Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, December 13, 2004

1941 Ballot

All you need to know is the words Ruth and Hornsby for this ballot. You could even place Jack Chesbro, Rube Marquard and Tommy McCarthy somewhere between 3 and 15 for all it’s going to do (which is nothing).

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2004 at 06:13 AM | 140 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: December 13, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#1017050)
I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

I am integrating the conclusions made by DERA with Win Shares for all pitchers.

I do place (to a certain degree) domination at one's position during the player's era. That doesn't mean that domination-by-default will necessarily help you though (Gil Hodges may have been the best first baseman of his era, but I doubt he'll make my ballot when he becomes eligible).


1) Babe Ruth-RF/LF/P (n/e): He was good. At one time, I wasn't sure if Wagner was better, but ol' Honus will have to make do with being #2 among all retired players. Best AL pitcher for 1916 and 1917. Best major league leftfielder for 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1926. Best major league rightfielder for 1923, 1924, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 (close in 1933). Best AL rightfielder for 1933 and 1934.

2) Rogers Hornsby-2B/3B/SS (n/e): He wasn't bad, either. If you weren't sure, he was the best second baseman of his time.Best major league third baseman for 1916. Best major league shortstop for 1917. Best major league second baseman for 1921 (extremely close in 1920), 1922 (extremely close in 1923), 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929.

3) John Beckwith-3B/SS/C (3): Marvelous infielder from the twenties. Appears to have been more "hot corner" guy than shortstop, but that doesn't really hurt him since third base was still mighty tough as a position. Whatever his defense lacked was surely made up (and then some) by a powerful bat. Better than any of the other eligible third basemen, IMO. I have him pegged at his position(s) multiple times as the best for many seasons among white and black players.

4) Cupid Childs-2B (4): I've moved him down a few pegs, though I still feel he's a HoMer. Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896 and 1897.          

Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman. IMO, there's no way that the Laughing One goes above the Little Fat Man.

5) Charley Jones-LF/CF (5): Like York below, he was playing a more difficult position than the one that it evolved into. I gave him a little more credit for his (unfairly) blacklisted years. Best major league leftfielder for 1877, 1879 and 1884. Best AA centerfielder for 1883. Best AA leftfielder for 1885 (close to being the best in the majors).

6) Vic Willis-P (6): Why does this man receive such little respect? Willis pitched a ton of innings at an above-average rate for a long enough time for his era. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

7) Tom York-LF (7): I know some here looking at his OPS+ must be saying to themselves "Murph has him over guys like Carey or Roush?!?" Fair question, but, IMO, York was a more dominating player at his position than those two during their time. Long enough career and many times as the best at his position (when left field was more like centerfield today) deserves a ballot spot.Best leftfielder of the 1870's. Best major league leftfielder for 1873, 1875, 1877 and 1878 (extremely close in 1872 and 1881).

8) Burleigh Grimes (8): Pitched for a long time behind crappy teams and defenses. Better peak, IMO, than Rixey or Welch places him slightly above those career guys. Best NL pitcher for 1921 and 1929.

9) Pie Traynor-3B (n/e): Best white third baseman of his time, but I'm not sure if there was a better player from the Negro Leagues yet. I am fully aware that I'm probably overrating him, but at this time it's a moot point. Best major league third baseman for 1923 (Beckwith was better), 1925, 1927, 1929 (Beckwith was better) and 1932.

10) Jake Beckley-1B (9): Not much peak, but plenty of career. Better than his numbers suggest since first base was tougher during his time than during the ABC boys' era. Best major league first baseman for 1900.

11) Mickey Welch-P (10): I have to admit that the 1880's had some fine pitchers. Best major league pitcher for 1885.

12) Rube Waddell-P (11): If he had been a little more serious and quit the horse playing... Tied for best major league pitcher for 1902. Best AL pitcher for 1905.

13) Eppa Rixey-P (13): Before Spahn, he was the winningest lefty in the NL. Comparable to Faber, except Red had a better peak..

14) Ed Konetchy-1B (14): Best first baseman of the Deadball Era, IMO. The uber-stat systems don't measure first base well, so Konetchy is hurt by that. Best major league first baseman for 1910, 1911 and 1916 (very close in 1909 and 1912). Best NL first baseman for 1909, 1912 and 1919.

15) George Van Haltren-CF/P (15): Long career of quality play. Best NL leftfielder for 1889 and best AA leftfielder for 1891.

Sewell, Jennings, Griffith, Leach and Sisler are admirable players who just miss in my system.

Vance just missed (and I mean just missed)..
   2. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2004 at 03:49 PM (#1017063)
Ruth/Hornsby obvious 1/2. Traynor low OPS+ because he didn’t walk much, so well below Sewell, about 35 on this crowded ballot. Vance nice but shortish career, below pitcher glut, significantly less meritorious than Waddell, IMHO. Jones just off the bottom, long career, lots of wins but not all that good.

1. (N/A) Babe Ruth. Caruthers, with a longer career; not as good a pitcher (ERA+122 and W/L pct. .671 but a somewhat better hitter. TB+BB/PA .740, TB+BB/Outs 1.364, OPS+207

2. (N/A) Rogers Hornsby Approximately 2 Hack Wilsons, placed end to end and playing second base. 2930 hits, OPS+ 175, TB+BB/PA .606, TB+BB/Outs 1.040.

3. (N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4-3-2-2-1-1-2-6-4-4-2-1-1-1) Jake Beckley. Will have to wait till 1960 or so now, even though Babe had fewer hits and fewer triples. Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. Marginally ahead of Welch, as we have seen more 307-win pitchers (now 10 others among currently HOM-eligible) than 2930-hit hitters (now 8 others). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals.

4. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-2-2-3-7-5-5-3-2-2-2) Mickey Welch. 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the 1920s pitcher glut. 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. With 4802 IP, OK at an ERA+of 113 (but he never heard of ERA) he was far better than most of the 00s and 20s pitchers under consideration, none of whom (other than Young, Matty and Alex) got near 300 wins, and many of whom had ERA+s little better than Welch.

5. (N/A-6-4-3-3-3) George Sisler. 2812 hits, OPS+ 124 puts him just below Beckley and Welch but above Torriente, I think. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .748. Better singles hitter than Ichiro!, his record having been set in a 154 game season. And he had power too.

6. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) By a significant margin the best pitcher on the current ballot, much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity. Successfully cursed Red Sox for over 8 decades!

7. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4-6-10-8-9-7-5-5-5) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA

8. (N/A-14-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-10-8-7-6-5-5-7-11-9-10-8-6-6-6) Clark Griffith He’s another Amos Rusie, but not quite as good. 3385 IP, 237 wins and an ERA+ of 121 not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice.

9. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8) Sam Leever. 194-100 is more career than 1720 hits, so Leever goes above Childs. That and an ERA+ of 123 also get him above Van Haltren and Ryan, there being no outfielder dearth. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Much better ERA+ than Tannehill, and W/L pct close to record territory, MUCH better than the 1920s glut. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.
   3. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#1017065)
10. (N/A-9-8-8-9) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B.

11. (N/A-8-7-8-14-13-14-13-9-9-10) Cupid Childs. OPS+119, almost the same as the 90s trio, and TB+BB/PA .470, TB+BB/Outs .797 highly competitive with them. Main negative is only 1720 hits, or about 1780 even if you normalize him to a 130 games played season. Nevertheless, he was a 2B, and I’ve been undervaluing him, significantly.

12. (N/A-10-9-8-11-N/A-15-15-14-10-10-11) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season (but that’s more than Pike, with much less of an adjustment, and Jones too missed two prime seasons.) But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF, and also on reflection above Tiernan

13. (N/A-7) Hack Wilson TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144 Downgrade a bit because of short career and Hornsby is a LOT better (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore. OPS+ slightly below Jones, so here he goes.

14. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13) Carl Mays Somewhat better W/L and WS than Coveleski, not quite as good an ERA+. He’s very close to Coveleski, I’m fairly sure he’s not as good as Leever. Hitting pushes him just above where Coveleski was, and above Faber/Rixey.

15. (N/A-11-12) Joe Sewell 2226 hits, TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .721, so not sure why OPS+ as low as 109. You could argue he’s better than Schang and Childs, you can’t argue he’s worse than Groh, especially as he was mainly a SS.
OFF BALLOT
16. (N/A-14) Sam Rice 2987 hits, but OPS+ only 112 TB+BB/PA.455, TB+BB/Outs .702, so not as good a hitter as Sewell on raw data.

17. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-N/A-14-13-15) Hugh Duffy TB+BB/PA of .489 and TB/Outs of .788, but this in the high-offense 1890s, and he’s way below Beckley on total hits. Like the 1894 peak, though - and it’s ’94 not ’93, pitchers had had a year to adjust. Significantly behind Beckley on counting considerations, and Browning on rate considerations.

18. (N/A-13-15-N/A-15-15-N/A) Vic Willis 249-205 and ERA+ of 118 get him here. Lots of IP – 3996 --, but W/L pct nothing special

19. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes. ERA+ nothing special at 107, but 270-212 is the best on the ballot apart from Welch, and he hit better than any pitcher on the ballot apart from Mays. Faber through Rixey all very close.

20. (N/A) Eppa Rixey, 266-251 and ERA+ of 115, not quite as good as Willis, even though huge 4,494 IP. Stuffed this year by where end of ballot falls, will presumably get lucky in the future.

21. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan - only 1,983 normalized hits, so only on the ballot in weak years. Does well against the 90s trio, whose OPS+ and rate stats are distinctly lower. TB+BB/PA .518, TB+BB/Outs .850, so close to Browning (in an easier era for hitters).

22. (N/A-11-14-N/A) Rube Waddell Short career but very high peak. 2961 IP, and W/L193-143 not at all special. Fielding and hitting negative, not positive – but he’s considerably better than Mendez, with ERA+ of 134 and moves up owing to pitcher dearth, although his unearned runs prevent him moving higher than this.

23. (N/A) Hughie Jennings OPS+ 117 and he was a shortstop and he had a superb peak, but only 1527 hits. TB+BB/PA .414, TB+BB/Outs .671, so he’s not as good as Childs. Extra bonus for the peak, and by comparison with rather anonymous 20s players on ballot.

24. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle. Normalize 1871-77 season by season to 130 games and he gets 1,577 hits, only 15 less than Pike in 1 less season. Better peak, too. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .751, though this, like McVey and Pike’s figures, includes no “decline” phase. Also, he was a 3B. Why did Meyerle quit? -- unlike Pike, he was nowhere near done in 1877. OPS+164 vs 152 for McVey and 155 for Pike. Lower than Pike because not a huge pre-’71 career.
25. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
26. Ben Taylor. Not all that far below Beckley and better than Van Haltren.
27. John Beckwith.
28. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
29. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A) George van Haltren. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s.
30. Jack Quinn ERA+ of 114, and 247-218, not as good as Willis, Faber or Rixey.
31. Deacon McGuire
32. Tony Mullane
33. Pye Traynor
34. Jim McCormick
35. Dick Redding
36. Joe Judge
37. Edd Roush
38. Spotswood Poles.
39. Larry Doyle
40. Roger Bresnahan.
41. Harry Hooper.
42. Dazzy Vance
43. Jules Thomas.
44. Wilbur Cooper
45. Bruce Petway.
46. Jack Clements
47. Bill Monroe
48. Jose Mendez
49. Herb Pennock
50. Chief Bender
51. Ed Konetchy
52. Jesse Tannehill
53. Bobby Veach
54. Tommy Leach
55. Lave Cross
56. Tom York
   4. TomH Posted: December 13, 2004 at 04:04 PM (#1017105)
1941 Ballot
Review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 13 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 95 adjusted for defense and timeline and speed. I don’t believe in much extra value for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

A rare ballot where I feel comfy voting early in the week :)

(x) indicates where I voted for them last ballot
[y] indicates their consensus rank from last ballot

1-George Ruth { new }
2-Rogers Hornsby { new }
Even with poor defense and a bad attitude (somewhat overdrawn by the estimable Mr. James), I have him as the #21 ballplayer of all time, and #8 of those we’ve elected to date (including the bum listed ahead of him here). I’d take Morgan or Collins as my top 2Bman, but it’s reeeallly close, and maybe Horsnby would have played 3B most of his career had he been born later, which would put him at least the 2nd best 3Bman ever.
3-Clark Griffith (1) [6]
No visions of grandeur for the Wiley one this week; he knows he must bide his time.
4-Dazzy Vance { new }
As awesome as he was in the 1920s, think about how many swing-and-a-misses he would generate in today’s game. Short career only reason he isn’t a shoo-in.

“Hall of very good” starts right about here…
5-George Van Haltren (4) [10]
Hit. Ran. Played D. Pitched. Long career. Played in strong and under-represented 1890s.

6-John McGraw (6) [34]
I’m a career voter, but Mugsy accomplished more in a few years than most others did in many. RCAP isn’t a perfect tool, but it can’t be THAT far off that McGraw gets no mention from us.
7-Joe Sewell (7) [3]
He may not have any one stat that defines him, but overall he won lots of ballgames for his team? Not quite Alan Trammell, but beats Dave Concepcion.
8-Tommy Leach (8) [9]
As a third baseman he’s high (3rd?) on my ballot. As an OFer he’s off. He lands here.
9-Larry Doyle (9) [21]
A 2Bman with such a high OWP deserves attention.
10-Rube Waddell (10) [11]
Six time leader in KOs, 3 ERA+ titles. Unearned runs drag him down a bit. We’ve already elected 8 pitchers from his prime – that nudges him down a bit. But his big KOs would have made him a bigger stud in most other eras, and that bumps him back up.
11-Cupid Childs (11) [16]
A fine hitting second sacker indeed, whose glove was okay too. Difficulty of playing a long career as an infielder in the 1890s gives him a few bonus points, enough to get him on the ballot.
12-John Beckwith (14) [14]
Right now he looks to me like the quality (defense and offense) of Killebrew, with a shorter career and some baggage.
13-Roger Bresnahan (5) [22]
Dropped this ballot, as I no longer can justify placing him much ahead of Schang. Wally is moving up to ‘almost on my ballot’, and I now think I over-did the catcher-bonus thing for Roger, who caught fewer than 1000 games.
14-Frank Chance (13) [39]
He lacks the big seasons if you use WARP or WS, since those measure rely on playing time to accumulate much value. But by RCAP in a run-starved environment, and taking into account his team’s performance, his peak, prime and career are all durn fine. Small bonus because I assess that he would have played a few more games if he weren’t managing. Another bonus for playing 1/7th of his career as a catcher. Yet another small bonus for his fine play in 4 World Series. And his rep was real good too.
15-Mickey Welch (15) [13]
I figure he was maybe 10 “wins” better than his ERA+/WARP/WS data suggests, or maybe an ERA that should be .25 better, based on his distribution of runs allowed.

---------------------------
Pie Traynor { new }
Fine player. So are lots of these guys. Get in line, have patience.
Jake Beckley (off) [8]
Somewhere between Doggie Perez and Fred the Crime Dog McGriff. He’ll have a Ruff time getting into the HoM tho.
Hughie Jennings (off) [5]
Great for 5 years. If we had a PEAK Hall of Merit, Hughie would be a shoo-in.
George Sisler (off) [7]
Great for 6 years. See above. If only his severe injury had been even one year later…
Ed Konetchy (off) [45]
If he had been born 12 years later, he’d have been a monster slugger. A closer look has bumped right into the 1B glut; four guys about whom I can’t decide which one is highest or lowest.
Wally Schang (off) [20]
Another guy begging for a bigger ballot.
Ed Roush (off) [17]
Win Shares likely overrates him
Addie Joss (12) [46]
I give. Addie was a great pitcher for a while, but he’s being squeezed out.

Others who are close: Bobby Veach, Bill Monroe, Urban Shocker, D Redding, J Mendez, H Duffy, C Jones, J Ryan, S Rice, E Rixey
   5. OCF Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:05 PM (#1017209)
1941 ballot.
1. George Herman Ruth (new) The youthful troublemaker who grew up to defy authority wherever he found it. He drank when drinking was illegal, he openly consorted with women who weren't his wife, he heaped abuse on and played pranks on reporters and managers. And we loved him for all of it as we'd loved no previous ballplayer. Larger than life, larger than the game.
2. Rogers Hornsby (new) When I lived in Austin, Texas, I did some exploring of the countryside nearby. There's still an area in the Colorado River bottomlands southeast of the city called "Hornsby's Bend," named, I think, for one of Rogers's ancestors. As for the ballplayer: I'd rank him ahead of Lajoie but behind Collins.
3. George Van Haltren (5, 5, 3, 1, 2) As "peakless" careers go, he's got substantially more offensive peak than the likes of Beckley or Hooper. Not much pitching value (and it was a whole lot easier to be a pitcher-hitter before 1893 than after), but what little pitching there is serves as a tiebreaker among similar candidates.
4. Dazzy Vance (new) I'm probably overrating what is, after all, a too-brief career. But there's really no one else remotely like him.
5. Joe Sewell (----, 3, 5) If only he'd had 2 or 3 more good years - then he'd be an easy choice. Come to think of it, I could say that about a lot of people, including Childs.
6. Larry Doyle (7, 3, 1, 4, 4) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the backlog outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
7. John Beckwith (----, 5) Doyle and Beckwith: infielders who could really hit. Beckwith had an environment more favorable to a hitter, and not all of the instabilities of his career were out of his own control.
8. Eppa Rixey (---, 5, 6) A successful long-career inning-eater. No peak.
9. Jake Beckley (14, 13, 13, 6, 7) Not much peak, long career. Next year, I'll have Terry ahead of him.
10. Pie Traynor (new) Very similar to Sewell: an above-average hitter playing a key defensive position for not quite enough years to clinch his candidacy. I see some small edges in Sewell's favor.
11. Cupid Childs (----, 7, 8) Like a lot of people, his career is too short. Not the offensive peak of Doyle, but it is a real peak.
12. Hugh Duffy (10, 8, 6, 9, 9) 35th year on my ballot. Defense gets him this far.
13. Edd Roush (-, 10, 8, 10, 10) Nearly the same offensive value as the leftover 1890's guys; better hitter than Carey.
14. George Sisler (15, 15, 15, 11, 11) My peak-heavy offensive evaluation system likes Chance ahead of Sisler, and Sisler ahead of Beckley. The order gets reversed because of playing time.
15. Rube Waddell (11, 11, 11, 9, 12, 12) The best one left from his generation. Value crammed into a very few years.
16. Jose Mendez (17, 15, 10, 13, 13)
17. Frank Chance (18, 12, 17, 14, 14) Huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time. Still has a chance to get back to my ballot.
18. Roger Bresnahan (13, 13, 12, 12, 15, 15) Very good offense for a catcher; not enough if we think of him as an outfielder.
19. Jimmy Ryan (6, 7, 5, 16, 16) Not beyond reconsideration.
20. Dick Redding (-, 23, 11, 17, 17)
21. Hugh Jennings (--, 25, 18, 19) All he's got is 5 years.
22. Wally Schang (-, 14, 14, 19, 20) A much better hitter than most catchers. Not the hitter Bresnahan is, but closer to being a pure catcher.
23. Sam Rice (----, 21) Comparable to Hooper; either he could rank lower or Hooper higher.
24. Gavy Cravath (16, 16, 16, 20, 22) A big offensive peak. Yes, he took unique advantage of his park, but real wins resulted from that. Seriously lacking in bulk unless you also consider his work in Minneapolis.
25. Rabbit Maranville (---, 21, 23). I know he wasn't much of an offensive player, but 2500 game middle infield careers are a distinct rarity.

The cluster of players fighting to get back up to the #25 spot include Luque (whom I dropped from a #18 last year), Leach, Poles, Taylor, Willis, Welch, Burns, Griffith, and Hack Wilson.
With his offense, if Leach were purely an infielder, he'd be on my ballot. Griffith languishes down here largely because he's not that high on career IP for his times.
Sam Jones: Among long-career inning-eaters, I have him ahead of Dauss and Mullin, but behind Powell, Quinn, and Grimes.
Earle Combs: Not quite Roy Thomas.
Max Bishop: Had his moments, but overall it's not enough.
Andy Cooper: I haven't yet seen a good reason to put him up there with Mendez and Redding.
   6. andrew siegel Posted: December 13, 2004 at 05:54 PM (#1017284)
Another short ballot so I can get on with my life:

(1) Babe Ruth (new)--Unless you viciously timeline, the obvious All-Time Number 1 player.

(2) Rogers Hornsby (new)-- After years of moving him around in my all-time rankins, I've settled on a method for ranking him: pretend he was a league average 1B or corner OF and rank him based on his offense. On that metric, he's about the 35th best player of all-time and a clear number 2 on this ballot.

(3) Hughie Jennings (2nd)--Not only a great player, but also a unique player: of the dominant defensive SS's in history, he's the only one who was (albeit briefly) a solid A offesnive player.

(4) George Van Haltren (3rd)--Earned more chits than any one else on this ballot save the top two, and (except perhaps for some of his pitching points) none were earned cheaply.

(5) Cupid Childs (5th)-- I want to move him down a bit but there is no one to move up. Difference between him and Doyle is that the guys ahead of and below him on the offensive leaderboards are much more impressive company than the guys surrounding Doyle (Wagner excepted of course).

(6) Frank Chance (6th)-- When adjusted for era, his career numbers are very close to pre-injury Sisler and he had more intangibles than any other player we've seen yet.

(7) Charley Jones (7th)-- HoM quality stick and better glove than most sluggers; would rank 3rd or 4th if I gave full rather than partial credit for the blacklisted years.

(8) Dazzy Vance (new)-- Productive career is very short but--by most measures other than WS--packed roughly the same amount of value into less years as Coveleski, Rixey, and Faber did into longer careers. Best seasons were historic (TPR gives him 3 of the top 61 pitching seasons of all-time) and next set of seasons fit easily with the best years of a Rixey or Willis. He's not quite a Rusie or Walsh on my measure, but is almost certainly in the top 210 players of all-time. This ranking is a intentionally a bit conservative.

(9) John Beckwith (unranked)-- I dropped the ball on him last week-- he seems to have a Dick Allen/Garry Sheffield/Albert Belle level stick. He's ranked here entirely on his bat, and will move up signficiantly if I conclude that he could have handled a key defensive position adequately in the majors.

(10) Edd Roush (11th)-- Moves up a little bit based on lots of subtle things; I see him as identical to Van Haltren only substantially less durable and without the pitching.

(11) Eppa Rixey (9th)--I have it Coveleski-Vance-Rixey-Grimes-Faber but they all likely fall between the 175th and 225th best players of all-time--a fascinating exhibit on how similar value can be built in wildly divergent career patterns.

(12) Burleigh Grimes (10th)--Shedding the terrible beginnings and endings to his career reveals an HoM calibre dozen-year run.

(13) Hugh Duffy (8th)-- Continues to bounce up and down my ballot; belongs with the rest of these guys, but I can never get a handle on where?

(14) Joe Sewell (12th)-- Glad I can mention him, not sure I want to elect him.

(15) Vic Willis (13th)-- Essentially in a 10 or 12 way tie for the last spot. Left him on the ballot b/c/ no other player made a compelling case for knocking him off.

Rest of consdieration set in rough order: Moore, Sisler, Beckley, Doyle, Ryan, McGraw, Griffith, Bresnahan, Mendez, Schang, Monroe, Welch, Veach, Redding, Bancroft, Leach.

Sisler and Beckley fall just a tad short. Waddell is permantently out of my consideration set based on my sense that in the long run it was better to have a guy you could count on like Urban Shocker, Wilbur Cooper, Addie Joss, etc. than an often AWOL man-child. Griffith and Leach are in my consideration set but fairly far down--Griffith b/c/ I think he didn't pitch quite enough in comparison with the big guns of his era and Leach b/c/ I find other similar types like VH, Beckley, and Ryan more compelling.

I think Pie Traynor was a good player, but I'm not even sure I'd give him a "very"-- solid but unspectacular defense and high batting averages over a moderately long career don't do that much for me, without some power, patience, or peak.
   7. ronw Posted: December 13, 2004 at 06:02 PM (#1017312)
1941 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. All-Star candidate is roughly the top 16 pitchers and top 32 players. MVP candidate is anyone with double the WS numbers of the worst All-Star candidate in that season. I'll gladly incorporate WARP when they clearly tell me how they reach their numbers. This year, I gave some more credit to peak seasons.

1. George Herman Ruth The Babe. The Bambino. The Sultan of Swat. The Colossus of Clout. The Maharajah of Mash. The Behemoth of Bust. The Greatest Player Ever. MVP candidate 1916-1921, 1923-1924, 1926-1933. All-Star candidate 1915, 1922, 1934. (19 HOM seasons)

2. Rogers Hornsby Many of his former players are happy that Rogers doesn’t get the limelight this year. MVP candidate 1917, 1920-1922, 1924-1925, 1927-1929. All-Star candidate 1916, 1918-1919, 1923, 1926, 1931. (15 HOM seasons)

3. John Beckwith Based on the discussions he seems to be a sure HOM player.

4. Burleigh Grimes According to Win Shares, when both were starters, Grimes was better than Rixey in the same league in 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1926, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931. They were about equal in 1924 and 1927. Rixey was better during 1916, 1917, 1922, 1923, and 1925. Rixey also pitched a few more seasons in 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915 prior to the start of Grimes’ career, but wasn’t anything special during those years. MVP candidate 1918, 1920. All-Star candidate 1921, 1923-1924, 1926-1930. (10 HOM seasons).

5. Eppa Rixey Consistently above average. I’m not sure why he rates so much higher than contemporary Grimes. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1916-1917, 1920-1925, 1927-1929, war credit 1918 (12 HOM seasons). PHOM 1939.

6. George Van Haltren Only one season among top 8 players (1898). Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1901. That is 14 consecutive solid years, the majority in a tough consolidated league. One question I will explore next week: Was Van Haltren really done in 1904, or did he pull a Kid Nichols and go to the minors to participate in management/ownership? I realize he had a poor 1903 season in the majors, but I think put up decent PCL numbers for a couple of years. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1929.

7. Jake Beckley In his 16 All-Star seasons, he only averaged about 60% of MVP value, so that hurts him with peak voters. When peak calculations are factored in, his numbers alone do not place him here, but positional adjustment does. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1895, 1897, 1899-1905. (16 HOM seasons) PHOM 1928.

8. Jimmy Ryan Had a nice peak 1888-1891. Is in danger of being overlooked for flashier candidates. MVP candidate 1888. All-Star candidate 1886-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1899, 1902. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1930.

9. Joe Sewell Looks like the best of the available major league infielders to me. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1921-1929, 1931-1933 (12 HOM seasons).

10. Tommy Leach Consistently at the top of his weaker league. MVP candidate 1908. All-Star candidate 1901-1907, 1909-1910, 1913-1914. (12 HOM seasons)

11. Dick Redding I just don’t see where to slot Negro League pitchers, but Redding seems worthy of induction some time.

12. George J. Burns Dominated a weaker league. Through the teens, generally among the top 8 players in the league. MVP candidate 1917, 1919, All-Star candidate 1913-1916, 1918, 1920-1923. (11 HOM seasons).

13. Bill Monroe Seems to have suffered because of lack of documentation.

14. Ben Taylor I like this candidate, but he doesn’t seem very spectacular.

15. Wilbur Cooper Good career candidate, with questions about league quality. Really benefited by being top of his league. Never really an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1914, 1916-1924 (10 HOM seasons)

LAST YEAR TOP TEN

Hughie Jennings – Even the greatest five year peak (Babe Ruth) wouldn’t make my ballot by itself. I need some above average play outside that peak. Six years is a little better. Seven years might get a player in my PHOM (see Ed Walsh.) Five just doesn’t give me enough. MVP candidate 1894-1898. (5 HOM seasons)

Clark Griffith –I think that he had a relatively short productive career, and didn’t have nearly the peak of a Walsh, Brown or perhaps even Waddell or Coveleski. He needs to get a pretty steep 1890s pitcher premium to make my ballot. All-Star candidate 1894-1901 (8 HOM seasons)

George Sisler – A decent peak but surprisingly only one 30+ WS season. Probably deserves ballot placement in future seasons, but this is a deep ballot. MVP candidate 1917, 1920. All-Star candidate 1916-1922, 1925, 1927-1928. (10 HOM seasons.)

For newcomers, even with a significant peak adjustment, Vance doesn’t quite reach the ballot. The peak adjustment didn’t help Traynor much.

Missing from my PHOM:

Pike (with peak adjustment, will make it in ‘42)
Coveleski (will make it some day)
Faber (may never make it, even with the peak adjustment)
Thompson (will never make it)

I'm not manly about my mistakes. Harry Hooper got removed from my PHOM this year, allowing Heinie Groh to make it last year.
   8. ronw Posted: December 13, 2004 at 06:13 PM (#1017322)
After six ballots, only two players have been named on every ballot. The top player has already doubled the total of the #3 man.

The top player's name ends in an "h." The second player's name ends in a "y." I will be very careful not to give away any results, though.
   9. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2004 at 06:37 PM (#1017371)
The top player's name ends in an "h." The second player's name ends in a "y." I will be very careful not to give away any results, though.

ARGH! Don't tease me like this! I'm going to be racking my brain all week!
   10. PhillyBooster Posted: December 13, 2004 at 07:11 PM (#1017442)
1. Babe Ruth (n/e) -- So, my older daughter loves this PBS show called "Between the Lions". It essentially fills in the educational hole that "The Electric Company" filled in the 1970s. Anyway, one of the regular features is Dr. Ruth Westheimer playing "Dr. Ruth Wordheimer", and she helps out the little muppet monkees who are having psychological blocks in reading particulary long words by having them slow down and sound out each syllable. Anyway, that's my favorite part of the show. Dr. Ruth used to be a sharpshooter ("sniper") in the Israeli army, so I would give her extra credit for military service, also, and her career even excluding military service was much longer than the Babe's. Babe Ruth doesn't get any military credit -- I'm not really sure what he did during World War I. Therefore it would be very difficult to rank Babe Ruth against Dr. Ruth if this was a Hall of Baseball and Therapist Merit. Luckily, it's not, because that would be a pretty tight race. Anyway, with Dr. Ruth not eligible, Babe is pretty easily #1.

2. Rogers Hornsby (n/e) -- Pretty clearly finishes below Dr. and Babe Ruth. Also, I'd have him below Cy Young, Walter Johnson, and Eddie Collins. Also, continuing the PBS theme, Rogers finishes decisively below Mr. Rogers. There is an urban legend that Mr. Rogers was a Marine Sharpshooter, but it is clearly false, since he was never in the military at all. He was, however, a Presbyterian minister, and host of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood for 33 years, which gives him lots of points for intangibles (such as "feelings", "friendship" and "veteran presence"). With Mr. Rogers not eligible, Hornsby moves up to second.

3. Jake Beckley (1) -- I guess Jake and I will be hanging around together for a lot longer than I originally thought.

4. Eppa Rixey (2) -- Pitcher replacement is lower than you think it is. Also, unlike hitter replacement, you can't really replace it with one guy. We're all pretty good at spouting off a list of replacement level position players who turned in 600 PA at their position. But how many replacement level pitchers can you name who threw 160-200 innings in their replacement level season? Part of being replacement level is that your innings necessarily drop. Besides being lower than hitters' replacment, a pitcher that has to be replaced with replacement-level talent essentially has to be replaced with 2 or 3 different pitchers. That's a hidden "cost" that doesn't get tallied when considering high IP, "very good" pitchers like Rixey.

5. Jose Mendez (4) -- Best of the Cuban pitchers, really of all time. Cuba has provided some of the best baseball talent of all time. Will the HoM be void of Cuban pitchers (Dihigo doesn't count)? If you don't like Mendez or Luque, you're probably does to Luis Tiant and Mike Cuellar as the next two reasonable candidates. I don't see either of them as better than Mendez or Luque. If your system doesn't include voting in any Cuban pitchers, maybe that suggests a flaw with your system?

6. Mickey Welch (3) Am I getting bored, or just less impressed with his numbers to 400th time I've looked at them? I don't know. In any case, I'm less inspired about pushing his candidacy than I have been in previous years, and his "subjective points" ranking is starting to slide a little.

7. Gavy Cravath (6) -- Full credit for the nearly-half of his career that is buried in old PCL and AA stat-books. Even conservative estimages put him above 300 win shares -- probably over 350. He was among the best deadball sluggers ever.

8. Dolf Luque (7) -- See Mendez comment. Also, Cravath comment. It took the World War player dearth for Luque to finally get a solid shot at the majors, despite numerous seasons of top-rate pitching at a young age in Cuba, the Negro Leagues, and the top white minors. He doesn't get credit for more than he did, but he does get to fill out the left side of his bell curve a little. Those Cuban league games counted too, and I think they have to be considered in creating the "big picture".

9. Roger Bresnahan (8) -- A highly-leveraged catcher. Look at his PA/G compared to his peers. Either he got lots of rest in blowouts, or, more likely, he was #1 off the bench on his days off. If you had a catcher who could hit like left fielder, wouldn't you try to get an extra PA out of him on his rest days? Amazing peak, and a long-enough career if you know who to compare him to.

10. Pete Browning (10) -- Though experiment. What statistics would you require a player to have in order to make your ballot, if he peaked in the AA from 1882 to 1885? Is it possible for any mortal to attain those levels, and survive the league adjustment?

11. Dazzy Vance (n/e) -- Not crazy about him, but no harm putting him here until next week when I reconsider. I want a lot more from my short-career pitchers (see Rixey comment), but if we're going with peak, I like his over Waddell's. I was convinced by other comments to move him above Carl Mays (whom I had ranked 15, and now slips to 17 this year).
12. Bill Monroe (11)
13. Clark Griffith (12)
14. Dick Redding (13)
15. Tommy Leach (off) -- pushes Willis and Mays down to 16 and 17. He had fallen off of my consideration set, but now that I have to explain why, I don't really have a good reason, except that he's hard to judge because of the position split. Considering the relative lack of third basemen, and considering the relatively identical resumes of everyone down here in the 15-30 range, Leach gets a reconsideration in this year when there's no chance of his actually getting elected.
   11. PhillyBooster Posted: December 13, 2004 at 07:11 PM (#1017443)
16. Willis; 17. Mays; 18. Childs; 19. Konetchy; 20. Sisler; 21. Beckwith; 22. Schang; 23. Sewell.

No votes for Top Tenners Jennings, Sewell, or van Haltren. Jennings' peak was too short, van Haltren's peak wasn't high enough. Sewell (like Jennings) is being given a positional bonus that I don't think he has earned.
   12. Michael Bass Posted: December 13, 2004 at 07:55 PM (#1017517)
WARP3 is the main tool. Also consider OPS+, ERA+, and the various playing time measures. Win Shares is ancillary, there are some weird things going on there, particularly with defense.

Traynor is a complete non-starter for me. Career is mediocre, peak is mediocre, combo is mediocre. First ballot Hall of Very Good. Cooper, I fear I don't have much of a handle on (his thread sort of got off track). But I'm reasonably sure he shouldn't be on my ballot, so I'm not too concerned; Chris has him for only 8 MLE years, and his peak doesn't seem all that high. Probably in the Donaldson range, which is well off ballot, and well behind Méndez and Redding.

1. George Herman Ruth (new) - Not that this will come as a shock to anyone, but he rates out as the top player I've ever ranked in my system.

2. Rogers Hornsby (new) - Overrated by history, I guess because of the era he played in. All-time great, yes, even inner circle guy. But not an inner-inner circle guy. I have the 4 legends from 33-34 ahead of him, and probably the two NLers from '34, too.

3. Dazzy Vance (new) - A better Waddell, without the unearned runs issue. And I like Waddell a lot. Monster peak as well as an underrated career. Has more WARP3 than any other pitcher on the ballot.

4. Hughie Jennings (1) - The argument I used for Caruthers all those years works even better for Hughie. Crammed so much value into a short career that he's more valuable than guys with productive careers twice or three times as long.

5. Bobby Veach (2) - Love his peak, was super-strong both offensively and defensively. I'm his best friend, so I should make sure to justify this. For 7 years (1915-1917, 1919-1922), he was simply a very, very strong player. Great defender in left by nearly every measure, strong OPSs with high peaks, and all this in the strong league.

6. José Méndez (4) - Very similar to Waddell pitching-wise. His hitting as a pitcher moves him to one spot above him, but he doesn't get credit in my system for his offensive rebirth (I don't think he'd have had it in the big leagues).

7. Rube Waddell (5) - Love the Ks, and his RA+ is very good (though obviously not as good as his ERA+, which is inflated). The intangibles argument holds no weight with me.

8. Pete Browning (6) - Just one hell of a hitter, even discounting the AA. If we elect Beckley before him, we should be embarassed.

9. Joe Sewell (7) - Gets a boost because of the league differences. Strong defender, even if not elite, with a very strong bat as well. One more year like 1923, and he'd probably have topped my ballot.

10. Wally Schang (8) - Big time peak with the bat considering the position, and a long career for the position as well. Carlton Fisk lite is a good description, I think. Boggles my mind that he's not getting more support, though I suppose we are approaching something of a catcher glut.

11. Dick Redding (9) - Of similar value to Mendez, but below him because of Mendez's bat, and Redding is a touch lighter on the peak.

12. Dobie Moore (10) - Really, anyone who has Jennings in their top 5 should have Moore somewhere on the ballot. I understand those who have neither, but Moore, while not Jennings, is close enough that there should never be more than 10 or so spots separating them. Probably a little more career than Jennings, a little less peak. Awesome hitting and defense from everything I've seen.

13. John Beckwith (11) - Seems to have been one hell of a hitter. Doesn't get much credit on the historical polls for a variety of reasons, some seemingly valid, some not. Exactly how bad was his defense? Hard to say in context. Also a major argument between our experts about his HR hitting skill. For now, he is here. Could move up.

14. Bill Monroe (14) - Was a hell of a hitter in the early days of the organized Negro Leagues, when he was already up in age. Could be vastly underrating him, don't think I'm overrating him. I'd rather have him than Grant, who we (and I) probably jumped the gun on.

15. Fielder Jones (13) - Just can't keep him off my ballot. Enough bat to go with his excellent glove to develop a peak and career mix.



Top 10 Returners not on my ballot

Rixey - Light on peak, and in the weak league, too. I'm with KJOK on the issue of season-to-season replacement. Pretending that a if Rixey had played 3 less averagish seasons, his teams would have used some AAA dud is just silly. Not that the averagish seasons don't have value, but using them as the primary reason for election?

Griffith - Behind Sisler, who is pretty far off my ballot (though not so far that he couldn't get back into the mix). I still think Waddell is the correct choice of the long time ballot pitchers to be inducted. A bit light on peak.

Sisler - Peak isn't good enough for his short productive career. Only one season of the superpeak that he needed 3-4 seasons of to make it.

Beckley - No peak. Never any better than an above average player. Would be a terrible choice for election.

Leach - Honestly, I'm thrilled to see him moving up. He has an on-again-off-again relationship with my ballot, and is currently off again, but he's close. I much prefer him to any of the other Top 10ers not on my ballot.

Van Haltren - Around #25. Too many OFs ahead of him on my ballot right now. Good player though, and would not be a horrible election.
   13. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2004 at 09:38 PM (#1017789)
1941 Preliminary Ballot

Easy year, so I’ll get this ballot in before I start grading final exams. Once the exams are done, I’ll start catching up on analysis of Negro-League candidates.

1. Babe Ruth (n/e). Leads all players in career win shares, in career win shares above average, and in peak rate. Wagner’s 10-year peak rate is slighly better than the Babe’s due to his two off years, but that’s the only measure I look at where the Babe isn’t #1. Wow.
2. Rogers Hornsby (n/e). I have him at #10 all time so far. He trails Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Johnson, Speaker, Young, Anson, Collins, and Alexander. Easy #2 choice. If I were building a team I might rather have Lajoie as my second-basman, because everybody loved him, but on the field Hornsby had a slightly higher impact.
3. Clark Griffith (2). Best 1890s candidate available, and the need to elect another 1890s pitcher is clear. His relation to his peer pitchers is similar to that of Faber and Rixey. His raw peak is higher than theirs because pitchers threw more innings per season while his career value is lower because pitchers tended to burn out sooner, but his standing relative to his peers is close. Quality of competition considerations give him a slight edge over Rixey.
4. Eppa Rixey (3). Long, solidly above average career.
5. Dazzy Vance (n/e). During his best seasons, he was really phenomenal. For a short peak, the best pitcher of the 1920s, I think. But Rixey has 1500 innings on him, plus (for me) WWI credit, so the Dazzler slots in here. I figure his RSI would have been about 2 points higher for his career if he had been a hitter of average ability.
6. Hughie Jennings (4). Best peak available after Ruth and Hornsby. Would represent 1890s well.
7. John Beckwith (11) Moves up based on reevaluation of infielders. I still need to redo his win shares for a couple of seasons in light of new statistical and biographical information provided by historians. That will strengthen him further, but I don’t know if it will be enough to move him higher on the ballot. I see him as an eventual HoMer: if not in 1942, then after 1960.
8. George Van Haltren (5). Pennants added should remind the electorate that Van Haltren was a heck of a player. Even if WS overrates centerfielders and VH gets a boost from pitching, he’s a candidate who oughtn’t to be slipping towards oblivion just yet.
9. Edd Roush (6). Very similar in value to VH. Should be getting a bit more support. Missed a lot of games, but a heck of a player when he was on the field in his prime.
10. Tommy Leach (7) Finally getting his due. Won’t have a chance at election until the 1960s, but it looks like he’s more firmly on the radar now.
11. Dick Redding (9). Still working on Negro-League pitching WS. The flood of new, complicated candidates means I won’t have revised figures for this election, so Redding and Mendez stay put.
12. Jose Mendez (10). Best pitching peak on the ballot.
13. George Sisler (12). Nice peak.
14. Larry Doyle (14). Appreciating his hitting more.
15. Urban Shocker (16) Never had a bad year.

Consensus top-10 players not on my ballot.
Joe Sewell – see #29 below
Jake Beckley – see #
Rube Waddell – See #22 below
Hugh Duffy – See #20 below
   14. Chris Cobb Posted: December 13, 2004 at 09:47 PM (#1017806)
1941 Off-Ballot

16. Burleigh Grimes (15). Threw a lot of innings, had some big years, but also had a lot of seasons were he was not especially effective.
17. Rabbit Maranville (16). OPS is sad-looking, but his run from 1914 to 1930 was a fine career. Definitely one of the all-time great defensive shortstops.
18. Mickey Welch (17).
19. Spotswood Poles (18)
20. Hugh Duffy (19). I like Duffy pretty well, but he’s just over my in/out line. I think WS overrates him just a bit, so I prefer VH among 1890s outfield candidates.
21. Carl Mays (21).
22. Rube Waddell (20) Shocker comment above for more on how I compare Waddell to later pitchers. Waddell was a great talent, and he was one of the greatest characters in the history of major-league baseball. He’s thus deserving of his place in the Hall of Fame, but I think his value is just below the threshold for Hall of Merit induction. In the context of his time, just the eighth-best pitcher of the aughts.
23. Jimmy Ryan (22)
24. Roger Bresnahan (23).
25. Wally Schang (24).
26. Wilbur Cooper (25).
27. Dobie Moore (34). Moves up due to reevaluation of infielders. Still a ways from the ballot, though. Needs reevaluation in light of new data, but I haven’t had time yet. Would need to leap over the pitching cluster of Shocker, Grimes, and Mays, as well as Wally Schang, to reach a place in my 1920s rankings to make the ballot, though.
28. Ben Taylor (27)
29. Joe Sewell (44). Like Moore, moves up substantially due to reevaluation of infielders, but still a good ways from the ballot.
30. Harry Hooper (30).
31. Cupid Childs (31).
32. Bobby Veach (32)
33. Fielder Jones (33)
34. Dolf Luque (28).
35. Gavvy Cravath (34)
36. Herman Long (35)
37. Tommy Bond (36)
38. George J. Burns (37)
39. Charley Jones (38)
40. Bruce Petway (39)
41. Bill Monroe (40)
42. Babe Adams (41)
43. Jake Beckley (42). Still doesn’t have much peak. I’m going to do something systematic with pennants added for 1942, which should help Beckley, but I’m doubtful he’ll reach my ballot.
44. Sam Rice (26).
45. Dave Bancroft (43)
46. Mike Tiernan
47. Frank Chance
48. Tony Mullane
49. Ed Konetchy
50. Lave Cross
51. Addie Joss
52. John McGraw

Other New Arrivals Worthy of Note

Lefty Andy Cooper. Not yet ranked. I haven’t had time to do the work that I want to do on Negro-League pitchers, so I haven’t included him. I expect to have some MLE projections for him, as well as win shares for Joe Rogan and revised MLEs for Nip Winters, Dick Redding, and Jose Mendez in time for the 1942 elections. The key is to get a firm base for evaluating Bil Foster in 1943, of course.

Pie Traynor. Hall of very good. I prefer Beckwith, Cross, McGraw, Williamson, and Nash among third basemen, and I prefer Sewell and Bancroft among 1920s infielders. He’s in the 60-70 range among all eligibles at this point.
   15. Jim Sp Posted: December 13, 2004 at 11:08 PM (#1017976)
Ruth, Hornsby. Vance on deck. Traynor #36. Combs, O’Farrell, Sam Jones, Bishop had nice careers but are not close to the ballot.

My PHoM selections Joss, Mendez, and Welch are off my ballot now. Looks like my PHoM has at least seven guys that will never make the HoM: Joss and Mendez, plus Doyle, Cravath, Monroe, Bresnahan, and Schang. Schang and Doyle will be on my ballot for a long time, I think.

1)Ruth--Yup. #1 all time.
2)Hornsby--And yup. About #25 alltime, but I would take Collins and Lajoie ahead of him.
3)Sewell--109 OPS+, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). Yes, I am allowing for his switch to 3B at the end of his career.
4)Schang--His rate stats would put him in the HoM, but a look at each individual year isn’t impressive. Still, a hitting catcher with his career length isn’t common...Bill James rates him a C+ fielder in Win Shares, but says he was a good catcher in the NHBA. Stands out from the extreme lack of catching candidates recently.
5)Doyle— His hitting is legitimately outstanding, he played 2nd base, and a C+ defender by Win Shares. 126 career OPS+, compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. #19 all time in innings at 2B. Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
6)Beckwith-- Was Beckwith, in his prime, was the best hitter in the Negro Leagues? He played a considerable amount at the difficult end of the defensive spectrum. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his “unusual circumstances”. His selection as manager indicates to me that his intangibles weren’t all negative. Could be higher. I might regret this, but he made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
7)Beckley— Behind the big 3, much better than other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production.
8)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115 for such a long career.
9)Vance--Rixey or Vance? Today I’m in a career mood I guess.
10)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
11)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
12)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
13)Bancroft--Adjusted him up…
14)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so he’s not quite as impressive as I thought at first glance.
15)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.


Hughie Jennings—If he played SS his whole (short) career, I’d be listening. He played a lot of 1B, though. His peak is impressive but it’s just not enough career.
Sisler--I don’t see his case being very strong. His peak was not long enough to merit election, though he certainly was a great hitter for a few years.
Leach--Great fielder at both 3B and CF. Historically a unique player, if only he hit a little better. Or had stayed at 3B.
Van Haltren--Good player, part of the OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
Hugh Duffy—Good hitter, great fielder. Duffy, Van Haltren, and Ryan are even in my estimation, but off the ballot.
   16. Ardo Posted: December 14, 2004 at 12:49 AM (#1018299)
Hey y'all,

I've decided to join the Hall of Merit voting after faithfully following this project from about the 1910 election on. My given name is Jason. I am a 20-year-old college student at Michigan State University, majoring in international relations. I have traveled to Belgium, Denmark, and Mexico, but I am happiest sitting in the Comerica Park stands.

I will post my ballot right away.
   17. Ardo Posted: December 14, 2004 at 01:44 AM (#1018417)
For my first-ever 1941 ballot, I considered the top 50 from last year (to Dave Bancroft) and ranked the players by position.

My 1941 ballot:

1) Babe Ruth: In Barry Bonds' defense, Ruth also looked much different at age 37 than he did at age 27.

2) Rogers Hornsby: From 1926-29, you could acquire the NL OPS leader for pennies on the dollar.

3) George Sisler: Why so high? Two reasons:

-How many other of the position players on the ballot have a 124 ERA+ in 111 innings of pitching? Remember, he once beat Ruth in a 1-0 shutout.

-I secretly fear that OPS+ discounts hits and rewards walks excessively. Which season would you prefer, Mark Bellhorn's 2004 of .254/.373./.444 (107 OPS+) or Joe Sewell's 1927 of .316/.382/.424 (108 OPS+)? Especially when Bellhorn struck out 177 times to Sewell's 7? Sewell had a more consistent season; to me, he also had a preferable season.

Sisler never had more than 49 season BB, but a .340(!) lifetime average.

4. Dazzy Vance: See TomH's post, #34 in the Dazzy Vance thread. Overwhelming power pitcher with bad run support.

5. John Beckwith: About where I would put Dick Allen, who I see as a roughly comparable player for both his offensive production and his hot temper.

6. Jimmy Ryan
7. George Van Haltren

Both of these high-average, relatively low-walk hitters (see #3) comfortably cross my PHoM line. Ryan is ahead because of the better ERA+ (a 104 to 96 edge).

8. Clark Griffith: The highest pitcher on my ballot, with a career record that compares favorably to HoM inductees McGinnity and Coveleski.

9. Tommy Leach: Remarkable defense and above-average offense at two positions. Likely to rise in future years.

10. Jake Beckley: I compared Beckley to another long career type, Harold Baines:

Beckley 2930 hits, 125 OPS+
Baines 2866 hits, 120 OPS+

Baines falls into the Hall of Very Good; Beckley, then, is a borderline case.

11. Joe Sewell: I admire his bat control, but his offense, in context, is not exemplary.

12. Dick Redding: If he is, truly, one of the top 5 NeL pitchers of all time, I may move him higher.

13. Cupid Childs: Half of Eddie Collins' career, to whom he is most similar by age throughout his career. Is that enough for the HoM?

14. Dobie Moore: The Negro-Leagues equivalent to Hughie Jennings, but an even better hitter.

15. Pie Traynor: A very good third baseman, but not a long enough career and not exceptional defensively either.

Totals: 3 pitchers, 0 catchers, 4 middle IFs, 5 corner IFs, 2 OFs, 1 OF/P.

Bresnahan, Jennings, Rice, Rixey, and Welch are #s 16-20.
   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 14, 2004 at 02:05 AM (#1018457)
Welcome, Ardo! Your ballot is fine by me. karlmagnus shouldn't bother you too much now since you have Beckley on your ballot. :-D Personally, I'm happy to see your placement of Beckwith.
   19. OCF Posted: December 14, 2004 at 02:24 AM (#1018492)
Which season would you prefer, Mark Bellhorn's 2004 of .254/.373./.444 (107 OPS+) or Joe Sewell's 1927 of .316/.382/.424 (108 OPS+)? Especially when Bellhorn struck out 177 times to Sewell's 7?

Well, I'd prefer Sewell's season because he was a better defensive player than Bellhorn (he was still a SS in 1297).

But I don't agree with your point at all. The strikeouts are a red herring. After all, they aren't double plays. Bellhorn had 8 GDP, a low number. We don't have GDP for Sewell, but if I had to guess, I'd say 15-20. (See Gwynn, T., for another non-strikeout hitter.) Sewell reached base 240 known times in 652 plate appearances; Bellhorn 231 times in 620 PA. Bellhorn reached second or further slightly more often on his own. One thing OPS+ doesn't include is basestealing. Bellhorn was a mildly positive 6-1; Sewell an utterly dreadful 3-16. On the whole, I would take Bellhorn as having the slightly better offensive year, although not by enough to make up for the defense.

Of course, everything should be put into the context of year and park. Bbref does that; compared to average-in-context, Sewell's BA/OBP/SLG was +.022/+.020/+.009, while Bellhorn was -.013/+.027/-.001.

There were some threads on the old Primer, (in Tangotiger's section?), in which there were some willing to argue that for the same OBP and SLG, the lower BA was more valuable.
   20. OCF Posted: December 14, 2004 at 02:30 AM (#1018503)
I should add that exact placements on this ballot from #3 on are a very murky business, and it's well within reasonable to have Sisler 3rd. I have no complaints about Ardo's ballot. Count it.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 14, 2004 at 02:36 AM (#1018511)
We don't have GDP for Sewell, but if I had to guess, I'd say 15-20.

He had 25 in our Diamond Mind League for the '25 season this year. Of course, he had a staggering 10 K for the season, too.
   22. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2004 at 02:52 AM (#1018540)
Bellhorn also had the higher isolated slugging and therefore more power.

I think that OPS, and OPS+ of course, underrates OBP in relation to slugging but never thought about walks to singles. Is there any evidence for this?
   23. DavidFoss Posted: December 14, 2004 at 03:21 AM (#1018599)
Bellhorn also had the higher isolated slugging and therefore more power.

This is basically what supports what OCF said above about lower batting average being good when the OPS's are the same. The conversion from a single to a walk is not necessarily appealing, but the increase in ISO is what a lot of people forget.

I think that OPS, and OPS+ of course, underrates OBP in relation to slugging but never thought about walks to singles. Is there any evidence for this?

OPS+ is not as bad as OPS in that it normalizes OBP and SLG before adding them. Its really OBP+ plus SLG+ munus 100. This removes the difference in the scales of the two numbers which is part of the reason why OBP demands a higher weight... (not all of the reason from what I gather).

I don't know if it was intentional or not but OPS+ also approximates a "lineup-adjusted" OTS (note the 'T' there). OBP times SLG is much closer to Runs Created and if you multiply OPS+ by the constant number lgOBP*lgSLG you get:

OBP*lgSLG + lgOBP*SLG - lgOBP*lgSLG (constant)

This is "lineup adjusted" in that you can imagine the effect of a player on a league average lineup this way. It ends up eliminating some of the "driving yourself in" explosion superstar hitters get when using RC and its derivatives (RC/27, OWP).

Again, I don't know if OPS+ does that intentionally or not.

Anyhow, I'm just reciting memories of what I've read from guys like Tango at Primer and other newsgroups.
   24. DavidFoss Posted: December 14, 2004 at 03:32 AM (#1018623)
The holidays come early to the HOM. Candidates 3 and up are jockeying for position for one last holiday run before the big 1943 class is eligible.

1941 Ballot

1. Babe Ruth (ne) -- 161 points of black ink! 11 200+ OPS+ seasons! A retroactive Cy Young Award! Wow! Wow! Wow!
2. Rogers Hornsby (ne) -- Two standard triple crowns. Six consecutive Sabermetric Triple Crowns (AVG/OBP/SLG)... from the middle infield no less. In the era where you weren't allowed to win the award twice, he won a second MVP! Yet somehow he is light years out of the #1 slot. Go figure. He's inner circle, but having his last full season at age 33 keeps him behind Collins.
3. Larry Doyle (nr-14-11-9-8-6-7-10-8-8-6-4-2-3) -- I think the electorate is underrating him. Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak, in fairly short career. Fielding was mediocre, but not as horrific as WARP suggests.
4. Hughie Jennings (14-12-14-14-13-11-9-7-6-7-8-13-11-11-9-6-4-4) -- I like peak and boy does Hughie have peak. Short career, though. Unlike McGraw, poor seasons outside his peak slip his career rate stats a bit. Also unlike McGraw, he was quite durable inside his peak.
5. Cupid Childs (nr-15-12-10-9-8-9-14-12-12-10-8-6-6) -- Very comparable to Doyle. OPS+ is OBP heavy. Fielding was good, but not A-level.
6. Charley Jones (nr-nr-13-12-11-9-7-6-5-5-6-11-9-9-7-5-3-7) -- Unfairly blacklisted. Appears to be a hybrid or Pike/Stovey/Thompson, guys I've ranked fairly highly.
7. John McGraw (10-10-11-10-9-8-6-5-4-4-5-12-10-10-8-7-5-5) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. In fact, his OBP is 3rd all time. Playing time issues -- even for this peak voter -- are keeping him below Groh.
8. Clark Griffith (nr-15-12-10-8-7-9-10-14-nr-14-14-13) -- The plethora of borderline 20's candidates is making me think we may have forgotten about Clark. Solid numbers in an underrepresented era.
9. Mickey Welch (nr-14-11-11-12-15-13-13-11-9-7-8) -- 300 game winner. Played for great teams in an easy era to win games, but research here is saying he did more to earn his W's than previously thought. Still, his meager 113 ERA+ is keeping him low on the ballot.
10. Dick Redding (ne-12-10-8-9) -- 2nd best fastball of the 10's according to Neyer/James.
11. Dazzy Vance (ne) -- Love the K's, love the ERA+, love the peak. Shortish career. Conservative early placement.
12. George Sisler (ne-14-13-11-9-10) -- Peak candidate... before the injury (184 RC+) was a top-tier hitter, trailing only Ruth, Cobb, Hornsby, Speaker & Jackson with a big gap down to the next group of Heilmann, Youngs and Roush (155 RC+). After the injury, he was quite mediocre (103 RC+). Peak is high enough to make the ballot. His peak is shorter and lower than JJackson's which is what keeps him relatively low.
13. Roger Bresnahan (15-15-nr-nr-13-11-10-10-11-15-15-14-12-10-11) -- Great five year peak at C. 126 OPS+ is OBP-heavy. Didn't appear to play full-time outside his peak though... getting a small subjective boost due to catcher shortage from his era.
14. Tommy Leach (nr-15-13-13-15) -- Hard to rate due to mix of 3B & CF, but does well in Pennants Added. Wouldn't make the ballot on CF alone, 3B play boosts him onto the ballot.
15. Joe Sewell (ne-12-14) His RCAA numbers are good and earn him a place on the ballot. His RCAP numbers are a bit inflated due to his being 10 years older than Cronin/Vaughn/Appling.

Rixey -- Was 15th last year, none of my ballot was inducted. Rogan knocked him off the ballot.
Beckley -- Took a long look at him. Black Ink of 1. Top OPS finishes are 5-7-8-10. I like Sisler better and George is only 12th this week.
Van Haltren -- Two 10ths and an AA-7th in OPS+ is not what I look for in a HOM outfield candidate. Win Shares fielding rating of B. Looks like the Hall of the Very Good to me.
   25. OCF Posted: December 14, 2004 at 03:36 AM (#1018630)
Bellhorn also had the higher isolated slugging and therefore more power.

Yes, but not by all that much. His HR, in a 20-oughts context, aren't all that high.

Bellhorn had an ISO of .180, compared to a (park-adjusted) league average ISO of .168. Sewell had an ISO of .088 (mostly doubles) versus a league average of .109.

(Hmm; what would a non-Yankee league average ISO be?)
   26. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2004 at 03:52 AM (#1018658)
You are probably right OCF, Sewell may have been better when context et al. is considered. Though at the same time batting averages were never higher in this century than the late 20's/early 30's.
   27. Rob_Wood Posted: December 14, 2004 at 05:19 AM (#1018863)
My 1941 ballot:

1. Babe Ruth -- greatest player of all time
2. Rogers Hornsby -- all-time great 2B
3. Dazzy Vance -- great strikeout pitcher
4. Eppa Rixey -- very good pitcher
5. Jake Beckley -- very good long career 1B
6. Joe Sewell -- very good fielding and hitting SS
7. Hack Wilson -- way underrated by this group
8. Edd Roush -- great fielding CF
9. George Sisler -- great half career 1B
10. Larry Doyle -- very good hitting 2B
11. Pie Traynor -- let's not overlook him
12. Rabbit Maranville -- very good SS
13. Rube Waddell -- luv those strikeouts
14. Addie Joss -- luv his whip and ERA
15. Cupid Childs -- very good early 2B

Players in the group top 10 who I did not vote for: Hughie Jennings (I am a career value voter); Clark Griffith (I like him but not enuf this ballot); George Van Haltren (ditto).
   28. Howie Menckel Posted: December 14, 2004 at 05:48 AM (#1018942)
Welcome, Ardo.
We've got a thread somewhere in which some voters explain who the heck they are...

Ballot looks fine, too. Actually more 'conformist' than most, which means a lot like mine. At this point most people seem to have a few 'out there' selections...
   29. Adam Schafer Posted: December 14, 2004 at 07:14 AM (#1019079)
My PHOM line nearly engulfs my entire 15 votes. GVH and Sewell are at the bottom of my 15, and it's just hard for me to imagine them being that low. A very strong ballot IMO.


1. Babe Ruth (n/a) - no need to explain

2. Rogers Hornsby (n/a) - still no need to explain

3. Mickey Welch (1) - Ugh, a devastating drop for Welch. Gotta give credit where credit is due though.

4. Dazzy Vance (n/a) - Lots of newbies at the top of my list. I am debating hard whether to have Vance ahead of Welch or not. I'm much more of a career voter than I am peak, but my god, Vance has a great peak, and enough career to satisfy me. I can only sit and wonder what tyep of numbers he would've had if he'd been pitching well before he was 31.

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

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

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

8. Pie Traynor (n/a) - One of the best 3b ever

9. George Sisler (6) - 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

17. Roger Bresnahan (15) - 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.

18. Herb Pennock (16) - 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.

19. Carl Mays (17) - 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?

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

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

22. Dobie Moore (20) - 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.

23. Rabbit Maranville (21) - 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. Harry Hooper (28) - 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.

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

32. Ray Schalk (30)
33. Cupid Childs (31)
34. Tommy Leach (32)
35. Pete Browning (33)
36. Larry Doyle (34)
37. Fielder Jones (35)
38. Ben Taylor (36)
39. Gavvy Cravath (37)
40. Addie Joss (38)
41. Tommy Bond (39)
42. Joe Judge (40)
43. Earl Combs (n/a)
44. Dolph Luque (45)
45. Duke Farrel
46. Andy Coooper
47. Lave Cross
48. George Uhle
49. John Beckwith
50. Tom York

65. Hack Wilson
   30. Tiboreau Posted: December 14, 2004 at 12:21 PM (#1019370)
Procrastinating during Finals week by posting my ballot. This year's election is one of the reasons why I wanted take part in the Hall of Merit. My only regret was that I wasn't prepared enough to vote in the 1934 election.

Since casting my first ballot, each "year" I've tried to take a closer look at some facet of my ballot. With Joe's new and improved Pennants Added statistics, including season adjusted WS, and a little bit more time on my hands this week than last, I'm taking a closer at Peak vs. Career. I'm not finished--I'll probably never have as good a handle on it as I like--but I'm satisfied with the results. Hughie Jennings, and his Negro League partner Dobie, falling a bit toward the middle of my ballot are the biggest casualties. The biggest benificiary? George Van Haltren, who--while he recieved serious consideration--never reached my top 25 prior to this year. Also, Beckwith joins my top 5; I have less reservations over the dichotomy between traditional opinion and the views expressed in his thread this "year" than last.

1. Babe Ruth—"I swing big, with everything I've got. I hit big or I miss big. I like to live as big as I can."
2. Rogers Hornsby—The second of the two no-brainer candidates of the ’41 election. A big gap follows spot #2.
3. Dazzy Vance—Like Waddell, Vance packs a lot of his value in his peak years, the foundation of which are his K numbers. Rates a little higher than Waddell because of Rube’s personality and UER issues.
4. John Beckwith—John’s spot on my ballot is mainly based on Gadfly’s inestimable opinion on his hitting and Chris Cobb’s Win Share projections.
5. Clark Griffith—While Waddell has better peak value (51.2 warp1 & 145 WS in 5 consecutive years vs. 45.7 & 143), Clark Griffith’s career advantage (45 more games, 320+ more IP, and 33 more WS) is enough to edge ahead of the Rube.
6. Rube Waddell—See comments on Clark Griffith and Dazzy Vance.
7. Hughie Jennings—Jennings had the highest peak of any of the available candidates (excluding Ruth and Hornsby). His peak also comprised of 73.3% of his warp1 and 70.1% of his WS. In the end, the brilliance of his peak outshines any questions I have regarding his career value.
8. Hugh Duffy—See comments on Edd Roush.
9. Edd Roush—Nearly indistinguishable from Duffy: 126 ops+ vs. 122; 109.7 warp1 and 315 WS (25.86 per 162) vs. 100.3 and 295 (27.51), giving Roush a slight career advantage IMO; 46.2 warp1 and 136 WS in best five consecutive years vs. 48.1 and 144, giving Duffy a slight advantage peak-wise.
10. Dobie Moore—Based off projections, estimates, and anecdotes, the Negro Leaguers are the wild cards of my HoM ballot. Called the "best unrecognized player" of the Negro Leagues by Bill James, and has been compared to Hughie Jennings.
11. Larry Doyle—Siding with Win Shares interpretation of his defense, combined with an adjustment for Childs’s 1890 AA competition, gives Doyle the edge over Childs. Although, both ears are open to opinions to the contrary.
12. Cupid Childs—See comments on Larry Doyle.
13. Eppa Rixey—Did not have a great peak, but Eppa was consistently real good for a long time. Best name on the ballot.
14. George Van Haltren—Raised in esteem after re-evaluating infielders last "year" and peak this "year." I consider him to be similar to Leach; his large career value makes up for slightly less peak value than Tommy.
15. Tommy Leach—For some odd reason, when I re-evaluated infielders last "year" I put Leach behind Sisler. I don’t know why. Excellent career, and good peak value puts Leach on my ballot.

Disclosures:
Joe Sewell—I see him as the third best infielder of his era when including Negro Leaguers Beckwith and Moore, and behind three other middle infielders: Jennings, Childs, and Doyle. So, Sewell falls just off my ballot.
George Sisler—I’ve changed my mind: while his peak is nice, it’s not good enough to make up for the mediocrity of the second-half of his career. He’s sitting just off the ballot with Joe Sewell. This marks my final decision that none of the present 1b candidates are more than borderline for my ballot.
Jake Beckley—Very good career numbers, however, his peak numbers are the lowest of any candidate. Even with fielding adjustments, there are still other very good career, good peak guys I'd put ahead of him.
   31. Rusty Priske Posted: December 14, 2004 at 02:48 PM (#1019415)
1. Rabbit Maranville

2. Kid Gleason

.....


Just kidding.

1. Babe Ruth (new)

No longer the best player of all time, imo, but that is not a slight on him, rather a compliment to Bonds.

2. Rogers Hornsby (new)

I'm so glad this isn't an "Elect 1" week.

3. Mickey Welch (1,2,2)

And I wish it was an "elect 3" week.

4. Jake Beckley (2,3,3)

The peak-only voters are missing out on a great player.

5. Eppa Rixey (4,7,x)

Seems to be getting unheralded votes.

6. Tommy Leach (7,6,6)

Slowly gainign respectibility.

7. George Van Haltren (6,5,5)
8. George Sisler (8,9,8)

9. Sam Rice (3,x,x)

Possibly the new most underrated player.

10. Edd Roush (9,8,7)
11. Hugh Duffy (12,11,9)

12. Joe Sewell (10,x,x)

Neither as good as some say, nor as bad as others say.

13. Harry Hooper (11,12,11)

14. Jimmy Ryan (14,10,10)

Started the final descent.

15. Clark Griffith (x,14,13)

Sneaks back on as Childs and Monroe fall off.

16-20. Childs, Monroe, Powell, Grimes, Doyle
21-25. Moore, Willis, Redding, McCormick, F. Jones
26-30. Burns, Mullane, Poles, White, Gleason
   32. jhwinfrey Posted: December 14, 2004 at 04:17 PM (#1019519)
The greatest record in sports is set this year, and we get the greatest player on the ballot to boot! I'm much too proud of the fact that the streak ended on my birthday, July 17.
And how different would things be if the bombing of Pearl Harbor hadn't stopped the owners from approving the Browns' move to Los Angeles? The Orioles, Twins, and Rangers might never have been...

1941 Ballot:
My PHoM inductees are the same as everyone else's.

1. Babe Ruth (ne) The greatest baseball player who ever lived. Less than a god, perhaps, but more than a man. He was like Hercules or somethin'. (1941)
2. Rogers Hornsby (ne) Closer to #3 than he is to #1, but still a n-b. (1941)
3. Jake Beckley (6,3,5,4,4,3,3,4,8,5,4,2,2,2,3) 2,930 hits. (1927)
4. Mickey Welch (1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,7,6,5,3,1,1,2) Best pitcher on the ballot. (1926)
5. Ben Taylor (11,8,8,6,4,3,4) Nearly as good as Beckley, plus a little pitching. (1938)
6. Burleigh Grimes (5) An excellent candidate in the eyes of this career-oriented voter. (1940)
7. Eppa Rixey (6,7) If Faber belongs, then Rixey definitely should be inducted. (1939)
8. Tommy Leach (9,7,5,7,8) Would cover the 3B gap nicely.
9. Carl Mays (9,10,9,7,5,6) After reading Chris Cobb's and Chris J.'s comments on Mays vs. Vance, I decided I needed to include RSI and defensive support in my rankings. Naturally, Mays took the biggest hit, and Vance got the biggest boost. The adjustment also resulted in pitchers as a whole dropping in my rankings. (1939)
10. Dick Redding (13,11,15,15) It's still close, but this week I think Redding should be ahead of Mendez.
11. Jose Mendez (4,8,13,13,11,10,8,14,14) Mendez ought to go in alongside Rube Foster. (1932)
12. Jim McCormick (15,nr,13,15,nr,15,12,11,9,8,9) An awful lot of good innings. My Mays/Vance adjustments widen the gap between him and Willis.
13. Rabbit Maranville (10,11) An incredibly durable player. If he were a better hitter, he'd be up there with Beckley.
14. Edd Roush (8,6,11,13) Perhaps he's destined for the HOVG, but he's still one of the better hitters on the ballot.
(14a. Bobby Wallace)
15. Vic Willis (13,12,10,10) Another 1890s guy who threw a ton of innings. These guys just appeal to me a little more than Quinn or Luque, for example.

Obligatoires:
16. Pie Traynor--Just not a great hitter. But he'll be on my '42 ballot.
   33. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2004 at 04:29 PM (#1019545)
Tiboreau,

While I am one of Hughie Jennings biggest fans, I must ask why you think Jennings peak is higher than Ruth's? Or did I just midread that.
   34. jhwinfrey Posted: December 14, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#1019559)
Obligatoires, take 2. (My first try was eaten, I guess)

31. George Van Haltren--A shoo-in for the HOVG.
35. Joe Sewell
36. George Sisler--Sewell & Sisler, singles-heavy hitters without great defense, would both be on my ballot with a few more productive seasons.
42. Clark Griffth--I'm afraid he's taken a bit of a nose-dive after appearing on my ballot for 4 years. My Mays/Vance adjustments only widen the gap.
43. Dazzy Vance--The adjustments put him 10 slots closer to Mays. I'm still held up by his poor fielding & defense, and relatively low IP total. Still, his defensive and offensive support was remarkably low. Like Waddell, I won't be sorry to see him inducted, but I don't feel I can vote for him and keep my ballot consistent.
64. Hughie Jennings--Given my career-oriented ballot criteria, it's surprising he's still this high.

Adieu to these names dropping out of my top 100:
Fielder Jones
Larry Corcoran
Joe Judge
Miller Huggins
Arlie Latham
Larry Gardner
Muddy Ruel
   35. Brad G Posted: December 14, 2004 at 05:58 PM (#1019800)
1941 Ballot:

1.Babe Ruth

2.Rogers Hornsby- My top 11 HoMers list through 1941 looks like this: Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, W. Johnson, Hornsby, Young, Speaker, Alexander, Lloyd, Lajoie, Collins.

3.George Sisler- Monster Career stats: Runs Created = 1477, Black Ink = 29, Gray Ink = 198. Pretty good pitcher, as well. Bill James calls him “Perhaps the most over-rated player in baseball history,” yet still ranks him #24 all-time first baseman and one of the “just out of the top 100” players. Went in my HoM in 1938.

4. Hugh Duffy- Career Win Shares = 295, Win Share 5-year Peak = 144 (!), Career WARP3 = 81, Career Runs Created = 1229, Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 147. A+ Centerfielder with 5 WS Gold Gloves, according to James, who ranks him #20 center fielder of all time. I’ve had him gracing my Hall since 1908.

5.Rube Waddell- Career Win Shares = 240; WS5 = 145.

6.Edd Roush- Looks great across the board: Career Win Shares = 314, WARP1 = 111.4, WARP3 = 82.3.

7.George Van Haltren- Career WS = 344, WARP1 = 121, Career Runs Created = 1286.

8.Dazzy Vance- All of a sudden, there is a large group of pitchers who seem very close in ranking to me. Vance probably belongs above Waddell, but I’m being conservative here in his first year.

9.Tommy Leach- Career Win Shares = 329, WARP1 = 113.7, WARP3 = 74.8.

10.Eppa Rixey- Jumps up a bit… getting difficult to differentiate amongst the top five eligible pitchers, all of whom seem to be on the cusp of worthiness but probably falling just short.

11.Joe Sewell- Arguably the best eligible SS, but I’m not sure that’s a strong enough argument to get him in the Hall.

12.Burleigh Grimes- Super Ink scores: Black = 38, Gray = 213.

13.Jake Beckley- Career WS = 318, Career WARP1 = 116. Career Runs Created = 1461, which exceeds Dan Brouthers’ 1445.

14.Clark Griffith- Convincing arguments in favor of Griffith give him a boost this year.

15.Jimmy Ryan- Career WS = 316, Career WARP1 = 119, Career WARP3 = 84.5, Career Runs Created = 1338, B+ WS Defender. Awesome career.

16-20: Browning, Rice, Wilson, Doyle, Redding.

Not here:

Hughie Jennings: I can understand the arguments in his favor, but ultimately it’s the length of his career that hurts him. I like Sewell better.

Thanks!
   36. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2004 at 07:53 PM (#1020120)
Major reconsideration of white ML pitchers (see '41 ballot discussion thread for details) leads to new look ballot. Always reconsidering the relative rankings of the NeL candidates, too, as well as the relative standing of white ML IF vs. OF. WS is my favorite metric but it does favor CFers and hitters and not enough defense.

1. Babe Ruth (new, PHoM 1941)
2. Rogers Hornsby (new, PHoM 1941)--No alarms and no surprises, please.

3. Hughie Jennings (1 last week-1-1, PHoM 1927)--Still the number, well, three, peak of any eligible position player. Next week, the number one peak of any eligible position player, again.

4. George Sisler (5-3-3, PHoM 1938)--yes, sir, Bill James sir, whatever you say, sir, vastly overrated? Yes, sir! Well, no. Overrated by the HoF, underrated by Bill James, sir.

5. Rube Waddell (10-6-8, PHoM 1932)--didn't pitch in a pinch because he was too stupid? To know what the score was? Because he gave up unearned runs? Unearned runs and pitching to the score are two different things. And UER or no UER, his RA+ was still very very good.

6. Dazzy Vance (new)--looks a lot like Waddell from here.

7. Eppa Rixey (x)--actually a fairly big drop from Waddell and Vance in terms of ERA+. Rixey is more in a large cluster of guys but rises to the top of the cluster with his longevity and total career WS.

8. Ed Williamson (12-7-14, PHOM 1924)--very well rounded player, famous for one of the weaker parts of his game, ironically--hitting for power--but those 27 HR didn't actually hurt his team, did they?

9. Dobie Moore (14-14-x)--more and more, his peak looks to be as good as anybody's, and then there's the fact that he played elite ball for 13.5 years. Not 13. 5 MLEs, of course, but surely more than 6.5 or 7.

10. Pie Traynor (new)--another player overrated at the time, destined to be underrated for the rest of eternity. Not too dissimilar from Heinie Groh.

11. Charley Jones (9-5-7, PHoM 1921)--huge peak, ranks here even without credit for blacklist years.

12. Joe Sewell (8-13-x)--one of those guys who doesn't stand out on peak or career, offense or defense, but who just has a little bit of everything on his resume.

13. Addie Joss (x)--never voted for him before but that 142 ERA+ always kept him on the radar.

14. John Beckwith (15-x)--one of the top half dozen pure hitters on the ballot.

15. Clark Griffith (not on my ballot since 1913)--only moved up from 6th to 5th in my pitcher revamp, but I am also more comfortable rating 2nd tier pitchers against 2nd tier position players, and so pitchers are doing better on my ballot overall. Also, we have a clear hole in our 1890s pitcher roster.

Dropped out: Bond (4), Roush (6), McCormick (7), Doyle (11), Monroe (13). All but Bond may return someday, but Doyle and Monroe dropped behind Moore and Beckwith. As for Roush, well, Ruth and Charley Jones are the only OF on my ballot, I think WS underrates IFers and I boost them accordingly--not a lot, but a little.

Close (16-25.)--McCormick, Childs, Doyle, Monroe, Redding, Browning, Roush, Bancroft, Mendez, Leach.

Required discosures: Beckley lacks a decent peak and ranks around #36. Van Haltren's peak is much better but still not quite there and he ranks around #31. After Leach, they trail Cicotte, Hack Wilson, Dunlap, Duffy, Willis, (Van), Bond, Veach, Tinker, Poles, (Beckley).
   37. Tiboreau Posted: December 14, 2004 at 09:01 PM (#1020276)
Tiboreau,

While I am one of Hughie Jennings biggest fans, I must ask why you think Jennings peak is higher than Ruth's? Or did I just midread that.


'Cause he played shortstop!

Seriously, I almost made that mistake, jschmeagol:

Hughie Jennings—Jennings had the highest peak of any of the available candidates (excluding Ruth and Hornsby).

For those comments that don't need changin', I just recycle. At the last minute I added the "excluding Ruth and Hornsby," meaning Hughie has the highest peak when you exclude the two inner circle dudes.
   38. Daryn Posted: December 14, 2004 at 09:36 PM (#1020364)
1. Ruth – not much of a fielder, at least comparatively.

2. Hornsby – inner circle.

3. 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.

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 – 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. Sam Rice – close to Beckley – I’ve put him behind Beckley and Sisler in a nod to the intelligence of the consensus. Pretty close to 9000 hits in these three candidates and it looks like they’ll side-by-side on my ballot for at least the next 15 to 20 years. I haven’t seen a good explanation as to why Beckley supporters are not supporting Rice.

7. Burleigh Grimes – takes Faber’s spot on my ballot. I like the wins, don’t like the ERA+. Welch-lite. The beginning of pitcher/catcher row.

8. Eppa Rixey – back to his original spot in a dead heat with Grimes and Faber (the latter now elected).

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

10. Dazzy Vance – not much to choose between the career stats of Waddell and Vance. I give the nod to Waddell based on the ERA+. Wins and ERA+ are my two uberstats for pitchers.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected. He is barely worse than Grimes and barely better than Mendez, Joss, Luque, Pennock, Quinn, McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Bender, Mays, Cooper, Shocker, Mullane and Mullin.

14. 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.

15. Joe Sewell – I’m assuming he was pretty good on defense. I don’t see him as a HoMer though. Beginning of infielders row.

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

17. Pie Traynor -- just behind Leach. I think he would have been a multiple time all-star.

18. Beckwith – I’m assuming he was pretty bad on defence. The Beckwith thread is funny – Gadfly has him hitting .400 with 40HRs per year and Cobb has him at 297 career WS. I like him better than Monroe and Moore but I’m not sure he’s Hornsby-dark.

19. 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.

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

21. 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.

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

23. Hack Wilson – all peak, no career. Lip Pike lite.

24 to 28.
·George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated. Pretty good adjusted win shares.

·Spotswood Poles – Van Haltren seems like a good comp.

·Edd Roush – little difference between GVH, Poles, Roush, Ryan and Duffy.

·Jimmy Ryan – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs.

·Hugh Duffy – 10 strong seasons, good black ink.

29. Jennings – he’d be lower for me if you guys weren’t all so sure he was great.
   39. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2004 at 09:43 PM (#1020373)
Tiboreau,

I for some reason read that as INCLUDING Rajah and the babe. My bad!
   40. Thane of Bagarth Posted: December 14, 2004 at 10:29 PM (#1020524)
1941 Ballot:

1) Babe Ruth--If anybody is making a trip to Baltimore, the Babe Ruth Museum is a must-see. Plus, it’s “just a long fly-ball away from Camden Yards.”
2) Rogers Hornsby--He comes in just ahead of Lajoie. Nap has the edge in WARP3, thanks largely to fielding. Hornsby has a slight edge in WS. Rajah wins out thanks to better 5 year peak in both stats.
3) Dazzy Vance--Stands out among eligible pitchers. 3-time league leader in ERA+. More Translated IP and better rate stats than Coveleski, whom I ranked highly. 3.58 all-time DERA, 248 top 5 PRAA, and 489 top 5 PRAR are all best for available pitchers. 31.03 WS/Season is second only to Joss among 20th century pitchers.
4) Dick Redding--2nd best NeL pitcher of the deadball era.
5) Fielder Jones--Does well in 5-year peaks for both WARP3 (43.9) and WS (135). Also does well in career measures. 89.9 WARP3 is very close to Hooper & Carey, ahead of Roush, GVH and a host of others. A+ fielder like Hooper & Carey and significantly better WS/162 at 26.28 puts him ahead of those guys even though they played a bit longer. Modest OPS+ of 111 masks competitive .282.
6) Pete Browning-- 162 OPS+, .305 EQA (all time), 30.81 WS/162G. The Louisville Slugger doesn’t look like he’s going away anytime soon.
7) Hughie Jennings--Nothing new here. He’s all peak, but it’s hard to resist: 54.2/151 in top 5 WARP3/WS seasons.
8) Ben Taylor-- As I see it, one of the top 3 NeL 1st basemen of all time. Way ahead of Beckley.
9) Rube Waddell-- 142 ERA+. 3.69 DERA. 236 PRAA. 442 PRAR/145WS in 5 best seasons. Only eligible pitcher other than Vance who has over 400 PRAA in their top 5 seasons
10) John Beckwith--Killer hitter. Significant playing time at short convinces me that his fielding wasn’t so bad that it outweighs his slugging prowess. It seems like most rankings of NeL legends overrate defense—at least at third. Marcelle, Dandridge, and Johnson don’t really compare with the bat. How much better would they have to be with the glove to be more valuable than Beckwith? I’m sure his “attitude” problems didn’t help his legacy. Jud Wilson looks like the only similar type of NeL 3B. Riley’s Encyclopedia makes it sound like even Wilson wasn’t on Beckwith’s level. I’m considering moving him up as I become more confident that he’s the best NeL 3rd baseman.
11) Dobie Moore--Nice combo of hitting and fielding. Untimely end to career hurts, but military playing time helps. Can’t quite come out ahead of Beckwith.
12) Joe Sewell--Evaluating his #s with Win shares and WARP3 produces very different results. Earlier I was leaning towards the WARP3 numbers, now I’m putting him about halfway in-between the two.
13) Jose Mendez--Great Cuban pitcher. Not far behind Redding, especially considering his edge with the bat.
14) Charley Jones--OPS+ of 149. 29.17 WS/162g. .290 EQA. Bump for missed years.
15) Bill Monroe--#2 2nd baseman on my ballot. I see him as slightly better than Childs.
   41. Thane of Bagarth Posted: December 14, 2004 at 10:33 PM (#1020537)
Next 5

16) Urban Shocker—Top three seasons were a bit below Cicotte’s, but career and 5-year peak totals of WS, WARP3, PRAA are very close or better than Ed’s. Significant edge in DERA (3.79 vs. 4.04) and WS/1000IP (84 vs. 77) for Shocker. It’s close but Shocker comes out ahead.
17) Ed Cicotte—His top three seasons were outstanding: 94 WS, 151 RSAA. Top 5 and career totals bring him back to the rest of the pack:
186/394 top 5 PRAA/PRAR, 124 top 5 WS. Willis is right on his heels.
18) Vic Willis—Top 3/5 PRAA seasons just behind Cicotte, comes out ahead in career PRAA by 2. Lower WS/1000IP and DERA keep him off the ballot (barely). His IP advantage shrinks quite a bit when you look at Translated IP.
19) Levi Meyerle—164 OPS+ in career that is 75% of Pike’s documented length. Top 8 or better in OPS+ 6 out of 7 seasons, 1st twice.
20) Addie Joss—31.51 WS/season is best for 20th Century eligibles. 1700 Translated IP is lowest by far of pitchers in my top 20. Good fielder (109 Rate), horrible batter (20 OPS+).

Top 10 not on my ballot
21) Eppa Rixey— Rixey has the career to come up neck and neck with Joss’s peak. They have almost exactly the same all-time RSAA for their careers (243 for ER, 240 AJ).
22) Harry Hooper
23) George Van Haltren— A very good player, I just don’t see him as standing out enough from the Hooper-Poles-Thomas-Leach-etc. crowd to justify enshrinement in the HoM.
24) Spotswood Poles
25) Dolf Luque
26) Carl Mays
27) Bobby Veach
28) Roy Thomas
29) Tommy Leach—Great defense at two positions is impressive, but the overall numbers just don’t stand out enough for me to find a spot on the ballot for him.
30) Jimmy Ryan
31) Clark Griffith— Deflation of his IP by Translated IP hurts him a bit. Slips behind Carl Mays this week. He’s stayed within shouting distance of my ballot for a while, but I doubt he’ll make it back on any time soon.
32) Sam Rice
33) Hugh Duffy—Smack-dab in the middle of the OF glut.

51) George Sisler— WARP3 totals (68.8 career) are not as positive as WS (292). Plus, his peak years aren’t that much higher, at least top 5 in WARP3 (43.6), than a lot of the outfielders who played longer that I have above him.
80) Jake Beckley—Unimpressive 21.59 WS/162G and 30.7 top 5 WARP3 cannot be overcome by his longevity.

New Players in Top 100
43) Pie Traynor—Consistently good, but never stellar.
71) Sad Sam Jones—Pitched pretty well for a long time.
75) Andy Cooper—I can’t see him ranking higher than Nip Winters.
   42. Tiboreau Posted: December 14, 2004 at 11:32 PM (#1020702)
If anybody is making a trip to Baltimore, the Babe Ruth Museum is a must-see. Plus, it’s “just a long fly-ball away from Camden Yards.”

Hey, I'll be in Baltimore for Christmas! Now to convince the rest of the family that a baseball-related side trip is warranted. . . .
   43. yest Posted: December 14, 2004 at 11:41 PM (#1020724)
1941 ballot

1. Babe Ruth (makes my personal HoM this year)
2. Rogers Hornsby much better then morgan (makes my personal HoM this year)
3. George Sisler another on of James’s over penalizing the 20‘s and 30‘s(made my personal HoM in 1936)
4. Pie Traynor ditto
5. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
6. Joe Sewell love the strikeouts (made my personal HoM in 1939)
7. Sam Rice 2987 hits (made my personal HoM in 1940)
8. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
9. Dazzy Vance love the strikeouts
10. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
11. Rube Waddell most Ks/9IP 7 times in a row tying with Vance for the record led in it 1 more time (made my personal HoM in 1917)
12. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles (made my personal HoM in 1940)
13. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
14. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
15. Clark Griffith 54th in wins (made my personal HoM in 1912)
16. Edd Roush323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)
17. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
18. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
19. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)
20. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie (made my personal HoM in 1939)
21. Bullet Joe Rogan like all Negro leaguers I wish I had better stats
22. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
23. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
24. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
25. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
26. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)
27. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)
explanation for players not on my ballot
Hugh Jennings is not enough career
Eppa Rixey I don’t find anything special in the 20’s pitchers
Tommy Leach I don’t even understand the argument for him
   44. yest Posted: December 14, 2004 at 11:44 PM (#1020729)
I forgot to take out Rogan just move evreybody else up.
   45. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 15, 2004 at 01:21 AM (#1020916)
Hey, here is aquestion..

How do you get to the DT card of anyone whose surname starts with O', like Bob O'Farrell

I am trying to move my database from WARP1 to WARP3.

Thanks!
   46. DavidFoss Posted: December 15, 2004 at 01:52 AM (#1020985)
Hey, here is aquestion..

How do you get to the DT card of anyone whose surname starts with O', like Bob O'Farrell

I am trying to move my database from WARP1 to WARP3.

Thanks!


EEP! Lost my first reply to this. This question pops up every few years. Basically BP's search capability is broken. They use '=' for the apostrophe in the link names.

Slow-loading-index is here:
slow loading index

If your connection can't handle that, then search for a teammate, then click on the team link, then click on the player in question. Its quite circuitous, but will get you where you need to go.
   47. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 15, 2004 at 04:14 PM (#1021992)
Thanks, David!
   48. Paul Wendt Posted: December 15, 2004 at 04:16 PM (#1021998)
jschme
If you will transcribe WARP data for scads of players, you should edit the URL rather than use the search feature. The file name ends in "01" for most players and you will recognize most of the wrong "01" pages (the wrong Ed Walsh, etc). Occasionally, you will need to try the nickname when the given name doesn't hit, or vice versa.
   49. Rick A. Posted: December 15, 2004 at 05:45 PM (#1022224)
PHOM
Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
What a surprise! :)

1941 Ballot
1.Babe Ruth - Umm.. Do I really need to write an explanation here? I mean … he’s BABE RUTH, fer cryin’ out loud. Elected PHOM in 1941.
2.Rogers Hornsby – No brainer. Elected PHOM in 1941
3.Charley Jones –Truly great hitter who missed 2 years in his prime. Elected PHOM in 1926.
4.Pete Browning – 61% of value is prime, 89% of value is above average. Elected PHOM in 1929
5.Cupid Childs – Good hitter. Not as good defensively as McPhee. 84% of career above average. Elected PHOM in 1938
6.Hughie Jennings – 77% of value is prime alone. Unfortunately, that’s all he’s got. Still that’s enough to get him this high. Re-evaluated 1890’s infielders since they seemed to get beat up during their playing days. Elected PHOM in 1938
7.Eppa Rixey – Like his consistent above-averageness over Faber’s brief peak. Elected PHOM in 1940
8.Dazzy Vance – Could go either way between him and Rixey. Very close to Waddell in raw stats, but Vance dominated his competition to a greater degree than Waddell. Waddell also had his UER problem.
9.Vic Willis – Very good pitcher. Moves up when compared to Faber and Rixey.
10.Hugh Duffy – 82% of career is above-average. Great defense. Took another look at him and he moved up a couple of spots
11.Bill Monroe – Very good second baseman, but I can’t seem to rate him over Childs. Re-evaluation moves him up. Becoming more and more convinced about him.
12.Dobie Moore – Impressive peak. Giving him more credit for army years. 10+ year prime at important position..
13.George Sisler – Major jump up. I believe that WS undervalues his peak. Jumps up in my new evaluation.
14.Joe Sewell – Better offense than Bancroft, slightly less defense. Like him almost as much as Jennings.
15.Wally Schang – Took a closer look at Bresnahan and Schang. While Bresnahan was a better hitter, Schang played catcher more and was the top catcher of his time more often than Bresnahan was.

New candidates
19.Pie Traynor – Not a bad player. Best thirdbaseman quite a few times, but not as good as Groh.

Required Disclosures
16.Tommy Leach – Good peak and decent career. Just misses the ballot.
31.Clark Griffith –Won lots of games with bad teams. He and Waddell keep changing places on my ballot.
34.George Van Haltren –I tend to really like steady careers like Van Haltren, Griffin, Beckley, but just can’t see him jumping over anyone on my ballot. Falling deeper into the CF glut.
47.Jake Beckley- Lower peak than Van Haltren, in my top 50, but just barely.

Off the ballot
16-20 Leach, Mendez, Roush, Traynor, Grimes
21-25 Beckwith, Taylor, Redding, McGraw, Williamson
26-30 Cooper, Bond, Waddell, Poles, Mays
31-35 Griffith, Tiernan, Bresnahan, Van Haltren, Doyle
36-40 Bancroft, Chance, Griffin, F. Jones, McCormick
41-45 Wilson, Long, Welch, R. Thomas, Burns
46-50 Konetchy, Beckley, Cravath, Fournier, Mullane
51-55 Tinker, Schalk, Evers, Maranville, Veach
   50. SWW Posted: December 15, 2004 at 05:52 PM (#1022248)
When reviewing newcomers to the ballot, it is absolutely essential to exercise caution, and not rush to rank them higher than the statistics merit. After all, just because someone has a famous name does not automatically qualify them to occupy the top sp—mmmmgwph

1941 Ballot
1) George Herman “Babe” Ruth – “The Sultan of Swat”, “Il Bambino”, “The Guy That Built the House”
Well, gee, that was easy. One of those unique figures whose greatness transcended the sport. To my knowledge, the only person considered by both the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Hall of Fame for Great Americans.
2) Rogers Hornsby – “Rajah”
How good is Ruth? Hornsby and his 502 Win Shares are a distant second. A lot of talent, up here at the top.
3) George Harold Sisler – “Gorgeous George”
He seems like he should be all peak, but he’s still a right-decent ballplayer when you look at his non-prime years. I like the balance.
4) Burleigh Arland Grimes – “Ol’ Stubblebeard”
I didn’t realize how much black and gray ink he racked up. And in a fairly durable career, as well.
5) Edgar Charles Rice – “Sam”
6) Jacob Peter Beckley – “Eagle Eye”
A pair of long, flourish-free careers. The HOF Standards and Monitor stats are useful in tracking the difference between a merely long career, and one that measures up over the long run. Rice does exceptionally well here, but Beckley’s pretty good, too.
7) Joseph Wheeler Sewell
Consistently the top shortstop in the AL, with five Top 10 finishes in Win Shares. This placement is cautiously low.
8) Hugh Duffy
It’s hard to believe that he once ranked as high as 5th in the voting. When calculating prime vs. career, Duffy’s actually a lot more balanced than I expected. Prime is less than half of career. That was a surprise.
9) Carl William Mays
After Burleigh, there’s a real mollybang of great-but-not-outstanding pitchers. Carl is still benefiting by favorable analyses from James Vail and Bill James, as well as an enviable peak. Not a lot of love for Carl, though. And I gather that’s never been Carl’s strong suit.
10) Lawrence Joseph Doyle - “Laughing Larry”
My numbers like him better than Childs. I thought that was due to career length, but they have a similar peak, and Doyle has a slightly higher prime. So I’ll stick with Larry.
11) Clarence Arthur Vance – “Dazzy”
I wasn’t enchanted by his career Win Shares, but his extraordinary Black & Grey Ink, couple with a number of appearance in the league’s Top 10 WS, earns my respect.
12) Thomas William Leach – “The Wee”
Tommy’s first appearance in the top ten is a heartening development. His low Monitor and Standards scores concern me, but the similarity to Jimmy Sheckard is instructive.
13) Edd J Roush
Nice all-around numbers, and several MVP-type seasons. He’s not flashy, but I think he deserves a little more credit than he’s getting. And by putting him down here, I’m clearly not helping. Oh, and I know now not to put the period after the J. My bad.
14) Dick Redding – “Cannonball”
His projected numbers seem to put him squarely in the middle of a pitcher glut. He does well in James Vail’s review, as well.
15) Eppa Rixey – “Jephtha”
He keeps hanging in there. With three newcomers on the ballot, someone was going to get bumped off, and it should have been Rixey. But I moved Harry Hooper down instead. A pitcher with 300+ WS is just too precious a commodity.

Other Top 10 Finishers
Lipman Emanuel Pike
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see him as…he what? Really? Huh. Well, then congratulations to Mr. Pike. Or Mr. Pike’s heirs, I suppose.
Hugh Ambrose Jennings – “Ee-Yah”
Hack Wilson has a similar career arc, with a better career, and he’s not here. Basically, the peak is outstanding, but not so much so that it overshadows the fact that the peak is the entire career. Five-year prime is over 70% of career. Ouch.
Clark Calvin Griffith
What can I say: I’ve got six pitchers ahead of him. His is an interesting mix, but the overall picture is not outstanding one way or the other.
George Edward Martin Van Haltren
I respect the Win Shares, but there are too many guys more worthy of a vote. He’s nearly interchangable with Jimmy Ryan. He’s good, but it’s not enough.
   51. DanG Posted: December 15, 2004 at 07:08 PM (#1022455)
My #1 and #8 were elected. Revived exhibits for GVH, Griffith, Ryan. In 1941 it’s the Ruth-Hornsby ticket in a landslide over Vance-Traynor. Then 1942 will be the last year for a looong while that any of the backlog has a chance; Terry heads the newbies, while Marberry should spark our first earnest discussion re the value of closers. A flood of greats follows in 1943, led by Charleston and Cochrane, three other top NeLers, plus Frisch and three of his cronies.

1)Babe Ruth – Yes, I’m an automaton, in lock step with the rest of his mindless drones. Somehow, no-brainer just doesn’t seem strong enough. Oh, this just in: hot dogs discovered to be a natural steroid…film at 11.

2)Rogers Hornsby – Could hit a little.

Toss the rest of the ballot in a blender; the order doesn’t matter, they’re all pretty close.

3)George Van Haltren (2,2,2)—New Pennants Added study shows him well. The 1932 election may have been his last, best shot at induction. For a while, anyway. Now in his 33rd year eligible. As to why he rates above Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he had higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan actually played more corner outfield. Players with most runs scored 1891-1900:
1—1321 B. Hamilton
2—1215 G. Van Haltren
3—1191 J. Burkett
4—1184 E. Delahanty

5—1130 H. Duffy
6—1102 H. Long
7—1081 C. Childs
8—1070 B. Dahlen

4)Clark Griffith (3,3,3) – The #4 pitcher of his era, behind three first-balloters, but far ahead of #5. Gets extra credit for excelling in the contraction years 1892-1900, an era lagging in number of HoMers. Good hitter, too. ERA <4.00, 1893-1903, 2000+ IP:
1—2.88 C. Young
2—3.20 K. Nichols

3—3.34 C. Griffith
4—3.39 J. Powell
5—3.68 A. Orth
6—3.86 R. Donahue
7—3.96 B. Kennedy
8—3.98 W. Mercer
9—3.99 T. Breitenstein

5)Tommy Leach (4,6,6) – With 3B lagging in HoMers, it’s good to see him getting more attention. Longevity, defense and speed rate him above Groh. Versatility a plus. Question of league quality knocks him back a couple pegs, otherwise really close to Wallace. Had a better peak than Bobby, but his career was a couple years shorter and he had just a little less defensive value. Among OFers with 750 games 1905-14, he is 2nd in PO/G (behind Speaker) and 2nd in FA (behind Clarke). Most Times On Base 1902-10:
1—2173 H. Wagner
2—1952 S. Crawford
3—1845 J. Sheckard
4—1843 N. Lajoie

5—1809 T. Hartsel
6—1772 R. Thomas
7—1754 F. Clarke
8—1736 T. Leach

6)Dazzy Vance – The Baseball Survivor project a couple years back had him as the 79th best player in history. [http://survivor.dmlco.com/voting.html] That’s maybe 100 places too high, but it still says HoMer. Bill James has him just behind Plank and Drysdale and a little ahead of Mays and Newhouser.

7) Jimmy Ryan (5,7,7)— Most extra-base hits 1888-98:
1—549 E. Delahanty
2—507 J. Ryan
3—502 J. Beckley
4—497 S. Thompson
5—484 M. Tiernan
6—474 R. Connor
7—467 H. Duffy
8—452 E. McKean

8)Edd Roush (6,9,10) – Pennants added likes him a lot. Most hits 1917-27:
1—2119 R. Hornsby
2—2040 G. Sisler
3—1992 H. Heilmann
4—1973 S. Rice
5—1939 T. Cobb
6—1925 T. Speaker

7—1777 E. Roush
8—1746 Z. Wheat
9—1742 E. Collins
10—1678 M. Carey


9)George Sisler (7,8,8) – Jake or George. I think Sisler is still among the top 220 players in history, which is clearly HoMer territory. This is probably not the case for Beckley, so he stays low on my ballot. OPS+ is only half the story: excellent runner (4 SB crowns), great rep as a fielder, great peak, long career (+9000 PA). Does WARP penalize him for the high quality of firstbasemen in his era? Firstbasemen with 990+ RBI through 1930:

1—2076 C. Anson
2—1575 J. Beckley
3—1322 R. Connor
4—1296 D. Brouthers

5—1175 G. Sisler
6—1060 S. McInnis
7—998 G. Kelly
8—996 W. Pipp
9—992 E. Konetchy

10)Wally Schang (9,10,11) – A bit more sure about this ranking. Catcher bonus puts him here for now. Players with OBP of .380+, 1915-29, 5600+ PA:
1—.475 B. Ruth
2—.439 T. Cobb
3—.436 R. Hornsby
4—.435 T. Speaker
5—.427 E. Collins
6—.412 H. Heilmann

7—.399 J. Sewell
8—.398 W. Schang
9—.393 K. Williams
10-.381 G. Sisler
   52. DanG Posted: December 15, 2004 at 07:10 PM (#1022459)
11)Roger Bresnahan (10,11,12) – Versatility is a bonus, not a demerit. How many other catchers could have been pulled out from behind the plate to be an all-star in centerfield? Could move higher, but I really like guys who play. Played half his teams’ games in only 11 seasons, averaging 71% of team games in those years. Still, his offensive production towers over other catchers of his era, so he deserves a vote. Lacking Bennett’s durability and longevity. Defense only C+. Players with OBP over .380, 1903-14 (minimum 3900 PA):
1—.424 T. Cobb
2—.420 E. Collins
3—.413 T. Speaker

4—.401 R. Bresnahan
5—.400 H. Wagner
6—.399 F. Chance
7—.396 R. Thomas
8—.386 N. Lajoie
9—.382 M. Huggins

12)Hughie Jennings (11,12,14) – Does four years of ARod plus eight years of Ivan DeJesus equal a HoMer? Maybe. Bill James thinks highly of him, he’s #18 at SS in the NBJHBA.I think I’m getting a bit more peak-friendly. He excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation. I’m still struggling with how to balance an awesome peak with an abbreviated career. I tried to find a retired player from the past 50 years with a similar career path, but there doesn’t seem to be one. Is there any good evidence that Jennings’ defense wasn’t as brilliant as WS makes it out to be? Most TC/G, 1889-1904, minimum 750 games at shortstop:
1—6.68 H. Jennings
2—6.45 B. Dahlen
3—6.40 B. Wallace
4—6.40 G. Davis

5—6.37 H. Long
6—6.18 M. Cross
7—6.10 T. Corcoran
8—6.05 B. Ely

13)Eppa Rixey (12,13,ne) – Liking him better, but not quite Faber’s equal. Looks like the Beckley of pitchers. Only Grimes had more wins during the 1920s.

14)Hugh Duffy (--,--,--) – Back after seven years off, he kinda fell off my radar. I realized he shouldn’t be very far behind Ryan. Peak puts him over Hooper, but he didn’t have a long career (12.4 yrs) for a corner OF. A WHOLE lot was context. Hit 82 of his 106 career HRs at home. Players with 1900 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1889-99:
1—2585 H. Duffy
2—2348 E. Delahanty
3—2141 G. Van Haltren
4—2135 B. Hamilton
5—2117 J. Beckley
6—2099 H. Long
7—2038 E. McKean
8—1939 G. Davis
9—1901 J. Ryan

15)Burleigh Grimes (13,ne,ne) – More a workhorse but less longevity then Rixey. Similar peaks. Most wins 1916-29:

1—246 P. Alexander
2—224 B. Grimes
3—213 S. Coveleski
4—211 W. Johnson

5—210 E. Rixey
6—201 C. Mays
7—197 R. Faber
8—187 U. Shocker
9—187 W. Cooper
10-183 H. Pennock

Joe Sewell – A few spots off the ballot. Perhaps the best shortstop during a down time at the position. I easily prefer Jennings. Maybe Lundy, too. The next generation of shortstops blows him away (Cronin, Wells, Vaughan, Appling). Only 13 years as a regular, 8 at SS (1 more year than Jennings). OPS+ of 120 in just one season.

Jake Beckley falls off as I begin to question the logic of equal positional representation. I see nothing wrong with saying that few of the best players in his day were first basemen, that the talent tended to congregate around shortstop. Being the best of a weak group does not accrue merit to a player, in my analysis. We’re looking for the best ballplayers, regardless of position.
   53. karlmagnus Posted: December 15, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#1022499)
Yes, but Beckley's 35% above Sisler on the table you use to justify Sisler!
   54. TomH Posted: December 15, 2004 at 07:38 PM (#1022525)
KM, it took you over 15 mintues to pull that trigger. I'm disappointed in your slow reactions.......
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 15, 2004 at 07:59 PM (#1022577)
Yes, but Beckley's 35% above Sisler on the table you use to justify Sisler!

That's not even considering the shorter schedule that Beckley's era had.
   56. DanG Posted: December 15, 2004 at 08:07 PM (#1022603)
Yes, but Beckley's 35% above Sisler on the table you use to justify Sisler!

To clarify, the exhibits on my ballot are just tidbits of my analysis. They are intended primarily for amusement purposes and should not be construed as anything like substantial justification for a player's ranking.

Having said that, it's hardly as big a laugh as pointing out re Beckley "even though Babe had fewer hits and fewer triples".
   57. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 15, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#1022632)
Having said that, it's hardly as big a laugh as pointing out re Beckley "even though Babe had fewer hits and fewer triples".

I have to agree with Dan here. Comparing Beckley (or almost anybody) to Ruth is kind of silly, though I think karlmagnus was somewhat tounge-in-cheek there.
   58. DanG Posted: December 15, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#1022676)
Looking at it again, I think KM just may have led me to realize I have Sisler overrated. Look for him to drop some next year.
   59. Mike Webber Posted: December 15, 2004 at 08:57 PM (#1022745)
My First Ballot

Mostly using Win Shares with a bonus for peak seasons. Discounting pre-1893 pitching accomplishments, and giving catchers and middle infielders a little extra love. Not adjusting for games in a season yet, but hope to by next year (it ain’t keeping Pete Browning out of the HOM this year.)


1)Babe Ruth – 756 Wins Shares
2)Rogers Hornsby – 502 WS
3)Edd Roush – 314 WS, long career, with 3 MVP type seasons
4)Tommy Leach – 328 WS mostly based on long career, but giving him a bit of a nod as a third baseman moves him up too.
5)Dick Redding – No qualms about his HOM credentials
6)George Van Haltren – 344 Win Shares
7)Vic Willis – 293 WS; based on Win Shares alone just misses the top 15, a couple of seasons where he led the league in Wins Shares. Ranked 31st in HOM voting last year, so this is my biggest deviation from the group. Looking like a potential pet candidate, but must check and see if he is house broken first.
8)Larry Doyle – 289 WS; His peak, with little positional bonus lands him here. An up the middle player on a great team, his career length keeps him out of the obvious HOM group.
9)George J. Burns – 290 WS, top three seasons all MVP level. Maybe a future positional adjustment will knock him down, but here for now.
10)Jimmy Ryan – 316 Win Shares, plus a good peak.
11)Harry Hooper – Long career outweighs his relative weak peak.
12)Dobie Moore
13)Joe Sewell
14)Rabbit Maranville – The three shortstops steal the ballot slots of three players with long career in the OF or pitching but with small peaks.

15)George Sisler – His career length coupled with his peak is enough to make the bottom of the ballot.

Top 15 from 1940 that were left off the ballot:

Eppa Rixey, in the top 15 until bumped by a shortstop. His weak peak keeps him off.

Clark Griffith, less win shares 273 than any on my ballot, though his peak keeps him near the edge of it.

Jake Beckley – I still can’t reconcile his lack of peak with a ballot slot.

Jennings and Wadell – career is too short for real consideration.

Duffy – Shorter career than Van Haltren and Ryan, but maybe a better peak? These three might be the same as Maranville, Moore and Sewell, where the length and the peak bunch them all together.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: December 15, 2004 at 09:32 PM (#1022839)
Dan, it's also true that under Sisler you wonder whether he should be penalized for playing in a strong cohort, whereas you say that Beckley was simply part of a weak cohort and nobody needs to be inducted from that cohort.

Of course Sisler started playing about the time Beckley retired, so maybe those are different cohorts.

Having said all of that, Dan, cohort, schmohort. Stick to your guns. You gotta admit that Sisler's peak was ~Jacksonian. Beckley's wasn't.

And Mike, nice job with the middle IFers, except I can't quite see where anybody who likes the Rabbit-man doesn't have Bancroft in there somewhere! Also an all-time great with the glove and + (off the top), what?, about 15 OPS+?
   61. TomH Posted: December 15, 2004 at 09:53 PM (#1022929)
Welcome to the voting, Mike Webber! Notice we didn't make you wait 9 hours in a line or declare your ballot 'provisional' since your address was unlisted. But did you mistakenly punch a hole for the independent candidate -Burns,G- when you really meant -Beckwith,J-? :)
   62. PhillyBooster Posted: December 15, 2004 at 10:23 PM (#1023024)
I have to agree with Dan here. Comparing Beckley (or almost anybody) to Ruth is kind of silly,

I resent that. My comparison of Babe Ruth to Dr. Ruth was deadly serious!

Having said all of that, Dan, cohort, schmohort. Stick to your guns. You gotta admit that Sisler's peak was ~Jacksonian.

Yes, but Beckley's career was more Jeffersonian. :-)
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 15, 2004 at 10:46 PM (#1023076)
I resent that. My comparison of Babe Ruth to Dr. Ruth was deadly serious!

Yes, but Beckley's career was more Jeffersonian. :-)

LOL
   64. Lemon Curry? Posted: December 16, 2004 at 01:09 AM (#1023415)
I don't mean to ruin the suspense, but it looks like The Babe and Rajah will be elected this year. As of right now they both have more than twice as many points as the guy in 3rd place.

Again, sorry if I ruined the suspense.
   65. DavidFoss Posted: December 16, 2004 at 01:36 AM (#1023481)
I could be wrong, but I don't see any "off-diagonal" elements of the vote-matrix in the first two rows.

Should be a big increase in consensus scores this year. :-)
   66. OCF Posted: December 16, 2004 at 02:04 AM (#1023533)
Should be a big increase in consensus scores this year. :-)

Through the first 26 votes (halfway?) the average is between +6 and +7, with the range from -1 to +14. Since last year's average was below -7, yes, that's a big increase. As the other half of the voters check in, new sources of disagreement will appear and that average will go down some, but will probably stay above +5.

Hey, and that temporary +14 is me. Whadduya know. (The fact that I'm not voting for Pike no longer matters.)
   67. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 16, 2004 at 02:06 AM (#1023535)
Don't know when I will be able to post later this week, when I usually submitmy ballot, so I will do it now. No real changes this week, but there may be some pretty big ones next week.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Rogers Horsnby - Do I need to explain these two? I will say that I ran Ruth through my system just for fun and he had more 'peak' Win Shares than most players had career Win Shares.

3. Hughie Jennings - Best peak in both Win Shares and WARP3 on the board. Well, except the two guys above.

4. Dazzy Vance - Great Peak, lots of K's, not many walks, great record pitching for bad teams. I have him as better than Faber and Covaleski, two guys I supported. After him, though, we move into pitchers who may or may have the qualifications to make it in. I think that Vance is the last of the 1920's guys we should need to elect.

5. Cupid Childs - Best second baseman of the 1890's, which to me is more impressive than Sewell's being the best AL SS of the 1920's.

5a. Lip Pike
6. Eppa Rixey - Nice long career, longer than grimes and he pitched better. The best career candidate of any of the 1920's guys. I happen to like pitchers who are career candidates more than their positional player bretheren.

7. Tommy Leach - Nice long creer with a good peak for a 3B

8. Dick Redding - Second best deadl ball era Nel pitcher

9. Hugh Duffy - second best peak on the board and a long career per WS, not as pretty per WARP. Still may be on the move next week.

10. Rube Waddel - Lots of K's with decent control. Great record without the run support. The unearned runs is the only thing keeping him out of contention for an elect me spot. Well, not this year, but you get the point.

11. George Sisler - Best 1b until Terry becomes eligible next year.

11a. Max Carey
12. Clark Griffith, best 19th century pitcher left on the ballot. If we elect him he should be the last to get in.

13. Jose Mendez - career arc much like that of Waddell, doesn't have the K's or the ERA+ though.

14. Bobby Veach - WARP3 all-star. Very nice peak and a decent career.

15. Pete Browning - excellent hitter, the Heilmann of the 1880's. The only question is, how much of a timeline adjustment should he get?
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 02:11 AM (#1023542)
Again, sorry if I ruined the suspense.

We'll get over it. :-)
   69. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 16, 2004 at 02:19 AM (#1023553)
Oops, forgot to proofread. Sorry for the typing errors.

16-20 - Moore, Beckwith, GVH, Bresnahan, Roush
21-25 - Monroe, Doyle, Wilson, R. Thomas, Sheckard
26-30 - Traynor, Chance, F.Jones, Shocker, Sewell
31-35 - Ryan,, Burns, Schang, Joss, Evers
36-40 - Grimes, Rice, Konetchy, Cicotte, Welch
41-45 - Beckley, Mays, Tinker, Seymour, Bancroft
46-50 - Poles, Schalk, Long, Tiernan, Rommel

Newbies
26. Pie Traynor - looks like the Joe Sewell of 3B. Better bat. Only newbie who isn't on the ballot ot make my top 50. I spent these two weeks doing an update on my system instead of taking a closer look at players, is liable to move up in the next week.

Top 10 I dont' like
30. Joe Sewell - too much like Bancroft, Long, and Tinker for me to really support him. He is better than them but I am comfortable that the SS line is drawn above Sewell.
40. Mickey Welch - only reason he makes my top 50 is because of the wins. He doesn't have a great ERA+, didn't strike many people out, didn't have a particularly long career, walked a bunch of guys.
41. Sorry karl, but Beckley will most likely never make my ballot. He just has no peak, being average or slightly above for 15 years does have value, I just don't think it makes you an all-time great.
   70. DavidFoss Posted: December 16, 2004 at 06:39 AM (#1023886)
Am I the only one who has lost the main HOM menu page with the "Important Links"?
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:00 PM (#1024661)
Am I the only one who has lost the main HOM menu page with the "Important Links"?

The Negro League Home Page was gone, too. Me thinks my friend Greg Tamer might have done this so that the Diamond Mind Baseball thread would get more notice. Since we have enough prospective owners now, I put everything back.
   72. Michael Bass Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:30 PM (#1024735)
The "Leftfield" thread that was active a bit yesterday seems to be missing from the Hot Topics...and when I go to it the long way, it's almost like it thought it was part of the regular Primer forum.
   73. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:34 PM (#1024744)
The "Leftfield" thread that was active a bit yesterday seems to be missing from the Hot Topics...and when I go to it the long way, it's almost like it thought it was part of the regular Primer forum.

That was also closed. Any others that are missing?
   74. Michael Bass Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:37 PM (#1024758)
Thanks! That's what I call service. ;)
   75. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 16, 2004 at 04:52 PM (#1024801)
That's why they pay me the big bucks around here, Michael. :-)
   76. Sean Gilman Posted: December 17, 2004 at 01:06 AM (#1026155)
1941

1. Babe Ruth (-)--He’s good.

2. Rogers Hornsby (-)--Him too.

3. Pete Browning (2)--AA discount and short career keeps him behind Pike. The man could hit. We know Win Shares likes him better than Sam Thompson, but did you know the BP stats show Browning to be the better hitter? Thompson’s edge in WARP is only in fielding and Davenport’s AA discount. Considering the problems Davenport’s had with 19th century OF fielding and the unknown natue of his AA discount, I don’t know how one could rate Thompson ahead based on WARP. (1927)

4. Charley Jones (3)--Jones, Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me. (1929)

5. Hughie Jennings (5)--Like Sam Thompson, only a slightly better peak and he was a shortstop instead of a right-fielder. (1932)

6. Cupid Childs (6)--Nice to see Cupid getting some love. . .(1938)

7. Clark Griffith (7)--About as close to Covaleski as can be.

8. Dick Redding (8)--Peak not quite long enough to put him ahead of these other second-tier HOM-probable pitchers. A good comp for Griffith, I think.

9. Tommy Leach (9)--May be the most underrated candidate out there. . .

10. Larry Doyle (10)--Pennants Added inspired bump for Laughing Larry this week as he noses ahead of the lower-peaked infielders.

11. Joe Sewell (11)--Doesn’t drop so much as stand still while Leach and Doyle jump up.

12. Ed Williamson (12)--Don’t know that my opinion of any candidate has fluctuated more over the last 40 years.

13. Dave Bancroft (13)--Totally overlooked him last year. Not quite Sewell, but very close.

14. Roger Bresnahan (14)--Great rate stats, but he just didn’t play enough to generate the value of the higher ups on the ballot. Drops in between the middle infielders this year.

15. John Beckwith (15)--Putting him at the end of the infield glut. There really isn’t much difference between #10 and #15 on my ballot.

16. Jose Mendez (16)
17. Carl Mays (17)
18. Eppa Rixey (18)
19. Hugh Duffy (19)
20. George Van Haltren (20)
21. Edd Roush (21)
22. Jimmy Ryan (22)
23. Jake Beckley (23)
24. George Sisler (24)
25. Bobby Veach (25)

Vance checks in at #27, Traynor at #42.
   77. dan b Posted: December 17, 2004 at 02:35 AM (#1026325)
Win shares are my metric of choice. My composite ranking = 5 x Career + (3 best years)/3 + (5 best consecutive years)/5 + (8 best years)/8 + (10 best consecutive years)/10 + WS per 162. I then make adjustments justified by individual components with a touch of subjectivity thrown in. I use the same system for hitters and for 60’ 6” era pitchers. I also look at WS w/o defense for a hitting only ranking. (Number in parenthesis shows composite rank.)


1.Ruth (1) It was fun when he still held the record for consecutive shutout innings pitched in World Series play.
2.Hornsby (2) 2nd at 2B to Collins, but not by much.
3.Rixey (9) More career value than any other pitcher in his era not answering to Walter or Grover put him in PHoM 1939. 4th in his era in Pennants Added.
4.Jennings (13) – PHoM in 1908. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar. Not 1st this time in 3 and 5-year peaks (3rd).
5.Duffy (3). PHoM in 1912.
6.Leach (8) 7th in 8-yr peak, 5th in career. PHoM 1926. Joe’s pennants added agrees – he should be in the HoM.
7.Griffith (2) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, PHoM 1913.
8.Beckwith PHoM 1940.
9.Cooper (4) Pennants added likes him.
10. Mays (5) ditto. I like these guys better than Vance or Faber.
11.Bresnahan (31) 19th in WS/162, but 5th in WS/600PA. Big position bonus to fill the void behind the plate. HoM will be flawed if we do not induct at least one Major League catcher who played between Buck Ewing’s retirement in 1897 and Gabby Hartnett’s debut in 1922. Dead ball era committee has him #1. PHoM 1928
12.Roush (4) Composite rank better than any single component.
13.Redding Good enough to enshrine.
14.Burns,GJ (5) 4th in 8 and 10 year peaks, 5th in 3-year. 4th best hitter.
15.Sisler (15) – 3rd best hitter on ballot. Future PHoM.
16.Sewell NHBA has him as 5th best SS eligible to date.

PhoMers crowded off the ballot – Waddell, Poles, Chance, Browning, Willis and Doyle.
   78. Howie Menckel Posted: December 17, 2004 at 02:45 AM (#1026351)
1941 ballot, which is our 44th.
Good chance for lots of guys to jockey for position as we roll toward a crucial 1942 ballot that may be a 'last call' for many of our top 20.

1. BABE RUTH - His 13 1st-place OPS and OPS+ finishes in a 14-year stretch (1918-31) has to make him worthy of consideration, no? Or traditionalists may prefer to focus on the 12 HR titles. Bonus for his pitching, too.
2. ROGERS HORNSBY - His 11 1st-place OPS+ finishes in a 13-year stretch (1919-31) has to make him worthy of consideration, no? Or traditionalists may prefer to focus on the 7 batting titles.


3. CLARK GRIFFITH - His era clearly is underrepresented on the hill AND it was a time of rough competition, a double bonus which keeps him at No. 3. It's remarkable how much better his W-L was than the teams he pitched for. I think he was a brilliant strategist long before he became a manager, and it showed in his pitching.
4. GEORGE SISLER - Moves up a few spots this time, with a positional bonus. I never realized before this project the extent of the 'two Sislers' career. But he also matches some HOMer's peaks while also providing a significant added portion of a career. Not clear on some of the anti-Sisler sentiment; overrated by the average fan, but a great half-career in particular.
5. MICKEY WELCH - Hangs in for now. If you look at the amount of lopsided scores AND compare them to the fewer and less lopsided losses by Keefe in yest's post in the Welch thread, the 'pitching in a pinch' circumstancial evidence is there. Went 61-34 vs HOMer pitching opponents.
6. HUGHIE JENNINGS - Here on the theory that a four-year megastar is better than entire careers of most of these balloteers. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies almost nothing else - and even plays so many games at 1B rather than SS.
7. EPPA RIXEY - Might have climbed all the way to No. 3 if only he had that one mega-year. But a very nice long career slots him here. Pretty baffled that Faber got in immediately while Rixey may never make it.
8. DICK REDDING - Yes, 4th SP in the top 8. Definitely should be on more ballots, although the pitching ool is now remarkably deep.
9. TOMMY LEACH - The half-career at 3B and his overall defensive skills don't get enough credit; we may have to be careful in general not to underrate the 'hybrids.'
10. CUPID CHILDS - Jumps ahead of the 'career trio.' The majors' best 2B, or nearly so, for most of his career is something that we just don't see on this ballot. But I can't say I'm sure he belongs.
11. JAKE BECKLEY - Top 10 in RBIs TWELVE times. How many HOMers did that? I'm finally convinced that he really wasn't quite as good as Keeler after all, but he can still grab a ballot spot in this bunch.
12. SAM RICE - I'll assume he goes arm-in-arm on a lot of ballots or off with Beckley. Top 10 in BA eight times - BUT seven of those were 8th, 9th, or 10th. A bit Baines-like, and this group probably doesn't love Baines, either.
13. BURLEIGH GRIMES - Not quite Faber, and thus not quite Rixey, either. Sort of Beckley and Rice-like, isn't he?
14. PETE BROWNING - Spectacularly good hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time. Has been discounted too much for AA numbers, and I'm not a big AA fan at all.
15. LARRY DOYLE - First time on my ballot. Awesome hitting stats for a 2B; with a little longer career and decent fielding, he'd be a HOMer.

OMISSIONS
JOE SEWELL - Will be back on my ballot next year. Slugged exactly the league average in his career, split between SS and 3B. That's good, but not real exciting. We've already elected a lot of SSs, let's see if he measures up to a new crop of them. But status as best SS most years earns him a place on the ballot.
GEORGE VAN HALTREN - Seems very similar to Beckley, only he's an OF and not a 1B. Pitching helps, not quite enough. Still, I'm softening a little and might be persuaded by a campaign for him.
JOHN BECKWITH - A short career and bad fielding doesn't quite do it. A great player for a time and glad to see him get his deserved props, but I'm not there yet.
DOBIE MOORE - Hey, with Jennings and Sisler on my list, I wish I could include Beckwith and Moore, too. Meteors don't last as long as stars, but they shine brighter while they're around.
CARL MAYS - Intriguing, but only threw 200 IP nine times and wasn't always smokin' in the other years. Maybe with one more 20 W, 130 ERA+ year....
VIC WILLIS - Nearly got first vote ever from me last year, but here come another truckload of pitchers. Tracks very closely with our other top pitchers; like Mays needed one more quality season to get big points, probably not a HOMer.
JOSE MENDEZ - Outside chance he had enough peak to be a legit HOMer, but part of me suspects he didn't quite do it for long enough. Still worth strong consideration, but I'm already pitcher-heavy this year.
RUBE WADDELL - Not a HOMer; the 'anti-Welch' was Mark Fidrych with a longer but not-long-enough career. Strikeouts are an indicator of ability, not production.
   79. Howie Menckel Posted: December 17, 2004 at 02:49 AM (#1026359)
Dammit.
Also
PIE TRAYNOR - Reached 120 OPS+ only twice. Long career for a 3B, but tough competition for INF slots right now. May make my ballot next year.
DAZZY VANCE - Three incredible years, but only reached 120 ERA+ four times. Can't imagine anyone picking him ahead of Hughie Jennings.
   80. EricC Posted: December 17, 2004 at 03:32 AM (#1026469)
1941 ballot.

1. Babe Ruth A Ruthian peak and a Ruthian career, Babe Ruth was the Babe Ruth of 20th century baseball.

2. Rogers Hornsby Can be knocked down in a number of ways, but remains a no-brainer HoMer.

3. Wally Schang We've fallen behind the HoF on 20th century cathchers. Put Bresnahan in, and replace Schalk with Schang, and we'll be caught up.

4. Joe Sewell 2 things that are underrated: being the best major leader at your postion, and consistency.

5. Roger Bresnahan

6. Eppa Rixey 4495 IP; 115 ERA+; 266-251. Was good enough for long enough that I rate him highly in spite of a NL discount.

7. Pie Traynor Mmmmm, Pie. See Sewell, Joe.

8. Sam Rice Rice, Hooper, and Beckley are my position player "career" picks, with performance and career length scores adjusted for position.

9. Harry Hooper

10. Jose Mendez Brilliant phase in a longer career; rating him near Waddell seems right.

11. Jake Beckley

12. George "Rube" Waddell I like the high-peak AL pitchers from this era:
Waddell: 2961 IP; 134 ERA+; 193-143
Shocker: 2682 IP; 124 ERA+; 187-117
Cicotte: 3223 IP; 123 ERA+; 208-149 (bumped off ballot this year)

13. Ray Schalk Consistently good and very long career for a catcher.

14. Urban Shocker

15. Jack Quinn 3920 IP; 114 ERA+; 247-218; mostly AL; 2 seasons FL. Underappreciated for what he did; no karma points deduction here for being a legal spitball pitcher.

Jennings: love his peak; but his prime was only 5 years.

Griffith: next best 1890s pitcher; am agnostic on him.

Sisler: McGraw-like prime plus second half of career that adds little to his HoM credentials. Sorry.

Leach: NL was weak during his career. Nice to appreciate him, but not nice to make him a HoMer.

Van Haltren: Has been on my ballots many times, but, like other borderline candidates over the years, has been squeezed out by newcomers.

Vance. Like the comparisons with Waddell, but see Waddell as having more great years. Just misses my ballot at #17, behind Cicotte at #16.
   81. favre Posted: December 17, 2004 at 05:44 AM (#1026758)
1.Babe Ruth
2.Rogers Hornsby

Ruth has a career 122 ERA+ in over 1200 innings; I also gave him some credit for his hitting.

3.Jake Beckley
4.Clark Griffith

I understand why Beckley is as welcome to peak voters as the Dixie Chicks would be at the Republican National Convention. But I’m not really a peak voter, and Jake’s a good career pick. He has 316 unadjusted Win Shares, which modified for schedule length would be, what, 330-340 WS? Not a lock, but hardly an embarrassment to the HoM. His WARP3 career score is good (87.1). He had 13 seasons with an OPS+ of 123 or higher. His career grey ink is good, and he has very good counting stats; I know we have to take the 90s level of offense into account, but 2900 hits/1600runs/1500 RBI certainly doesn’t discourage me from putting him high on the ballot. His era is underrepresented as it is, and I can’t imagine inducting another first baseman who played between 1897 and 1915. I’m sold.

Between 1895-1901, Griffith never had a season ERA+ lower than 119 in a hitter’s era. In those seven seasons, Griffith was 154-87, .639 WP; his team’s WP was .449 without him.

5.Tommy Leach
6.Eppa Rixey

Leach has 324 career WS. We’ve elected every position player with more career Win Shares except Van Haltren, and Van Haltren’s WS (344) are distorted by his pitching stint. He played near flawless CF/3B and hit in a low offense era.

Rixey 4494 IP is 27th all time; Ferguson Jenkins, Eddie Plank, Jack Powell, and Roger Clemens (for the moment) are all within ten innings. I think Jenkins and Plank are good comps.

7.Dazzy Vance
8.George Sisler
9.John Beckwith

Vance’s four terrific seasons and amazing K-rate separates him from his peers. Beckwith is another player in the Dick Allen/Lip Pike mode: he could hit the crap out the ball, had an attitude problem, and has questions about his defense.

Cap Anson and Roger Connor retired in 1897, so we currently have a forty-year-and counting gap of first basemen in the HoM. Gehrig will reduce that to thirty; if we elect Beckley, the gap will be twenty years. Kelly in SD’s list further convinces me that Sisler deserves to be high on the ballot; he was the best 1B in baseball for five seasons, at the end of a long drought of quality first sackers.

10.Edd Roush
11.Rube Waddell

I’m surprised that I have this Roush this high; I thought he would end up near the CF glut off the ballot. He was clearly one of the best players in the NL from 1917-1921—an impressive prime, even with a small NL discount-- and was a good player from ’23-26. He may make it into the top five next year.

Rube Waddell led the AL in K/IP for eight years, and was 2nd in another year. The lack of home runs reduces the value of strikeouts, but each K was an out that his defense didn’t have to record, and defenses were pretty lousy back then. He has three ERA+ titles. On the other hand, it appears he allowed a lot of unearned runs, his W-L records aren’t great…Waddell drives me crazy, which, given his life story, seems fitting.

12.Ned Williamson
13.Hugh Jennings
14.Pete Browning
15.Cupid Childs
16.Wally Schang

Like Leach, Williamson was an excellent fielder and decent hitter, but played in more offense-friendly and overrepresented era. I now have Jennings ahead of Childs. Childs has more career value, but not by a huge amount, and Jennings’ peak is so much better. If you give Browning a healthy AA discount (obviously a matter of contention), then he was a comparable player to Sam Thompson: relatively short career, not much defense, but a very good hitter.

17.Larry Doyle
18.Mickey Welch
19.Spotswood Poles
20.George Van Haltren Van Haltren was merely a good hitter in a high offense era, and I think his WS totals are distorted by his pitching stint.

26. Joe Sewell Does not compare well to other shortsops in the HoM. I’m not convinced he was better than John Beckwith or Dick Lundy.
   82. Al Peterson Posted: December 17, 2004 at 02:39 PM (#1027232)
1941 Ballot. This is quite the toughie. Actually, rankings below the top 2 are still moving in this "bye" week so some players are helped for 1942.

1. Babe Ruth (-). Uh, yeah. He had 21 sacrifice hits one year leading to the question: What the hell is Babe Ruth bunting 21 times for?

2. Rogers Hornsby (-). His decade of play in the 1920's is impressive. OPS+ leader 9 out of 10 years.

3. Rube Waddell (2). Won six straight strikeout titles, top 10 in Ks per 9 innings 10 straight years - dominance you don't get everyday. In addition to major league service, he competed in PCL, AA, Western League throughout his career, having success but seemingly frustrating managers. One of the first AL superstars - his pitching was guaranteed to bring in a large crowd and help support the fledgling league.

4. Jimmy Ryan (4). Let's see: good hitting CF, longish career, decent fielder. Yep, I like that combo.

5. Dazzy Vance (-). If I like Waddell so much you know Vance is going to be ranked high. Toiled on second division Brooklyn teams with minimal help on defense and offense and yet still excelled. He's not one of the HOF mistakes.

6. Hughie Jennings (3).
SS with plenty of glove and bat in his prime, albeit for a short stretch of time. Knocked down by a strong class.

7. Dick Redding (7). Just ahead of a couple of white counterparts on the mound.

8. Tommy Leach (8). Comparing to Traynor worked out for Leach actually. All around player - good hitter, good fielder.

9. Bobby Veach (9). Maybe penalized him too harshly in the past due to tough OF competition in his career. Having a hard time seeing Cobb, Heilmann, and Veach in together.

10. Pete Browning (5). Hitter with few rivals. Top 3 in batting average 9 times in 10 years. He hit in whatever league he played in. Star of the AA which is alright - I don't give extreme discounts for that league.

11. Clark Griffith (11). Some tweaks to my pitcher rankings show him moving up amongst the populace. Is he HOM worthy is another question. Fills an era lacking a player or two in the HOM.

12. Eppa Rixey (10). Keeps pitching, and pitching, and pitching...

13. John McGraw (6). Limited playing time but what he did with it is nonetheless outstanding. Positional bump as well. Cons include just not playing enough but was on base all the time when participating.

14. George Sisler (12). The seven-year peak should not be ignored. Average play after his return from injury just padded some statlines. Star college player who was highly sought after by many teams. For those who want to argue over positional dominance for Sewell check out Sisler at 1B early in his career.

15. Edd Roush (13). Still a darn fine CF, just on a slippery slope down my ballot.

Wanting a shot:

16-20: Beckwith, Beckley, Griffin, Duffy, Van Haltren
21-25: Poles, Childs, Mullane, Bresnahan, Sewell
26-30: Willis, Mendez, Schang, Welch, H Wilson
31-35: Moore, Tiernan, Taylor, F Jones, Chance
36-40: Mays, Monroe, C Jones, Shocker, Cravath

Top returnees not getting points:

Pike: Wait, I don't have to talk about him. YEAH!

Van Haltren: The 15-20 slot is still not bad. He just blends in with lots of CFs in my mind.

Sewell: Feel he's closer to Tinker, Bancroft, and others than elite elected SS.

Beckley: Bumped out by 3 highly ranked newcomers so he should return.

Duffy: Van Haltren, the sequel. Lots of the same reasons. Being #19 has no shame.

Traynor: I thought he'd rank higher but not even top 40.
   83. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 17, 2004 at 03:53 PM (#1027306)
This Doc makes calls to the House that Ruth built

1941 Ballot

At least the first two are simple. The next 13 aren’t so easy to slot.

1. Babe Ruth: The best hitting left-handed pitcher of his era. Now for the discussion of him: So does anyone think that Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain is NOT the best album by 90s slacker-rock kings Pavement?

2. Rogers Hornsby: The crabbiest fellow to ever be considered the best right-handed hitter in the game. Discussion: Were I casting a contemporary Hollywood actor to play Hornsby, I’d pick Chris Cooper based on his outstanding work in American Beauty as a similarly taciturn man. Paul Newman would have been the perfect person to play him, but he’s a bit too much the septagenarian now. Gene Hackman or William Holden (see his role in Stalag 17) would have been fine choices if we made the film during the prime of their careers. Same for Harvey Keitel.

. . . (below this line all references refer to the non-Huth/Ruthsby candidates). . .

3. George Van Haltren
Still the best career numbers on the board; still not as weak a peak as the likes of Beckley; still worthy of induction into the HOM.

4. Hugh Duffy
As someone pointed out a little while back, where's the love for Duffy's peak? Especially considering that he's not exactly chopped liver on the career side, particularly when his WS are adjusted for schedule length.

5. Spots Poles
Less peak than Duffy, less career than GVH.

6. Jose Mendez
Big peak, and enough shoulder seasons to shoulder his way past the likes of Waddell.

7. Dazzy Vance
I’m not at all certain that Vance should be ahead of Rixey, nor visa versa, but I am confident that the two of them belong close together and roughly at this point on my ballot. Where perhaps Dean/Koufax describe the opposite of Rixey, Vance represents something like equivalency. What I mean by this is that Rixey’s peak is approximately as much lower than Vance’s as Vance’s career is lower than Rixey’s. And their primes roughly intersect. So in a way two sides of the same pitching coin, whereas Dean/Koufax are more like Jennings vs. GVH. As a recovering peakster, I’m impelled to put Vance over Rixey, recognizing that his peak seasons added more at the margins to his teams’ chances to win, while also recognizing that his offensive and defensive support were poorer than Rixey’s.

8. Eppa Rixey
The anti-Dean/Koufax candidate with all kinds of career value, and a steady stream of 20 win share seasons. If Rixey were a 70s rock band, he'd be Journey: a long, successful career with lots of songs and albums that chart highly, but no #1s.

9. George "Not born in Tioga" Burns
A really nice peak/prime that petered out a little too quickly to give him the career boost he needs.

10. Edd Roush
The extra d wasn't for defense, but he did a have a productive peak, almost as good as Burns's, and a little more career value. I lean to peak, so Burns is ahead. Someone else could easily feel differently.

11. Hughie Jennings
As ever, a peak lover's dream, a career lover's nightmare. Someone in baseball history had to be the perfect demonstration of the peak/career argument, and it's him.

12. Tommy Leach
More career than Burns, but not enough peak to get above him.

13. Wilbur Cooper
Wow, two Wilburs on one ballot. Cooper's consistent finishes among the top pitchers in his league combined with just enough career to make him dangerous get him almost into my top ten.

14. Cupid Childs
Great OBP, nice peak/prime, not enough career value.

15. John Beckwith
Here's the man I'm really struggling with. On one hand, Chris's projections show me someone not quite as effective as Doyle who is off of my ballot. On the other hand, there's also talk about his organized-league exuent in the 1930s being, in part, driven by a want to stay in familiar surroundings. Given the instability of the era, what with the then recent foldings of the NNL, ECL, and E-WL, there was probably ample reason for him to doubt whether the NNL would continue as a profitable enterprise and, therefore, to eschew playing in it when he could make money playing near home. My hindsight on Negro Leaguers is blurriest with regard to this sort of matter, that is, what effect the loose organization of the teams and leagues had on players and teams. Anyway, the (now) long and short of it is that, I think there's more room in Beckwith's projection for upside than in Doyle's actual stat lines or in Moore's (due to the clear termination point of his career). That's why they're not here and Beckwith is.

As to the attitude stuff, I also think this is a reflection of the (then) probable lack of support systems for atheletes, especially in the Negro Leagues, which probably couldn't afford those luxuries. I don't know that Milton Bradley's all that different from John Beckwith, but he's had a support structure to keep him reigned in enough that he hasn't killed someone. Yet.
   84. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 17, 2004 at 03:54 PM (#1027309)
Falling down, but likely to return some day.

Bill Monroe
Decent peak, decent career, but I wish I would quit hemming and hawing on him.

Vic Willis
Led his league a couple times, among the leaders several others, hurt sometimes by bad defenses, helped other times by good ones. A weird, quirky candidate as Chris J's numbers tell us.

rending the loose ends:

Welcome to Newington, NH:

Andy Cooper: Here’s the one new guy I’m having big troubles placing. Chris Cobb, I beg you for a WS interpretation! I think it’s possible based on Chris’s WAT data that this Cooper could have been worthy of a low-level ballot spot, but I’m simply so unsure whether he’s Wilbur Cooper or Andy Pettitte that I’m not able to take a stand on him.

Pie Traynor: I just don’t see it. While 3B might be underrepresented (as ever), Traynor’s not the guy to fix it. He’s not any better (or worse) than Sewell, Bancroft, Evers, none of whom are on my ballot, nor will be for the forseeable future. As a nod to last week’s ballot, in my good old Earl Weaver Baseball days, Traynor was (t)wittily known as “Potty.” Andy Cooper, incidentally, would have been known as “Pooper Scooper” Cooper as every player named Cooper was that we encountered.


Welcome to Old Economy, PA

Sewell: The best in a weak era for SS. I'm not convinced by his soft peak and low career WS.

Clark Griffith: Just off the end of the ballot.

Sisler: Not enough peak to overcome modest career totals (esp for a 1B) and half a career of being Hal Morris. Is it the Mattingly Complex or does Donald Arthur suffer from the Sislerian Syndrome?

Beckley: Sorry Karlmagnus, I just can't bring myself to vote for "The Who Never Peaked." ; )

Waddell: ERA+ is easier to rack up, mathematically, in a lower run environment. Between that and all those unearned runs, I'm not convinced Rube was as good as the WS say.
   85. TomH Posted: December 17, 2004 at 04:18 PM (#1027343)
Dr. Chaleeko - I do not agree with
"ERA+ is easier to rack up, mathematically, in a lower run environment."

Any empirical evidence for this? At first glance, the bestest ERA+ figures in the last 80 years have been put up by a guy (PEDRO) in a very high run environent.
   86. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 17, 2004 at 04:51 PM (#1027417)
My gut agrees with TomH on this one. When there are more runs scored, it seems it would be easier to stand out from the pack. So if there is to be an environment where a high ERA+ is easier to attain, one like we are experiencing now would be it.

In reverse, I would guess that a high OPS+ might be easier to attain in a low scoring environment.

Just guesses though.
   87. OCF Posted: December 17, 2004 at 05:03 PM (#1027456)
I'm with Dr. Chaleeko in this debate. I got into this in another debate on another part of this site a month or so ago and don't have my notes for that, but a comparison of the low scoring Oughts to the high scoring 20's does strongly suggest that it was easier to get very high ERA+'s in the low scoring environment. Bringing Pedro (and the mid-90's Maddux) into this is a red herring because it introduces a second major environment change: the ace starter with 220 IP, not 290.
--
9.Cooper (4) Pennants added likes him.

dan b - I recorded that as a vote for Wilbur Cooper, because he was eligible last year and because Negro Leaguers don't have Pennants Added. But be warned that Andy Cooper is also an eligible candidate and you should probably do something to distinguish them.
   88. Chris Cobb Posted: December 17, 2004 at 05:24 PM (#1027503)
I'm also with Dr. Chaleeko, though someone with a better grasp of the role of mathematics and baseball could change my mind by clearing up some uncertainties that I have.

Some points and questions:

1) The wins produced by a given ERA+ achieved in a low run- scoring environmet are fewer than the wins produceed by the same ERA+ achieved in a high run-scoring environment.

2) If a pitcher in a 2.91 run-scoring environment gives up .75 runs less than his league, his ERA+ will be 134. If a pitcher in a 3.67 run-scoring environment gives up .75 runs less than his league, his ERA+ will be 126. Which is a better reflection of the pitcher's value -- the difference between league avg. ERA and the pitcher's ERA, or the ratio?

3) What pitchers have the ability to do is prevent hits. With clutch pitching, some pitchers have the ability to prevent runs at a better than average rate, but (I think) the impact of this ability is, overall, small in comparison to the effect of general hit prevention. Runs vary geometrically with hits, so the run-impact of a pitcher's hit prevention--the general pitching ability and basic pitching value--will vary with offensive context. The win-impact of run prevention also varies with offensive context, as per 1 above. Do we want to take hit-prevention, run-prevention, or win-creation as our baseline for evaluating pitchers?

4) I believe that WARP treats hit prevention as the basic measure of a pitcher's ability, which they then project into a neutral context to calculate NRA and DERA. The pitchers in example 2 above are Rube Waddell and Stan Coveleski. WARP sees the two pitchers, whose run differential from league average is equal, as having virtually equal DERAs, 3.63 and 3.64, respectively. I don't know exactly how they get that result, of course, but it is suggestive that someone who knows a lot more than I do sees an ERA+ of 134 achieved in a low scoring environment as equivalent to a 126 ERA+ achieved in a higher-scoring environment.
   89. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 17, 2004 at 05:33 PM (#1027509)
Maybe I'm wrong about how ERA+ works, and I'm not a good mathematician, but I've always seen it this way... Pitchers can only give up whole numbers of runs, not fractions of runs. So in a lower run environment there are fewer whole numbers of ER between zero and the total number of ER required to equal the league-average era than there are in higher-run environments.

For example: in a league with a 4.00 ERA, giving up forty-six ER versus forty-eight ER lowers your ERA+ by 1.3%. But in a 3.00 ERA environment, it lowers your ERA+ by about double that percentage. So good pitchers in lower-run environments derive greater benefit from each whole-number increment of ER they save than a pitcher in a higher run environment does, making it a little easier for them to end up with a higher ERA+.

Or maybe I've conceived the whole-number argument wrongly? In which case, please tell me if I've got the logic all backwards!!!
   90. Dolf Lucky Posted: December 17, 2004 at 07:44 PM (#1027761)
1 (-)Babe Ruth--The third player since we've been doing this to garner a perfect score in my system (Lajoie and Johnson).

2 (-)Rogers Hornsby--He's closer to #1 than he is to #3, which is remarkable, considering who #1 is.

3 (-)Dazzy Vance--Wicked peak. I like the comps to Waddell. These were dominant pitchers, period.

4 (10)Roger Bresnahan--The last time we had a catcher with an OPS+ this high, that had a career length in the high teens, that played several other positions with some regularity, we voted him in right away (Buck Ewing).

5 (1)Rube Waddell--In a 9 year stretch from 1900 to 1908, Waddell led the league in K/IP 8 times. Finished 2nd the other time. New WARP scores boost his peak to a near Jennings level. High black ink totals. In other words--dominant.

6 (4)George Sisler--Not quite as dominant as I had thought, but that peak stacks relatively high.

7 (2)Joe Sewell--It's amazing how pale your top of the ballot guys can look when the big dogs come out to play.

8 (5)Bobby Veach--One of the biggest beneficiaries of the new, new WARP.

9 (3)Donie Bush--Gets extra points for being a top-notch leadoff type.

10 (8)George J Burns--Burns is rising to the top of the OF glut based on a better peak.

11 (15)Duke Farrell--Catchers are by far the most underrepresented position right now, and Farrell makes it on as a result.

12 (-)Pie Traynor--Never one of the all-time greats, but being pretty good for a pretty long while counts for quite a bit at the hot corner.

13 (12)Eddie Cicotte--Career and peak numbers synch up fairly closely to Waddell, but Cicotte lacked the dominance.

14 (-)Hughie Jennings--Consistently floating around the bottom of the ballot.

15 (11)Urban Shocker--More of a career vote than anything, since his peak can't compare with Cicotte or Waddell, Shocker was still very good for a pretty long time.

Dropping out: Harry Hooper, Tommy Leach, Del Pratt, Sam Rice.

Top 10 ommissions:
Tommy Leach was in my own top 10 last year, but sometimes I get some fairly drastic shifts when a stud is introduced to the ballot. He's a good bet to be back at some point.
Eppa Rixey and Jake Beckley have so little peak, that they're never going to sniff my ballot.
Clark Griffith has the same career WARP as Cicotte, but a much lower peak, and Cicotte is at the bottom of my ballot.
George Van Haltren is in a large OF glut, and frankly, I don't see anything to suggest that he belongs towards the top of that glut.
   91. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 17, 2004 at 07:59 PM (#1027818)
At this point, I have 35 ballots counted.
   92. OCF Posted: December 17, 2004 at 08:11 PM (#1027845)
Babe Ruth was the Babe Ruth of 20th century baseball.

Hard to argue with that.
   93. sunnyday2 Posted: December 17, 2004 at 08:21 PM (#1027856)
The following is a long question that I hope somebody can answer:

If two pitchers have the same ERA+, Chaleeko suggests in #89 that the pitcher from the high run environment was better. Not sure the reasoning works.

E.g. a pitcher in a 3.5 run environment can give up as many as 3 runs (in 9 IP) and still be better than average--and be 14% better, specifically. A pitcher in a 4.5 run environment can give up as many as 4 and still be above average, in this case 11% better. So in this very simplistic example, in fact, the pitcher in the low-run environment has to be a little better in order to be better than average.

But the fact is that pitchers can and do give up fractional runs per 9 IP. So in a 3.5 run environment a pitcher can only give up 2 runs in 7 innings and still be better than average, etc. etc. The permutations here are endless, of course.

Is this question analogous to the question of why relief pitcher's ERAs are almost always better than starters, and the percent advantage that relievers have coming out of the gate? IOW, somebody once figured out that a relief pitcher has to have an ERA that is (I don't remember the exact number, but say) 0.50 better than a starter for it to mean that he was in fact more effective.

To conclude this ramble:

1. There must be some way to calibrate the effect of high and low run environments just like it is possible to calculate the advantage that a relief pitcher has in ERA.

2. If so, wouldn't it be obvious that it would be incorporated into ERA+ ratings?

3. And if obvious, is it therefore not already incorporated into ERA+?

4. If not, why not?
   94. Buddha Posted: December 17, 2004 at 08:51 PM (#1027907)
A little ballot re-do this time...

1) Ruth: duh
2) Hornsby: double duh

3) Vance: I'm a big fan of strkeout pitchers. Especially ones with peaks like Vance's peak.

4) Sisler: Still seems a bit underrated here. One hell of hitter, even after his injury.

5) Sewell: Consistently the best at his position at the time.

6) Waddell: See Vance.

7) Duffy: What a peak. 187 OPS+ is nothing to sneeze at.

8) Beckley: Long, long career of being very good.

9) Griffith: ditto

10) Childs: Not so long career of being very good.

11) Browning
12) Welch: See Griffith/Beckley

13) Jennings: Dropped him a lot. Just not enamored as much with his peak anymore. impressive but REALLY short.

14) Chance: Great leader and glove man.

15) Beckwith: Seems pretty good.
   95. jimd Posted: December 17, 2004 at 09:16 PM (#1027964)
For example: in a league with a 4.00 ERA, giving up forty-six ER versus forty-eight ER lowers your ERA+ by 1.3%. But in a 3.00 ERA environment, it lowers your ERA+ by about double that percentage. So good pitchers in lower-run environments derive greater benefit from each whole-number increment of ER they save than a pitcher in a higher run environment does, making it a little easier for them to end up with a higher ERA+.

Absolutely correct. And a linear conversion of runs to wins would say this was not right because a run saved is a run saved. OTOH, Pythagoras says that the run that was saved is worth more in the low run environment (because it's harder for your offense to get it back). So Pythagoras says that ERA+ is run-environment neutral (unless you subscribe to variable-exponent Pythagoras; I'll leave that explanation to those who know what they're talking about).
   96. PhillyBooster Posted: December 17, 2004 at 09:16 PM (#1027968)

1. There must be some way to calibrate the effect of high and low run environments just like it is possible to calculate the advantage that a relief pitcher has in ERA.


To the extent that pitchers with the same ERA+ are "better" or "more valuable" in high scoring eras, it is because the appropriate exponent to use in the pythagorean formula increases in higher scoring environments.

For example, if you are a pitcher on a team with an average offense, and you have an ERA+ of 133, you can expect to win 64% of your games if the pythagorean exponent is "2", but only 62.7% if the pythagorean exponent is "1.8". Over the course of 400 decisions, that could cost the "deadball" 133 ERA+ pitcher 5-6 wins compared to his gopherball counterpart.
   97. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 17, 2004 at 09:31 PM (#1028005)
just to clarify something that sunnyday said, I'm not trying to say that waddell (or any successful pitcher in a low-scoring era) is better/worse than a successful comparable from a higher-scoring era, only that it's my belief that ERA+ paints a more glowing picture of the run-saving ability of the low-era guy due to mathematical limitations. It's just one of the little holes in his argument for HOM (also including the UER, the terrible hitting, and the hidden costs of his personality). I probably oversold it as the primary source of my doubts about him. Sorry about that.

Also, in my W. Cooper comments, I forgot to edit out the part about the two Wilburs. We elected one last week....
   98. jimd Posted: December 17, 2004 at 09:57 PM (#1028056)
(unless you subscribe to variable-exponent Pythagoras; I'll leave that explanation to those who know what they're talking about).

Thanks PhillyBooster. That was quick ;-)
   99. OCF Posted: December 17, 2004 at 10:12 PM (#1028079)
My two cents worth:

I do like to use RA+ rather than ERA+. One thing I've noticed and don't have an explanation for is that RA+ tends to shave a little of the luster off of the gaudiest single-season ERA+ scores (including Gibson's '68). Then I make the further adjustment for run environment not by changing RA+, but by sliding the exponent in the conversion to W-L.

The sliding exponent theory has to make sense. I had an example involving hypothetical NBA teams with a certain average point differential, but the example didn't make numerical sense. We do know that a relatively small proportional difference in points scored in a 90 point game makes a rather large difference in winning percentage.
   100. KJOK Posted: December 18, 2004 at 01:07 AM (#1028328)
Is this question analogous to the question of why relief pitcher's ERAs are almost always better than starters, and the percent advantage that relievers have coming out of the gate? IOW, somebody once figured out that a relief pitcher has to have an ERA that is (I don't remember the exact number, but say) 0.50 better than a starter for it to mean that he was in fact more effective.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE - This is only for RECENT seasons- throught baseball history, starters have consistently had better ERA's than relievers.

However, with all the mid-inning relieving that now goes on and the way that runs are credited, it is somewhere in the .25 -.50 range of lower ERA on average that relievers will have given the same batting against stats.
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 1.6576 seconds
49 querie(s) executed