HoJo wasn't notoriously bad at third, but I remember the NY press saying that he was below average. An anti-Mechecknie/Foster, Davy Johnson spotted Johnson at SS here and there to get Santana's out-standing bat out of the lineup.
   91. Cblau Posted: November 25, 2004 at 12:47 AM (#981537)
Lefty O'Doul's minor league record, from TSN 10/6/32:

Started out as a pitcher; 3 minor league seasons mixed in with 4 in the Majors. Only one big year- 25 -9 in 1921. Switched to OF in 1924. BA .392, .375, .338, .378. HRs steadily increased from 11 to 33 (mind you, that's in 180 games.) 164 runs in 1927 and I can't tell if that's 105 or 185 in 1925. I tend to think it's the latter (198 games.)
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: November 25, 2004 at 01:14 AM (#981552)
How about Ed Williamson as a comp for Beckwith, well, except that he was an excellent 3B...but a bust at SS. Or how about Sherry Magee. I guess the point is that if a guy was good enough (overall, offense and defense) to be in the lineup at SS, this has value. This is the problem I have with negative values (per TPR).
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 25, 2004 at 01:27 AM (#981562)
This is the problem I have with negative values (per TPR).

Amen, Brother Marc.
   94. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 25, 2004 at 01:40 AM (#981577)
George Uhle. I'll put in the notes sometime later (he pitched great against the '26 Yanks!) but for now it's just the normal stats, including the whole MOWP family.
   95. Howie Menckel Posted: November 25, 2004 at 02:42 AM (#981627)
From one holiday to the other department:

Anyone interested in a NYC-area round of drinks, presumably in Manhattan, between Dec. 26-30?
I'll be off that week, like a lot of people, might be interesting to have a small "near-halfway through" voters get-together around then...
   96. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 25, 2004 at 03:03 AM (#981658)
Anyone interested in a NYC-area round of drinks, presumably in Manhattan, between Dec. 26-30?

I would if I were still living on Long Island, Howie. I used to love walking around Manhattan checking out the bar scene when I was a younger man. Now if I drink a couple of beers in a week that's a lot! :-)

BTW, won't you be risking your anonymity?

Before I forget to say it: Happy Thanksgiving guys!
   97. DavidFoss Posted: November 25, 2004 at 04:14 AM (#981705)
Before I forget to say it: Happy Thanksgiving guys!

Thanks John!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and the rest of the HOM gang, too!
   98. robc Posted: November 25, 2004 at 04:49 AM (#981719)
Prelim ballot - I did a lot of reanalysis this week. Moved a few players big distances (Taylor down, Pratt up, Childs down a little). The Hall of Very Good starts at 10.

1. Joe Sewell
--
2. Harry Hooper
3. Lave Cross
-
4. Fielder Jones
5. Bobby Veach
6. Joe Rogan
7. Jake Beckley
8. Del Pratt
9. Wally Schang
-
10. Tommy Leach
11. Rube Waddell
12. Sam Rice
13. Cupid Childs
14. Eppa Rixey
15. Rabbit Maranville

16. Ben Taylor
17. George J. Burns
18. Willie Kamm
19. Ray Schalk
20. Lip Pike
21. Clark Griffith
22. Hughie Jennings
23. George VanHaltren
24. Ed Konetchy
25. Jimmy Ryan
26. George Sisler
27. Mickey Welch
28. Dave Bancroft
29. Pete Browning
30. Mike Tiernan
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: November 25, 2004 at 05:10 AM (#981738)
Yeah, Muprh, as a bonus I'd even 'out' myself to all arrivals!
And there are plenty of trains that go deep into the depths of Long Island from Manhattan. Or we'll even let you order a Coke.
   100. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 25, 2004 at 05:33 AM (#981746)
Yeah, Muprh, as a bonus I'd even 'out' myself to all arrivals!
And there are plenty of trains that go deep into the depths of Long Island from Manhattan. Or we'll even let you order a Coke.


Hey, I didn't say I was a teetotaler. Just say I'm a little more smarter now. :-)

But alas, I'll be in Raleigh during that time. Hope you can round up a few of the Meriters.
Page 1 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
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1581 seconds
49 querie(s) executed