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 06, 2004

1941 Ballot Discussion

I think we’ll have the most combined points for the two inductees this election, don’t you think? I’m sorry, but pet players such as Cupid Childs, Jake Beckley, or Donie Bush should not find themselves above Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby this “year!”

Two other newbies that will have considerable ballot impact are Pie Traynor and Dazzy Vance.

1941 (December 19)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

756 233.0 1915 Babe Ruth-RF/LF (1948)
502 151.1 1916 Rogers Hornsby-2B (1963)
274 80.3 1922 Pie Traynor-3B (1972)
241 81.4 1922 Dazzy Vance-P (1961)
245 62.7 1915 Sad Sam Jones-P (1966)
227 58.9 1925 Earle Combs-CF (1976)
184 57.5 1924 Max Bishop-2B (1962)
161 49.7 1918 Bob O’Farrell-C (1988)
141 33.0 1924 Hughie Critz-2B (1980)
129 32.5 1923 Larry Benton-P (1953)
119 36.8 1927 Lefty Stewart-P (1974)

1941 (December 19)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ - MVP - All-Star

12% 20-38 Andy Cooper-P (1896)2 - 6*
04% 21-35 Crush Holloway-RF (1896) - 0 - 1*
00% 22-35 Newt Joseph-3B (1899) #7 3b - 0 – 3*


Players Passing Away in 1940

HoMers
Age Elected

74 1907 Billy Hamilton-CF
70 1915 George Davis-SS

Candidates
Age Eligible

89 1898 Chick Fulmer-SS
75 1907 Joe Quinn-2B
73 1904 Matt Kilroy-P
71 1904 Red Ehret-P
69 1914 Chick Fraser-P
68 1905 Fred Klobendanz-P
64 1922 George McQuillan-P
63 1917 Patsy Dougherty-LF
62 1914 Spike Shannon-LF
52 1923 Tom Seaton-P
46 1936 Ira Flagstead-CF
44 1930 Charlie Hollocher-SS

Upcoming Candidate
30 1946 Willard Hershberger-C

Much obliged to Dan G and Chris Cobb for the lists again!

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 06, 2004 at 04:31 AM | 181 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 10, 2004 at 08:02 PM (#1011244)
Here, I think Win Shares gets it right: Mays 256, Vance, 241.

WS per 162 Games:

Mays: 29.46

Vance: 31.03
   102. TomH Posted: December 10, 2004 at 08:15 PM (#1011264)
Maybe Vance got less assists because he got more KOs? I bet Tommy John got more assists than Randy Johnson.
   103. DavidFoss Posted: December 10, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#1011266)
Just looking at the raw defensive numbers:

Assists: Mays 1138; Vance, 570

Mays teams not only had nine batters in the lineup, but had nine defenders in the field.


Its not that simple, though.

Strikeouts:

Vance: 2045
Mays: 862

So, Vance was getting a lot more outs by himself and fewer balls in play (fewer fielding chances for all).

Most fielding analyses have a pitcher strikeout adjustment. Are Vance's high numbers "breaking" one or more of these somehow?
   104. Michael Bass Posted: December 10, 2004 at 08:20 PM (#1011274)
Yeah, PB, you gotta admit that raw assists number is a major red herring. :)
   105. Chris Cobb Posted: December 10, 2004 at 08:21 PM (#1011275)
In response to Phillybooster:

Mays appears to have been a good fielding pitcher. However, pitcher in the teens and twenties played enough inninngs or had enough chances to totally transform the defensive quality of his teams.

BP shows Mays to be a better fielder than Vance, but not enough better to close the difference between them. At best, it cuts it in half.

I wouldn't place too much stock in raw assists totals. Mays was a groundball pitcher who threw a lot of innings prior to 1920. Vance was a fastball/strikeout pitcher after players began to loft the ball. I think it highly likely that most of the difference between the two in total assists is attributable to opportunities. Mays' fielding is a part of his total package: it's good to be able to field the groundball after you induce it, and I may boost Mays in my rankings as a result of this. But Vance was v. close to average as a fielder, according to WARP, so it doesn't affect my ranking of him at all.
   106. sunnyday2 Posted: December 10, 2004 at 09:13 PM (#1011397)
Mays had a differential assist every 5 innings.
Mays had a differential base hit every 20 innings.
Vance had a differential K every 2.5 innings.

Or, for every 20 innings, Mays had 4 differential assists and a base hit, while Vance had 8 differential Ks.

Mays may have had more skills, but I think Chris is right. Add it up and there is not much diffential value here, plus the rest of Mays' teammates were better with both bat and glove. I can't see how Vance's small but significant ERA+ advantage can be erased by all the extras.
   107. Mike Webber Posted: December 10, 2004 at 09:15 PM (#1011400)
Newbie Voter question, Why doesn't Vic Willis get more love? I am toying with my first ballot, and I have him as the top pitcher. Only the pre-1893 pitchers have a significant lead in Win Shares for their careers, and Willis contemporaries don't match his peak numbers.

Is there a good discussion of him?
   108. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 10, 2004 at 09:44 PM (#1011459)
Newbie Voter question, Why doesn't Vic Willis get more love?

Oldie Voter response: You got me! I also have him as the top pitcher.

Is there a good discussion of him?

There has been, but I don't know which thread it's on. I should have given him his own thread a long time ago. Hmm...I'll do it now. :-)

BTW, welcome! If you have a preliminary ballot, post it here so we can see if you're following the proper procedures. If everything looks OK, then you can post it to the ballot thread next week when it's created Monday.

If you have any questions, please let us know.
   109. Mike Webber Posted: December 10, 2004 at 09:57 PM (#1011489)
WARNING NEWBIE VOTER ALERT

A former lurker casting my first ballot, using Win Shares as my main tool with a little bit of peak adjustment. Give me a couple of ballots to get the kinks worked out.

1)Babe Ruth – whew, that wasn’t so hard
2)Rogers Hornsby – another lay up, now the fun begins
3)Edd Roush – Long career, solid peak with 3 MVP type seasons
4)George Van Haltren – Long career
5)Tommy Leach – mostly based on long career
6) Dick Redding – No qualms about his HOM credentials – while 3 to 6 are fairly similar number 7 begins the next level down.
7)Vic Willis – 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 the newbies’ biggest deviation from the group.
8)George J. Burns – maybe a future positional adjustment will knock him down, but here for now.
9)Jimmy Ryan – why Beckley and not Ryan? Same Win Shares but with a peak.
10)Harry Hooper – Long career outweighs his relative weak peak.
11)George Sisler – If you are ever going through old guides he’ll pop up in the AA in the early 30’s. You see the name, and you grab a Daguerreotypes and sure enough it is him.
12)Sam Rice – Long career barely over comes his lack of peak to make the ballot.
13)John Beckwith – Unlike Redding, I do have qualms about his HOM credentials. 13 and on the edge of a slippery slope.
14)Burleigh Grimes – a hair more peak than Rixey
15)Eppa Rixey – a hair more career than Grimes

The difference between 7 and 30 is fairly slim. The difference between number 30 and 7 is about the same as the distance between 7 and 3.

16-20 Doyle, Duffy, Dobie Moore, Griffith, Beckley
21-25 Maranville, Sewell, Fielder Jones, Taylor, Welch
26-30 Konetchy, Poles, Mendez, Bresnahan, Cross

Guys in last year top 10 that don’t make the top 15.

Sewell – must be missing something here, like a position bonus, maybe I just wasn’t here for that new car smell.

Jennings – awesome peak, just not long enough career.

Griffith – the players with longer career edge him out in my system, and his peak seems less impressive than Willis or Grimes.

Beckley – I need to look into why Ryan has big peak numbers and Beckley doesn’t. That is what separates them for me.

Waddell – not enough career length for my ranking system

Duffy – just missed, though I can see why you might prefer him to Sam Rice.

Mickey Welch – I down graded the pre-1893 pitchers, maybe too harshly this year. Definitely an area I will look at tweaking next year, when it might matter.

Browning and Childs – I see the argument that a length of season adjustment could put this pair on your ballot.
   110. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:16 PM (#1011522)
Mike, you passed the audition. Hope you have fun!
   111. Thane of Bagarth Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:17 PM (#1011526)
Preliminary Ballot: Only 1 guy at #8 this time (I promise).

I'm losing some faith in Sewell--trying to figure out if I trust WS or WARP3 more on him. He could wind up somewhere between where he is now (#12) and #6.
Fielder Jones keeps rising every time I evaluate the OFs.
Dazzy is doing well in my rankings at first blush. He's the only eligible pitcher with over 300 all-time PRAA.
Pie is looking like he'll fall somewhere in the high 30s/low 40s.

1) Babe Ruth
2) Rogers Hornsby
3) Dazzy Vance
4) Dick Redding
5) Fielder Jones
6) Pete Browning
7) Hughie Jennings
8) Ben Taylor
9) Rube Waddell
10) John Beckwith
11) Dobie Moore
12) Joe Sewell
13) Jose Mendez
14) Charley Jones
15) Bill Monroe
   112. DavidFoss Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:22 PM (#1011538)
Welcome Mike Webber! Easy week, eh?
   113. karlmagnus Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:27 PM (#1011546)
Mike, welcome. If I may gently suggest, you need to look at the raw numbers as well as the win shares, otherwise you're merely perpetuating Win Shares' inaccuracies (such as undervaluing pre-1920 1B relative to outfielders, undervaluing catchers, and undervaluing pitcher careers) which make it frequently 20-30% out.

Beckley had 400 more hits than Ryan at a better OPS+. Also, if you are going to use WS, comparing Beckley to say Roush, you need to adjust them for season length, which over Beckley's career was about 10% shorter than the standard 154 games.

As I say, welcome!
   114. sunnyday2 Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:35 PM (#1011566)
I agree, NEWBIE VOTER is welcome. BUT. I would respectfully ask if he thinks that his rating/ranking system (like, oh, WS, e.g.) is too hard on IF. Why no discretionary ML IFers (Hornsby is not a discretionay or elective vote and Beckwith is from a different non-statistical category of candidate). There has been much discussion here over the years and I am not alone in giving IFers a boost, otherwise we would hardly be electing any. Look at the PA, e.g.

Now, I probably am alone in this, but also, why no pre-1890 players all the way down to 25, and 1 of 30? e.g. Van Haltren, Ryan, Duffy, no Browning?

Food for thought.
   115. ronw Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:36 PM (#1011567)
Welcome Mike!

If you're from KC, I'm playing in the LOB league with you this year. I think I'm even in your division. If I remember, you are something of a Negro League expert, which will be of valuable assistance here.

Enjoy the banter. As a new voter, you should be alerted to the following.

1. Remember the year. It is late 1940 to early January 1941. The 1940 season has just finished and the Cincinnati Reds are world champions for the first time since 1919. FDR has just been elected to an unprecedented third term. There's that war in Europe, but our citizens are safely off limits.

2. Any mention of Jake Beckley will inevitably lead to a post by karlmagnus mentioning Jake's 2930 hits.

3. Any mention of Dickey Pearce will get a smiley face from John Murphy. Any nention of Lip Pike will receive a "Pick Lip" from Sean Gilman.

4. Vote for Donie Bush and Dolf Lucky will buy you a beer. Despite the handle, Lucky will not vote for Dolf Luque, though, so its OK to leave him off your ballot.

5. You will get 8,396 posts decrying your voting ability if you fail to include comments with your first ballot.

6. Repeat "The HOM made no mistakes, the HOM made no mistakes." Elect all past HOM members to your personal HOM.

7. Adopt a pet candidate. You seem to be well on your way to adopting Vic Willis. Make sure to water and feed him.

8. Remember that many of us are not using our real names. Howie Menckel is really Dandy Don Meredith (or Anton Chekov, I forget which). DanG is really danb. Andrew Siegel is really Smokin' Joe Frazier. Chris Cobb is really Stephen Hawking. John Murphy really is a Grandma, Dolores Moorehead out of Iowa city.

9. When asking why we are doing this project, remember the phrase, "Hall of Famer Tommy McCarthy."

10. I see no mention of Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro on your preliminary ballot. You must have thought he had already been elected. Surprisingly, no. You can still vote for him.
   116. sunnyday2 Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:44 PM (#1011590)
Mike and David, there are no easy weeks with this crowd.
   117. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 10, 2004 at 10:52 PM (#1011607)
LOL

Ron, that might be the funniest thing I've seen posted here. Probably because much of it is true. :-)
   118. DavidFoss Posted: December 10, 2004 at 11:22 PM (#1011665)
Mike and David, there are no easy weeks with this crowd.

We need to get Mike hooked on the Kool-Aid before we start putting the funny stuff in it. I was going to wait a year before asking why he had so many outfielders on his ballot. :-)

Great post, Ron... I'm giggling uncontrollably in my cube now. Trying to keep it down so that I don't frighten my co-workers.
   119. EricC Posted: December 10, 2004 at 11:36 PM (#1011691)
1941 prelim

1. RUTH
2. Hornsby

What? Who were you expecting in the top 2?

3. Schang
4. Sewell
5. Bresnahan
6. Rixey

7. Traynor. Based on the prelims so far, where's the love? Rated 15th among 3B in the NBJHBA.

8. Rice
9. Hooper
10. Mendez
11. Beckley
12. Waddell
13. Schalk
14. Quinn
15. Shocker

Vance. Like the comparisons with Waddell, but see Waddell as having more great years. Just misses my prelim at #17, behind Cicotte at #16.

New required disclosures: Leach. To the extent that possible differences in league quality are overlooked, Leach is now overrated.

Duffy. Have him at #24, behind contemporaries Van Haltren and Ryan.
   120. EricC Posted: December 11, 2004 at 12:04 AM (#1011756)
I also agree since I stopped drinking the Sewell Kool-Aid. :-) There are just too many of his contemporaries that are similar. Yeah, he was the best major league shortstop all of those years (plus a season at third in the AL), but only by default. If Beckwith, Moore, Wells, Lundy, and J. Johnson had been allowed to play with the white players, would Sewell have been the best any year?

Are you sure that Childs was better than Frank Grant and Sol White?
   121. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 03:08 AM (#1012058)
I worried that someone might be too thin-skinned to chuckle at Wargo's top 10, which is hilarious. But I underestimated the crowd.

And welcome, M-Webb. I am a best friend of Griffith have at times pontificating for Welch and rarely have voted at all for Willis, but I agree that there is a case to be made for Willis, too.
   122. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 03:10 AM (#1012064)
Yikes.
That's:

"I am a best friend of Griffith, have at times pontificated for Welch, and rarely have voted at all for Willis. But I agree that there is a case to be made for Willis, too."
   123. Chris Cobb Posted: December 11, 2004 at 03:32 AM (#1012109)
I have data to post for Dick Lundy, Judy Johnson, Jud Wilson (and Oscar Charleston) whenever there are appropriate threads for it.

I haven't attempted any win share MLEs for these players yet, but here are some impressionistic observations.

1) Oscar Charleston was very likely as good as his reputation. He was certainly the best player in black baseball from about 1917 to about 1932.

2) Dick Lundy looks like a very similar player to Sewell and Bancroft. Without careful analysis, I won't hazard a guess at whether he's just above or just below Sewell.

3) Judy Johnson had a very nice peak in the mid-1920s, but the second half of his career was nothing special. Probably better than Oliver Marcelle, but not as good as Sewell/Bancroft/Lundy/Traynor. Careful analysis might show otherwise, but I'd be surprised.

4) Jud Wilson will deserve a careful look. He was an outstanding hitter for a long time. Three facts: 1) he has the highest lifetime batting average of any Negro-League player with over 2,000 at bats. His .354 just beats John Beckwith at .352 and Josh Gibson at .351. 2) He placed in the top 5 in his league in batting average every year from 1922 (his rookie season) to 1933. He doesn't have the power numbers of Beckwith, Gibson, or Charleston, but his power was good. 3) He moved up the defensive spectrum as his career progressed. He started out at first base, then shifted to third base in his fifth season. Late in his career he was a first baseman some years and a third baseman in others.
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 11, 2004 at 03:57 AM (#1012151)
Are you sure that Childs was better than Frank Grant and Sol White?

I actually lowered Childs a little on my last ballot for that very same reason, Eric. Unfortunately, there is no way to analyze them in the same way as the twenties players. I feel Childs was still more impressive compared to the white guys of his time than Sewell was for his era. His peak was much greater than Sewell's and he would have had around the same amount of WS as Joe if he had played with the 154-game schedule. The better competition of Sewell's time is offset some by Childs' one-league environment.

But could I still be overrating Childs? I honestly can't say that I'm 100% sure about my placement of him, Eric.
   125. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 11, 2004 at 04:04 AM (#1012167)
I worried that someone might be too thin-skinned to chuckle at Wargo's top 10, which is hilarious. But I underestimated the crowd.

Who would have a problem with it? Ron's post poked fun at our eccentricities in good humored way. I bet karlmagnus, Sean, Dolf Lucky and the rest will enjoy it as much as the rest of us have so far.
   126. Dolf Lucky Posted: December 11, 2004 at 04:10 AM (#1012177)
4. Vote for Donie Bush and Dolf Lucky will buy you a beer. Despite the handle, Lucky will not vote for Dolf Luque, though, so its OK to leave him off your ballot.


I bet karlmagnus, Sean, Dolf Lucky and the rest will enjoy it as much as the rest of us have so far.

Shows your ignorance, John. I've made a life long practice of never buying anyone a beer.
   127. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 04:18 AM (#1012197)
lol, Dolf.

I guess I was thinking of the "who has no Negro Leaguers on his ballot?" string, where it seemed like someone just noticed an anamaly like having no 20th-century Ps or no middle INFs, and there was some concern about 'what that was supposed to mean.'

I have no idea who said what in that one, so obviously the only thing that made an impression was that there was some banter about it...
   128. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 11, 2004 at 04:46 AM (#1012250)
Shows your ignorance, John. I've made a life long practice of never buying anyone a beer.

:-D

I have no idea who said what in that one, so obviously the only thing that made an impression was that there was some banter about it...

I was indirectly involved with that brush fire, Howie. Fortunately, it extinguished itself out pretty quickly.
   129. ronw Posted: December 11, 2004 at 05:29 AM (#1012312)
In honor of one of our 1941 soon-to-be inductees, I hope everyone was offended by my post. I especially hope that DanG was offended by the revelation that he is dan b. The Brians are lucky I forgot to mention them.

As Rogers would say:

Stop watching movies.
No more newspapers.
All of you quit wasting your eyes on this Internet thing and why can't <u>you</u> average .400 for 5 years or .358 lifetime. Its easy. Shut up and just hit the ball.

Actually, if I really did offend anyone, I apologize.
   130. Mike Webber Posted: December 11, 2004 at 05:58 AM (#1012343)
Thanks to everyone for the warm greetings,

Posted by karlmagnus on December 10, 2004 at 04:27 PM (#1011546)
….If I may gently suggest, you need to look at the raw numbers as well as the win shares, otherwise you're merely perpetuating Win Shares' inaccuracies….


I work for Bill James, by contract I am not allowed to admit that there are any deficiencies in Win Shares ;)

That being said, I looked at the defensive Win Shares for Ryan and Beckley, if you cut Ryan’s win shares in half each year he still has three seasons better than any one of Beckley’s. If you double Beckley’s annual defensive win shares, and halve Ryan’s, Ryan’s top three seasons are 32, 26 and 24 while Eagle Eye ends up with 25, 23, and 23.

They are both third tier ballot players, guys that if they are elected then its ok with me, if they aren’t I won’t be upset either.

Posted by sunnyday2 on December 10, 2004 at 04:35 PM (#1011566)
…. BUT. I would respectfully ask if he thinks that his rating/ranking system (like, oh, WS, e.g.) is too hard on IF. Why no discretionary ML IFers ….. There has been much discussion here over the years and I am not alone in giving IFers a boost, otherwise we would hardly be electing any.


Excellent point, I did give a bonus to the catchers, but nothing to the SS, 2b, or 3b. A small bonus would stick Maranville and Bancroft near the bottom of the ballot, and maybe clear off a couple of outfielders. (Sam Rice looks up nervously.)

Now, I probably am alone in this, but also, why no pre-1890 players all the way down to 25, and 1 of 30? e.g. Van Haltren, Ryan, Duffy, no Browning?

I'm sure you aren't alone, Paul Wendt is out there somewhere right?

Well, I probably do need a playing time adjustment, but the other thing is I started with last year’s ballot. There weren’t many of those pre-1890 guys around. 8 I count, and Ryan and Browning were born just 2 years apart. I figured anyone with no votes last year (including Jack Chesbro, Hi Ron!) probably wasn’t a guy with strong HOM credentials.

I also think the pre-1893 pitchers need to be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. The best of the best, OK. The Tommy Bond, Jim McCormick, Will White group, is going to have to be sold to me. I figure you guys cleared the shelves of Pud Galvin and Tim Keefe group.

Speaking of pre-1890 guys, who the hell is Tom York? Guess I need to hit the books
   131. DanG Posted: December 11, 2004 at 06:07 AM (#1012349)
I also think the pre-1893 pitchers need to be taken with a LARGE grain of salt...(The rest) is going to have to be sold to me.

Uh-oh, Mike. You just invited in the Mickey Welch supporters.

And please tell us that Bill James is making some attempt to get the 19th century players' win shares right.

I especially hope that DanG was offended by the revelation that he is dan b.

Dang it, Ron. Now I don't get two ballots anymore. Whatever happened to Dan Passner, anyway?
   132. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 11, 2004 at 06:18 AM (#1012361)
Speaking of pre-1890 guys, who the hell is Tom York? Guess I need to hit the books

He was the best leftfielder of the 1870s and one of my pet candidates. Alas, it appears that Tom York will have a spot on my ballot in perpetuity. :-(
   133. DavidFoss Posted: December 11, 2004 at 06:56 AM (#1012389)
I figure you guys cleared the shelves of Pud Galvin and Tim Keefe group.

Spalding, Keefe, Galvin, Clarkson, Radbourne, Caruthers... half of Ward.

Visit our Plaque Room! Peruse the past ballot results. Occasionally someone will post HOM-population statistics... some of that is archived in the yahoo group.
   134. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 03:49 PM (#1012902)
HOM Pitchers by year through 1941 election:
minimum 10 G pitched in that year by any player, but player only counts against the "pitchers total" if he has at least 1000 career IP. Ruth gives 1916 "the lead" with 10 HOM pitchers.

1868-75 (1) - Spalding
1876 - (1) Spalding (McVey)
1877 (0) - (McVey)
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890-91 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1892 (7) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (4) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1895 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols (Wallace)
1896 (2) - Young Nichols (Wallace)
1897-98 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1899-00 (3) - Young Nichols McGinnity
1901 (5) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (5) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster
1903 (6) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown
1904 (7) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown
1905 (8) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh
1906 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh
1907-08 (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson
1909 (7) - Young Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson
1910 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams
1911 (9) - Young Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams Alexander
1912-13 (8) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams Alexander
1914 (8) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber
1915 (9) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Ruth
1916 (10) - Plank Mathewson Foster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Ruth
1917 (7) - Plank Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Ruth
1918 (5) - Johnson Williams Faber Covaleski Ruth
1919 (6) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Ruth
1920-26 (6) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan
1927 (5) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Rogan
1928 (5) - Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan
1929 (4) - Williams Alexander Faber Rogan
1930-32 (2) - Williams Faber
1933 (1) - Faber

any omissions would be happily acknowledged. Welch is the last pre-1890s pitcher with a shot; then basically just Griffith for the 1890s, and so on. List below only includes those eligible so far, so fully inclusive only into the mid-1910s:

Welch would be 1880-91
Griffith would be 1891 and 1894-1906
Willis would be 1898-1910
Waddell would be 1899-1910
Mendez would be 1908-09 and 1912-25 (roughly)
Redding would be 1911-17 and 1919-30 (roughly)
Rixey would be 1912-17 and 1919-33
Grimes would be 1917-34
Vance would be 1922-33
   135. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 07:52 PM (#1013121)
Self-correction, should be:

1890 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols (Burkett)
1891 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols

(adds Burkett to the 1890 list)
   136. karlmagnus Posted: December 11, 2004 at 09:03 PM (#1013219)
Howie, I still have hopes of initiating a mass conversion on the subject of Leever. People keep leaving him off lists :-((
   137. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 10:47 PM (#1013356)
karl, I listed anyone with 10 votes last year...
   138. Howie Menckel Posted: December 11, 2004 at 10:55 PM (#1013372)
HOM OFs, by year, through 1941 election. Number of regulars in parentheses (must have played half a team's games and mainly in OF to be listed):

1867 (1) - Pike OF-IF
1868 (1) - Pike
1869 (1) - McVey
1870 - none
1871 (1) - Pike OF(2B)
1872 (1) - Pike OF-2B
1873 (2) - Pike OF-SS, Hines
1874 (2) - McVey OF(C), Hines
1875 (2) - Pike, Hines OF-2B, O'Rourke OF-3B
1876 (3) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke
1877 (3) - Pike OF-2B, Hines, O'Rourke
1878 (5) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke, Anson, Kelly OF(C)
1879 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke OF(1B), Gore
1880 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-1S, Kelly OF(UT), Gore, Stovey OF-1B
1881 (5) - Hines, Kelly, Gore, Brouthers OF-1B, Richardson
1882 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Gore
1883 (4) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, Kelly OF-C, Gore
1884 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Ward OF-2B
1885 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Thompson
1886 (8) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Richardson OF-2B, Thompson, Sutton OF-3S2
1887 (5) - Hines, Kelly OF-2C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Thompson
1888 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Stovey
1889 (6) - O'Rourke, Kelly, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton
1890 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Richardson, Thompson, Hamilton, Burkett OF-P, Davis
1891 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty OF(1B)
1892 (7) - O'Rourke, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Caruthers
1893 (7) - O'Rourke OF(1B), Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Ewing
1894-96 (7) - Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1897 (6) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1898-99 (8) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick
1900 (9) - Hamilton, Burkett, Kelley OF(1B), Keeler, Clarke, Wagner, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford
1901 (10) - Hamilton, Delahanty OF-1B, Burkett, Kelley OF(UT), Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1902 (10) - Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley OF(UT), Keeler, Clarke, Wagner OF-S1, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1903 (7) - Burkett, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1904 (7) - Burkett, Keeler, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee
1905 (8) - Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford OF(1B), Hill, Magee
1906 (9) - Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford OF(1B), Hill, Magee, Cobb
1907 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1908 (7) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1909 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker
1910 (8) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat
1911 (9) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1912 (8) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1913 (9) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1914 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee OF-S1, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1915 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1916 (10) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1917 (9) - Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann
1918 (8) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann OF-1B, Ruth OF-P
1919 (7) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Torriente, Ruth OF(P)
1920 (8) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Ruth
1921 (8) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth
1922-26 (7) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth
1927 (6) - Cobb, Speaker, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth
1928 (4) - Cobb, Carey, Heilmann, Ruth
1929-30 (2) - Heilmann, Ruth
1931-34 (1) - Ruth
1935 (0) -

C Jones would be 1876-80, 1883-87
Browning would be 1883, 1885-92
Ryan would be 1886-1900, 1902-03
Duffy would be 1888-99, 1901
Van Haltren would be 1889, 1891-01, 1903
Bresnahan would be 1902-04
Leach would be 1905, 1907, 1909-15
Hooper would be 1910-25
Roush would be 1915-21, 1923-27, 1929, 1931
Schang would be 1916
Rice would be 1917, 1919-31, 1934

Many challenges still to be worked out. Among them:
- Positions for Negro League hitters are quite difficult. Any OF seasons missing, particularly with Santop? Was Hill always mainly an OF?
- I only listed Ward and Caruthers once each as OF regulars, as their P-OF combo years produced far more pitching value. Same for all of Radbourn's P-OF years.
- Lots of players splitting time at other positions.
- Amazingly, we have 7 to 10 OFs every year since 1890 (except 6 in 1897).
   139. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:30 AM (#1013973)
HOM Cs, by year, through 1941 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:

1869 - White
1870-71 - White, McVey
1872 - White C(2O), McVey
1873 - White, McVey
1874 - White C(OF)
1875-76 - White
1877 - McVey C(3P)
1878 - White C(OF), Bennett C-OF
1879 - White C(OF)
1880
1881 - Bennett, Ewing C-SS
1882 - Bennett
1883 - Bennett C(2O), Ewing C(UT)
1884 - Bennett, Ewing
1885 - Bennett C(OF), Ewing C(UT)
1886 - Bennett, Ewing C-OF
1887 - O'Rourke C-3O
1888 - Bennett, Ewing C(3B), Kelly C-OF
1889 - Bennett, Ewing
1890 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-SS
1891 - Bennett, Kelly
1892 - Kelly
1893-09
1910-17 - Santop
1918-19
1920-24 - Santop
1925-35

Interesting that only in 1882 was Bennett the only HOM catcher, while Santop is our ONLY C since 1892.

Bresnahan would be 1901, 1905-08, 1911, 1914-15
Schang would be 1913-14, 1917-24, 1926-29
   140. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:40 AM (#1013993)
HOM 1Bs, by year, through 1941 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:

1860-71 - Start
1872 - Start, Hines
1873 - Start, Anson 1B(3B), O'Rourke 1B-OF
1874 - Start, Anson 1B-3B, O'Rourke
1875 - Start, Anson 1B-OF(C), McVey 1B-OC
1876 - Start, McVey 1B(P)
1877 - Start, White 1B-OF, Sutton 1B-2B
1878 - Start
1879 - Start, Anson, McVey, Brouthers
1880 - Start, Anson
1881 - Start, Anson, White 1B-2O, Stovey 1B(OF), Connor
1882 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey 1B-OF, Connor 1B-O3
1883 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey, Connor
1884 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey
1885 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey 1B(OF), Connor
1886-88 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1889-90 - Hines, Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1891 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1892 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Ewing 1B(C)
1893-94 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1895-96 - Anson, Connor, Ewing
1897 - Anson, Lajoie
1898 - Wagner 1B-3B
1899
1900 - Delahanty
1901 - Kelley
1902-03
1904 - Kelley
1905-10
1911 - Lajoie 1B-2B
1912-17
1918 - Magee 1B-OF
1919-20 - Heilmann
1921-28
1929-30 - Lloyd

Not much action since 1896.

Beckley would be 1888-1906
Jennings would be 1900-02
Sisler would be 1915-22 and 1924-30
   141. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2004 at 03:58 AM (#1014032)
HOM 2Bs, by year, through 1941 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:

1868 - Barnes
1869-70 - Barnes, Pike
1871 - Barnes 2B-SS
1872-76 - Barnes
1877 - Wright
1878
1879 - Glasscock
1880-81
1882-83 - Richardson, McPhee
1884 - Richardson 2B(OF), McPhee, Connor 2B-OF
1885 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee
1886 - McPhee, Grant
1887 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1888 - Richardson, McPhee, Grant, Delahanty 2B-OF
1889 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1890-91 - McPhee, Grant
1892 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant, Ward
1893-94 - McPhee, Grant, Ward
1895-97 - McPhee, Grant
1898-99 - McPhee, Grant, Lajoie
1900-03 - Grant, Lajoie
1904 - Lajoie 2B-SS
1905
1906-07 - Lajoie
1908 - Lajoie, Davis, E Collins 2B-SS
1909-10 - Lajoie, E Collins
1911 - E Collins
1912-13 - Lajoie, E Collins, HR Johnson
1914 - Lajoie 2B(1B), E Collins, Groh
1915-16 - Lajoie, E Collins
1917-19 - E Collins
1920-23 - E Collins, Hornsby
1924-26 - E Collins, Hornsby, Lloyd
1927-28 - Hornsby, Lloyd
1929 - Hornsby
1930
1931 - Hornsby 2B-3B

A pretty consistent run for the position, not a lot but not too many gaps.

Browning would be 1882 (!)
Childs would be 1890-1900
Monroe would be 1903-14 (roughly)
Doyle would be 1908-20
   142. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2004 at 04:07 AM (#1014054)
HOM 3Bs, by year, through 1941 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:

1866 - Pike 3B-O2
1867-69
1870 - Sutton
1871-72 - Sutton, Anson
1873 - Sutton
1874 - Sutton 3B-SS
1875 - Sutton
1876 - Sutton, Anson
1877 - Anson 3B-C
1878 - Sutton, McVey
1879 - Kelly 3B-OC, Richardson
1880 - Richardson, Connor
1881 - Sutton, O'Rourke 3B(OF)
1882 - Sutton, White 3B(C), Ewing 3B-C
1883 - Sutton, White 3B(C)
1884-85 - Sutton, White
1886 - White
1887 - White, Ewing 3B(2B)
1888 - White
1889
1890 - White 3B-1B
1891 - Dahlen 3B-OF
1892 - Davis 3B-OF
1893-94 - Davis
1895 - Davis 3B(UT), J Collins 3B(OF)
1896 - Davis 3B-SS, J Collins
1897-98 - J Collins, Wallace
1899 - J Collins, Wagner 3B-OF
1900-05 - J Collins
1906
1907-08 - J Collins
1909-14 - Baker
1915 - Groh
1916 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-SS
1917-18 - Baker, Groh
1919 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-S2
1920 - Groh
1921 - Baker, Groh
1922-24 - Groh
1925---

Note how the 'gap' between Sutton and J Collins in effect was covered by others.

Browning would be 1884 (!)
Leach would be 1899, 1901-04, 1906, 1908
Schang would be 1915
Traynor would be 1922-34
Beckwith would be 1923, 1926-27, 1929-31, 1933-34 (roughly)
Sewell would be 1929-32
   143. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2004 at 04:13 AM (#1014076)
HOM SSs, by year, through 1941 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:

1856-63 - Pearce
1864 - Pearce, Wright
1865 - Pearce
1866-71 - Pearce, Wright
1872 - Pearce, Wright, O'Rourke SS-C
1873-75 - Pearce, Wright
1876 - Wright
1877- Sutton SS-3B
1878 - Wright
1879 - Sutton SS-3B, Barnes SS(2B)
1880 - Sutton SS-3B, Glasscock
1881 - Barnes, Glasscock
1882 - Wright, Glasscock, Kelly SS-OF
1883-84 - Glasscock
1885-86 - Glasscock, Ward
1887 - Sutton SS-OU, Glasscock, Ward
1888-89 - Glasscock, Ward
1890 - Glasscock, Ward, Delahanty SS-2O
1891 - Glasscock, Ward
1892 - Glasscock, Dahlen SS-3B
1893 - Glasscock, Dahlen
1894 - Glassock, Dahlen SS-3B
1895-96 - Dahlen, HR Johnson
1897-98 - Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson
1899 - Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson, Wallace SS-3B
1900 - Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson, Wallace
1901 - Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson, Wagner SS-O3, Wallace
1902 - Dahlen Davis, HR Johnson, Wallace
1903 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wagner, Wallace
1904-06 - Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson, Wagner, Wallace
1907 - Dahlen, Davis, HR Johnson, Wagner, Wallace
1908 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wagner, Wallace, Lloyd
1909-10 - HR Johnson, Wagner, Wallace SS(3B), Lloyd
1911 - HR Johnson, Wagner, Wallace, Lloyd
1912 - Wagner, Wallace, Lloyd
1913-15 - Wagner, Lloyd
1916 - Wagner SS(1B), Lloyd
1917-18 - Lloyd, Hornsby
1919-22 - Lloyd
1923---

A wealth of selections - too many, or reflective of a tradition of great talent at that spot? Notice not a single yr thru 1922 without an HOMer playing here.

Jennings would be 1891-92, 1894-98
Moore would be 1920-25 (roughly)
Beckwith would be 1920-22, 1924, 1928 (roughly)
Sewell would be 1921-28
   144. PhillyBooster Posted: December 12, 2004 at 04:34 AM (#1014142)
Excellent point, I did give a bonus to the catchers, but nothing to the SS, 2b, or 3b. A small bonus would stick Maranville and Bancroft near the bottom of the ballot, and maybe clear off a couple of outfielders. (Sam Rice looks up nervously.)

In my view, step one in giving a "positional adjustment" is to ask whether there is currently a positional shortage that might be caused by failure to adjust -- hence I give a positional shortage for C and 3B. 2B and SS are well represented, and I see no need to give extra credit where the sole result of it would be overrepresentation.
   145. DavidFoss Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:12 AM (#1014455)
Great stuff Howie.

A few nits to pick. From the Marshall Wright book, I have McVey in the OF in 1870. I have Barnes at SS from 68-70. I have Pearce at C-only for 62-63 and I have him as C-SS (catcher listed first) for 61,64-65.
   146. DavidFoss Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:32 AM (#1014510)
My Preliminary peak-friendly depth chart for 1941:

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

Its very tough for me to feel strongly about the 3-15 guys this year. If none of them ever get inducted I wouldn't be too upset, basically all these guys have flaws. This could be a personal lull for me due to long-time-elect-me-vote candidate Lip Pike just being elected. Part of me sees these as guys who made it through the late-20s and late-30s candidate gaps without being elected... but there is one more backlog year left and the order above is my honest opinion. Great to be voting for Ruth & Hornsby, that's for sure!

I do like Vance a bit more than I've noted above. Being conservative there. Basically the Kool-Aid looks real tasty, just not sure if I should drink it yet.

Traynor is not that far off the ballot. He does play at an underrepresented position.

Had to remember not to vote for Terry just yet. The thread was very useful in showing that I've been underrating him. Basically, his hitting is better than I thought it was at first glance. He'd go between Vance & Sisler if he was eligible.
   147. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2004 at 06:36 AM (#1014521)
Thanks, David, I am looking for improvements in the listings for pre-1871 and Negro League players...
   148. KJOK Posted: December 13, 2004 at 07:10 AM (#1016505)
Not much action since 1896.

Beckley would be 1888-1906
Jennings would be 1900-02
Sisler would be 1915-22 and 1924-30


and Frank Chance would be between Jennings and Sisler.....
   149. OCF Posted: December 13, 2004 at 08:39 AM (#1016750)
Not much action since 1896.

There's a dying man who became a regular in 1925 that we know all about. After him, the landscape changes. Of course, if Chance had stayed in the lineup more; if Sisler hadn't had the eye problem, if Fournier had been given a better shot when he was younger - we could have had stars; it just didn't happen.
   150. TomH Posted: December 13, 2004 at 03:52 PM (#1017074)
Evidence that Ed Roush's defense is overrated by WIn Shares: In the NBJHA, Roush is credited with 19% of his total value as defensive. Other contemps for whom this (19%) is true are Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, and Nap Lajoie. Comparing him to later players, he's even with Mike Schmidt, and ahead of Joe Morgan (18%) and Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays (each 16%). Nineteen percent for Roush seems too high.
   151. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2004 at 09:03 PM (#1017659)
Of course Roush didn't hit as well as those guys, which skews things a little. Goodpoint though as I think that James overvalues CF defense in WS. Not that it isn't improtant, just seems that CFers get a lot of Win Shares.
   152. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2004 at 06:53 PM (#1019978)
Much re-evaluation of (white ML) pitchers this year, stimulated mostly by addition of pennants added (PA) data, knowing of course that it is WS based. But I've always favored WS, warts and all. My re-consideration of pitchers includes:

• All-Star seasons and MVP/Cy Young performance, real or hyothetical
• adjWS career
• adjWS peak
• Hall of Fame Monitor and Standards
• ERA+
• PA
• "Big Years" data borrowed from HoMer poster but I can't remember whom (a wHoMer, you might say)
• WARP3 just because it was handy, a counterbalance
• My Reputation Monitor (RM), which is somewhat redundant as it includes WS, HFM and HFS, ERA+ already.

So drum-roll please, my new pitcher rankings (and my previous pitcher ratings). Obviously I'm still peak/prime oriented, but ERA+ is probably the best predictor of where a pitcher ends up in the ranking, except in the case of extreme long or short careers. ERA+ has probably replaced adjPeakWS in that capacity as evidenced by the fall of the 19th century pitchers (keep in mind I had always reduced their WS by 50 percent and given the remainder to the fielders, but also adj for season length. I still do, BTW, but all the other factors mitigate that more than before).

1. Waddell (2)
2. Vance (4)
3. Rixey (5)
4. Joss (8)
5. Griffith (6)
6. McCormick (3)
7. Cicotte (9)
8. Willis (10)
9. Bond (1)
10. Grimes (13)

11. Wi. Cooper 11)
12. Mays (12)
13. Shocker (15)
14. Welch (7)
15. Luque (14)

When we first started this project I was using a system that I had used for several years, one that worked quite nicely for the 20th century. I quickly discovered that it didn't work for the 19th, being based as much as anything on WS, so I devised a new system that worked well for the 19th. I've never been happy comparing 19th vs. 20th century pitchers, however, nor can I go back to my old system since I have learned so much here on this project. So here is my first really serious revision with 20th century pitchers in mind.

Unlike Harry Wright, however, I will not say that Tommy Bond being in my PHoM is a mistake. He just doesn't do well in my 20th century system. But there are no more 19th century pitchers that I expect to make it to the HoM or PHoM (sorry Jim McCormick, sorry Mickey Welch), so it was time for a new look, and here it is.
   153. Paul Wendt Posted: December 14, 2004 at 07:47 PM (#1020102)
Mike Webber:
I work for Bill James, by contract I am not allowed to admit that there are any deficiencies in Win Shares ;)

Bill says you were in kindergarten when he started Win Shares [acknowledgments]. Maybe tongue in cheek. But it seems clear that we can't blame you for anything.

[sunnyday2]
> Now, I probably am alone in this, but also,
> why no pre-1890 players all the way down to 25, and 1 of 30?
> e.g. Van Haltren, Ryan, Duffy, no Browning?

I'm sure you aren't alone, Paul Wendt is out there somewhere right?


Right. I don't have a contract, so I am free to whittle down or even undermine the reputation of a 19c player. As you guess, I don't often do it.

I might rank Ned Williamson above Pie Traynor but Earl Averill above the four part-CFs named by sunnyday2.
   154. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 14, 2004 at 09:46 PM (#1020379)
Wait, does Mike Webber actually work for Bill James?
   155. Howie Menckel Posted: December 17, 2004 at 06:52 AM (#1026898)
Career Pt Leaders by position, still eligibles only, 1000+ pts or 150 per year avg:

C - Bresnahan 5305; Schang 725
1B - Beckley 9867; Chance 1960; Sisler 1845
2B - Childs 7411; Monroe 3676; Doyle 2548
3B - (Leach); Williamson 3963; McGraw 2222; Cross 1152; Beckwith 284
SS - Jennings 10,308; Sewell 990
OF - Duffy 10,692; Van Haltren 10,661.5; Browning 9727; Ryan 9326; Leach 3970; C Jones 3931; Tiernan 2686; Griffin 1696.5; Poles 1458; F Jones 1422; Hooper 1374; Cravath 1334; Veach 1200; Roush 1115; S Rice 184
P - Griffith 8193; Waddell 8103; Welch 7287; McCormick 3086; Joss 2062; Mendez 1851; Willis 1601; Cicotte 1391; Mullane 1228; Redding 1085; Rixey 944; Grimes 230


ALSO, 100+ career votes
C - Clements 265; Schalk 168; Petway 149; D Farrell 126; McGuire 119
1B - Taylor 551; Konetchy 531
2B - Dunlap 984; S White 297; Pratt 203; Fowler 157
SS - H Wright 878; Long 772.5; Moore 380; Bush 209; Bancroft 146; Maranville 101
3B - Meyerle 287; Nash 234; Lyons 114
OF - G Burns 803; O'Neill 791; York 481
P - Bond 622; Mays 501; Shocker 475; Cooper 311; King 280; Hutchinson 141; Foutz 136; Mathews 124; Leever 106

I have exactly 200 players getting at least one career vote pt, with 21 of those not exceeding 10 career vote pts....
   156. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 17, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#1027372)
Since we've already had a Terry discusion, I guess it's OK to be thinking ahead to 1942...

Firpo Marbury's the guy I want to get a handle on. He seems to occupy a unique position in the game's history. Did Marbury's role create extra value above what his WS/WARP might suggest? Or advantage his teams in comparison to others that didn't yet use ace relievers/firemen?

I doubt anyone out there would have leverage indexes for that era, but they'd be helpful in understanding his value/usage better.
   157. Howie Menckel Posted: December 17, 2004 at 05:02 PM (#1027452)
I remember maybe 20-25 years ago coming across Firpo Marberry's career with delight, as a guy whose career was like no other in his time.
He only started more than two-thirds of his season's games once in his career; his all-relief effort of 55 games in 1925 was the first time a pitcher threw more than 40 games without starting any.

Not a HOMer, but shouldn't he have been on the 1940 ballot, discounting token appearances? Or maybe he was?
He quit in June of 1936 and immediately became a major league umpire, by the way...
   158. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2004 at 01:34 AM (#1028378)
Hoping to do this sort of thing for all positions before the end of the 1942 election.


FIRST BASE CANDIDATES
Part-time seasons in parentheses. A "19" would mean a 119 OPS+
No partcular order, but tending to lump similar candidates together.

Best to worst OPS+, full seasons:
J Beckley 52 44 38 38 33 31 27 27 26 26 26 24 22 12 12 05 02
Konetchy 49 44 43 32 31 23 23 21 18 16 16 14 10 -08 -15
Ge Sisler 81 70 61 57 54 40 32 10 10 01 -2 -9 -15 -19
Bill Terry 58 56 49 41 37 36 31 29 25 19
F Chance 59 58 54 50 31 20
B Taylor

The idea would be to get us re-thinking all of the candidates at a particular position who have at least 100 career votes.

For each of these guys, maybe someone can add why there should be bonuses or demerits beyond this starting point.
Example: Fielding ratings, difficulty of league, relative status among peers, pitching bonus, unusual number of part-time seasons, etc.
For Negro Leaguers like Taylor, maybe opinions on which candidate he is most like, such as "Beckley with a better glove" or "Sisler with a shorter peak" or whatever (just made those up).

I also have the OPS+s in order, which maybe matters to some looking at primes:

OPS+s in order:
GSisler (06) 32 61 57 54 81 40 70 -09 10 -15 01 10 -02 -19
Beckley (57) 27 52 26 02 26 24 27 05 22 12 33 38 31 38 26 44 12 (-04)
Bill Terry 19 (16) 41 36 31 58 49 56 29 37 25 (12)
Konetchy 14 16 43 44 31 32 23 -08 49 16 23 -15 18 21 10
Chance (18) (39) 54 50 59 58 31 20 (11) (31)
B Taylor
   159. Michael Bass Posted: December 18, 2004 at 02:27 AM (#1028456)
Win Shares defense letter grades

Beckley: B
Chance: B
Konetchy: A-
Sisler: C-
Terry: A+

WARP1 FRAA:

Beckley: 55
Chance: 35
Konetchy: 127
Sisler: -41
Terry: 115

After adjusting everyone for the various games played, I think the two fielding assessments match up pretty well. Sisler was below average, Beckley and Chance were good, Konetchy and Terry outstanding with the leather.
   160. TomH Posted: December 18, 2004 at 02:52 AM (#1028481)
to qualify, Sisler was below average for his career; he was very good pre-injury, and very poor afterwards.
   161. Cblau Posted: December 18, 2004 at 03:05 AM (#1028494)
Al Peterson wrote (in his ballot):
1. Babe Ruth... He had 21 sacrifice hits one year leading to the question: What the hell is Babe Ruth bunting 21 times for?

Sacrifice flies were counted together with sacrifice bunts at that time; likely most of those were flies. OTOH, I just read something from 1923 yesterday criticizing Miller Huggins for not having Ruth lay down a sac bunt in the World Series.

As for Sisler, it distresses me to see people writing on their ballots that Sisler was still a good hitter after 1923. He wasn't. Per TB3, he was -28 runs. Plus he wasn't a good fielder, so he was a well-below average player those years. Not that I'm saying he was below replacement.
   162. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2004 at 04:02 AM (#1028587)
As for Sisler, it distresses me to see people writing on their ballots that Sisler was still a good hitter after 1923. He wasn't. Per TB3, he was -28 runs. Plus he wasn't a good fielder, so he was a well-below average player those years. Not that I'm saying he was below replacement.

You're absolutely correct, Cblau. He was consistently a "second division" first baseman when he came back. You could always find him in the bottom half of players at his position.
   163. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2004 at 05:50 AM (#1028701)
Well, I can see not crediting Sisler for those crappy years, obviously.
But it seems like players from Rusie to Walsh to Jackson to Flick seem to get great focus solely on their peak, while Sisler's great peak almost seems to get downplayed by some because he wasn't worth much at all in his 'second career.'

I guess that's the other half of the coin...
   164. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2004 at 06:37 AM (#1028735)
Well, I can see not crediting Sisler for those crappy years,

I wouldn't agree with that, Howie. However marginal he was as a player post-1923, he deserves some credit for those years.
   165. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2004 at 02:21 PM (#1028907)
Murph, my point is trying to avoid a (perceived and unproven) tendency to romanticize a Flick or a Rusie compared to a Sisler. Both types have high peaks and little else to say for them.
I agree that bouncing around mediocrity rates a little better than just not playing anymore, and I have Sisler in the top half of my ballot most years.
So my goal is to avoid a downgrade of Sisler as a peak or prime candidate, just because his 'second career' was mediocre.
   166. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2004 at 04:04 PM (#1028958)
So my goal is to avoid a downgrade of Sisler as a peak or prime candidate, just because his 'second career' was mediocre.

No disagreement with you on that point, Howie. If Sisler's prime is being downgraded by some here because of his later subpar seasons, that doesn't make any sense to me at all.
   167. Brent Posted: December 18, 2004 at 05:08 PM (#1029022)
On the Firpo Marberry thread, Michael Bass asked:

So which, if any, current HOM candidates have outstanding postseason success on their resume?

Since this question seems a little off-topic for the FP thread, I’ve decided to respond here.

I fully support giving a bonus for good post-season performance. Although I recognize the argument that post-season play isn’t a level playing field in terms of opportunities, IMO the post-season series are too important to completely ignore.

In terms of post-season performance of current candidates, other than Babe Ruth (obviously), my own pet candidate, Hugh Duffy, particularly stands out. Several other players, including Sewell, Jennings, Leach, Van Haltren, and Traynor, also enjoyed some post-season success. Here are post-season records for the returning top 15 players from last year’s ballot and the top new entrants.

Joe Sewell
1920 WS – W, 7G (of 7), 0R, 0HR, 0RBI, .174
1932 WS – W, 4G (of 4), 4R, 0HR, 3RBI, .333

Eppa Rixey
1915 WS – L, 1G (of 5), 6.7IP, 0-1, 4.05

Hughie Jennings
1894 TMPL – L, 4G (of 4), 0R, 0HR, 1RBI, .143
1895 TMPL – L, 5G (of 5), 3R, 0HR, 2RBI, .368
1896 TMPL – W, 4G (of 4), 5R, 0HR, 3RBI, .333
1897 TMPL – W, 5G (of 5), 5R, 0HR, 3RBI, .318
1900 CHR-TEL – W, 4G (of 4), 1R, 0HR, 2RBI, .167

Clark Griffith
None

George Sisler
None

Jake Beckley
None

Tommy Leach
1903 WS – L, 8G (of 8), 3R, 0HR, 7RBI, .273
1909 WS – W, 7G (of 7), 8R, 0HR, 2RBI, .360

George Van Haltren
1894 TMPL – W, 4G (of 4), 3R, 0HR, 0RBI, .500

Rube Waddell
1900 CHR-TEL – L, 2G (of 4), 14IP, 0-1, 1.93
Didn’t pitch in 1905 WS due to shoulder injury

Hugh Duffy
1892 LCS – W, 6G (of 6), 3R, 1HR, 9RBI, .462
1897 TMPL – L, 5G (of 5), 6R, 0HR, 7RBI, .524

Mickey Welch
1888 – WS – W, 2G (of 10), 17IP, 1-1, 2.65
1889 – WS – W, 1G (of 9), 5IP, 0-1, 9.00

John Beckwith
None that I’m aware of

Pete Browning
None

Babe Ruth (as if he needed a bonus!)
1915 WS – W, 1G (of 5), 0R, 0HR, 0RBI, .000
1916 WS – W, 1G (of 5), 14IP, 1-0, 0.64
- 1G (of 5), 0R, 0HR, 1RBI, .000
1918 WS – W, 2G (of 6), 17IP, 2-0, 1.06
- 3G (of 5), 0R, 0HR, 2RBI, .200
1921 WS – L, 6G (of 8), 3R, 1HR, 4RBI, .312
1922 WS – L, 5G (of 5), 1R, 0HR, 1RBI, .118
1923 WS – W, 6G (of 6), 8R, 3HR, 3RBI, .368
1926 WS – L, 7G (of 7), 6R, 4HR, 5RBI, .300
1927 WS – W, 4G (of 4), 4R, 2HR, 7RBI, .400
1928 WS – W, 4G (of 4), 9R, 3HR, 4RBI, .625
1932 WS – W, 4G (of 4), 6R, 2HR, 6RBI, .333
Total 7-3, 41G, 37R, 15HR, 33RBI, .326, 31IP, 3-0, 0.87

Rogers Hornsby
1926 WS – W, 7G (of 7), 2R, 0HR, 4RBI, .250
1929 WS – L, 5G (of 5), 4R, 0HR, 1RBI, .238

Dazzy Vance
1934 WS – W, 1G (of 7), 1.3IP, 0-0, 0.00

Pie Traynor
1925 WS – W, 7G (of 7), 2R, 1HR, 4RBI, .346
1927 WS – L, 4G (of 4), 1R, 0HR, 0RBI, .200

Although he wasn’t in last year’s top 15, I’ll mention that José Méndez (my other pet candidate) was the star of the 1924 Negro World Series - 2-0, 1.42, pitching a shutout in the final, deciding game.
   168. Michael Bass Posted: December 18, 2004 at 05:21 PM (#1029036)
Thanks for the rundown!

A key part of this discussion, at least for the earlier days, is at what point the postseason became a serious thing for all involved. I know at least at times in the 1800s, it was considered basically an exhibition, and was treated as such by the players. There were even many accusations of colluding to extend series back then.

I don't want to give postseason credit to players who didn't think they were playing meaningful games. So when did the post-season become nearly universally considered meaningful?
   169. Paul Wendt Posted: December 18, 2004 at 05:47 PM (#1029060)
I don't believe that the early election of Elmer Flick and early rejection of George Sisler can be attributed to romance. Flick's "all peak" career was 10 years before ailment to Sisler's 7 years before injury. In Howie Menckel's own terms:

Ge Sisler 81 70 61 57 54 40 32 10 10 01 -2 -9 -15 -19
Elm Flick 72 66 59 58 56 55 53 36 36 20

Flick finished with three non-qualifying seasons, sum 376 plate appearances at about (1)03. His 10 full seasons sum to 6048 pa at about (1)52.

Joe Jackson batted more productively than that, with nine full seasons; career 5690 pa at (1)70.

Age at the end of his prime: Sisler 29.7, Flick 31.9, Jackson 30.3.
   170. Howie Menckel Posted: December 18, 2004 at 11:12 PM (#1029429)
Good retort, Paul.
I don't particularly mean that Sisler was as good as Flick necessarily (even with a position bonus). I'm just not sure the difference is as great as the votes would suggest.
And really, I'm ruminating on this, more than offering fire and brimstone from the pulpit.
   171. Michael Bass Posted: December 18, 2004 at 11:35 PM (#1029447)
Top WARP1

Flick: 12.6, 11.0, 11.0, 10.5, 10.2, 9.0, 9.0, 8.5, 7.6

Sisler: 14.2, 9.0, 9.0, 8.9, 8.4, 7.7, 7.4, 5.7, 3.9

Looks like a pretty massive difference to me. :)
   172. Michael Bass Posted: December 18, 2004 at 11:38 PM (#1029450)
And in Win Shares...

Flick: 37, 32, 31, 30, 30, 29, 26, 25, 23

Sisler: 33, 29, 29, 27, 25, 24, 22, 19, 16

I just don't think this is a comparison that is going to help Sisler's case any.
   173. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 19, 2004 at 03:19 AM (#1029772)
I posted the wrong necrology at the top of this thread last week. Instead of bothering Dan, I made it up myself, so if there are an omissions (especially any important Negro Leaguers), please let me know. I feel it's the least I can do in memory of them.
   174. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 19, 2004 at 04:09 PM (#1030288)
I'm not really sure where to put this comment, so this is as good of a place as any.

There's an article called An Oliver Twist on the Pythagorean Theory on BTF:

An Oliver Twist on the Pythagorean Theory

I don't quite understand the math behind it (Gaussians, Poissians, and Covariances are well beyond my Pre-Algebra background...), but the gist is that a fellow named Oliver did a sabrmetric basketball book and found that a different formula than Pythag worked better for the NBA due to, in the article's author's words:

1.) The tendency for teams to play up or down to their competition
2.) “Garbage time”; where the game is no longer in doubt and the team with the lead can give up points without changing the result.


The reason I'm pointing this out is that it immediately made me think of the discussion we've had about 19th C. pitchers "pitching to the score," and I wondered if the more math-inclined among us might be able to weigh in and suggest whether the Oliver method might be another way to understand the effect of pitching to the score on our evaluations of Welch, Bond, or McCormick.
   175. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 19, 2004 at 05:55 PM (#1030360)
Will we be having the next election on schedule or will we be delaying it until after Jan. 1 like last year? If we do the latter, I'll set up a thread for the 2005 Hall of Fame Election as we did last year, too.
   176. karlmagnus Posted: December 19, 2004 at 05:59 PM (#1030365)
It's already after Jan 1, it's Monday Jan 3. I vote for no delay. Last year we would have been voting over Xmas, which is awkward, but this year because of last year's 1 week shift, Xmas is a discussion week only.
   177. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 19, 2004 at 06:11 PM (#1030395)
Xmas is a discussion week only.

True, but many people are doing things or are away between Christmas and New Years. Your intrepid correspondent will still be in charge whatever the electorate decides. :-)
   178. Howie Menckel Posted: December 19, 2004 at 06:20 PM (#1030406)
I'm cool either way, but the Monday 8 pm EST deadline seems relevant. You'd think someone would be available either sometime between Dec 27-Jan 2, OR all day Jan. 3.
On the other hand, it is the most important election we'll have 'til August, so....
   179. Paul Wendt Posted: December 19, 2004 at 09:49 PM (#1030614)
By the way, the 10th season that I included for Flick was the 5th of ten chronologically, an integral part of his prime. (During that "off" season, the Phillies acquired an injunction against teammate Lajoie's play for the Athletics in Pennsylvania. Flick moved to Cleveland with Lajoie. The Athletics won the pennant.) In contrast, the 8th and 9th seasons that others have included for Sisler in order to compare nine with nine were not contiguous.

Here is each man's prime OPS+ in chron order.

Elm Flick 56 36 <u>72 58 20 36</u> 59 66 55 53 [39 pa]
Ge Sisler 32 61 <u>57 54</u> 81 40 70 [0 pa]

Underline means the season was short (doubly so when Sisler scored "57" in 1918); bold means the player missed 15-25 games. Each man played more than 140 games precisely in his three "plain" seasons, almost by definition.

--
Ranked by Win Shares, I see, there is no sharp drop from Sisler's 7th to 8th season, pre and post injury. That is because his 6th and 7th best seasons by WS were shortened by WWI. Here are the prime seasons for Elm and Ge in chron order, measured by Win Shares prorated to a 154-game schedule. Underline means prorated.

Elm Flick 26 23 <u>35 33 20 28</u> 31 29 30 37
Ge Sisler 25 29 <u>28 26</u> 33 27 29 [next best, 19]

--
I don't care about Elm or Ge, only the visual display of quantitative information in simple internet environments.
   180. Paul Wendt Posted: December 19, 2004 at 10:05 PM (#1030626)
Oops. Flick's off season is 19, prorated.
So it should still stand out like a sore thumb.
   181. EricC Posted: December 19, 2004 at 11:05 PM (#1030667)
Will we be having the next election on schedule or will we be delaying it until after Jan. 1 like last year?

I'd appreciate an extra week in the '42 discussion/election cycle.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0832 seconds
49 querie(s) executed