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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Chris Cobb Posted: November 25, 2004 at 07:01 AM (#981785)
But alas, I'll be in Raleigh during that time. Hope you can round up a few of the Meriters.

Maybe there's enough Meriters in the Triangle to have a drink? Mine would be non-alcolohic, as I am a teetotaler, but I'm in the Raleigh area.
   102. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 25, 2004 at 03:25 PM (#982290)
I didn't know you were from the Raleigh area, Chris. If we can get something, that would be great. I know some Primates from the area because they belong to SABR, but I'm not aware of any Meriters from the Triangle.
   103. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 26, 2004 at 07:54 AM (#982829)
Insomnia bites.

Added two things to my site:

OPS+ for all of my 191 pitchers, divided into decade they had their most at bats in (until the last 25 years), and best-to-worst within each decade. Gotta love the symmetry of the Niekro boys.

Most wins added/lost due to run support.
   104. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 26, 2004 at 08:49 PM (#983233)
And now, every single stinkin' single season RSI & Adjusted W/L record I have is now online.
   105. Michael Bass Posted: November 27, 2004 at 12:02 AM (#983446)
OK, I've finally placed the two main Negro Leaguers this time, so my prelim ballot:

1. Rogan - 110 major league equivalent OPS+ and ERA+ at the same time for a long time: that is one excellent player.
2. Jennings
3. Veach
4. Mendez
5. Waddell
6. Browning
7. Sewell
8. Schang
9. Moore
10. Redding
11. Beckwith - Joins the Negro League glut at the bottom of my ballot. Not quite the peak of Moore, and his extra years aren't good enough to overcome him. A more career oriented voter will clearly like him better than Moore, I'd say.
12. Poles
13. F. Jones
14. Monroe
15. Griffin
   106. Adam Schafer Posted: November 27, 2004 at 02:53 AM (#983573)
Just bought a new house and have a lot of remodeling to do this next week. Just in case I'm not around, use this as my final ballot please.

1. Bullet Joe Rogan (n/a) - Upsets Welch for the #1 spot on this years ballot. Bullet Joe is a no brainer for me.

2. Mickey Welch (1) - These recent ballots have hurt his #1 and #2 ranking I've been keeping him at. It's great to see him make his way back to his rightful spot of #1 :)

3. Eppa Rixey (4) - Close call between him and Faber

4. Burleigh Grimes (n/a) - Tough debate over whether I'd have him or Rice at #4.

5. Sam Rice (n/a) - This is the type of consistency that I love

6. George Sisler (3) - This is going to be an unpopular vote I know, but his peak was great, and there's enough career for me put him this high. What George has really done, is convinced me to move Beckley up on my ballot again.

7. Clark Griffith (5) - Same old story for Clark

8. Jake Beckley (6) - Not far off from Sisler.

9. Rube Waddell (7) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive years. He's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

10. Wally Schang (8) - Lots of career value for a catcher

11. Joe Sewell (9) - darn good shortstop, and you couldn't strike the guy out

-----------------------My PHOM line-----------------------------------------

12. Lip Pike (10) - I bump him ahead of a couple others this year as I am convinced he was a bigger stud than I was willing to let myself believe. I can see him finally getting in one of these days.

13. George Van Haltren (11) - Moves ahead of Beckley and Bresnahan.

14. Jose Mendez (12) - I haven't been able to convince myself that he deserves a spot higher than this.

15. Roger Bresnahan (14) - It's no secret that I love catchers. I would've ranked Roger higher had he caught more and played the OF less during his peak years.

16. Herb Pennock (n/a) - If he'd only put up some good seasons before he was 25 he would've had a shot at my PHOM. He'll never make my PHOM, and I doubt he'll ever come close to making the HOM, but he's good enough to scratch in just ahead of Mays.

17. Carl Mays (15) - People may laugh that he made my ballot, but Carl could pitch. With Sisler and Welch so high, I already have two unpopular votes, so what's one more for them to laugh at?

18. Hughie Jennings (16) - Nothing new to add

19. Edd Roush (17) - Not quite as good as Max Carey

20. Dobie Moore (18) - I believe Dobie was great, there just isn't room for him higher than this yet. I'm sure he'll move onto the actual ballot soon enough.

21. Rabbit Maranville (19) - Only this high b/c he was a SS. No peak, and not even a good enough career value for me, and I'm a big career voter.

22. Vic Willis (20) - I'm beginning to think that I've highly underrated him. He'll probably be moving up my ballot next "year"

23. Eddie Cicotte (21) - Underrated in my opinion. May not be HOM material, but underrated nonetheless.

24. Bobby Veach (22) - Not enough career for him to merit a higher ranking on my ballot, but enough peak to grab a lower spot.

25. Jimmy Ryan (23) - A watered down Van Haltren

26. Urban Shocker (24) - 8 good pitching seasons. Nothing spectacular, but a respectable career.

27. Hugh Duffy (25) - Back onto my ballot. No new thoughts on him

28. Harry Hooper (26) - nothing overly impressive about his career. I originally thought he would rank much higher than this on my initial ballot, but he just doesn't meet the qualifications in my mind that everyone above him does.

29. Dick Redding (27) - I much more impressed with Mendez

30. Ray Schalk (28)
31. Cupid Childs (29)
32. Tommy Leach (30)
33. Pete Browning
34. Larry Doyle
35. Fielder Jones
36. Ben Taylor
37. Gavvy Cravath
38. Addie Joss
39. Tommy Bond

Luque would be about 45
Uhle would be near 50
Wilson would be extremely low
   107. Chris Cobb Posted: November 27, 2004 at 04:33 AM (#983709)
I've been uncertain how much the stats postings for the NeL players have conveyed their dominance within the Negro Leagues themselves, so I thought it might be useful to add a systematic posting of black- and gray-ink scores for candidates. I don't have many done yet, and the full range of stats isn't available, and black and gray ink are both more toys than anything, but nevertheless . . .

Holway provides top 5 lists for each NeL for BA, HR, SB, 2B, 3B, and HR% (which I've substituted for slugging); W, w%, K, TRA. I've included top 5 placements in all of these categories in the counting below. These are _not_ directly comparable to ML scores! But maybe they'll convey something.

So far I have four players scored. I've included only seasons 1920 and after. With fewer teams and fewer games, the leaderboards before 1920 aren't as meaningful.

Player--Black Ink/Gray Ink
Oscar Charleston--46/152 (with first 5 yrs. of career not included)
Joe Rogan--28/135
John Beckwith--23/77
Oliver Marcelle--2/11

I'll add more gradually as I can.
   108. KJOK Posted: November 27, 2004 at 05:55 AM (#983772)
I added MLE's for Beckwith and Oms to the HOM egroup here:

NeLg MLE Folder
   109. DanG Posted: November 29, 2004 at 04:51 AM (#985652)
Someone asked about Lefty O’Doul’s minor league performance. This is from my 1981 edition of Daguerreotypes by TSN. Lefty was a Pitcher/PH from 1917 to mid-1924, ages 20-27.

Year _IP _ERA _W-L _BA League Club
1917 115 3.83 _8-6 .269 Western Des Moines
1918 185 2.63 12-8 .200 PCL San Francisco
1919 __5 3.60 _0-0 .250 AL New York
1920 __3 6.00 _0-0 .167 AL New York
1921 312 2.39 25-9 .338 PCL San Francisco
1922 _16 3.38 _0-0 .333 AL New York
1923 _53 5.44 _1-1 .143 AL Boston
1924 128 6.54 _7-9 .392 PCL Salt Lake

He then played nearly 4 full years as an OF in the PCL, ages 27-30.

Year _G _H _2B-3B-HR RBI BA
1924 140 163 31-4-11 101 .392 Salt Lake
1925 198 309 63-17-24 191 .375 Salt Lake
1926 180 223 29-3-20 116 .338 Hollywood
1927 189 278 43-4-33 158 .378 San Francisco

He then played in the NL 1928-34, ages 31-37. After this he went home to San Francisco in the PCL where he was manager/PH 1935-1940.

Year _G H 2b-3b-hr BI BA
1935 68 36 2-1-2 25 .269
1936 54 12 2-2-0 -8 .226
1937 44 17 6-0-0 13 .386
1938 30 _7 1-0-3 _6 .259
1939 25 14 1-0-0 _2 .400
1940 14 _2 0-0-0 _0 .154

He recorded only one more hit after 1940, a triple for Vancouver in the PCL in 1956, age 59! Is that for real?

So, what sort of credit might we give him for his minor league performance? Well, 1921 and 1924-27 seem to be worth something. But, even if you give him 100 win shares for those years, his career total is still only 244, with a peak 1929-33 of 31-20-22-33-17 in those years.
   110. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 29, 2004 at 10:42 AM (#986108)
Here's how I've got the potential white position players ranked:

1) Lip Pike - easily
2) Charley Jones
3) George Van Haltren
4) Jake Beckley
5) Gavy Cravath
6) Tommy Leach
7) Jimmy Ryan
8) Edd Roush
9) Hugh Duffy
10) Wally Schang
11) Roger Bresnahan
12) George Sisler

Now I've got to work in Negro Leaguers and Pitchers.

Negro Leaguers include Rogan, Monroe, Moore, Taylor, Poles and Jules Thomas. Pitchers close are Griffith, Rixey, Willis, Welch. Redding and Mendez are kind of on the fence too. Wow, still plenty of work to do . . .
   111. TomH Posted: November 29, 2004 at 04:47 PM (#986329)
I posted some thots I'm having re: opinions versus hard numbers, particularly when it comes to Negro League stars, on the Negro League home page. Comments and discussion welcome there.
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 29, 2004 at 06:18 PM (#986453)
Prelim:

1) Rogan
2) Pike
3) Beckwith
4) Childs
5) C. Jones
6) Willis
7) York
8) Grimes
9) Beckley
10) Welch
11) Waddell
12) Mendez
13) Rixey
14) Konetchy
15) Van Haltren

No, Sewell is not knocked off due to a loss of that "shiny new toy" nonsense. He's bumped off due to my overvaluing shortstops from the twenties. Perennial candidate Dobie Moore was also removed from my ballot due to these same changes. So there! :-)
   113. PhillyBooster Posted: November 29, 2004 at 08:46 PM (#986680)
No, Sewell is not knocked off due to a loss of that "shiny new toy" nonsense.

I believe the technical term is "new car smell." And I've still got it in my new 2005 Prius. :-)
   114. Al Peterson Posted: November 30, 2004 at 10:21 PM (#988451)
Alright, I've seen some votes for Sam Rice in the ballot thread. I'm looking at him and maybe I don't get it. Clearly behind Heilmann and some guy named Ruth in terms of RF for his time - far behind. Throw in Torriente as another RF around the same time.

His claim to fame - batting average and 2987 hits. Yet his best BA placement was 7 times finishing between 8th and 10th. So you have that placement amongst, let's see, around 7 full-time regulars per team * 8 AL teams = 56 regulars. That doesn't stick out at all. His Black/Grey ink comes mostly from hits and SBs. Steals in a low stolen base environment.

What's the pros to this guy I'm missing?
   115. Michael Bass Posted: November 30, 2004 at 10:31 PM (#988461)
No fan of Rice, but for the record, Torriente was CF, not RF.
   116. Max Parkinson Posted: November 30, 2004 at 11:10 PM (#988520)
My year by year WS and Warp databases back up Al's assumptions.

WS
Best 0 times
2nd 1 time (1917)
3rd 4 times ('19,'23,'25,'26)

Warp
Best 0 times
2nd 0 times
3rd 1 time (1919)

Hooper and Cravath were better at the start of Rice's career, then Youngs and then Heilmann. By '20-'21 Ruth and Heilmann, and Waner and Cuyler by the end of Rice's prime. He racked up quite a bit of career value, but I agree that if you're looking for someone who was a perennial All-Star, Rice just isn't your man.
   117. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 30, 2004 at 11:24 PM (#988547)
I don't see anything special about Rice either, but that cat was consistent. A poor man's Eddie Murray, if you will.
   118. karlmagnus Posted: November 30, 2004 at 11:44 PM (#988564)
As a resident of the DC metro area I have to put in a word for our local boy Rice -- on a 162 game schedule he's at 3150 hits. Are we going to have NO HOMers after the Big Train? (if Speaker's Cleveland, Cronin's definitely Boston!)
   119. DavidFoss Posted: December 01, 2004 at 12:37 AM (#988618)
As a resident of the DC metro area I have to put in a word for our local boy Rice -- on a 162 game schedule he's at 3150 hits. Are we going to have NO HOMers after the Big Train?

Goslin's got a much better shot than Rice. He's no shoo-in either, though.
   120. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2004 at 02:10 AM (#988730)
(if Speaker's Cleveland, Cronin's definitely Boston!)

IMO, Cronin is a Senator. Much more value as a Nat (unlike Speaker in Boston). The few more PA that Cronin received as a BoSox were war related, so it's artificial anyway.
   121. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 01, 2004 at 03:46 AM (#988831)
Don't worry Karl, by about 2015 we will be sending Christian Guzman, Vinny Castilla, and Jose Guillen on their way to the Hall of Merit!
   122. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2004 at 06:18 AM (#988944)
"Goslin's got a much better shot than Rice. He's no shoo-in either, though."

Goslin is no shoe-in????

Please say you are joking. Please, please, please!

Career 128 OPS+, just under 10000 PA too. He's got peak also.

7 HR in 32 career World Series games (.287/.348/.488).

Adjusted for season length, he's got 376 Win Shares, with a peak of 30, 33, 36, 29 from 1924-27 and 3 other seasons over 25.

He looks like a super-easy HoMer a first-ballot inductee unless he comes on in a year with Ruth or Hornsby or something (no idea who else is eligible in 1944).

If nothing else, he hit the 2-run home run off Emil Yde in the bottom of the 8th inning of Game 7 of the 1924 World Series, at Yankee Stadium to give the Yankees a 4-3 lead in the game and their first championship.

Actually, that was in my retro-Diamond Mind league, but it was still pretty exciting . . .
   123. ronw Posted: December 01, 2004 at 07:19 AM (#988998)
Joe, I agree. Goslin is a shoo-in in 1944. He will finish in 2nd that year, as Henry Louis Gehrig is also eligible.
   124. KJOK Posted: December 01, 2004 at 07:28 AM (#989006)
Goslin is very similar to Fred Clarke and Zack Wheat, and they got in the HOM relatively easily....
   125. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: December 01, 2004 at 08:33 AM (#989061)
What is the big difference between these two pitchers?

Pitcher A: 215-142 W/L, .602 WPCT, 127 ERA+, 3082 IP, 5 seasons with 200 IP and a 140 ERA+.

Pitcher B: 182-106 W/L, .632 WPCT, 123 ERA+, 2632 IP, 3 seasons with 200 IP and a 140 ERA+.

Pitcher A is in the HOM. Pitcher B has not received a single vote in nearly 20 years on the ballot.
   126. yest Posted: December 01, 2004 at 10:01 AM (#989105)
welcome back are you going to vote again?
   127. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2004 at 11:53 AM (#989126)
The difference is 33-36 (two average seasons), and a higher ERA+ in an extra 450 IP. For your career ERA+ to go up 4 points in 450 IP I'd imagine you had to have two seasons of what, 150 ERA+ or so extra?

It sounds like pitcher A had less run support. So basically I'd say the difference is two near Cy Young Award caliber seasons, which is pretty significant . . .
   128. DanG Posted: December 01, 2004 at 03:35 PM (#989222)
Joe, I agree. Goslin is a shoo-in in 1944.

The backlog begins to grow again in 1943. Four no-brainers debut that years (Cochrane, Frisch, Charleston, Foster) along with Judy Johnson. Goose probably doesn't quite make it in 1945, when Manush and Lazzeri head up a down year, so he will have to wait awhile.

So, while I agree that Goslin is a sure HoMer and fully deserving, it seems likely he will be elected sometime in the 1950's.
   129. PhillyBooster Posted: December 01, 2004 at 03:51 PM (#989250)
So, I've been thinking about pitching -- and specifically high leverage versus low leverage innings. I'm not sure what I think, so I am soliciting thoughts on the matter.

The 1920s pitchers, which we tend to think of as a group, and I am looking at what we would generally all consider to be the Top 15 who are (arranged by total ML innings): Rixey, Grimes, Faber, Quinn, Jones, Hoyt, Pennock, Cooper, Luque, Haines, Uhle, Coveleski, Mays, Vance, and Shocker.

Now these guys have some things in common. For example, except for outlier Grimes (314), they all -- despite the wide range of innings pitched (Vance had 60% of Rixey's innings) have all pitched between 200 and 279 complete games. Most are bunched close together in the low 200s.

So, what did these pitchers do outside their 200-279 complete games? On the one end, Wilbur Cooper's 279 complete games were 54% of all of his games. On the other, Eppa Rixey's 208 complete games were only 30% of his games.

Well, there is huge variations is Games Started But Not Finished (GS-CG). Rixey has 344 GSBNF, over 100 more than second placer Sam Jones, with 237. In fact, Rixey is the only pitcher in the group (38%) who did not finish the majority of the games he started. Most of the rest finish 50-60% of their starts. Vance, Uhle, Shocker, Grimes and Cooper all finished 60-70% of their starts. Carl Mays leads the pack, finishing 71.1% of his starts.

Next, of course, are relief appearances. There is, again, wide variations here with Quinn appearing in 41% of his games as a reliever, down to Coveleski, who appeared in relief in only 14% of his games.

My initial inclinations -- and here I am looking for outside opinions -- is that the majority of "complete games" are unnecessary. By which I mean, if I had a choice between a guy who would give me 9 innings a game for 700 games over a career, or a guy who would give me 7 innings a game for 900 games, then, all things being equal, I'd want the second guy, because he'd give me more starts, and would often get me to the 8th inning with a multiple run lead, at which point he would be less necessary.

On the other hand, and here my intuitions are surface-paradoxical, relief innings are also inning-for-inning more important that starter innings. When I imagine Coveleski's 14% relief appearances, I imagine -- at the extreme -- Randy Johnson coming out of the bullpen in the ninth inning of the 2001 World Series to nail down a save. In other words, you're not going to use a "Top 15 Starter" in relief unless it's late and close and my other starter is faltering. Maybe this is a wrong assumption, but if I'm the manager in the 1920s, that's how I'm using Coveleski in relief.

So, on the one hand, I'm favoring Rixey, as the leader in "Games Started", even though he is not among the leaders in complete games. On the other hand, I'm liking Carl Mays' 34% relief appearances -- especially in years when he was primarily a starter -- since those were probably relatively important appearances.

Thoughts?
   130. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#989341)
What is the big difference between these two pitchers?

The rest of the great Chicago Cubs teams of the aughts and the deadball era.

Pitcher B -- Ed Reulbach -- had his ERA+ boosted significantly by playing in front of an all-time great defense when runs scored were at an all-time low. He had his wp boosted significantly as well by strong team offenses.

Pitcher A -- Stan Coveleski -- pitched in front of average defenses over his career, had average run support, and put up his ERA+ in a higher scoring era (plus there's an innings pitched advantage).

Some may question whether or not Coveleski is a clear HoMer (he's certainly going to be in the lower tier of the HoM), but there's clearly a huge gap in quality between Pitcher A and Pitcher B.

But if one likes Pitcher B, there's a small but determined bandwagon for Pitcher C one could jump on. Here's his line:

194-100, .660 wp, 123 ERA+, 2660.7 IP, 2 seasons with 200 IP and a 140 ERA+.
   131. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 01, 2004 at 04:43 PM (#989355)
Pitcher A -- Stan Coveleski -- pitched in front of average defenses over his career, had average run support,

To be fair, when you account for SC's own woeful hitting, his support was a little above average.
   132. DavidFoss Posted: December 01, 2004 at 05:25 PM (#989441)
The backlog begins to grow again in 1943. Four no-brainers debut that years (Cochrane, Frisch, Charleston, Foster) along with Judy Johnson. Goose probably doesn't quite make it in 1945, when Manush and Lazzeri head up a down year, so he will have to wait awhile.

So, while I agree that Goslin is a sure HoMer and fully deserving, it seems likely he will be elected sometime in the 1950's.


Sorry for the controversy... but I think DanG said it best here. I really like Goslin, but I have no idea when he'll be inducted. Maybe 44 or 45, but more likely a bit later. At the moment, I have no clue how he'll rank compared to some of his Negro League contemporaries. Below the titans, for sure, but don't know about the next group.

My knee-jerk ranking at the moment is above Wheat and below Heilmann, two guys I've had in elect-me spots in the past.
   133. DavidFoss Posted: December 01, 2004 at 05:41 PM (#989470)
Actually, that was in my retro-Diamond Mind league, but it was still pretty exciting . . .

Fooled me here! I was looking this up (I'm a geek that way... tee hee...)
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2004 at 05:53 PM (#989493)
Stan Coveleski: Black Ink (22); Grey Ink (193)

Ed Reulbach: Black Ink (13); Grey Ink (123)

Sorry, but Big Ed is not Stanislaus.
   135. DanG Posted: December 01, 2004 at 06:22 PM (#989560)
Urban Shocker: Black Ink (15); Grey Ink (179)

Sam Leever (aka Pitcher C): Black Ink (21); Grey Ink (119)
   136. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2004 at 06:42 PM (#989602)
Urban Shocker: Black Ink (15); Grey Ink (179)

Sam Leever (aka Pitcher C): Black Ink (21); Grey Ink (119)


I don't have them on my ballot, but I definitely agree that the Goshen Schoolmaster wasn't Urban. Of course, karlmagnus is tagging on years to Leever for years he wasn't a ballplayer, IIRC.
   137. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2004 at 07:16 PM (#989670)
On Goslin:

I think he's likely to make it in 45 or 46.

Also, for the 1943 glut: Dick Lundy will be eligible that year also. I don't know where he'll rank yet, but he was better than Judy Johnson.
   138. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2004 at 08:06 PM (#989780)
Re: Goslin

Among contemporary outfielders of his time, where does he rank? Ruth, Charleston, Simmons, Ott, Heilmann, and P. Waner (I'm also assuming Stearnes and Suttles) were better.

Among contemporary leftfielders of his time, where does he rank? Simmons was better. If Suttles is considered a leftfielder, I would take him over the Goose. Beyond that? I don't know.

I didn't include Medwick because he wasn't really a true contemporary of Goslin, but I'm not sure he was better anyway.

Did I forget anyone?
   139. DavidFoss Posted: December 01, 2004 at 08:34 PM (#989849)
Did I forget anyone?

Bell, Dihigo on the full outfielder list.

Not sure what people will do with Averill. He could have a case over Goslin. At first glance I'd say no.
   140. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2004 at 08:44 PM (#989868)
Bell, Dihigo on the full outfielder list.

I'll go along with that, David.

Not sure what people will do with Averill. He could have a case over Goslin. At first glance I'd say no.

It's close, IMO, but if push comes to shove, I would have to go with Goslin, too.

At any rate, there are many outfielders that were superior to Goslin. It doesn't mean that he doesn't belong in the HoM necessarily, but we need to proceed with caution.
   141. karlmagnus Posted: December 01, 2004 at 09:13 PM (#989926)
Pitcher C, Leever is a MUCH better pitcher than Covaleski, because he had a much better W/L record. He also is at least as worthy as the Dolf Luques of this world for extra credit, because his baseball career was delayed by the restrictive, unpleasant and economically unattractive environment of the 90s NL, and the relatively greater attraction of Goshen schoolmastering. I refuse to accept that skin color is the ONLY thing we should look at when we examine a player's outside circumstances.


Everybody keeps saying we need more 90s players, we need more pitchers; here's one we missed. Does well on the Keltner list, too, if you work it through (top pitcher on several pennant winners.)
   142. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2004 at 09:35 PM (#989973)
Pitcher C, Leever is a MUCH better pitcher than Covaleski, because he had a much better W/L record.

That's not proof in itself, karlmagnus. Didn't Leever have better run support?

He also is at least as worthy as the Dolf Luques of this world for extra credit, because his baseball career was delayed by the restrictive, unpleasant and economically unattractive environment of the 90s NL, and the relatively greater attraction of Goshen schoolmastering.

Isn't this speculation on your part?

I'm not beating you up aboout Leever, karlmagnus. We all have our pets. He just seems like a few other pitchers from that time that everybody has forgotten about already.

Everybody keeps saying we need more 90s players, we need more pitchers; here's one we missed.

It's a huge stretch to place him among the nineties pitchers, don't you think?
:-)
   143. Max Parkinson Posted: December 01, 2004 at 09:38 PM (#989979)
Help!

I've got a Word document that I'm trying to post, and it contains a chart - I can't get it to preview right. I'm using the pre and /pre tags, but it still won't work. Any suggestions?
   144. karlmagnus Posted: December 01, 2004 at 09:46 PM (#990002)
Born the same year as Amos Rusie, looks like a 90s pitcher to me :-))
   145. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2004 at 10:05 PM (#990051)
Just one man's prediction. Where there is a backlog opportunity I'm going with the order of the 1939 results.

1940--1. Rogan, 2. Pike--actually I will be shocked if it happens this way but Pike is the first runner-up.
1941--1. Ruth, 2. Hornsby
1942--1. Sewell, 2. Jennings (over Traynor and Vance)
1943--1. Charleston, 2. Foster
1944--1. Gehrig, 2. Cochrane
1945--1. Frisch, 2. Goslin
1946--1. Stearnes, 2. Suttles or Simmons
1947--1. Grove, 2. Simmons or Suttles
1948--1. Bell, 2. Gehringer
1949--1. Simmons or Suttles, 2. Mackey
1950--1. Dihigo, 2. Hartnett or Hubbell

1951 backlog
1. Hartnett (eligible 1947) or Hubbell (1949)
2. P. Waner (1950)
3. Cronin (1950)
4. Lundy (1943)
5. Rixey (1940 backlog)
6. Dean (1946)
7. Traynor (1941)
8. Vance (1941)
9. Terry (1942)
10. Griffith (1940 backlog)
11. Sisler (1940 backlog)
12. Beckwith (1940)
13. Beckley (1940 backlog)
14. Averill (1946)
15. Lyons (Teddy, not Denny, 1948) or Cuyler (1944)or Waddell (1940 backlog)

What started this was Goose Goslin's chances. If he is not elected in 1945, then it will be the '50s. I don't see a year 1946-50 where he gets elected and if he is in the 1951 backlog he is no better than #4-5.

And in '45 his competition is Lundy, Rixey, Traynor, Vance, any of whom you could make a case for being ahead of Goslin. Of course, Goslin could beat Cochrane in '44 but I don't think so. If I had to cast a 1945 ballot today I would have Lundy #1 or 2 myself.
   146. DavidFoss Posted: December 01, 2004 at 10:06 PM (#990055)
Born the same year as Amos Rusie, looks like a 90s pitcher to me :-))

We went through this with McGinnity (actually two months older than Rusie). Don't remember what conclusion we came to. Most aren't willing to give credit like this to pitchers because time off actually helps preserve their arms.

Yes, I do see the smiley. :-)
   147. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2004 at 10:10 PM (#990062)
Oops, got Simmons and Suttles more than covered. Hartnett goes in in '48 and Hubbell in '49, and Waner tops the '51 backlog.
   148. DavidFoss Posted: December 01, 2004 at 10:26 PM (#990093)
I've already inadvertently stirred the pot today, so why not a bit more. :-)

I have no complaints with Charleston being listed among the all-time greats. When I see Bell, Stearnes, Dihigo and maybe Suttles added to the same list I start scratching my head a little. Four no-brainer negro league contemporary outfielders? Almost looks like the NeL was as strong as the NL.

Looking at their competition on the ballots, it might not matter which is fine.

Still, Negro Leaguers had a tendency to be overglorified to convince people that they really belonged. As someone in the 21st century who is trying to be color-blind, I might ask for more discussion once these guys become fully eligible. Were they better than Kiki Cuyler, Chuck Klein & Earl Averill or some other contemporary MLB players who'll end up in the Hall-of-Very-Good? Put another way, does anyone think we'll have any NeL HOF-but-not-HOM guys?
   149. ronw Posted: December 02, 2004 at 12:56 AM (#990299)
does anyone think we'll have any NeL HOF-but-not-HOM guys?

Off the top of my head, Judy Johnson and maybe Leon Day.

Also, since the Goose Goslin thing came up in part due to one of my comments, I have to confess I forgot about the '43 class, and now agree with Marc. Goslin may make it in '45, or he'll have to wait until the '50's.
   150. KJOK Posted: December 02, 2004 at 01:13 AM (#990317)
I have no complaints with Charleston being listed among the all-time greats. When I see Bell, Stearnes, Dihigo and maybe Suttles added to the same list I start scratching my head a little. Four no-brainer negro league contemporary outfielders? Almost looks like the NeL was as strong as the NL.

One missing piece we really need to look at will be park impacts. Just for example, for 1928 I show Stars Park in St. Louis increased offense by about 24%. For 1926 (much less complete data) I have an estimate of about 26% increase in offense. If that's close to the 'true' park factor, then Bell suddenly looks about like Lou Brock - very good, but maybe not a HOMer....
   151. Chris Cobb Posted: December 02, 2004 at 01:44 AM (#990360)
The St. Louis park factor will also affect Mule Suttles, as he starred for St. Louis 1926-31.

Park factor or no, the Bell/Suttles St. Louis Stars were a great team.

Suttles should, however, be considered primarily as a first baseman. Holway lists positions for him for 20 seasons. He is listed at first base for 12, left field for 6, and utility for 2.
   152. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 02, 2004 at 02:15 AM (#990421)
Suttles should, however, be considered primarily as a first baseman. Holway lists positions for him for 20 seasons. He is listed at first base for 12, left field for 6, and utility for 2.

I would agree with you, Chris. James has him as a leftfielder, so that's why I was confused.

I would also list Beckwith as a third baseman if I had to pick just one position for him, FWIW.

BTW, what is it with some of the Meriters here concerning Torriente? I still see posts in regard to him that still list him as a rightfielder. :-)

One missing piece we really need to look at will be park impacts. Just for example, for 1928 I show Stars Park in St. Louis increased offense by about 24%. For 1926 (much less complete data) I have an estimate of about 26% increase in offense. If that's close to the 'true' park factor, then Bell suddenly looks about like Lou Brock - very good, but maybe not a HOMer....

James refers to Bell as a Lou Brock-like, too. Stars Park must have done a number on pitchers' ERA. Sheesh!
   153. KJOK Posted: December 02, 2004 at 04:04 AM (#990660)
Stars Park must have done a number on pitchers' ERA. Sheesh!

In 1928 the Stars had Ted Trent, who was probably the "CY YOUNG AWARD WINNER" for that year, and he pitched 1/3 of the team innings, so their 4.67 Team Runs Allowed Per Game doesn't look all that bad (3.16 for Trent, who was 20-4).
   154. KJOK Posted: December 02, 2004 at 04:12 AM (#990667)
The St. Louis park factor will also affect Mule Suttles, as he starred for St. Louis 1926-31.

Yes it will, but Suttles hit .498 with 27 HR in 212 AB's in 1926, and even with park deflation, that's still awsome offense.

In 1928 he hit .361/.407/.687 with 19 2B, 11 3B and 20 HR in 345 AB's.

The man could hit...
   155. Chris Cobb Posted: December 02, 2004 at 04:39 AM (#990733)
The man could hit...

Definitely agreed!

I intended only to indicate that his stats need to be park-adjusted. He was a great hitter, and will probably be a HoMer.
   156. Brent Posted: December 02, 2004 at 09:10 AM (#991100)
Goslin is no shoe-in????

Please say you are joking. Please, please, please!

Career 128 OPS+, just under 10000 PA too. He's got peak also.

7 HR in 32 career World Series games (.287/.348/.488).

Adjusted for season length, he's got 376 Win Shares, with a peak of 30, 33, 36, 29 from 1924-27 and 3 other seasons over 25.


If Goslin's a near n-b, why is Hugh Duffy still languishing in 16th place?

Career 120 OPS+, plus excellent (A+) defensive center fielder during peak years, Gold Glove-quality outfielder during seasons at corner positions.

23 for 47 (.489, .510, .745) with 16 RBIs, 9 Runs, in 2 post-season series. (5 pennant winning teams.)

Adjusted to 162 game seasons, he's got 341 Win Shares, with a peak of 30, 32, 31, 34, 41 from 1890-94 and 3 other seasons over 25.

27.5 WS/162 (compared to 25.1 for Goslin).
   157. Paul Wendt Posted: December 03, 2004 at 05:04 AM (#992867)
Howie Menckel November 24:
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...

I'm not a voter (HOMeboy?) but I'm a possibility for one of the later dates if a few do gather.

--
Max Parkinson,
What is the scope of your single-season WARP database?
Eg, WARP3 current edition, 1000 career games played before WWII.

--
Earl Averill was a very good CF (by reputation); prima facie, in a different conversation from LF Goose Goslin, RF Chuck Klein, et al. You can put Al Simmons in the CF discussion based on his CF play. For Goslin, the case must be made based on Griffith Stadium (not sure it's a good case). For Klein, there is no case.
   158. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 03, 2004 at 03:38 PM (#993506)
I'm not a voter (HOMeboy?)

We usually say Meriter, Paul, but I kind of like the sound of that myself.

At any rate, you're an honorary "HOMeboy" in good standing with us. :-)
   159. Max Parkinson Posted: December 03, 2004 at 04:16 PM (#993574)
Paul,

It's the latest edition, and I've got every player-season from 1871-1947.

MP
   160. KJOK Posted: December 04, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#994753)
Max:

Can you post it to the FILES section of the HOM egroup on Yahoo? I'd certainly like to use it...
   161. Paul Wendt Posted: December 04, 2004 at 12:36 AM (#994754)
Howie and Max,
Thanks for your replies.

Phillybooster,
I also expect that relief innings pitched by HOM candidates during recent decades were high leverage (extra valuable) innings.
   162. Max Parkinson Posted: December 04, 2004 at 02:31 AM (#994890)
KJOK and Paul,

Email me (click on my name) from an address that accepts big files - I tried to email the data to your yahoo accounts, but their too big.

Max
   163. Max Parkinson Posted: December 04, 2004 at 02:32 AM (#994891)
They're (not their). Damn.
   164. Howie Menckel Posted: December 04, 2004 at 06:03 PM (#995456)
Here's an updated AL vs NL vs Negro Leagues HOM roundup, 1901-19 (minimum 10 G; non-regulars or players appearing in both leagues have an asterisk):

1901
NL (15) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Nichols, Burkett, Davis, Dahlen, Clarke, Flick, Keeler, Kelley, Mathewson, Wagner, Crawford, Wallace, Sheckard
AL (5) - Young, JCollins, Lajoie, Plank, McGinnity
Negro (2) - Grant, Hill

1902
NL (7.8) - Dahlen, Clarke, Keeler, Kelley*, Mathewson NY NL, Wagner PIT, Crawford CIN, McGinnity*, Sheckard
AL (10.2) - Delahanty, Burkett, Davis, Young, Flick, Kelley*, JCollins, Lajoie, Plank, McGinnity*, Wallace
Negro (3) - Grant, Hill, Foster

1903
NL (8) - Dahlen, Clarke, Kelley, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, McGinnity, Sheckard
AL (10) - Delahanty*, Burkett, Young, Flick, Keeler, JCollins, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Wallace
Negro (4) - HRJohnson, Grant, Hill, Foster

1904
NL (10) - Nichols, Dahlen, Clarke*, Kelley, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, McGinnity, Sheckard
AL (11) - Burkett, Davis, Young, Flick, Keeler, Walsh*, JCollins, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Wallace
Negro (3) - HRJohnson, Hill, Foster

1905
NL (10) - Nichols, Dahlen, Clarke, Kelley, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, McGinnity, Sheckard
AL (12) - Burkett, Davis, Young, Flick, Keeler, Walsh*, JCollins, Lajoie*, Crawford, Plank, Wallace, Cobb*
Negro (3) - HRJohnson, Hill, Foster

1906
NL (9) - Dahlen, Clarke, Kelley, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, McGinnity, Sheckard
AL (11) - Davis, Young, Flick, Keeler, Walsh, JCollins*, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Wallace, Cobb
Negro (4) - HRJohnson, Hill, Foster, Lloyd*

1907
NL (8) - Dahlen, Clarke, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, McGinnity, Sheckard
AL (13) - Davis, Young, Flick, Keeler, Walsh, JCollins, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Wallace, WJohnson*, Cobb, ECollins*
Negro (4) - HRJohnson, Hill, Foster, Lloyd

1908
NL (9) - Dahlen, Clarke, Kelley*, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, McGinnity, Sheckard
AL (13) - Davis, Young, Keeler, Walsh, JCollins, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Wallace, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker*, ECollins
Negro (4) - HRJohnson, Hill, Foster, Lloyd

1909
NL (8) - Dahlen*, Clarke, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, Sheckard, Wheat*
AL (14) - Davis*, Young, Flick*, Keeler, Walsh, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Baker, Wallace, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins
Negro (4) - HRJohnson, Hill, Foster, Lloyd

1910
NL (8) - Clarke, Keeler*, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, Sheckard, Wheat
AL (13) - Young, Flick*, Walsh, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson*, Baker, Wallace, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins
Negro (6) - HRJohnson, Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams

1911
NL (10) - Young*, Clarke, Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, Sheckard, Wheat, Alexander, Carey
AL (11) - Walsh, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson, Baker, Wallace, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins
Negro (6) - HRJohnson, Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams

1912
NL (9) - Mathewson, Wagner, Brown*, Magee, Sheckard, Wheat, Alexander, Groh*, Carey
AL (10) - Walsh, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson, Wallace, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins
Negro (6) - HRJohnson, Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams

1913
NL (9) - Mathewson, Wagner, Brown, Magee, Sheckard, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey
AL (11) - Walsh*, Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson, Baker, Wallace*, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins
Negro (7) - HRJohnson, Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente

1914
NL (7) - Mathewson, Wagner, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey
AL (12) - Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson, Baker, Wallace*, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann*, Faber
FL (1) - Brown
Negro (6) - Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente

1915
NL (7) - Mathewson, Wagner, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey
AL (8) - Lajoie, Crawford, Jackson, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Faber
FL (2) - Plank, Brown
Negro (6) - Hill, Santop, Foster*, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente

1916
NL (8) - Mathewson*, Wagner, Brown, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey
AL (13) - Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson*, Baker, Wallace*, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber
Negro (7) - HRJohnson*, Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente

1917
NL (6) - Wagner*, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey
AL (11) - Crawford*, Plank*, Jackson, Baker, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber
Negro (5) - Hill, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente

1918
NL (5) - Magee, Wallace*, Wheat, Groh, Carey
AL (9) - Jackson*, Baker, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber*
Negro (5) - Hill, Santop*, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente

1919
NL (5) - Magee*, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey*
AL (9) - Jackson, Baker, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber
Negro (5) - Hill, Santop*, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente
   165. Howie Menckel Posted: December 05, 2004 at 05:54 AM (#996549)
Someone on a ballot mentioned that maybe we have in effect elected more 1B than we think....


HOMers by percentage of games played at position (min 10 pct)

C (3.15) - Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11
1B (5.79) - Start 100, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Anson 83, Stovey 37, McVey 31, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10
2B (5.64) - McPhee 100, E Collins 98, Lajoie 83, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Wright 10
3B (4.64) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Davis 22, Wallace 18, McVey 14, Richardson 13
SS (8.21) - Pearce 96, Glasscock 94, Wright 89, Dahlen 88, Wallace 77, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19
OF (23.18) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Keeler 97, Crawford 94, Magee 91, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Stovey 63, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Santop 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10

Infield - 27.43
Outfield - 23.18
Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Still, it helps show that in effect we've elected as many 1Bs as 2Bs, for example, and that SS is a little less lopsided than we tend to think.
   166. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 05, 2004 at 08:11 PM (#997742)
I may be jumping the gun just a bit here, but as we move closer to WW2, and as I'm starting to look at players like Lyons, Foxx, and Simmons, would it be useful to start discussing how people think about war credit?

Particularly the question of whether there's a difference between crediting enlisted players versus conscripted players.

But like I said, it could be too early....
   167. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 05, 2004 at 08:19 PM (#997767)
Particularly the question of whether there's a difference between crediting enlisted players versus conscripted players.

I don't think there really should be a difference, Doc. karlmagnus' point about Joe Jackson during WWI is an all together different subject, however.
   168. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 05, 2004 at 11:32 PM (#998060)
I agree, where WWII is concerned we shouldn't make a distinction bewteen those that went into the service of their own accord and those that did not since most everyone would have been drafted anyway.
   169. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:37 AM (#999472)
I could possibly get the drinks thing in NYC on the 29th or 30th. Are you still organizing it Howie?
   170. andrew siegel Posted: December 06, 2004 at 03:30 PM (#1000194)
I might be in NY around then as well.
   171. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:05 PM (#1000232)
I don't drink, and there's a good chance I'm leaving town for a few days on the 29th, but if I was around, I'd come by.
   172. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 06, 2004 at 05:50 PM (#1000412)
I should have elaborated a little more on my query about enlistment versus conscription.

I'm still grappling with this question of the the possible ethical/fairness issues around giving credit to early enlisters, and I'm wondering if anyone can offer their rationales about it. Here's what I mean by this....

If a guy, call him Hank, enlists before conscripted and we give him credit, we're making a BIG value judgement that his war service deserves some sort of moral/ehtical credit. Even though I personally find his decision honorable and courageous, that player has made a choice that hurts his team in the short term: enlisting before getting conscripted. But let's say that a player, we'll call him Ryne, retires for a season for reasons entirely of his own, which may include spending time with his family, which also hurts his team in the short term.

Deciding to give one and not the other credit would require a voter to make a moral prioritization of family versus country. Is doing so appropriate to this project?

Both cases are different from conscription (or inappropriate blacklisting or colorlining or being stuck in the minors) because these are the player's own value-based decisions that are totally within his control. The folks in C-town don't really have much to worry about here because they are basing their decisions on "fame." We base "merit" on on-the-field accomplishments (or equivalent credit as noted above).

How does anyone else in the electorate resolve this ethical/fairness question. Or do you feel safe to ignore it? Or do you think I'm coming off as an unpatriotic SOB? ; )
   173. TomH Posted: December 06, 2004 at 06:44 PM (#1000597)
"If a guy....enlists before (he is) conscripted ..... Even though I personally find his decision honorable and courageous, that player has made a choice that hurts his team in the short term"
--
Good discussion point.

I would tend to evaluate a player as if the war did not occur (albeit a bit conservatively). The fact that player A entered 3 months early and hurt his team more than player B waiting until conscription; well, if I was gonna get shot at, I might do the same. If the war wasn't going on, player A wouldn't have had to make that difficult call, so I wouldn't penalize him.
   174. sunnyday2 Posted: December 06, 2004 at 08:45 PM (#1000989)
WWII raises not one but two questions. What to do with the guys who fought, and what to do with the guys who played?

1. Fought. As a peak voter, I just disregard WWII years. For Ted Williams, a 3 or 5 year peak just jumps right from 1942 to 1946, e.g. The one exception might be where a guy fought for 3 years, then had an off year in '46 but returned to his pre-war peak/prime level in '47. Then I might give the benefit of the doubt and also disregard '46, but it is very rare that this comes into play. Guys who are "off" in '46 usually don't come back at all, not to their pre-war established level.

2. As to career value, I give 50 percent credit for the established level of play during the years they were in the service. Ted Williams (and I am making up the specific numbers) might have had an established level (both before and after) of 35 WS. So he gets 17.5 per year during the war. That takes into account the fact that he could just as well have been injured or something else. I can't just assume that all goes well and the guy does great. There has to be some downward consideration for years that guys didn't really play, but they also ought to get some credit. 50 percent is both a steep penalty but also a generous credit, you can argue it both ways and that's how I come out.

3. As to the guys who stayed and played, if you want some kind of mathematical precision to it all, then that 50 percent credit (above) has to come from somewhere, and I only give active players about 50 percent credit for actually playing. E.g. it seems entirely fair and reasonable to discount the play of say Augie Galan and Snuffy Stirnweiss, who played far in excess of any previously (or post-) established level during the war. But how much to discount? 50 percent? Well I know I said 50 percent, but no I don't discount THEM 50 percent. I figure ML baseball as a whole should be discounted 50 percent, but most of that comes out of the hides of the guys who would never have been in the MLs at all, who get zero credit, but who would also never be a HoM candidate either. Once you eliminate all of that value, then maybe what is left is to discount the better players (including a Stan Musial, Vern Stephens, Lou Boudreau, Hal Newhouser) by maybe 15-20 percent. Haven't decided on the exact percent just yet. But if the AA discount in the 1880s varied from 0-35 percent, then I figure that the MLs from 1943-1945 at least are also 35 percent below the MLs of 1941 and 1947. Given, again, that a lot of the discount comes out of the hides of the guys who wouldn't have been MLers at all, then I guess discounting the better players half as much as the league as a whole seems like a reasonable compromise.

This compromise will surely not satisfy FO Pee Wee Reese, who probably needs more than half credit for war years to get into the HoM, nor will it satisfy FO Prince Hal, because a 15 percent discount might be just enough to keep him out. But it is the best I can do right now. What I can't do is give Ted Williams credit that doesn't come from somewhere. There were not 3-4 MLs in the war years, there were only 2 and only 154 games played. That limits the number of WS I am willing to throw out into the universe.
   175. karlmagnus Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:38 PM (#1001104)
Sunnyday2, that looks an entirely sensible approach. My Jackson point was that in 1918 Shoeless Joe went to work in a shipyard, at which point he was regarded by the hyper-patriot media as draftdodging, so I'm not sure he should get credit for 1918, particularly as if he hadn't "draft-dodged" he'd probably have played the season out and returned more or less on time in '19. However, I rather doubt that there were equivalent situations in WWII.

There is a question as to whether the patriot Hank Greenberg and the reluctant draftee Ted should be treated identically (Ted got about 1 full ML season more, 1 1/2 in 41-2, minus 1/2 in '45). In view of Ted's Korea service, it makes no sense to deduct in that case, but there may be others where they got to play until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the service where one would make a distinction.

Probably need to look on a case by case basis. Greenberg probably more or less a no-brainer, but if not he deserves extra credit IMHO.
   176. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:49 PM (#1001137)
My view is to give appropriate credit for the guys who served during WWII.

With the proper discounts, the players who were 4F should be credited with their major league play. If a player played in '44 or '45 who most likely wouldn't have been there if Greenberg, DiMaggio, Williams, etc. had not served in the military, I would say no to any credit, however.
   177. DavidFoss Posted: December 06, 2004 at 09:50 PM (#1001141)
What I can't do is give Ted Williams credit that doesn't come from somewhere.

I'm not sure if we can manage to get this to balance out. There are simply an *enormous* number of players who missed parts of 1943-45.

Is there a league quality metric we can use for 43-45. Something like we did for the AA. They may be have some enough players who stayed so that we can come up with some sort of reasonable discount for wartime play where we can try to project how that season would have been if the league was at full strength.
   178. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 06, 2004 at 11:27 PM (#1001357)
John M,

Not to pick on you, but when you say

"My view is to give appropriate credit for the guys who served during WWII"

you are giving players a bonus for being patriots, not ballplayers. Will Sandberg (in my hypothetical family-based retirement scenario) be given credit for being a dad?

Again, I completely agree with conscripted players, I'm just trying to clarify my own thinking on the early enlistees.
   179. jimd Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:14 AM (#1001469)
reluctant draftee Ted

He had a legitimate deferment, being sole support for his mother (and alcoholic, petty criminal brother). His father had abandoned the family when Ted was a child.
   180. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:16 AM (#1001474)
Its not like Greenberg, et al. who enlisteed prior to the drft were making career decisions. Without a war and without Adolf Hitler, Hank Greenberg would have beeen playing baseball from 1941-1945, not fighting in the army. For WWII, I am willing to give all and anybody credit. They weren't making a career choice, they were fighting a war.
   181. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 12:23 AM (#1001492)
you are giving players a bonus for being patriots, not ballplayers. Will Sandberg (in my hypothetical family-based retirement scenario) be given credit for being a dad?

Absolutely not. As jschmeagol pointed out, the WII guys were fighting a war. Sandberg made a career choice.
   182. KJOK Posted: December 07, 2004 at 02:58 AM (#1001898)
For WWII, I am willing to give all and anybody credit. They weren't making a career choice, they were fighting a war.

The big question is, why does it matter that they were fighting a war? It may be morally admireable, but whether a player is fighting a war, or off for some other reason, they're not contributing to their team winning, and in fact their team has to go out and get a replacement player?

I'm probably going to give SOME credit myself, but I can't see giving a player who didn't play the same full credit as Stan Musial, just to pick someone, who ACTUALLY PLAYED, since they didn't ACTUALLY play, and if they had played, they might have suffered a career ending injury, or injuries that would have cut short their careers, etc.
   183. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 03:13 AM (#1001938)
The big question is, why does it matter that they were fighting a war? It may be morally admireable, but whether a player is fighting a war, or off for some other reason, they're not contributing to their team winning, and in fact their team has to go out and get a replacement player?

Is it fair not to give credit to someone who had no choice but serve his country and possibly come home maimed or dead, but fair to give credit to someone whose only "war injury" was getting splinters in his butt from the bench in '44 and '45?
   184. jimd Posted: December 07, 2004 at 03:47 AM (#1002045)
The big question is, why does it matter that they were fighting a war?

The government allowed these players to continue to play for its own reasons. It could have shut MLB down like it did in WWI; it didn't for morale reasons. Each player that continued to play did so only because the government decided that the player had a good excuse for not serving in the military (too old, too young, certain medical conditions, certain economic conditions, etc.). It was a random process having little to do with ability (value potential); the teams made do with the best of the players that had government-certified excuses.
   185. Howie Menckel Posted: December 07, 2004 at 04:13 AM (#1002150)
Teams since 1900 with at least four HOMers....

1900 Brooklyn Dahlen Keeler Kelley McGinnity Sheckard 1ST
1901 Brooklyn Dahlen Keeler Kelley Sheckard 3RD
1910 Cleveland Young Flick Lajoie Jackson 5TH
1910 Chi Lel Giants HR Johnson Hill Foster Lloyd
1911-13 NY Linc Giants HR Johnson Santop Lloyd Williams
1915 Chic Am Giants Hill Santop Foster Lloyd
   186. KJOK Posted: December 07, 2004 at 07:29 AM (#1002715)
Is it fair not to give credit to someone who had no choice but serve his country and possibly come home maimed or dead, but fair to give credit to someone whose only "war injury" was getting splinters in his butt from the bench in '44 and '45?

Depends on definition of FAIR and CREDIT.

I give them 100% credit for being great Americans for the service to their country. However, they didn't provide any service to their teams. I don't have a problem with trying to estimate what they might have done, but I think it needs to be significantly discounted vs. someone who ACTUALLY did it, or else you're not being "fair" to the players who actually got hits, hit hr's, etc.
   187. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 07, 2004 at 09:37 AM (#1002916)
I'm way to the extreme on this.

A war is an exception - equal to the color line - I don't see any way around it. I think it is flat wrong to not give full, benefit of the doubt credit to players that were fighting a war, whether they enlisted or were drafted. They were fighting a war, country comes before everything. Without country, there is no baseball, there is no family. I've never served in the military, so I'm not on some moral trip here or anything.

Likewise, I downgrade anyone that played during the lean years (1943-45). Not on a moral judgement, but because the quality of play was pretty bad.

It has nothing to do with FAIR. It has to do with separating the player from his time and place. If Joe Sewell had been born in 1918, he probably would have had to fight, and would have been precluded from helping his team through no fault of his own. Jim's post #184 sums this up pretty well. If you are comparing him to Cecil Travis or Phil Rizzuto, it is flat incorrect to not account for this.

I realize that sounds stubborn, but I've heard all of the arguements on this before, and I'm pretty set in stone (though I'll listen to anything). I realize there are plenty of times where I can be wrong - I don't see that as a possibility on this topic.

I don't see how it's reasonable to dock Phil Rizzuto in the head-to-head comparison because of his birthday. It has nothing to do with fair, it's simply incorrect. I give no discount at all to Rizzuto. Since the years he missed likely would have been his best (he lost age 25-27), I will probably project a peak for Rizzuto. Not that all 3 years will be as high as his 1950, which was an outlier; but they'll probably be higher than what he'd get just on an average of 1941-42 and 1946-47.

As for the possibility of injury as a reason to discount - I would say just base it on the player's other playing time. Players are fairly consistent in whether they are durable or not (see Larry Walker or Cal Ripken), I think using a best guess based on other seasons is much closer the proper guess than a flat 50% discount, which I really believe way too conservative. No group of players misses 50% of their games over any season in their primes, why would one use that as the estimate here?
   188. Michael Bass Posted: December 07, 2004 at 05:10 PM (#1003213)
I agree with Joe in that I give full war credit based, basically, on surrounding seasons.

Two questions though:

1) Re: the players who stayed behind, anyone know if WARP3 puts a hit on those seasons, and if so, by how much?

2) Pitchers. I've discussed this before, and I forget who originally said it, but I have a problem with giving war credit to pitchers, particularly when the war credit comes early in their career. Joe mentions that players are fairly consistent in their durability. This is true for position players, not so much for young pitchers.
   189. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 07, 2004 at 05:18 PM (#1003249)
I think some credit should be given to pitchers here, but Michael may have a point, pitchers coudl have been saved. It is entirely possible that Warren Spahn or Bob Feller would have blown out there arm during the war, never to pitch again. Any thoughts on this?
   190. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 07, 2004 at 05:19 PM (#1003251)
Though, I also realize we dont' even need to give war credit to Feller and Spahn as Spah is a no brainer and Feller is close if he isn't one.
   191. PhillyBooster Posted: December 07, 2004 at 06:14 PM (#1003374)
2) Pitchers. I've discussed this before, and I forget who originally said it, but I have a problem with giving war credit to pitchers, particularly when the war credit comes early in their career. Joe mentions that players are fairly consistent in their durability. This is true for position players, not so much for young pitchers.

Robert Dudek and Bill James seem to disagree.

"Backing away from the pitcher's limits too far doesn't make a pitcher less vulnerable; it makes him more vulnerable. And pushing the envelope, while it may lead to a catastrophic event, is more likely to enhance the pitcher's durability than to destroy it."

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/workload-and-durability-part-1/
   192. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 06:46 PM (#1003420)
I agree the pitchers are the tough ones. Since, as mentioned before, Spahn and Feller are going in regardless, who else would be affected? Early Wynn missed a year. Sal Maglie is going to be extremely difficult to analyze (for a variety of reasons). What about Ted Lyons? Johnny Sain? Ewell Blackwell? Tommy Bridges? Lon Warneke? Red Ruffing? Murray Dickson? We need to be very careful with the borderline guys.
   193. jimd Posted: December 07, 2004 at 08:12 PM (#1003587)
63rd anniversary.
   194. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#1003600)
63rd anniversary.

How true.
   195. Jim Sp Posted: December 07, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#1003601)
Is it fair not to give credit to someone who had no choice but serve his country and possibly come home maimed or dead, but fair to give credit to someone whose only "war injury" was getting splinters in his butt from the bench in '44 and '45?

As I understand it very few ballplayers saw combat in the second world war...is that correct?
   196. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 07, 2004 at 08:33 PM (#1003635)
Kind of..

I did my thesis on this, most ballplayers were used to build troop morale. However, a bunch did see combat. Feller, Williams, Greenberg, Berra, and obviously, Travis all saw fighting. Buddy Lewis, I believe, said that being a fighter pilot was the greatest thrill of his life.

However, I am still likely to give them credit because it is my belief that many of them played baseball because military leaders thought they were more valuable to the war effort doing so. The choice for military leaders seems to have been to have these players play games that would up troop morale or be merely one man charging some island.

Many players were probably relieved they wouldnt' see fighting, but many asked to go into combat. We cant'know who secretly wanted to fight instead of play ball, however.

I vote for full and resonable war credit. In other words, lets not give too many gusy 30+ WS type seasons. But they do deserve cerdit for those seasons. Otherwise, we will have a very small group of players in this upcoming generation.
   197. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 07, 2004 at 08:35 PM (#1003637)
As for those who should recieve lots of MVP type seasons as credit should be Joe Gordon and Charlie Keller, two guys who will be pet candidates of mine. ;-)
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
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1509 seconds
49 querie(s) executed