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

Sunday, December 19, 2004

1942 Ballot Discussion

The ballot thread will be posted one week later than normal (Jan.3).

Bill Terry is the only position player this “year” that should make any impact on our ballots. As for pitchers, Firpo Marberry had a unique enough career that he may show some considerable strength as a candidate.

1942 (January 2)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

278 83.8 1924 Bill Terry-1B (1989)
205 64.2 1919 Tom Zachary-P (1969)
196 52.1 1921 Bing Miller-RF (1966)
211 56.6 1923 Travis Jackson-SS (1987)
177 52.2 1924 Firpo Marberry-RP (1976)
193 54.1 1924 Fred Lindstrom-3B/CF (1981)
198 38.0 1918 Charlie Grimm-1B (1983)
156 42.3 1926 Alvin “General” Crowder-P (1972)
130 42.9 1927 Watty Clark-P (1972)
122 29.8 1928 George Earnshaw-P (1976)
114 34.8 1928 George Blaeholder-P (1947)
096 26.3 1928 Bill Walker-P (1966)
095 25.2 1930 George Watkins-RF (1970)
103 20.6 1926 Mark Koenig-SS (1993)
092 34.5 1928 Ray Benge-P (1997)
016 03.8 1931 Buzz Arlett-RF (1964)

1942 (January 2)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ - MVP - All-Star

04% 21-36 Sam Streeter-P (1900)1 – 0*
00% 20-36 Bill Riggins-SS (??) #5 SS - 0 – 0*
00% 20-38 Clint Thomas-CF (1896) #6 cf - 0 - 3
00% 16-36 Chaney White-OF (??) #7 cf- 0 - 2*
00% 20-36 Ed “Huck” Rile-P/1B (??) #8 1b - 1 - 0*

Players Passing Away in 1941
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

84 1890 Tommy Bond-P
82 1897 Mickey Welch-P
76 1904 Jack Clements-C
75 1904 Bill Joyce-3b
65 1915 Frank Isbell-1B
58 1929 Bruce Petway-C
51 1931 Howie Shanks-LF/3b
50 1931 Ivy Wingo-C
45 1941 Andy Cooper-P

Upcoming Candidate
37 1944 Lou Gehrig-1B

My favorite ballplayer of all-time, it always pains me to read this even though he died 24 years before I was even born.

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

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 19, 2004 at 02:36 AM | 266 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 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 05:25 PM (#1031602)
I decided to post this thread a little bit earlier since we know darn well who the winners will be.

   2. ronw Posted: December 20, 2004 at 05:41 PM (#1031640)
Both Travis Jackson <u>and</u> Fred Lindstrom are eligible. They could both garner the "elect-me" spots this year, if George Kelly weren't surprisingly still eligible.

Next year, Jesse Haines and Chick Hafey become eligible to further Frank up this Frisching mess.
   3. ronw Posted: December 20, 2004 at 05:44 PM (#1031648)
Elect the '20's Giants infield anyway!
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 05:59 PM (#1031694)
Sorry about the bold type, Ron. For some reason, there were about ten bold type symbols at the the bottom of the page that was screwing everything up. All systems go!
   5. OCF Posted: December 20, 2004 at 06:11 PM (#1031716)
...since we know darn well who the winners will be.

Since there's no suspense about winners, I feel no need to be careful about discussing the ballot before it closes. Here's a notice to anyone who thinks Dazzy Vance should not be elected: This discussion cycle is probably your only chance to persuade us otherwise. On the first 50 ballots for 1941, Vance has the most 3rd place votes, the most 4th place votes, and (apart from the unanimous ones) appears on the most ballots. That vote pattern puts him clearly at the front of the line going into 1942.
   6. Guapo Posted: December 20, 2004 at 06:17 PM (#1031733)
I think you need to update the necrology.
   7. OCF Posted: December 20, 2004 at 06:19 PM (#1031739)
Bill Terry, huh? In our grief over the premature passing of Lou Gehrig, can't we modify our 5-year rule?

OK, I get it - we stick with the rules. The way I see it, Terry goes to the front of the line of first basemen, ahead of Sisler, Beckley, and Chance. The adjusted RCAA-like system I use has Terry as the #1 guy among eligible candidates, ahead of Chance and ahead of any of the outfielders. Given that his career is on the short side, that may not put him ahead of Van Haltren, but he's at least in the upper half of my ballot.
   8. Michael Bass Posted: December 20, 2004 at 06:54 PM (#1031777)
My question actually was asked late in the 1941 discussion, but probably got missed there.

I've been worrying that I haven't been giving any postseason credit, and have been looking for players to whom to give some extra.

Tommy Leach seems like one solid candidate, having hit the hell out of the ball in both the 1903 and 1908 World Series.

My question is: Were these World Series considered as "championship series" or were they, like I believe the Temple Cup of the 1890s was, glorified exhibitions? If it's the latter, which often included rumors of players colluding on outcomes, then no credit is warranted. But if it is the former, then I think strong performance in 2 WS would be worth a little credit.
   9. Jim Sp Posted: December 20, 2004 at 07:37 PM (#1031867)
Terry debuts at #14, Travis Jackson and Babe Herman around #35.
1)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.
2)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.
3)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.
4)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.
5)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.
6)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.
7)Vance--Rixey or Vance? Today I’m in a career mood I guess.
8)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.
9)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
10)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
11)Bancroft--Adjusted him up…
12)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so he’s not quite as impressive as I thought at first glance.
13)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.
14)Terry--Overrated in general, but still pretty good.
15)Joss—Comp is Koufax…a terrible hitter.
   10. jimd Posted: December 20, 2004 at 08:53 PM (#1032018)
Were these World Series considered as "championship series" or were they, like I believe the Temple Cup of the 1890s was, glorified exhibitions?

My impression has always been that these World Series were taken seriously at the time - at least by the victors - unlike the Temple Cup exhibitions.

The 1903 Series was taken seriously by the AL as a means of establishing respectability, putting to rest any lingering questions about league parity; perhaps one can question the NL though.

The 1905 Series was taken seriously by the Giants, due to the controversy stirred up by their refusal to play in 1904, which nearly restarted the AL/NL war.

Did the Cubs take 1906 seriously? That I can't answer, but the game play-by-play seems to show two teams playing hard in 1907 and 1908. The first game of the 1907 Series is a great game (read the play-by-play some time).

Is there evidence to the contrary? That the players wanted little part of these new World Series?
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2004 at 09:36 PM (#1032114)
Prelim:

1) Beckwith
2) Childs
3) C. Jones
4) Willis
5) York
6) Grimes
7) Traynor
8) Beckley
9) Welch
10) Waddell
11) Rixey
12) Konetchy
13) Van Haltren
14) Vance
15) Duffy
   12. Paul Wendt Posted: December 20, 2004 at 09:40 PM (#1032122)
1905 and thereafter: I haven't heard of any disagreement or uncertainty that the World's Series winner would be the world's champion (not merely the "World's Series champion" although that term might be used). On the other hand, there were doubts about everyone's giving a full effort after WWI! And I doubt that any Detroit Tigers would have traded two pennants for a win in one of their three Series, as some would do today. The World Series became more important than the pennant when? In the Super Bowl era, I think. Blame it on Joe Namath.

1903: I have always understood that the 1903 series was a glorified exhibition. (It wasn't sanctioned, but I mean more than that and I don't know the source.) Four books on the 1903 series were published recently, three 2003 and one 2004. From reviews I know that they don't generally subscribe to the "g.e." interpretation.

19th century. I believe that the 19c World Series and Temple Cup Series were taken more seriously in some years than others. More seriously in 1886 and 1896, for example. As for not trying to win, I have heard that only re 1894-1895.

Upon reflection, I suspect that there was a structural flaw in the Temple Cup series, with the outcome more important to the second place team. Same in 1900, but second-place Pittsburgh did not win the Chronicle-Telegraph series.
   13. Michael Bass Posted: December 20, 2004 at 09:56 PM (#1032175)
Prelim:

1) Vance
2) Terry - Very, very good hitter, great fielder, strong peak, good (if short) career.
3) Jennings
4) Veach
5) Mendez
6) Waddell
7) Browning
8) Sewell
9) Schang
10) Moore
11) Redding
12) Beckwith
13) Monroe
14) F. Jones
15) Cross


Two things may change. Once I get a firmer hand on the competitiveness of the 1903 and 1908 World Series, Leach may leapfrog Cross back to #15. And I'm awaiting Chris's revised Beckwith estimate. It sounds like I need to be moving him higher (I can see him at least getting to Browning, though past that will be tough).
   14. andrew siegel Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:00 PM (#1032190)
Prelim:

(1) Jennings (3rd)
(2) Van Haltren (4th)
(3) Jones (7th)
(4) Childs (5th)
(5) Beckwith (9th)
(6) Vance (8th)
(7) Chance (6th)
(8) Terry (new)
(9) Roush (10th)
(10) Rixey (11th)
(11) Grimes (12th)
(12) Duffy (13th)
(13) Sewell (14th)
(14) Moore (unranked/16th)
(15) Beckley (unranked/18th)

Explaining differences from last week:

(1) Charley Jones moves up a couple of slots b/c/ I can't find a precedent for keeping a hitter of his quality with solid defensive skills and a decent career length waiting more than a few years, let alone keeping them out.

(2) Beckwith moves ahead of Vance b/c/ I am now giving him a teensy bit of credit for playing a key defensive position (however poorly).

(3) Terry's eligiblity made me spend a long time with the 1B. I think I had the big picture right before (Chance, Terry, Sisler, and Beckley very close and very much on the borderline; Fournier, Konetchy, and Taylor out of the game but actually not that far behind). However, I think I had a few of the details off--Chance slightly overrated, Terry slightly underrated, Beckley behind rather than ahead of Sisler. My new rankings correct for my changed opinion on those details.

(4) Vic Willis drops from what would be 14th to 17th (behind Sisler) based on observations about his defensive and run support posted last week.
   15. karlmagnus Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:42 PM (#1032281)
While I'm not anti-Terry, and he will be on my ballot, I have to say I think Beckley was much better. Beckley had around 50% more career, once you adjust for season length, and rate stats that are only moderately worse. Even on a career basis, Terry is only a little better than Wilson or Rice (and his 1930 wasn't nearly as spectacular as Wilson's, .400 or no .400.)

Vance had a lot of strikeouts, but a very mediocre W/L record; I don't see him as a HOMer, not even borderline. Willis, Rixey,Leever, Cicotte, Griffith and Welch all significantly better -- Vance is at most the #7-8 pitcher on this ballot.
   16. andrew siegel Posted: December 20, 2004 at 10:54 PM (#1032315)
(1) Hitting: EQA's: Terry over Beckley .308 to .290
(2) Prime: Seasons with EQA over .300: Terry 8; Beckley 3
(3) Fielding: Terry--among the best ever, 115 FRAA vs. Beckley--good 50 FRAA in many more games
(4) Competition: Beckley's best seasons are when talent is diluted (1890, turn of 20th century)

On a rate or prime or peak basis, Terry was a significantly better player (roughly 20 points of EQA and 5-7 runs per year with the glove). The gap is so big you can slip a half dozen 1B between them.

Beckley makes up most but not all of the gap on career length which is his one big advantage.
   17. Howie Menckel Posted: December 20, 2004 at 11:27 PM (#1032382)
Vance would be one of our worst selections, if not THE worst. Didn't even make my ballot, and at best he'd probably climb to around 10th if I found something significant I overlooked.

I posted some breakdowns of HOMers by year and position, which I hope would be of use, on posts 134-143 and 155 on the 1941 ballot discussion thread. They're all updated to include Ruth and Hornsby presumed coronations.
   18. jimd Posted: December 20, 2004 at 11:57 PM (#1032426)
And I doubt that any Detroit Tigers would have traded two pennants for a win in one of their three Series, as some would do today. The World Series became more important than the pennant when? In the Super Bowl era, I think.

Paul, I strongly agree with this. I was in junior high for the 1967 Red Sox, and winning the pennant was the goal, and made the season an incredible success. Losing the World Series was not important, though winning it would have been nice. (Contrast with 19 years later.)

In addition to the Super Bowl/championship mentality taking over sports in general, baseball has contributed to this in its own sport by adding layers of playoffs. Each additional playoff layer devalues the regular season while simultaneously putting more emphasis on the post-season. And winning the "pennant" (league championship series) has little meaning when it's just one layer in a multi-layer tournament.
   19. Kelly in SD Posted: December 20, 2004 at 11:57 PM (#1032429)
Re: Vance

To further the discussion, here is how Vance rates compared to various contemporaries and then eligibles.

In career Win Shares among eligibles:
1. Rixey - 315
2. Willis - 293
3. Quinn - 287
4. Grimes - 286
5. Griffith - 273
6. Redding - 267 (based on numbers in his thread)
7. Wilbur Cooper - 266
9. Mendez - 257 (see Redding)
10. Mays - 256
11. Cicotte - 247
12. Adams - 245
13. Sam Jones - 243
14. Vance - 241
tie Luque - 241

Here is how they rank by 3 consecutive years
1. Mendez - 107
2. Redding - 100
3.
   20. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:01 AM (#1032439)
Stupid click on the mouse.
   21. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:04 AM (#1032443)
I don't get the lack of love for Vance among some. Sure he didnt' have much career, but not even borderline? I feel he was the best pitcher of the 1920's, unless of course you count guys like Alexander and grove as 20's pitchers.

The guy whose election scares me is Joe Sewell. Not that he wasn't a good player, but I dont' think the difference bewteen he, Bancroft, Tinker, and Long is that much at all.

Let's make sure we get the right guys in this 'year' since we have a big class coming next time. And by right guys I of course mean Hughie Jennings and Dazzy Vance!
   22. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:38 AM (#1032507)
To further the discussion, here is how Vance rates compared to various contemporaries and then eligibles.

In career Win Shares among eligibles:
1. Rixey - 315
2. Willis - 293
3. Quinn - 287
4. Grimes - 286
5. Griffith - 273
6. Redding - 267 (based on numbers in his thread)
7. Wilbur Cooper - 266
9. Mendez - 257 (see Redding)
10. Mays - 256
11. Cicotte - 247
12. Adams - 245
13. Sam Jones - 243
14. Vance - 241
tie Luque - 241
If you include 3 pitchers who look like they have pitched their last this year (Grove, Ferrell, and Dean), Vance would drop to 15th with Grove taking first with 391.

Here is how they rank by 3 consecutive years
1. Mendez - 107
2. Redding - 100
3. Waddell - 94
4. Griffith - 86
tie Joss - 86
6. Cooper - 85
tie Mays - 85
8. Shocker - 84
tie Willis - 84
10. Cicotte - 81
11. Luque - 80
12. Marquard - 78
13. Vance - 77
Adding in Grove, Ferrell, and Dean would push Vance down to 16th as Grove comes in first with 112, Dean goes to fourth with 99, and Ferrell has an 86.

The 7 best seasons of their career:
1. Mendez - 203
2. Willis - 199
3. Griffith - 189
4. Redding - 186
tie Waddell - 186
6. Mays - 182
7. Grimes - 181
8. Cooper - 179
9. Vance - 176
Adding in Grove, Ferrell, and Dean, Vance drops to 11th with Grove in first with 225 and Ferrell in 4th with 191.

Win Shares per 300 IP
1. Mendez - 26.7
2. Mays - 25.4
3. Shocker - 25.2
4. Joss - 24.6
5. Rommel - 24.5
6. Vance - 24.3

Again, adding in Grove, Ferrell, and Dean would push Vance down 3 spots.

STATS All-Star Apps
Mays 6
Shocker 5
Rixey 5
Vance 4
Cooper 4
Pennock 4

Grove would be on with an 11 (But this one goes up to 11...) and Ferrell would have a 5.
Redding and Mendez ???

Win Shares All-Star Apps
Cooper 6
Grimes 6
Rixey 6
Mays 4
Shawkey 4
Vance 4
Waddell 4
Willis 4
Redding and Mendez ???

Black Ink / Grey Ink Scores
1. Vance - 66
2. Waddell - 46
3. Grimes - 38
4. Cicotte - 27
tie Luque - 27
6. Uhle - 25
tie Willis - 25

Adding in Grove, Dean, and Ferrell would Vance down to second.

Grey Ink
1. Grimes - 213
2. Willis - 204
3. Shocker - 179
4. Rixey - 175
5. Cooper - 173
6. Mays - 172
7. Vance - 171
Adding recent retirees would add Grove and Waite Hoyt (185) ahead of Vance.

How much Run Support did Vance get though?
Worst
Vance - 90.47
Luque - 91.8
Rommel - 92.9
Waddell - 94.8
Quinn - 94.9
Rixey - 95.3
Joss - 97.4
...
Cicotte - 107.4
Shawkey - 108
Pennock - 111.8
Dauss - 113.5
Mays - 114.4

Defensive Support
Dauss neg 11.3
Uhle neg 4.1
Vance neg 1.5
Pennock 1.9
Quinn 2.9
...
Waddell - 9.1
Cicotte - 9.8
Cooper - 11.1
Adams - 12.8
Mays - 14.1
(Grove) - 15

Strikeout to Walk ratio
1. Waddell - 2.57
2. Joss - 2.53
3. Vance - 2.43
4. Adams - 2.41
5. Marquard 1.86
Sorry I don't have the relative numbers Chris J has on his runsupportindex blog - go check it out. Vance in relation to his era is amazing.
   23. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 01:37 AM (#1032544)
To provide some context for Joe Sewell, I thought I would post a list of the Second Base All-Stars for each season as picked by Win Shares. List up through 1954 b/c of character limit.
1876:  George Wright 17
1877:  Ezra Sutton 9
1878:  Bob Ferguson 11
1879:  George Wright 16
1880:  T. Burns 15
1881:  T. Burns 12        American Association
1882:  Jack Glasscock 19  Gleason 16
1883:  T. Burns 16        Moynahan 24
1884:  McClellan 15       Nelson 23
1885:  Sam Wise 19        Fenelly 23
1886:  Jack Glasscock 22  Fenelly 23
1887:  John Ward 25       Fenelly 23
1888:  Ed Williamson 20   Ed McKean 25
1889:  Jack Glasscock 27  Herman Long 22  Players League
1890:  Jack Glasscock 25  Towney 18       John Ward 27*
1891:  Herman Long 29     Radford 22 (Farrell had 24 at ss/3rd)  
1892:  Bill Dahlen  32
1893:  Herman Long 26
1894:  Hughie Jennings 24
1895:  Hughie Jennings 29
1896:  Hughie Jennings 36*
1897:  George Davis 31 
1898:  Hughie Jennings 32
1899:  Bobby Wallace 25
1900:  Bill Dahlen 21       American League
1901:  Honus Wagner 37      Kid Elberfeld 22
1902:  Bill Dahlen 23       George Davis 26
1903:  Honus Wagner 35*     F Parent 26
1904:  Honus Wagner 43*     F Parent 29
1905:  Honus Wagner 46*     George Davis 28
1906:  Honus Wagner 46*     George Davis 29  
1907:  Honus Wagner 44*     Kid Elberfeld 21
1908:  Honus Wagner 59*     Germany Schaeffer 23
1909:  Honus Wagner 42*     Donie Bush 27
1910:  Honus Wagner 30      Donie Bush 24
1911:  Honus Wagner 30      Donie Bush 18
1912:  Honus Wagner 35*     H. Wagner 20
1913:  Art Fletcher 24      Buck Weaver 23        Federal League
1914:  Rabbit Maranville 24 Donie Bush 22         B Louden 21
1915:  Honus Wagner 23      Buck Weaver 21        J Esmond 22
1916:  Rabbit Maranville 27 Roger Peckinpaugh 21
1917:  Rogers Hornsby 38*   Ray Chapman 30
1918:  Charlie Hollocher 28 Ray Chapman 21
1919:  Art Fletcher 20      Roger Peckinpaugh 24
1920:  Dave Bancroft 21     Roger Peckinpaugh 21
1921:  Dave Bancroft 31     Joe Sewell 26  (2nd Peckinpaugh 20)
1922:  Dave Bancroft 27     Joe Sewell 21  (2nd C. Galloway 19)
1923:  Dave Bancroft 20     Joe Sewell 29  (2nd Gerber & Peckinpaugh 17) 
1924:  George Wright 22     Peckinpaugh, Rigney, Sewell 22 
1925:  George Wright 24     Joe Sewell 24 (2nd Peckinpaugh 15)  
1926:  Dave Bancroft 20     Joe Sewell 29 ( 2nd T. Rigney 17) 
1927:  Travis Jackson 24    Joe Sewell 21 (2nd Mark Koenig 15)
1928:  Travis Jackson 22    Joe Sewell 23 (2nd Koenig 20)  
1929:  Travis Jackson 23    Jimmy Dykes, Red Kress, Joe Sewell 21
1930:  George Wright 21     Joe Cronin 33
1931:  Woody English 24     Joe Cronin 35
1932:  Arky Vaughn 21       Joe Cronin 31
1933:  Arky Vaughn 34       Joe Cronin 34
1934:  Arky Vaughn 36       Billy Rogell 24
1935:  Arky Vaughn 39*      Luke Appling 24
1936:  Arky Vaughn 35       Luke Appling 29
1937:  Dick Bartell 28      Luke Appling 28
1938:  Arky Vaughn 34       Joe Cronin 30
1939:  Arky Vaughn 25       Luke Appling 24
1940:  Arky Vaughn 31       Lou Boudreau 30
1941:  Eddie Joost 21       Cecil Travis 34
1942:  PeeWee Reese 27      Johnny Pesky 28
1943:  Arky Vaughn 28       Luke Appling 40*
1944:  Marty Marion 20      Vern Stephens 34
1945:  Marty Marion 17      Stephens, E Lake 27
1946:  PeeWee Reese 26      Johnny Pesky 34
1947:  PeeWee Reese 26      Lou Boudreau 28
1948:  PeeWee Reese 23      Lou Boudreau 34
1949:  PeeWee Reese 32      Eddie Joost 35
1950:  PeeWee Reese 20      Phil Rizzuto 35*
1951:  Alvin Dark 27        Eddie Joost 25
1952:  Alvin Dark 28        Eddie Joost 26
1953:  Johnny Logan 24      G Strickland 20
1954:  PeeWee Reese 26      Chico Carrasquel 24
   24. sunnyday2 Posted: December 21, 2004 at 01:41 AM (#1032550)
I too have been agonizing over pitchers. I feel pretty good about my IFers, OFers and NeLers. But those white pitchers....

In 1940 I had them rated more on adjWS (peak and career) than anything else--Bond, McCormick, Waddell, (Vance slotted though not yet eligible), Rixey, Griffith, Welch, Joss, Cicotte, Willis, Wi. Cooper.

In 1941 I had them rated more on ERA+ and pennants added (peak and career)--Waddell, Vance, Rixey, Joss, Griffith, Bond, Willis, Grimes, McCormick, Cicotte, Cooper, Mays.

As I move more toward ERA+ as my more global stat--and I think it is valid because it answers the fundamental question: How effective was he?--I've worked up a new measure. Rather than just "eyeball" the IP part of the equation (which is obviously necessary), I've now worked it into the formula.

But I keep coming back to the fundamental question. What is Merit? What merits induction into our HoM? What is the evidence of merit? We know it's not "fame," we're the anti-HoF.

A few months ago there was a discussion and it was stated that, well, maybe we're the Hall of Value. Well, why didn't we say that, then? If we had, the Pennants Added data might have pretty much clinched things toward more of a career voting pattern--at least for me. Yet a career voting pattern still doesn't feel right to me.

So I think Merit = Greatness. And greatness is still something that a player establishes in his peak and/or prime period. You can't *become* great by being good, or even very good, even for a long, long time. The Charlie Hough discussion helped bring that home for me. Charlie could pitch till he's 60 at 90-95 ERA+ and never be a HoMer in my book.

So anyway, I worked up two lists (next post). Which one feels right to you will depend on whether you're a career voter or a peak voter, but instead of asking--are you a peak voter? or a career voter? here's the new question:

Are we electing a Hall of Value? or a Hall of Greatness? I choose Greatness.
   25. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 01:46 AM (#1032556)
If the player has an asterix next to their name, it means they were the best position player in their league.

Here are 1955-2004
1955:  Eddie Banks 32      Harvey Kuenn 22
1956:  Johnny Logan 24     Harvey Kuenn 26
1957:  Ernie Banks 28      Gil MacDougald 27  
1958:  Ernie Banks 31      Luis Aparicio 19
1959:  Ernie Banks 33      Woody Held 22
1960:  Ernie Banks 29      Ron Hansen 24
1961:  Maury Wills 21      Woody Held/Tony Kubek 21
1962:  Maury Wills 32      Tom Tresh 25
1963:  Dick Groat 31       Fregosi, W Causey 20 
(could argue for most any AL SS this year: Hansen & Versalles 19, 
Aparicio & Kubek 18, Bressoud & McAuliffe 17)   
1964:  D Menke 29          Ron Hansen 30
1965:  Maury Wills 28      Zolio Versalles 32
1966:  Gene Alley 22       Fregosi & McAuliffe 26
1967:  Gene Alley 19       Jim Fregosi 28
1968:  Dal Maxvill 20      Bert Campaneris 29
1969:  Don Kessinger 23    Rico Petrocelli 37
1970:  D Menke 24          Jim Fregosi 33
1971:  B Harrelson 19      Fred Patek 24
1972:  Chris Speier 25     Bobby Grich 23
1973:  Bill Russell 17     Bert Campaneris 20
1974:  Dave Concepcion 25  Bert Campaneris 22
1975:  Chris Speier 20     Toby Harrah 32
1976:  Dave Concepcion 23  Toby Harrah 24
1977:  Garry Templeton 24  Rick Burleson 21
1978:  Dave Concepcion 25  Roy Smalley 22
1979:  Garry Templeton 25  Roy Smalley 24
1980:  Concepcion, Smith   Robin Yount 25
        Templeton - 17
1981:  Dave Concepcion 20  Robin Yount 20
1982:  Dickie Thon 22      Robin Yount 39*
1983:  Dickie Thon 30      Cal Ripken 35* (Yount 33)
1984:  Ozzie Smith 19      Cal Ripken 37*
1985:  Ozzie Smith 25      Cal Ripken 25
1986:  Ozzie Smith 23      Cal Ripken 28
1987:  Ozzie Smith 33      Alan Trammell 35*
1988:  Barry Larkin 28     Tony Fernandez, Ripken 25
1989:  Smith / Thon 20     Cal Ripken 26 
1990:  Barry Larkin 25     Alan Trammell 29
1991:  Barry Larkin 26     Cal Ripken 34* (tied w Frank Thomas)
1992:  Barry Larkin 32     Pat Listach/ Ripken 21
1993:  Jeff Blauser 29     Travis Fryman 28
1994:  Jay Bell/Larkin 19  Cal Ripken 18
1995:  Barry Larkin 30*    John Valentin 29
1996:  Barry Larkin 31     Alex Rodriguez 34*
1997:  Jeff Blauser 27     Nomar Garciaparra 26
1998:  Barry Larkin 25     Alex Rodriguez 30
1999:  Barry Larkin 24     Derek Jeter 35* (tied with Roberto Alomar)
2000:  Rich Aurelia 20     Alex Rodriguez 37 
2001:  Rich Aurelia 33     Alex Rodriguez 37
2002:  Edgar Renteria 26   Alex Rodriguez 35*
2003:  Renteria/Furcal 25  Alex Rodriguez 32*  
2004:  Jimmy Rollins 26    Miguel Tejada 30

Jason Giambi was better than Rodriguez by 1 win share in both 2000 and 2001 for best player in the American League. Alomar also had 37 in 2001.
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: December 21, 2004 at 01:49 AM (#1032560)
Here's the formula:

(ERA+ - 100) x IP/1000

The consideration set is pitchers in the top 50 all-time in ERA+ and any pitcher who got a vote here in 1941.

Career
1. Waddell 103.6
2. Joss 97.7
3. Cicotte 74.2
4. Vance 74.2
5. McCormick 72.7
6. Rixey 71.9
7. Willis 71.9
8. Griffith 71.1
9. Hahn 67.0
10. Shocker 64.3

Prime

BTW, the prime is a floating number based on those consecutive seasons in which the pitcher maintained his "established level." When his career ERA+ started to drop and dropped more years than it bounced up, his prime was over.

1. Joss 106.6
2. Waddell 92.2
3. Bond 86.0
4. Mullane 84.7
5. Cicotte 84.2
6. Welch 81.1
7. Vance 80.9
8. Griffith 77.7
9. McCormick 75.3
10. Corcoran 74.3

BTW, the weaknesses of WS as a metric become more apparent with the WS list above. I just couldn't vote that list at all. I'll take the prime list above as best matching my notion of "great" pitchers, Corcoran excepted. Hahn is next, then Mays whom I would slot at #10.
7.
   27. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:19 AM (#1032578)
Dang, I wish I had coordinated this posting with sunnyday2 so we are not cutting our multipart posts in pieces.

OOPs
In 1929, Sewell was playing 3rd so strike him from the above list for 1929.

Looking at Sewell's period of dominance, it strikes me that shortstop was very weak in the AL in the 20s. In 7 of the eight years, no other American League shortstop had more than 20 win shares. If he had been in the National League playing with Bancroft, Wright, and Travis Jackson, he would have led 3 times and tied twice. The NL 20s would look like

1920: Bancroft 21
1921: Bancroft 31
1922: Bancroft 27
1923: Sewell 29
1924: Sewell and Wright 22
1925: Sewell and Wright 25
1926: Sewell 29
1927: Jackson 24
1928: Sewell 23
1929: Jackson 23
1930: Wright 21

Sewell had the fortune to be playing in a league going through a dramatic lull in shortstop talent. During the 30s, we have had great shortstops like Arky Vaughn, Luke Appling, and Joe Cronin. Sewell is not as strong as any of them. Should an accident of retirement timing/birth be a player's entry into the Hall of Merit?

What separates Sewell from Bancroft and Tinker and Long? Sewell definitely hit better: OPS+ Sewell 109 to Bancroft 98 to Tinker 96 to Long 94. But Win Shares sees them the opposite defenively: WS/1000 inn - Tinker 7.28 Long 6.40, Bancroft 6.20, Sewell 5.87.

It looks like Sewell is another beneficiary of the SHINY NEW TOY SYNDROME. Bancroft is first eligible along with the remnants of the 1934 class, Pete Alexander, and Harry Heilmann. Sewell shows up in 1939 in the midst of our pitcher glut and gets noticed.
   28. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:57 AM (#1032611)
Some Thoughts inspired by sunnyday2's comments:

He makes an important point about the difference between the Hall of Value and the Hall of Greatness. I may disagree with his choice of metrics he used, but the point is excellent. It is not just long play at a good level, but there must be some excellence as well. Unfortunately, there is no uniform description for excellence - or - fortunately, there is no uniform description of excellence so we can have these debates every week.

His decision to move closer to ERA+ from Win Shares and comment about following WS only leads me to a second point. The danger of following only one metric. No one metric is sufficient to guide one's way through 85 years of baseball history (1857-1941). Both WARP and WS have their backers and detractors and most would admit there are significant difficulties with both systems for 19th century baseball. Yet there is the temptation to use just one of these because it easier to measure this large group of candidates. But doing this fails to provide a full picture of a player's career. These players did not compete in a vacuum. They played against real physical opponents.
A player may have led the league often in a category. But if that particular category does not have an impact on the game, does that skill matter? For instance, leading in complete games when 80% of the games are completed is not a big deal. Leading the league in stolen bases when most teams have decided it does not make sense so they do not have their players run - may not be a significant measure for judging a player's greatness.

I hope the electors will simply follow this idea: We are looking for the best candidate, not merely a qualified candidate and NO ONE ARGUMENT PLACES A MAN AT THAT PINNACLE. IT IS THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; IT IS ALWAYS THE COMBINED WEIGHT.
   29. Max Parkinson Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:03 AM (#1032619)
I’ve been working on this as a “check” for lack of a better term on my (ever-evolving) ranking system for this project. What I’ve done is create year-by-year All-Stars by position. All leagues are considered together, so being the best in the Federal League doesn’t mean anything if there are lots of AL and NL players better at your position. I’ve done this for position players only.

My methods are as follows:
For BP data, value is based on BRARP plus FRAA. BRARP is calculated by position, by year. For example all EqR created by 1881 SSs are divided by all outs made by 1881 SSs (then divided by 5 and raised to the 0.4 power), and then multiplied by 0.23, divided by 0.26 – meaning that if the positional average EqA is .260, then the replacement EqA is .230, and if the average is 0.280, the replacement average is 0.248. Note that this is the way that BP says that it calculates BPARP, but I wanted to do it myself to be sure.

All EqR and FRAA are based on ½ the BP discount between Warp1 and Warp2, and then extended to a 162 game season at the 2/3 power. These extensions are done at the “team game” level, leading to some wacky totals in the pre-NL, when teams played differing schedules. Some examples: A 75 game season turns into the equivalent of a 125 gamer, a 100 to a 138, a 140 to a 154, and a 154 game schedule is the equivalent of 159 games. This has been hashed out before, but I find that this decision splits the difference between hurting short-season players, and over-rewarding good stretches of 40 games. Again, splitting the difference also halves the league discounts – making a lot of sense in the 1900s, but possibly overrewarding the early AA and the Federal League. I’m willing to live with that, as my results are much more consistent with the talent gap between the AL and NL, and the NL and AA at its stronger parts, at least relative to the full BP discount.

Win Shares are based on a database that I got from Steve Treder (I assume it’s the same one many of you use). Again, I adjust for season length the same way, and apply ½ the BP league discount within seasons. In addition, prior to 1893, I take half of the Pitching Win Shares, and award them to the position players, based on their share of non-Pitching Win Shares of their particular team. I understand that Jim D. awards them all to defense, but when I did that, the results were heavily skewed towards defense, and therefore all of the greatest defensive players of all-time played in the 1870s and 1880s. Just didn’t pass the smell test. Players Batting Win Shares are added to their Fielding Win Shares (Pitching is excluded), to give a total for this study.

For the All-Stars, I award the best player in the game at his position 10 points, the runner-up gets 6 points, and 3rd place gets 4 points. When you add the yearly totals, you get the following leaderboards: (Totals are through 1940)
   30. Max Parkinson Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:04 AM (#1032621)
           Warp               Win Shares

C
     MICKEY COCHRANE  76   MICKEY COCHRANE  82
     GABBY HARTNETT   76   GABBY HARTNETT   78
     BILL DICKEY      72   BILL DICKEY      66
     DEACON WHITE     64   BUCK EWING       62
     BUCK EWING       56   DEACON WHITE     48
     JACK CLEMENTS    50   ROGER BRESNAHAN  42
     CHARLIE BENNETT  48   JOHNNY KLING     42
     JOHNNY KLING     48   RAY SCHALK       42
     RAY SCHALK       42   WALLY SCHANG     42
     JOHN CLAPP       40   CHIEF MEYERS     38
     CHIEF ZIMMER     40

1B
     LOU GEHRIG       106  LOU GEHRIG       108
     ROGER CONNOR     104  DAN BROUTHERS    94
     DAN BROUTHERS    86   ROGER CONNOR     86
     JOE START        80   CAP ANSON        72
     ED KONETCHY      70   GEORGE SISLER    62
     JAKE BECKLEY     64   JIMMIE FOXX      60
     CAP ANSON        60   JOE START        56
     JIMMIE FOXX      58   ED KONETCHY      50
     GEORGE SISLER    56   JAKE BECKLEY     48
     FRANK CHANCE     50   FRANK CHANCE     46

2B
     EDDIE COLLINS    138  EDDIE COLLINS    126
     NAP LAJOIE       118  NAP LAJOIE       116
     BID MCPHEE       102  ROGERS HORNSBY   92
     ROGERS HORNSBY   80   CH. GEHRINGER    78
     CH. GEHRINGER    76   CUPID CHILDS     74
     ROSS BARNES      52   ROSS BARNES      56
     CUPID CHILDS     52   BID MCPHEE       46
     FRED DUNLAP      52   FRED DUNLAP      40
     FRANKIE FRISCH   52   FRANKIE FRISCH   40
     JACK BURDOCK     36   JACK BURDOCK     36

3B
     HEINIE GROH      74   PIE TRAYNOR      68
     FRANK BAKER      70   HEINIE GROH      64
     NED WILLIAMSON   60   FRANK BAKER      62
     PIE TRAYNOR      56   EZRA SUTTON      60
     JIMMY COLLINS    54   JIMMY COLLINS    58
     EZRA SUTTON      54   JOHN MCGRAW      46
     BILLY NASH       48   BILLY NASH       42
     BILL BRADLEY     46   NED WILLIAMSON   38
     WILLIE KAMM      40   BILL BRADLEY     34
     JOHN MCGRAW      40   GEORGE DAVIS     34
                           ARLIE LATHAM     34

SS
     HONUS WAGNER     114  HONUS WAGNER     130
     JACK GLASSCOCK   94   ARKY VAUGHAN     74
     GEORGE WRIGHT    72   GEORGE WRIGHT    70
     ARKY VAUGHAN     66   JOE SEWELL       66
     JOE SEWELL       62   BILL DAHLEN      52
     JOE CRONIN       56   DAVE BANCROFT    52
     GEORGE DAVIS     54   JACK GLASSCOCK   50
     DAVE BANCROFT    50   GEORGE DAVIS     46
     BILL DAHLEN      48   JOE CRONIN       46
     HUGHIE JENNINGS  46   HUGHIE JENNINGS  46

LF
     ED DELAHANTY     70   ED DELAHANTY     66
     TOM YORK         66   TOM YORK         64
     JESSE BURKETT    56   JESSE BURKETT    58
     AL SIMMONS       50   ANDY LEONARD     48
     ABNER DALRYMPLE  48   JOE MEDWICK      48
     JOE MEDWICK      48   BABE RUTH        46
     BABE RUTH        48   GEORGE BURNS     44
     ZACK WHEAT       48   GOOSE GOSLIN     42
     BOBBY VEACH      46   AL SIMMONS       40
     FRED CLARKE      44   SHERRY MAGEE     38
     JIMMY SHECKARD   44   TIP O'NEILL      38

CF
     TRIS SPEAKER     120  TRIS SPEAKER     138
     TY COBB          114  TY COBB          96
     GEORGE GORE      70   PAUL HINES       68
     EARL AVERILL     64   EARL AVERILL     58
     PAUL HINES       58   GEORGE GORE      58
     BILLY HAMILTON   50   BILLY HAMILTON   52
     ROY THOMAS       50   WALLY BERGER     46
     MIKE GRIFFIN     46   DAVE EGGLER      44
     JOE DIMAGGIO     40   JIM O'ROURKE     42
     FIELDER JONES    36   ROY THOMAS       42

RF
     BABE RUTH        74   BABE RUTH        94
     MEL OTT          72   MEL OTT          74
     SAM THOMPSON     72   KING KELLY       70
     ELMER FLICK      62   SAM CRAWFORD     60
     PAUL WANER       62   WILLIE KEELER    60
     WILLIE KEELER    52   PAUL WANER       58
     KING KELLY       48   ELMER FLICK      52
     SAM CRAWFORD     46   HARRY HEILMANN   52
     ORATOR SHAFFER   46   MIKE TIERNAN     50
     MIKE TIERNAN     44   SAM THOMPSON     48
     ROSS YOUNGS      44
   31. Max Parkinson Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:04 AM (#1032622)
Some thoughts: First off, my little check seems to be pretty good at identifying the true great players, as almost everyone on these lists has received at least moderate support for election to the HoM (eligibles only, of course). Second, there doesn’t seem to be much disagreement between the 2 main methods of “valuing” players (Warp and Win Shares), at least when it comes to the all-time greats. 7 of the top 10 Catchers are on both lists, all 10 1B and 2B, and 9 of the 3B. All 10 SS are on both lists, as well as 7 of the LF and CF, and 9 of the RF.

In case you’re wondering, there are 6 position players in the HoM who don’t make these lists - Carey, Jackson, McVey, Pearce, Richardson and Stovey. Ward and Caruthers don’t count, as they got a lot of their value by pitching. Pearce is an obvious – most of his value was pre ’71. As for the rest:

Carey – 12th on the WS list for CF with 32. Also had 14 points as a LF. 20th on the WS list of CF with 20. Also had 12 points in LF.
Jackson – 18th on Warp list for RF, 13th on WS. Pretty much split between LF and RF, so if you add them together, he’s on as either a LF or RF.
McVey – Played 4 positions (C, 1B, 3B, RF). 50 total points for Warp, 76 total for WS. Both systems have McVey getting most points at 1B.
Richardson – same multi-position problem. He’s 15th at 2B for WS, not close in Warp.
Stovey – collects 34 total points in both systems, split between LF, RF and 1B. If this is your ranking system, Richardson and Stovey are the two weakest elected position players.

To examine some of the areas of disagreement, mostly in terms of ranking (i.e. Bid McPhee is 3rd in the Warp list, with Hornsby 4th, while Hornsby is 3rd and McPhee 7th in the WS list), I dug a little deeper.

First, the two data systems are slightly different in terms of assigning positions. BP lists performance by position, while Win Shares only gives a player one position (at least, only one per team-season). Where this can have an effect is those pesky multiple-position players. If a player plays 120 games at 1B, and 30 in LF, he’ll rack up offensive and defensive value at both positions. In my Warp data, he’ll only get the 120 games of credit when being compared to all of the 1st basemen, whereas by Win Shares, he’ll be considered a 1B only, and all 150 of his games will aid him. This helps King Kelly, Buck Ewing and Jim O’Rourke rank higher in the WS lists – all of these players played lots of positions during seasons.

Second, the difference between best and 2nd best isn’t always great, and neither is the difference between 2nd best (4 points) and 4th (nada). In cases where the systems disagree on who was the best in any particular year, Win Shares almost always (and I only say almost because I haven’t checked every particular case) chooses the better offensive player.

Take Bid McPhee vs. Cupid Childs. By any account, whether anecdotal or statistical, these were the best 2 2nd basemen in the world for a good 10-12 year stretch. Look above (I’ll wait……OK), McPhee beats Childs 102-52 in the Warp list, pretty much double, while Childs wins 74-46 in the WS list. How can this be? It’s this way because for that 10-year stretch, Childs would finish behind McPhee in the Warp All-Star, and beat him in the WS All Star. Both systems agree that Childs was the better hitter, some years by a little and some years by a lot. Now to defense, where both systems agree that McPhee was better than Childs most years. Using Warp, McPhee’s FRAA advantage was big enough to overcome Childs’ BRARP advantage. Using WS, McPhee’s FWS advantage wasn’t. Which one is right? To be fair, I don’t know.

Other cases are similar:
Sam Thompson vs. Mike Tiernan
Schalk vs. Schang
Kling vs. Bresnahan
Konetchy vs. Sisler

Third, this is only part of the story. If you look closely at the 1st basemen lists, you’ll notice that Jake Beckley finishes ahead of Cap Anson in the Warp lists. (Karl, this one’s for you….) What needs to be remembered is that Anson was a 3rd baseman and catcher for a few years. By the time he was a full-time 1st baseman, Brouthers and Connor were hitting the scene. A great Anson year might only be good enough for 3rd-best, whereas Beckley’s better years were good enough for best in the game, as he was only competing against Dan McGann and Fred Tenney during those years. Again, only part of the story.

Like I said at the top, this isn’t the way that I rank players, but it could be. If you’re of the opinion that the HoM is to honor the true great players of the game, this might be a help to you. At any rate, I’ve got the database up and running, and can update it at any time, if any of you feel that you will use it.
   32. Howie Menckel Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:43 AM (#1032659)
I find an odd fascination by the electorate with pitchers who have 3-5 excellent years and few good ones, vs pitchers who have 1-2 excellent years and 10-12 very good ones. It must be focusing on a single metric or something.

I also have no idea why strikeout pitchers are so valued, looking backwards. Who cares if they struck out lots of people if it didn't lead to better performance?

Geesh, I claimed Matt Mantei in my fantasy league one week into his MLB career, I had Randy Johnson back in A ball, and I still look for the K per IP guys as potential stars. But THIS experiment is about performance, so what do Ks have to do with it?
   33. Cblau Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:26 AM (#1032765)
Michael Bass wondered about the early 20th Century World's Series.

It has been suggested that the Americans and Pirates traded losses in the first two games of the 1903 Series in order to extend the series. By 1909, I'm sure they were taking it seriously. OTOH, there are also rumors about the 1914, 1918, and 1921 Series; any others?
   34. KJOK Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:31 AM (#1032776)
Sewell had the fortune to be playing in a league going through a dramatic lull in shortstop talent. During the 30s, we have had great shortstops like Arky Vaughn, Luke Appling, and Joe Cronin. Sewell is not as strong as any of them. Should an accident of retirement timing/birth be a player's entry into the Hall of Merit?

Probably repeating myself, but if a player was the best at his position in a league for EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS, unless that league is 'substandard' for some reason, then he should be in the HOM as he provided his team real wins/pennants and, IN HIS TIME AGAINST HIS PEERS, he was a HOM player.
   35. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:33 AM (#1032783)
Howie,

I agree with your point about strikeouts in concept: they are great predictors of future success, but they don't necessarily describe a pitcher's entire effectivness. But I think the notion of why the strikeout is important has changed over time.

Nowadays, it's important to notch Ks because it means the ball isn't flying out. But back in the day, it meant that it kept it away from uneven infields and rudimentary gloves. A pitcher like Vance, who was already the victim of the poor defense behind him, really helped his effectivenss (and therefore his team) by striking hitters out and keeping the ball away from the likes of Babe Herman.
   36. KJOK Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:38 AM (#1032797)
Nowadays, it's important to notch Ks because it means the ball isn't flying out. But back in the day, it meant that it kept it away from uneven infields and rudimentary gloves. A pitcher like Vance, who was already the victim of the poor defense behind him, really helped his effectivenss (and therefore his team) by striking hitters out and keeping the ball away from the likes of Babe Herman.

But if that's true, then aren't the K's already positively impacting his runs allowed?

We're talking about the 1920's where players still hit a lot of triples and some inside-the-park home runs. It's not even clear that DIPS-type methodologies work as well for this era....
   37. KJOK Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:55 AM (#1032846)
Similar to Max's list, here are RCAA and RCAP by position 1876-1940:

CATCHERS                          RCAA    
1    Buck Ewing                  305   
2    Mickey Cochrane             303   
3    Bill Dickey                 299   
4    Gabby Hartnett              251   
5    Roger Bresnahan             225   
6    Fred Carroll                191   
7    Wally Schang                178   
8    Mike Grady                  133   
9    Ernie Lombardi              111   
10   Chief Meyers                 94   

                          RCAP    
1    Mickey Cochrane             425   
2    Bill Dickey                 407   
3    Buck Ewing                  356   
4    Gabby Hartnett              354   
5    Roger Bresnahan             282   
6    Wally Schang                271   
7    Fred Carroll                232   
8    Jack Clements               208   
9    Mike Grady                  201   
10   Charlie Bennett             196

1B

                           RCAA    
1    Lou Gehrig                 1247   
2    Dan Brouthers               967   
3    Jimmie Foxx                 963   
4    Roger Connor                807   
5    Cap Anson                   730   
6    Harry Stovey                485   
7    Hank Greenberg              456   
8    Bill Terry                  425   
9    Johnny Mize                 363   
10   Frank Chance                348   

                           RCAP    
1    Lou Gehrig                  988   
2    Dan Brouthers               737   
3    Jimmie Foxx                 693   
4    Roger Connor                607   
5    Cap Anson                   473   
6    Frank Chance                308   
7    Bill Terry                  302   
8    Johnny Mize                 284   
9    Hank Greenberg              279   
10   Jack Fournier               269   

2B

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Rogers Hornsby             1084   
2    Nap Lajoie                  785   
3    Eddie Collins               747   
4    Charlie Gehringer           464   
5    Hardy Richardson            288   
6    Cupid Childs                259   
7    Larry Doyle                 253   
8    Fred Dunlap                 251   
9    Tony Lazzeri                229   
10   Frankie Frisch              187   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    Rogers Hornsby             1091   
2    Eddie Collins               822   
3    Nap Lajoie                  766   
4    Charlie Gehringer           586   
5    Cupid Childs                354   
6    Tony Lazzeri                325   
7    Fred Dunlap                 311   
8    Frankie Frisch              291   
9    Hardy Richardson            289   
10   Larry Doyle                 273   

3B

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    John McGraw                 442   
2    Bill Joyce                  333   
3    Denny Lyons                 318   
4    Home Run Baker              303   
5    Deacon White                191   
6    Heine Groh                  177   
7    Heinie Zimmerman            144   
8    Stan Hack                   141   
9    Ezra Sutton                 130   
10   Harlond Clift               129   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    John McGraw                 459   
2    Bill Joyce                  367   
3    Home Run Baker              364   
4    Denny Lyons                 326   
T5   Heine Groh                  216   
T5   Deacon White                216   
7    Pie Traynor                 209   
8    Stan Hack                   194   
T9   Harlond Clift               159   
T9   Ezra Sutton                 159   

SS

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Honus Wagner               1011   
2    Arky Vaughan                414   
3    George Davis                379   
4    Hughie Jennings             206   
5    Joe Cronin                  204   
6    Jack Glasscock              188   
7    Bill Dahlen                 186   
8    Ed McKean                   131   
9    Joe Sewell                  124   
10   Frank Fennelly              104   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    Honus Wagner               1060   
2    Arky Vaughan                515   
3    George Davis                452   
4    Joe Cronin                  390   
5    Joe Sewell                  346   
6    Bill Dahlen                 291   
7    Jack Glasscock              289   
8    Hughie Jennings             262   
9    Luke Appling                221   
10   Ed McKean                   212   

LF

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Ed Delahanty                835   
2    Jesse Burkett               713   
3    Joe Jackson                 580   
4    Fred Clarke                 529   
5    Al Simmons                  519   
6    Joe Kelley                  502   
7    Goose Goslin                453   
8    Jim O'Rourke                452   
9    Zack Wheat                  433   
10   Sherry Magee                425   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    Ed Delahanty                641   
2    Joe Jackson                 449   
3    Jesse Burkett               437   
4    Al Simmons                  376   
5    Sherry Magee                337   
6    Jim O'Rourke                327   
7    Zack Wheat                  300   
8    Joe Kelley                  286   
9    Fred Clarke                 262   
10   Tip O'Neill                 260   

   38. KJOK Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:58 AM (#1032854)
CF

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Ty Cobb                    1369   
2    Tris Speaker               1053   
3    Billy Hamilton              802   
4    Pete Browning               582   
5    George Gore                 401   
6    Earl Averill                392   
7    George Van Haltren          382   
8    Hugh Duffy                  374   
9    Hack Wilson                 367   
10   Jimmy Ryan                  355   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    Ty Cobb                    1078   
2    Tris Speaker                777   
3    Billy Hamilton              648   
4    Pete Browning               478   
5    George Gore                 326   
6    Hack Wilson                 325   
7    Earl Averill                323   
8    Joe DiMaggio                290   
9    Wally Berger                243   
10   Mike Donlin                 240   

RF

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Babe Ruth                  1795   
2    Mel Ott                     779   
3    Harry Heilmann              663   
4    Sam Crawford                595   
5    Paul Waner                  569   
6    Elmer Flick                 512   
7    Sam Thompson                503   
8    King Kelly                  470   
9    Mike Tiernan                464   
10   Chuck Klein                 424   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    Babe Ruth                  1594   
2    Mel Ott                     656   
3    King Kelly                  485   
4    Harry Heilmann              469   
5    Paul Waner                  426   
6    Sam Crawford                401   
7    Sam Thompson                387   
8    Elmer Flick                 380   
9    Mike Tiernan                348   
10   Chuck Klein                 291

PITCHERS                           RSAA      IP     
1    Cy Young                    813   7356     
2    Kid Nichols                 678   5057     
3    Lefty Grove                 669   3806     
4    Walter Johnson              643   5914.2   
5    Grover C Alexander          524   5189     
6    John Clarkson               508   4536.1   
7    Christy Mathewson           405   4780.1   
8    Tim Keefe                   377   5052.1   
9    Carl Hubbell                372   3204     
10   Amos Rusie                  370   3769.2   
11   Three Finger Brown          295   3172.1   
12   Stan Coveleski              282   3093     
13   Eddie Plank                 278   4495.2   
14   Jack Stivetts               268   2887.2   
15   Ed Walsh                    256   2965     
16   Clark Griffith              255   3387     
T17  Old Hoss Radbourn           254   4535.1   
T17  Rube Waddell                254   2961.1   
19   Dazzy Vance                 251   2966.1   
20   Red Faber                   250   4087
   39. Esteban Rivera Posted: December 21, 2004 at 05:40 AM (#1032951)
In response to Max's post # 31, specifically the comparison between Childs and McPhee, one must remember the fact that win shares caps fielding value. This comes into play in this case, when you consider the fact that Childs was on a team that was capped five times and McPhee was on a team that was capped ten times. As an aside, I would like to point out that it is my belief that Child's teams were capped not because of their fielding but because of "spillage" from their pitching and hitting.

Also, here's a link that shows a similar exercise like the All-Star points. Outfielders of 20's and 30's
   40. Brent Posted: December 21, 2004 at 05:41 AM (#1032955)
Would it be possible to add Buzz Arlett to the list of new eligibles?

A couple of weeks ago I raised the question of when he should be eligible on the "New Eligibles Year by Year" thread, and though only a couple of us participated in the discussion, the consensus seemed to be that his eligibility should be determined by the rules for non-MLB players (even though he played one year for Philadelphia), and that he would therefore be eligible in 1942. See posts # 391, 401, and 405-7.

If we've misinterpreted the rules, please pardon me.
   41. Brent Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:00 AM (#1032989)
In response to Michael Bass's question about post-season competition, a few thoughts:

- The 1892 league championship series should not be lumped together with the Temple Cup / Chronicle-Telegraph Cup series. The 1892 season was played under a split season arrangement - first-half winner against second-half, and as far as I am aware, everyone agreed that the pennant was at stake in the series. That arrangement had its own set of problems, with charges that Boston may have slacked off after winning the first half, so the split season playoff was dropped after that year.

Personally, I'm doubtful that the Temple Cup was ever rigged. Part of the problem with the Cup not catching on was that most of the series wound up decided by 4-0 or 4-1, which doesn't seem like what one would aim for if one were rigging a series. The more serious problem was that it was never accepted by the fans as really deciding anything, since there seemed to be general acceptance that the pennant had already been decided. By 1896/97 attendance was really low and it didn't seem worth the trouble. But I'm not aware of any solid evidence that the play was less than legit.

In the 19 aughts, baseball's popularity was really taking off fueled by newspaper media, popular heroes, and several exciting pennant races and World Series. With all the new attention being given to the Series, I again think the players were taking them seriously and playing their best. I know Cblau cites some rumors to the contrary, but I'd like to see some evidence before charging players with shirking and "laying down." Both the 1903 and 1909 Series seemed to have had a lot at stake, the first the classic opportunity for the new league to establish itself, the second the famous confrontation between the two biggest stars of the era.
   42. Kelly in SD Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:13 AM (#1033253)
if a player was the best at his position in a league for EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS, unless that league is 'substandard' for some reason, then he should be in the HOM as he provided his team real wins/pennants and, IN HIS TIME AGAINST HIS PEERS, he was a HOM player.

Normally I would agree with you. I am a big proponent of paying attention to the context in which a player produces his season. But, if a player is the best in his league because the rest of the people at his position are not very good, then that does not say as much for him individually. sunnyday2's comments about a Hall of Value vs. a Hall of Greatness crystalize some of my feelings on this issue (sorry if this is not the way they were meant to be taken). Sewell had a great deal of value for the Indians and the Yankees because other shortstops were not very good. But he did not have great years like Cronin, Appling, Vaughn, Jennings.
It is a philosophical difference. Who is more meritorious? The player who has great years but there are other great players at their position OR the player who has very good years when there is a dearth of good players at his position.
Currently, the voters see to be leaning more in the direction of the latter - at least as it pertains to Sewell.

Percentage difference b/t RCAP and RCAA:
Wagner 1060/1011 1.05
Vaughn 515/414 1.24
Davis 452/379 1.19
Cronin 390/204 1.91
Sewell 346/124 2.79
Dahlen 291/186 1.56
Glasscock 289/188 1.54
Jennings 262/202 1.30

To me this says Sewell played against the worst group of opposing shortstops. For me, it is a reason for not boosting him for his league leading performances the way I normally would.

And for those of you that do give Sewell some credit for his eight times leading the league at shortstop, do you give credit to Ed Konetchy for leading his League at first 7 times and the majors 4 times?
There is not much difference between them: (Sewell's numbers first):
career win shares: 277 vs 287.
win shares 3 cons yrs: 76 vs 77
ws in best 7 yrs: 174 vs 171
ws per 648 PA: 22.3 vs 22.1
league best: 8 (2 ties) vs 7
major league best: 5 (2 ties) vs 4
They were A- defenders. Konetchy won more gold gloves, Sewell played a more important defensive position.
   43. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:42 AM (#1033300)
Great post #42 Kelly.

I'll add that I actually rate Konetchy above Sewell. Both had exactly .627 Pennants Added (pretty freaky). Adjusting for season length, I get Sewell at 184 WS above replacement, Konetchy at 185. This shows that they had a similar peak according to WS at least.

But I rate Konetchy higher because WS underrates pre-lively ball first basemen.
   44. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 12:07 PM (#1033307)
Put me in the camp that thinks most of the electorate is overvaluing Vance's K's. For the reasons KJOK and Howie mentioned. I had Dazzy 4th or 5th I think - I'm just not convinced he's a slam dunk.

*****

I'm also a big fan of Max and KJOK's lists. That said, a few things that concern me about the.

First, RCAA and RCAP - Curious as to how Honus is 1011 above average and only 1060 above position? Are they saying an average SS is only 49 runs below average, over like 20 years (realizing he didn't play SS the whole time)? That sounds insane to me. I also assume those lists aren't adjusted for season length?

Max, all-star points are neat for sure, definitely interesting, but one detriment, is seen in the case of Schang and Schalk. Their primes were similar, but Schang went on to play pretty productive baseball for the better part of a decade after Schalk was irrelevant as a player. I assume you realize this, just pointing it out as a shortcoming, that's all.

Again, both lists are good for making sure we aren't missing anyone, etc.. Just pointing out a few things that should be taken into account if they are going to be used as a main part of someone's ranking.

*****
   45. TomH Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:01 PM (#1033319)
"Vance had a lot of strikeouts, but a very mediocre W/L record"
---
If your team doesn't score for you and can't play defense, you ain't gonna win many games. See Johnson comma Randy: 2004 Diamondbacks.
   46. karlmagnus Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:02 PM (#1033321)
I think Max's lists are very interesting; on Beckley they definitively rebut the lazy slur of "only ever the 4th best 1B." The truth is ABC were declining rapidly by the early 90s, Chance didn't get going till 1900 or so; for the gap between the two Beckley was the #1 1B or close. That's not the major reason why we shouild elect him, but the knock on him is unfair.
   47. TomH Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:13 PM (#1033324)
Griffith vs Rixey. One may get elected this ballot, and I think we’re on the verge of electing the wrong guy.

Raw #s ..IP ERA+
Griffith 3380 121
Rixey.. 4490 115

Well, that looks close. What else do we know? Timeline – not sure if there’s a big gap between 1890s one-league and Rixey’s 1920 NL. Griffith hit much better. Griffith supposedly “pitched to the score”, and thus was more valuable than his ERA suggests. His defensive support was not great, all leading to Griffith’s nice 46 Wins Above Team (not sure what Rixey’s WAT is).

How about Big Years? By Win Shares, top seasons are
Griffith 34 32 30
Rixey.. 26 26 24

By WARP3, we have
Griffith 11.4 9.3 8.1
Rixey….. 7.8 6.5 6.5

No contest either way; Clark wins hands-down.

How about rank among their peers? Griffith was good for an eleven year run 1891-1901. In that span he was 4th in ERA and IP and in RSAA (from the Lee Sinins encyclopedia), behind Young, Nichols, and Rusie.

Rixey was consistently good from 1912-24, and his career actually extended to 1932. In the first span (12-24), he was 9th in RSAA, 5th in IP, and nowhere in ERA. In RSAA, he was sandwiched between Mays, Shawkey, and Vaughn. If we use 1912-32 , he was also 9th in RSAA, surrounded by Rommells and Quinn. He was 3rd in IP, and again nowhere in ERA (34th among those with >2000 IP).

So, we have the 4th best pitcher of his time against the 9th best of his, according to the RSAA measure.

Using BP’s translated stats (correcting for era, park, and defense), we get (taking away the last silly 8 IP from Griffith’s cameo appearances at very advanced ages)

pitcher ..IP ERA …W-L OPS as hitter
Griffith 2500 3.71 178-103 .604
Rixey.. 4513 4.12 254-215 .468
Diff….. 1653 4.74 076-112 .136

Do you want a pitcher who gave you an extra 180 games with a Wpct of Under .400?

Should we give Rixey some WWI credit? Okay, what might he have done in 1918? His W-L record in 1917 was 16-21. In 1919 it was 6-12. In 1920 he was 11-22, and apparently many thought he was washed up. Rixey also pitched until he was 42; maybe a year of didn’t hurt his career numbers. So if you want, make the difference an extra 200 games instead of 180. But if Griffith really did win a few more games than his runs allowed record would indicate, as it seems he certainly did, he looks to me to rank pretty easily above Eppa Jeptha.

My conclusion? If you are a strict NO-credit-for-peak voter with a ‘replacement level’ set low (like Win Shares or WARP), and you DON'T give any credit for Griffith exceeding his expected W-L record, and you DON'T credit Griffith’s hitting and shorter schedule but you DO credit Rixey’s 1918 year missed for WWI, and you timeline in spite of Griffith pitching in the one-league 1890s and Rixey in the weaker of the two-league 1920s, you would surely have Rixey ahead. But that does not describe most of our electorate. I simply cannot fathom why last week, Eppa appeared on more ballots, and finished ahead of Clark overall by 28 points.
   48. Howie Menckel Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:15 PM (#1033325)
I'll review just HOW bad Vance's teams were, as that is the best possible hope he has of getting onto my ballot.

Clearly the Ks issue is double-counting; he strikes people out and helps them (and thus him) win more games and prevent more runs. So we're supposed to take the added wins and saved runs as bonuses PLUS we give him more pts for doing that?
   49. Rusty Priske Posted: December 21, 2004 at 02:55 PM (#1033341)
I have shuffled my ballot somewhat, moving some former "elect-me" players back up and shifting others down.

My likely PHoM inductees this year are Red Faber and Edd Roush.

Prelim ballot:

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

16-20. Doyle, Griffith, Powell, Grimes, Streeter
21-25. Willis, Burns, Mullane, Redding, White
26-30. Poles, Gleason, Maranville, F. Jones, McCormick
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:36 PM (#1033396)
You can tell it's a toss-up election coming up because I sense much crankiness.

If your team doesn't score for you and can't play defense, you ain't gonna win many games. See Johnson comma Randy: 2004 Diamondbacks.

I can't say that enough, Tom. It's similar to thinking that if Babe Ruth played on 1962 Met-type teams for his whole career that he would still be World Series bound. His teammates would have failed him the same way as Dazzy's and Randy's did.

How about Big Years? By Win Shares, top seasons are
Griffith 34 32 30
Rixey.. 26 26 24


Me thinks an adjustment is needed here, since the Old Fox would have had quite a few less IP during the teens and twenties.

Innings Pitched:

Griffith
1895-353.0-6
1897-343.7-3
Car-3385.7-78

Rixey
1916-287.0-8
1917-281.3-8
1920-284.3-9
1921-301.0-4
1922-313.3-1
1923-309.0-3
1924-238.3-7
1925-287.3-3
1926-233.0-9
1928-291.3-3
Car-4494.7-27
   51. karlmagnus Posted: December 21, 2004 at 03:56 PM (#1033430)
John, you can't adjust the 90s IP downwards without taking account of the shorter careers that 90s pitchers had -- the huge IP numbers blew their arms out. Taking both into account, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the 90s (post '93) and the 20s, or even the 1960s. I agree the 1880s or the 1990s are another matter.
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:13 PM (#1033447)
John, you can't adjust the 90s IP downwards without taking account of the shorter careers that 90s pitchers had -- the huge IP numbers blew their arms out.

I don't necessarily disagree, karlmagnus. My point was that you can't compare the WS peak seasons of an 1890's pitcher with one from a generation or two later.

I do think pitching 300 IP during the 1890's was far less stressful on the arm than doing it during the twenties.
   53. Max Parkinson Posted: December 21, 2004 at 04:48 PM (#1033504)
Karl,

re: your point about Beckley being the best '90s 1Bman.

I think that Kelly's comments in #27 regarding Joe Sewell are just as applicable to Beckley in the '90s. At least Bancroft is getting some HoM advocacy. Noone is stumping for Dan McGann or Buck Freeman. Beckley was the best of a pretty weak lot between the ABC boys and Chance. That's what I mean when I say that those lists that I made shouldn't be the last word on player rankings - they should be accompanied by some concept of how the player ranked against all MLers of his time (and probably great non-MLers as well). That's where Anson, Foxx and Chance jump Beckley. While they weren't the premier 1Bman as often, in many years they could be the 2nd or 3rd-best 1Bman, and still be one of the top 4 or 5 postition players in the game. You're Beckley's strongest advocate, but I don't think even you would argue that he was a Top 5 position player very often, if ever.
   54. Howie Menckel Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:31 PM (#1033658)
We have 10 candidates with at least SEVEN THOUSAND career voting points - four OFs, three INFs, three Ps. As this may be their last chance for a long time for them to get inducted, in an ideal world it would be great if we took one more detailed look at all 10.
Maybe one of them has sat on your ballot too long; maybe another was discarded too soon and now belongs after all.


ACTIVE PTS LEADERS
1. G VAN HALTREN 10,980.5
2. HUGH DUFFY 10,962
3. HUGHIE JENNINGS 10,700
4. JAKE BECKLEY 10,210
5. PETE BROWNING 9966.5
6. JIMMY RYAN 9482
7. CLARK GRIFFITH 8564
8. RUBE WADDELL 8403
9. CUPID CHILDS 7687
10. MICKEY WELCH 7527
No one else on the ballot has even 5,500.
   55. andrew siegel Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:45 PM (#1033699)
A quick check on the numbers posted above showing how few times Griffith was in the top 10 in his league in IP:

Of the top 100 pitchers in career IP (Cy Young to Kevin Brown):

79 were in the top 10 in their legaues in IP at least 5 times.

85 were in the top 10 at least 4 times (at 4: John, Koosman, Root, Faber, Fraser, Fitzsimmons).

94 were in the top 10 at least 3 times (at 3: Eck, J. Perry, Simmons, Doyle Alexander, Tannana, Sam Jones, Pennock, Tiant, Orth).

99 were in the top 10 at least 2 times (at 2: GRIFFITH, Adonis Terry, Quinn, Pappas, Haines).

100 were in the top 10 at least 1 time (at 1: Red Ames).

Griffith's rankings, while not unique and in fact better than 1 other guy, are still remarkably low.

There are two ways to make this list:
(1) Pitch lots of seasons.
(2) Throw your innings at times when pitchers tossed lots of IP and throw less than the real workhorses.

To the extent effect number 1 is at work, few if any demerits are in order (unless you are a peak voter).

To the extent that effect number 2 is at work, a pitcher's IP totals are over-inflated and need to be reduced to get an accurate picture of his work load.

For Griffith, I see both effects at work but number 2 more pronouncedly. (I have done a couple of short studies on this point, but further study or comment on this point is encouraged.) Therfore, I discount his IP totals heavily, which drops him to about 25th on my list. If someone can convince me that his IP actually accurately reflect his workload, he'd be in my top 10.
   56. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:50 PM (#1033717)
For the purposes of the list you just posted, isn't Griffith probably being underrated by his one-league era? For everyone from the birth of the AL forward, "top 10" is actually more like top 20.
   57. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 21, 2004 at 06:57 PM (#1033732)
I've been over those ten guys nine ways to Sunday, and I'm basically convinced that Van Haltren and Duffy are the best candidates among that particular pool of players.

To reiterate what someone else has said about Duffy: if you adjust Duffy to a 162-game schedule, his peaks are enormous. So much so that I'd wager that any contemporary player with those peaks would be considered a shoe-in. Duffy comes out around 335 WS once you adjust for schedule, so he's not lagging in the career department either. To contextualize this within our contemporary Hall discussions, Duffy's peak is substantially better than someone like Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, or Jim Rice, and Duffy's got more career.

And then you can toss on his excellent post-season work if you'd like.

Van Haltren's fall from almost getting elected to forgotten man is hard to figure; perhaps a victim of shiny toys. After adjusting for schedule length, he's got the best career totals on the board, comparable but better than the already-enshrined Max Carey.

Being comparable to an already-enshrined player is a big point in his favor.

But in addition, he offers voters two other things: a peak that includes some MVP-level seasons of 30 WS (though not much higher, granted), and a lonnnnggggg string of 20 WS years for those who admire consistency. Carey had the consistency, but he didn't have the same height of peak.

Having noticeably better characteristics than an already-enshrined HOMer is also a point in GVH's favor.

The combo of a long, consistent, productive career, with a discernable peak is what puts him above the Carey's, Beckleys, and Ryans. As Kelly in SD/SEA would say, the combined weight of the evidence for GVH and Duffy is strong, indeed.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 07:23 PM (#1033783)
For the purposes of the list you just posted, isn't Griffith probably being underrated by his one-league era? For everyone from the birth of the AL forward, "top 10" is actually more like top 20.

100% correct, Michael. Griffith still wasn't any where near being a work horse for his time, though.
   59. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 07:38 PM (#1033825)
Oh, I don't disagree, and I'n not a Griffith supporter. Just pointing out that the problem with the list itself (and also the problem with using black/gray ink for that time period).
   60. Howie Menckel Posted: December 21, 2004 at 08:25 PM (#1033935)
Hall of Famer Freddie Lindstrom OPS+s, best to worst full seasons:
141 132 127 111 108 101 95
Pluses: A 3B in two best OPS+ seasons (at ages 22 and 24).
Minuses: Hundreds of hitters had better careers, some of whom didn't - or won't - get a single HOM vote.

Hall of Famer Travis Jackson OPS+s, best to worst full seasons:
129 125 120 110 110 109 103 101 101 87 50 (!)
Pluses: Mostly an SS.
Minuses: The 129 OPS came in only 420 ABs. And hundreds of hitters had better careers, some of whom didn't - or won't - get a single HOM vote.


Both quit by age 32. Maybe they just played until someone told them their place in history was secured.
   61. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 08:35 PM (#1033962)
On the bright side, we need the Lindstroms and Jacksons of the world in the real HOF if we're going to honor the Blylevens and Torrientes of the world snubbed by the HOF. :)
   62. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 21, 2004 at 08:40 PM (#1033976)
I tried writing a post earlier about Beckley but it got eaten. The jist of it was, even after adjusting for schedule, Beckley's prime fairs worse in my system than Terry, Sisler, Konetchy, Chance, Fournier, and Taylor with Daubert right behind him. His peak still scores a 0 in my system as a few of his best years WS-wise seem to have come in seasons with full schedules. I am a guy who thinks you should have to be GREAT for a period of time to make the HOM, and Beckley doesn't fit the bill.

Duffy will probably move high up on my ballot. His peak is second only to Jennings of the eligibles (I have yet to devise a satisfacotry system for measuring a pitcher's peak) and he has more career. Of course WS, my base, seems to favor CFers A LOT. Jennings looks better in WARP. I tend to make a mental adjustment for this, especially for 1890's infielders who got pounded so much.

In the end, Duffy will be anywhere from 6-10 on my ballot and Jennings from 1-3. It's close though.

For Vance, he has a ton of K's, not many walks, take that for whatever it is worth. However, he has a high ERA+, a good W/L that is only made better by the lack of support from his teammates, and a nice low DERA in just under 3000 translated IP. I feel he is better than Faber and Coveleski, two guys I supported.

Again, its Sewell induction that scares me.
   63. TomH Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:11 PM (#1034076)
good work on the IP leader stuff, Andrew, but I do think it short-changes guys from certain eras. Like someone siad, maybe using MLB leaders instead of league leaders would be more fair. And again, Griffith I believe still compares much better to those in his era than guys like Rixey oe Welch or Waddell in theirs. The problem seems to be that Rixey has the great IP, Waddell the great ERA+, but Griffith was good at both. Just like all-around skilled players get lost among batting champs and RBI guys and defensive wizards.
   64. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:30 PM (#1034154)
If we take Rixey's standing in the top-ten of major league pitchers, he doesn't stand out as much against Griffith, but he still was the more durable pitcher.

Griffith
1895-353.0-6
1897-343.7-3


Rixey
1921-301.0-9
1922-313.3-3
1923-309.0-6
1925-287.3-3
1928-291.3-4
   65. karlmagnus Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:36 PM (#1034181)
From a quick inspection, Beckley played on a "full" (154 games or close) schedule only in 1892 and after 1904; the rest of his career was always at least 10% short of a full schedule, and his WS need to be adjusted for this. 2nd most hits of any player at the time of his retirement is GREAT by any standards.
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:57 PM (#1034253)
2nd most hits of any player at the time of his retirement is GREAT by any standards.

Is that after adjusting all hitters that retired before Eagle Eye due to the shorter schedule?

:-D

Not a knock on Jake. I just couldn't resist.
   67. PhillyBooster Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:57 PM (#1034254)

I think that Kelly's comments in #27 regarding Joe Sewell are just as applicable to Beckley in the '90s. At least Bancroft is getting some HoM advocacy. Noone is stumping for Dan McGann or Buck Freeman. Beckley was the best of a pretty weak lot between the ABC boys and Chance.


Let me attempt to distinguish Beckley and Sewell, both of whom are being considered as "the best of a weak group."

Since Brouthers and Connor were 10 years older than Beckley, and Chance was 10 years younger, let us consider the "Beckley lull" as all first basemen younger than Brouthers/Connor and older than Chance -- i.e., all players less than 10 years older or younger than Beckley.

Here are the top 5 first basemen in that period, by WARP (WARP/162):

Beckley -- 114.5 (7.8)
Tenney -- 92.9 (7.5)
Davis -- 75.5 (7.0)
Stahl -- 70.3 (8.7)
McGann -- 67.0 (7.6)

Beckley is clearly the best of this lot, and has almost 25% more career value than the #2. And of that group, only Stahl has higher WARP/162.

Now, let us transpose our "Beckley lull" forward 31 years, so it centers on all shortstops less than 10 years older or younger than Joe Sewell:

Maranville, Rabbit - 134.7 (8.2)
Appling, Luke - 123.7 (8.3)
Cronin, Joe - 117.4 (9.0)
Bancroft, Dave - 111.1 (9.4)
Sewell, Joe - 102.6 (8.7)

Sewell is not the best of this group. It's not even obvious that he's better than Bancroft and Maranville, although if he is, it is not by nearly as much as Beckley is better than Tenney et. al.

Even if, in some period, you can call Sewell the best -- he simply is not the best by much. He's got a bunch of "almost as good" all around him.

On the other hand, if Beckley is only "very good", where is the next step down on the bell curve? Players who are only "very good" do not have gaps of ten years on either side before you get to a player who is not at least 25% worse than him.

Sewell -- if he was the best -- was the first among near equals. Beckley towered over his competition. It is not enough to show that the competition was weak to discredit a "best at position" argument -- you also have to show that the "best of position" guy didn't tower over the weak competition, as Beckley did (and Sewell didn't).
   68. jimd Posted: December 21, 2004 at 09:58 PM (#1034255)
Beckley's teams also played 154 game schedules in 1898 and 1899.
   69. Max Parkinson Posted: December 21, 2004 at 10:15 PM (#1034310)
Phillybooster (do people still address you as Matt in real life?),

Your post is an excellent rebuttal to my comment about Beckley. To be fair, it strikes me that we are comparing apples to oranges, but I can't put my finger on why I think that. Gotta work for a while, but if and when I come up with what's bothering me about your analysis, I'll post a reply. For now, I'll simply say, point taken.

Cheers.
   70. karlmagnus Posted: December 21, 2004 at 10:19 PM (#1034320)
Not quite, 152 in '98, 150 in '99. Beckley's best year for OPS+ was in the 1890 Players league, which played 128 games.

I have to say I think Phillybooster's plus or minus 10 years argument VERY convincing; he should change his name to Beckleybooster!
   71. PhillyBooster Posted: December 21, 2004 at 10:55 PM (#1034434)
Phillybooster (do people still address you as Matt in real life?),

Actually, they have taken to calling me "34.90.305.175" in real life. On the internet, things can be a little more personal. :-)

Matt works fine, too. The addition of another HoM voter who has nearly my exact name -- similar first and exact last, although we are not related -- leads me to shrink away from my real name here to avoid confusion.

On the other hand, if the leadership bars the use of the PhillyBooster in the Senate, I may have to change my handle to "Quorum Call" or "Point of Information."
   72. Michael Bass Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:34 PM (#1034565)
I'm sorry, but it strikes me as slightly comical that the case for Jake Beckley is that he was a lot better than Tenney, Davis, Stahl, and McGann. If that's the standard for HOM induction, the HOM needs to be at least double the size it is now.

Everyone keeps arguing that there must be some reason that the best 1B from that era looks so average in retrospect. That the position must've had extra importance, even if the voter has no actual reason why it would have been more important. And thus Beckley gets a bonus for this unknown factor. But if he gets this bonus, why aren't the parade of mediocrities he's being compared to getting this bonus? I mean, if Beckley is in the top 5 on your ballot due to some phantom position bonus, you have to be arguing that at least one or two of these other guys are in your top 50.

For the record, this argument is not against the people, like karl, who like Beckley purely on his merits (his career numbers). It is against those who basically acknowledge that he was average, but give him some sort of bonus because all the other 1Bs of his time were even worse, so they are inventing reasons he must have been better than his stats say.
   73. jonesy Posted: December 21, 2004 at 11:38 PM (#1034578)
"Beckley is clearly the best of this lot, and has almost 25% more career value than the #2. And of that group, only Stahl has higher WARP/162."


A very interesting ballplayer that Jake Stahl was; one whom I believe is vastly underrated.

Stahl had a law degree from the U of Illinois and had married the daughter of a wealthy Chicago banker. He sat out the entire 1907 season in a salary dispute with Commie, then all of 1911 when involved in the banking business. In between he led the AL in homers one season.

Ban Johnson brokered a deal wherein Stahl and his father-in-law were the main financial backers of the 1912 Red Sox. Stahl comes back as player-manager to win the World title. Looks like Jake himself cleared about $40K between his salary, WS share and stock holdings that year.

The next year, in an apparent power struggle, Jimmy McAleer axed Stahl, only to be canned in turn by a pissed off Ban Johnson.

It would have been interesting to see how/if things panned out any differently (Babe Ruth) had Stahl remained in control of the Boston Club.

Of course, he was into high finance and likely baseball would have just become a distraction.
   74. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 22, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#1034646)
Beckley's teams may have only played 152 games in those years but the league was playing a 154 game schedule. Either way, that is so little of a boost (from 150 or 152 to 154) that it doesn't really affect Beckley's Win Shares numbers in those seasons. Should Jason Giambi get extra credit for his team only playing 161 games in 2002?
   75. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 12:19 AM (#1034676)
Should Jason Giambi get extra credit for his team only playing 161 games in 2002?

I think Giambi has enough problems to argue the point effectively right now. :-)
   76. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 12:26 AM (#1034697)
Beckley's teams also played 154 game schedules in 1898 and 1899.

Not quite, 152 in '98, 150 in '99.

1898: Cincinnati went 92-60 with 5 ties; total 157.
1899: Cincinnati went 83-67 with 6 ties; total 156.
   77. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 12:38 AM (#1034721)
For the record, this argument is not against the people, like karl, who like Beckley purely on his merits (his career numbers). It is against those who basically acknowledge that he was average, but give him some sort of bonus because all the other 1Bs of his time were even worse, so they are inventing reasons he must have been better than his stats say.

First of all, I consider that last line very offensive. You can argue that my reasoning is off, but I'm not in the habit of inventing anything for long deceased players that I'm in no way related to.

Secondly, Beckley was in no way average.

Thirdly, my reasoning: I feel each is position is worth exactly the same. Therefore, if a player is 40% better than average at his position, that leads me to believe it's worth the same as an another player at another position who is 40% better than average, regardless of the numbers.

All other things equal, if my first baseman (.900 OPS) is 60% better than yours, my team is going to beat you more often, regardless if you have a rightfielder with a 1.500 OPS (because my rightfielder's 1.500 OPS cancels yours out). That's why I really don't care what the reasoning is about first base during the Inside Baseball Era: there was still a hidden value that Beckley was creating at his position separate from his stats (enough to place him at #8 on my ballot for this election).
   78. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 12:42 AM (#1034728)
Beckley was not a dominant player. Neither WARP nor Win Shares credits him with a season that is close to being an MVP type season. Neither system credits him with a season that was amongst the top two dozen players that year, except for Win Shares in 1900 where he's in a 5-way tie for 17th; OTOH, he doesn't make WARP-1's top-24 that year.

He has the most Win Shares at first-base twice in his 19 years, in 1893 and 1900. He has the most WARP-1 at first-base three times in his 19 seasons, in 1894, 1900, and 1901. He's the consensus choice at 1B in 1900, and has a good argument in 1893, 1894, and 1901. Other players had better years in Beckley's other seasons; none had notable careers, other than the ABC guys back when Beckley was getting started. He's not dominant, just almost always above average.

Beckley was extremely durable. Let's grant him that. It's why he appears to be the dominant 1b-man of his era; nobody else who played the position was close to being that durable, and so nobody else racked up any comparable long-term career stats. IMO, this is not enough to make him a great player..
   79. sunnyday2 Posted: December 22, 2004 at 12:43 AM (#1034729)
Going back to posts #26 and #28. Kelly, I didn't mean to suggest that I relied on any one number, though I will say that as a practical matter there is a number that I more or less start with and then fine tune. It used to be peakWS (3 yr + 5 yr). Now, for pitchers, it's ERA+. It's the one number, taken alone, that produces a credible list from 1 through whatever. And then you go from there to fine-tune and adjust and etc.

As for Greatness: To me, again, greatness is something a player carries on to the field with him. It is something that he IS, not that he becomes. You can't become great no matter how long you play. You carried it on to the field at some time.

And I think greatness means that a player is generally the best player on the field each time he steps out on to the field. Not forever, but for that period of greatness. He is generally the best player on the field that day, and more often than anybody else, he has more impact on the outcome than anybody else.

Take the NHL thing with the 3 stars. How many times was a player one of the three stars? What if you gave 3 WS per game that way instead of parceling them out based on pythag, what if you could only give them out in integers per game, 1 or 0, no fractions. A great player would get more of those than anybody else (at his position).

For pitchers I think ERA+ rather than WS, even peak WS, answers that question, or correlates to that kind of ability, to be one of the 3 best players on the field more often than most anybody else.

Of course, if you gave out 3 WS per game in that way, then even some all-star players would earn relatively few of them, your journeyman very very few, Charlie Hough damn few. In effect you're working with "Value Above Solid Starter," a very very high baseline. And when you're evaluating the top 225 players in baseball history, who really needs "replacement level"? What really separates the men from the boys is value above and beyond a fairly high value. Only in this way can you explain Kirby Puckett who nobody thought (at the time) was not a HoFer.

Like I say, I think ERA+ captures that kind of greatness in a pitcher more than anything else. Now, just to eliminate the Noodles Hahns and Orvie Overalls of the world, sure, multiply by IP.

For position players, however, OPS+ is nowhere near as useful because you have to adjust it for position, and I happen to think defense is a big deal too. So I'm still thinking about a more "simplified" method for position players. Maybe it's [(OPS+) + (some defensive number)] X PA/1000. The defensive number would have a much higher average among SSs than 1Bs, etc. etc.
   80. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:06 AM (#1034753)
sunnyday2,
I understand not being satisfied with any single measure for pitchers. I use ERA+ to a degree as well.
Also, I agree with the greatness and having the most impact on the field on a given day. I think that is the key. The player performed. He didn't just have skills or talent, but he performed on the field.
For example, I have trouble supporting Waddell who is always on the cusp of my ballot because I see him as a player with great skills or talent, but not the performance to go along with it.
This gets to my personal difficulty with many Negro League players is the lack of demonstration of their greatness on the field due to the lack of nubmers. I am very grateful to the work by so many on the various NeL player threads b/c I finally have been able to mesh the NeL'ers in with the rest. But because of the lack of numbers for so many of these players we are forced to rely on accounts of their talent. This is a problem for me.
Using Beckwith as an example b/c he is the one I am having the most trouble with right now so he is on my mind. We have several reports from a variety of sources about his power, 40-50 home runs a year talent. But the available stats say he was a 20-25 home run a year player (if I remember right, about 80 homers in about 2200 at bats.) How do you balance that? A third baseman with 40+ performance is Mike Schmidt without the glove. (NO, Schmidt is not the standard, before someone else says it) 20+ performance is, well, not.

So, two points. Greatness as demonstrated by consistent performance is what I look for. And, when the evidence of the performance is missing to a degree, how do others balance the talent with the available performance?
   81. Michael Bass Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:10 AM (#1034764)
All other things equal, if my first baseman (.900 OPS) is 60% better than yours, my team is going to beat you more often, regardless if you have a rightfielder with a 1.500 OPS (because my rightfielder's 1.500 OPS cancels yours out). That's why I really don't care what the reasoning is about first base during the Inside Baseball Era: there was still a hidden value that Beckley was creating at his position separate from his stats (enough to place him at #8 on my ballot for this election).

I do apologize for the inventing line, that came out more harshly than I was intending.

But going back to what someone (I think Marc) said, is this the Hall of Value or the Hall of Performance? Put another way, should Beckley get credit for the accident of being born in the perfect time period such that there were no other even average first basemen in baseball? That of course is not a question with a certain answer. For me personally, the goal is to induct the 200+ best players in the history of baseball. I don't want to induct Beckley over a better player who had the misfortune of having played at the same time as other good players at the same position.

Put another way, in your example above, does that mean the 900 OPS 1B gets more HOM credit than the two 1500 OPS RFs? Let's extend out the example: every RF in the league has a 1500 OPS. Every 1B in the league has a 750 OPS except for one, who has a 850 OPS. Is the 850 OPS 1B now the first guy we should induct into the HOM from that era?
   82. DavidFoss Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:12 AM (#1034766)
First, RCAA and RCAP - Curious as to how Honus is 1011 above average and only 1060 above position? Are they saying an average SS is only 49 runs below average, over like 20 years (realizing he didn't play SS the whole time)? That sounds insane to me. I also assume those lists aren't adjusted for season length?

Not adjusted for season length. Not adjusted for era, either.

The "Honus Wagner Effect" is similar to the "Babe Ruth Effect"... in an 8-team league a single mega-star can effectively raise the average level of play for an entire position by quite a bit.

1905 NL SS:
RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Honus Wagner                 88   
T2   Bill Dahlen                  10   
T2   Ed Abbaticchio               10   
4    Dave Murphy                  -2   
5    Dave Brain                   -4   
6    Mickey Doolan                -9   
7    Otto Krueger                -10   
8    Charlie Babb                -13   
9    George McBride              -16   
10   Phil Lewis                  -19   
11   Joe Tinker                  -20   
12   Tommy Corcoran              -26   

... that adds up to just about zero, so the RCAP list is nearly identical. Wagner is able to neutralize several mediocre bats by himself.
   83. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:15 AM (#1034768)
Prelim 1942 Ballot:

1. Welch (surprise, surprise, surprise)
2. Charley Jones
3. Pete Browning
4. Dick Redding (I finally mixed NeL players in with the rest of the players)
5. Hugh Duffy
6. George Van Haltren
7. Cupid Childs
8. Tommy Leach
9. Spots Poles
10. Willis
11. George Burns
12. Hughie Jennings
13. Edd Roush
14. Mendez
15. Fielder Jones
next in line (Griffith, Terry, Waddell, Moore, Sisler, W Cooper, Chance, Veach, Doyle, Beckwith, Wilson, Mays, Long, Grimes, Vance, Fournier, and Konetchy round out my top 32)

I know this will change over the next three weeks.
   84. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:44 AM (#1034827)
Time to post the second baseman win shares all-star list part 1 of 2. I second another's post that we list the individual player thread under the positional thread for which they are associated. Easier to compare what was written about different players.

part 1.
year National League 
1876:  Ross Barnes 20*
1877:  George Wright 8
1878:  J. Burdock 11
1879:  J. Farrell 10
1880:  Fred Dunlap 17
1881:  Fred Dunlap 15      American Assoc
1882:  Fred Dunlap 14       Pete Browning 20
1883:  J. Burdock 19        P Smith 15
1884:  Pfeffer 19           Barkley 21
1885:  Hardy Richardson 19  Barkley 21
1886:  Pfeffer 16           Bid McPhee 22
1887:  Hardy Richardson 23  Robinson 20
1888:  Pfeffer 20           Robinson 21
1889:  Hardy Richardson 25  Hub Collins 24       Players League
1890:  Hub Collins 28       Cupid Childs 31*    L. Bierbauer 20
1891:  Childs/Pfeffer 21    Crooks 23
1892:  Childs 32
1893:  Childs 23
1894:  Childs/Bobby Lowe/T Daly 20
1895:  Childs 18
1896:  Childs 27
1897:  N Callahan 19
1898:  Nap Lajoie 26
1899:  T. Daly 28
1900:  Nap Lajoie 22       American League
1901:  T. Daly 25          Nap Lajoie 42*
1902:  C. Ritchey 17       Nap Lajoie 22
1903:  C. Ritchey 21       Nap Lajoie 31*
1904:  C. Ritchey 22       Nap Lajoie 41*
1905:  Miller Huggins 27   D. Murphy 23
1906:  C. Ritchey 23       Nap Lajoie 33
1907:  Johnny Evers 22     Nap Lajoie 32
1908:  Johnny Evers 28     Nap Lajoie 32  
1909:  Evers / Doyle 27    Eddie Collins 43
1910:  Larry Doyle 25      Nap Lajoie 47*
1911:  Larry Doyle 28      Eddie Collins 35
1912:  Larry Doyle 29      Eddie Collins 36
1913:  J. Viox 23          Eddie Collins 39*   Federal League
1914:  Johnny Evers 25     Eddie Collins 43    D. Kenworthy 30
1915:  Larry Doyle 33      Eddie Collins 40    B. Louden 23
1916:  Doyle / Niehoff 18  Eddie Collins 31  
1917:  Larry Doyle 18      Eddie Collins 32
1918:  L. Magee 18         Del Pratt 17
1919:  M. Rath 21          Eddie Collins 27
1920:  Rogers Hornsby 38*  Eddie Collins 38
1921:  Rogers Hornsby 41*  Eddie Collins 21
1922:  Rogers Hornsby 47*  Eddie Collins 23
1923:  Frankie Frisch 31*  Eddie Collins 24
1924:  Rogers Horsnby 38*  Eddie Collins 25
1925:  Rogers Hornsby 36*  Eddie Collins 22
1926:  Rogers Hornsby 21   Tony Lazzeri 19
1927:  Rogers Hornsby 40*  Tony Lazzeri 24
1928:  Rogers Hornsby 33   Max Bishop 24
1929:  Rogers Hornsby 42*  Tony Lazzeri 30
1930:  Frankie Frisch 25   Charlie Gehringer 29
1931:  Tony Cucinello 23   Max Bishop 25
1932:   Billy Herman 23    Tony Lazzeri 27  
1933:  Frankie Frisch 22   Charlie Gehringer 28
1934:  Frankie Frisch 19   Charlie Gehringer 37
1935:  Billy Herman 32     Buddy Myer 33
1936:  Billy Herman 29     Charlie Gehringer 34
1937:  Billy Herman 29     Charlie Gehringer 30
1938:  Billy Herman 20     Charlie Gehringer 27
1939:  Herman / Frey 25    Joe Gordon 25
1940:  Lou Frey 24         Joe Gordon 26
1941:  Lou Frey 24         Joe Gordon 24
1942:  Lou Frey 23         Joe Gordon 31
1943:  Billy Herman 27     Joe Gordon 28
1944:  W. Williams 15      Stuffy Stirnweiss 35*
1945:  Eddie Stanky 27     Stuffy Srirnweiss 34*
1946:  Eddie Stanky 28     Bobby Doerr 27
1947:  Eddie Stanky 20     Joe Gordon 25  
1948:  Jackie Robinson 25  Bobby Doerr 27 (Gordon 24)
1949:  Jackie Robinson 36  Bobby Doerr 25
1950:  Eddie Stanky 30     Jerry Priddy 24
        (Robinson 29)
1951:  Jackie Robinson 38  Bobby Avila 24
1952:  Jackie Robinson 34  Bobby Avila 24
1953:  Red Schoendienst 27  Bobby Avila 22
1954:  Red Schoendienst 21  Bobby Avila 34
1955:  Schoendienst/ Baker 16  Nellie Fox 25
1956:  Junior Gilliam 28    Nellie Fox 19
1957:  Don Blasingame24     Nellie Fox 32
   85. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:51 AM (#1034847)
Part 2. Again, a star means the player had the best win shares total of any position player.
1958:  Johnny Temple 21      Pete Runnels 26
1959:  Charlie Neal 25       Nellie Fox 30* (tied Mantle)
1960:  Bill Mazeroski 21     Nellie Fox 21
1961:  Frank Bolling 17      C. Schilling 19  
1962:  Mazeroski/Gilliam 23  B. Moran 24
1963:  Junior Gilliam 28     W. Held 19
1964:  Bill Mazeroski 17     Buford/Richardson 15
1965:  Joe Morgan 30         Don Buford 30
1966:  Lefebvre / Rose 25    Bobby Knoop 18
1967:  Joe Morgan 26         Dick McAuliffe 27
1968:  Glenn Beckert 23      Dick McAuliffe 28
1969:  Joe Morgan 24         Mike Andrews 24
1970:  Joe Morgan 24         Davey Johnson 23
1971:  Joe Morgan 29         Davey Johnson 23
1972:  Joe Morgan 39*        Rod Carew 22
1973:  Joe Morgan 40*        Carew /Bobby Grich 28
1974:  Joe Morgan 37         Carew / Grich 32
1975:  Joe Morgan 44*        Carew 30 (Grich 29)
1976:  Joe Morgan 37*        Bobby Grich 31
1977:  Joe Morgan 30         Don Money/Bump Wills 22
1978:  Davey Lopes 26        Willie Randolph 23
1979:  Davey Lopes 27        Bobby Grich 28  
1980:  Joe Morgan 21         Bobby Grich 20  
1981:  Ron Oester 15         Bobby Grich 21
1982:  Joe Morgan 29         Lou Whitaker 22
                              (Grich 21)
1983:  Bill Doran 22         Lou Whitaker 29  
1984:  Ryne Sandberg 38*     Lou Whitaker 22
1985:  Tommie Herr 30        Lou Whitaker 24
1986:  Ryne Sandberg 20      Tony Bernazard 25
1987:  Bill Doran 24         Willie Randolph 22
1988:  Steve Sax 24          Julio Franco 22
1989:  Ryne Sandberg 28      Julio Franco 30
1990:  Ryne Sandberg 34      Julio Franco 27
1991:  Ryne Sandberg 37*     Julio Franco 28
       (tied with Bonds)
1992:  Ryne Sandberg 33      Roberto Alomar 34*
        (Biggio 32)
1993:  Craig Biggio /        Roberto Alomar 30 
        Robbie Thompson 26
1994:  Craig Biggio 26       Chuck Knoblauch 20
1995:  Craig Biggio 29       Chuck Knoblauch 27
1996:  Craig Biggio 32       Chuck Knoblauch 32
1997:  Craig Biggio 38       Chuck Knoblauch 23  
1998:  Craig Biggio 35       Jose Offerman 29  
1999:  Craig Biggio 31       Roberto Alomar 35* tied with Jeter
2000:  Jeff Kent 37          Delino DeShields 21  
2001:  Jeff Kent 27          Roberto Alomar 37 
        (Biggio 25) 
2002:  Kent / Jose Vidro 29  Alfonso Soriano 30
2003:  Marcus Giles 28       Bret Boone 30
2004:  Mark Loretta 33       Mark Bellhorn 21

In 2001, Alomar was 1 behind Giambi for best in AL
   86. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:53 AM (#1034852)
I do apologize for the inventing line, that came out more harshly than I was intending.

No problem, Michael. I wasn't really upset anyway. I felt it was more frustration with the ballot situation this election talking than you.

But going back to what someone (I think Marc) said, is this the Hall of Value or the Hall of Performance? Put another way, should Beckley get credit for the accident of being born in the perfect time period such that there were no other even average first basemen in baseball? That of course is not a question with a certain answer. For me personally, the goal is to induct the 200+ best players in the history of baseball. I don't want to induct Beckley over a better player who had the misfortune of having played at the same time as other good players at the same position.

But real wins were created by Beckley that are not shown in his stats. Can we ignore that?

BTW, I still think something was going on within that thirty year period, though I'm not sure what was happening.

Put another way, in your example above, does that mean the 900 OPS 1B gets more HOM credit than the two 1500 OPS RFs? Let's extend out the example: every RF in the league has a 1500 OPS. Every 1B in the league has a 750 OPS except for one, who has a 850 OPS. Is the 850 OPS 1B now the first guy we should induct into the HOM from that era?

In that universe, I would say yes. The first baseman is helping his team the most. Of course, this is a fantasy world that makes an interesting hypothetical, but that's all it is. That's why Babe Ruth was an easy choice for my ballot in '41, while Beckley is in the middle of my ballot. :-)
   87. jonesy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 01:57 AM (#1034858)
I think ERA+ is just like ERA and W-L records. It all depends who you pitch for and who you pitch against.

Lefty Grove from 1929-1931 pitched:

140.2 innings against Boston.

140.1 innings against Cleveland.

138.2 innings against Detroit.

125.2 innings against Washington.

124.1 innings against Chicago.

104.1 innings against St. Louis.

and

72 innings versus the New York Yankees.

(all dependent of course if I added correctly)
   88. jonesy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 02:11 AM (#1034890)
And over that same period,

Wes Ferrell pitched:

139.0 innngs against Philadelphia.

121.1 innings against Detroit.

117.1 innings against St. Louis.

113 innings against Washington.

112.1 innings against New York.

111 innings against Chicago.

100.2 innings against Boston.


So the guy on the strongest team (Grove) pitches his heaviest workload against the worst team in the league and his lightest load against the strongest team.

And the other guy (Ferrell - on a middle of the pack team) pitches his heaviest load against the best team in baseball, and his lightest load against the worst.
   89. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 02:25 AM (#1034913)
Third base win shares all-star list
       National League
1876:  J Battin 15  
1877:  Cap Anson 11
1878:  Cal McVey 11
1879:  King Kelly 20
1880:  George Bradley 24
1881:  Jim O’Rourke 14      American Association
1882:  Ed Williamson 16     Carpenter 18
1883:  Ezra Sutton 21       George Bradley 22
1884:  Ezra Sutton 28       Easterbrook 26
1885:  Ezra Sutton 22       Carpenter 13
1886:  Easterbrook 16       Arlie Latham 23
1887:  Bill Nash/ Denny 19  Denny Lyons 27
1888:  Bill Nash 23         George Pinckney 23
1889:  Bill Nash 20         Shindle 27       Players League
1890:  George Pinckney 29   Denny Lyons 27    Bill Nash 20
1891:  Arlie Latham 25      Denny Lyons 23
1892:  Bill Nash 22
1893:  Bill Nash 25
1894:  George Davis 25
1895:  George Davis 21
1896:  George Davis 21
1897:  Jimmy Collins 26  
1898:  Jimmy Collins 34
1899:  John McGraw 34
1900:  John McGraw 21       American League
1901:  S Strang 20          Jimmy Collins 28
1902:  Tommy Leach 27       B Bradley 26
1903: Leach /Steinfeldt 21  B Bradley 29
1904:  Leach/Art Devlin 25  B Bradley/Jimmy Collins 28
1905:  Art Devlin 23        Jimmy Collins 23
1906:  Art Devlin 36        Lave Cross 16
1907:  Devlin/D Brain 22    George Moriarty/Frank LaPorte 16
1908:  Hans Lobert 32       Hobe Ferris 20
1909:  Harry Steinfeldt 25  Frank Baker 27
1910:  B Byrne 27           Frank Baker 25
1911:  B Byrne 20           Frank Baker 35
1912:  Heinie Zimmerman 34  Frank Baker 39
1913:  Heinie Zimmerman 25  Frank Baker 38       Federal League
1914:  Heinie Zimmerman 22  Frank Baker 35     E Lennox 24
1915:  Heinie Groh 25       Ossie Vitt 23      G Perring 22
1916:  Rogers Hornsby 28    Larry Gardner 27
1917:  Heinie Groh 37       Frank Baker/Buck Weaver 21
1918:  Heinie Groh 28       Frank Baker 23
B/C of WWI, Groh’s team played 128 games, Baker’s team 123
1919:  Heinie Groh 30       Frank Baker/Larry Gardner 20
B/C of WWI, teams played a 140 game schedule
1920:  Heinie Groh 28       Larry Gardner 23 
1921:  Frankie Frisch 31    Larry Garner 23
1922:  A High 20            Jimmy Dykes 17
1923:  Pie Traynor 28       Willie Kamm 20
1924:  Heinie Groh 19       J Dugan 17  
1925:  Pie Traynor 26       Willie Kamm 19 
1926:  L Bell 25            Willie Kamm 22
1927:  Pie Traynor 26       Ossie Bluege/Sam Hale 18
1928:  Fred Lindstrom 32    Willie Kamm 24
1929:  Traynor/ Whitney 21  Joe Sewell 21
1930:  English/Lindstrom 28 Marty McManus 21
1931:  Traynor/S Adams 20   Bluege/Red Kress 17
1932:  Pie Traynor 21       Willie Kamm 21
1933:  Pepper Martin 33     M Higgins 23
1934:  Whitney/Martin 15    Bill Werber 26
1935:  Stan Hack 22         Red Rolfe 22
1936:  Stan Hack 19         Red Rolfe 24
1937:  Stan Hack 23         Harlond Clift 23
1938:  Stan Hack 33         Harlond Clift 25
1939:  Bill Werber 25       Red Rolfe 30
1940:  Bill Werber 27       Harlond Clift 23
1941:  Stan Hack 30         Ken Keltner 23
1942:  Stan Hack 26         Harlond Clift 24
1943:  Bob Elliott 25       B Johnson 22
1944:  Bob Elliott 27       Keltner/ M Higgins 22
1945:  Stan Hack 34*        O Grimes 21
1946:  Whitey Kurowski 26   George Kell 18
1947:  Bob Elliott 29       George Kell 24
1948:  Bob Elliott 27       Keltner/H Majeski 25
1949:  Bob Elliott 23       George Kell 24
1950:  Bob Elliott 27       Al Rosen 29
1951:  P Jones 22           Ed Yost 27
   90. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 02:29 AM (#1034924)
Thanks to Brent for pointing out Buzz Arlett's eligibility (and thanks to Dan G for reminding me about Brent's post!)
   91. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 02:36 AM (#1034941)
Third Base, part 2. Eddie and Brooks to Schmidt and Brett to Boggs/steriods and Mr. Slappy.
1952:  Bobby Thomsen 25      Al Rosen 31
1953:  Eddie Mathews 39*     Al Rosen 42*
1954:  Eddie Mathews 33      Al Rosen 27
1955:  Eddie Mathews 34      Ray Boone 19
1956:  Eddie Mathews 29      Ray Boone 22
1957:  Eddie Mathews 33      Frank Malzone 18
1958:  Mathews/Ken Boyer 24  Frank Malzone 18
1959:  Eddie Mathews 37      Ed Yost 27
1960:  Eddie Mathews 38*     Brooks Robinson 21
        (tied w/ Mays)
1961:  Eddie Mathews 33      A Smith 20
1962:  Eddie Mathews 26      Brooks Robinson 27
1963:  Eddie Mathews 31      Pete Ward 25
1964:  Dick Allen 41*        Brooks Robinson 33
       (Santo 36)
1965:  Dick Allen 33         Brooks Robinson 26
       (Santo 32) 
1966:  Dick Allen 35         Harmon Killebrew 33
       (Santo 30)            (Robinson 2nd 24)
1967:  Ron Santo 38*         Brooks Robinson 24
       (Allen 29) 
1968:  Ron Santo 28          Brooks Robinson 25
1969:  Tony Perez 31         Sal Bando 36
       (Santo 26)
1970:  Tony Perez 33         Tommy Harper 33
1971:  Joe Torre 41*         Sal Bando 29
                             (Petrocelli and Nettles 27)
1972:  Richie Hebner 22      Sal Bando 23
       (Santo 21)            (Petrocelli, McMullen, Nettles 21)
1973:  Darrell Evans 31      Sal Bando 31
1974:  Mike Schmidt 39*      Don Money 26 
                             (Robinson 23, Nettles 22, Bando 21)
1975:  Pete Rose 31          George Brett 25
       (Evans & Schmidt 28)  
1976:  Mike Schmidt 35       George Brett 33* 
                              (Nettles 28)  
1977:  Mike Schmidt 33*      George Brett 29
       (tied w/ Parker)      (Harrah, Nettles 25)
1978:  Pete Rose 27          Doug DeCinces 27
       (Evans 26)            (Nettles 26)
1979:  Mike Schmidt 33*      George Brett 33
       (tied w/ Winfield)  
1980:  Mike Schmidt 37*      George Brett 36*
1981:  Mike Schmidt 30*      Buddy Bell, Toby 
                             Harrah, Carney Lansford 18
1982:  Mike Schmidt 37*      Paul Molitor 30 
                             (DeCinces, Harrah 28, Brett 27)
1983:  Mike Schmidt 35*      Wade Boggs 34
1984:  Mike Schmidt 26       Wade Boggs 28 (Bell 
                              26, Lansford 25)
1985:  Mike Schmidt 26       George Brett 37*
1986:  Mike Schmidt 31       Wade Boggs 37*
1987:  Tim Wallach 28        Wade Boggs 32
1988:  Bobby Bonilla 31      Wade Boggs 31
1989:  Howard Johnson 38     Wade Boggs 29
1990:  Matt Williams 28      Kelly Gruber 25
1991:  Terry Pendleton 27    Boggs/Robin Ventura 25
1992:  Terry Pendleton 35    Robin Ventura 30
1993:  Matt Williams 28      Robin Ventura 21
1994:  Bobby Bonilla 19      Wade Boggs 18
        team games 113        team games 113
1995:  Ken Caminiti 24       Jim Thome 24
        team games 144        team games 144
1996:  Ken Caminiti 38       Jim Thome 28
1997:  Scott Rolen 29        Jeff Cirillo 24
1998:  Scott Rolen 30        Scott Brosius 27  
1999:  Chipper Jones 32      Tony Fernandez 20
2000:  Chipper Jones 27      Troy Glaus 25
2001:  Rolen / Jones 29      Eric Chavez 26
2002:  Scott Rolen 28        Eric Chavez 25
2003:  Scott Rolen 25        Eric Chavez 25
2004:  Scott Rolen 38        “Slappy” Rodriguez 30
   92. Kelly in SD Posted: December 22, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#1034955)
I didn't want jonesy's point to get lost with my giant 3rd base post.
He makes a good point about how ERA+/ W&L are heavily impacted by which teams one is pitched against. He illustrates the point with examples from Grove and Ferrell from 1929-1931.

Should have the catcher all-star list up tomorrow. Not doing an OF list because I have not gotten around to breaking things down L/C/R. If the people (TomH ??) who offered me their own breakdowns previously are still willing to offer them, I would be happy to take them.
   93. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 02:50 AM (#1034979)
But real wins were created by Beckley that are not shown in his stats.

But where is the evidence for this? I can understand this argument if first-base men are significantly undervalued in this era. But there is no evidence of that happening. First basemen hit only slightly less than their all-time cumulative average. It looks worse than it really is because the "drought" is bracketed by the two golden ages for 1b-men (1880's, 1930's).

To create these hypothetical extra wins, the average 1b-man has to be worse during this period than he is over all time. I don't see this being the case. What I see during this period is a lack of outliers, stars, and a lot of injuries, but not a lack of total performance at the position. It would appear that most teams have adequate solutions and backups but none that really stand out. Except Beckley over a career, though not in individual seasons.
   94. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 03:07 AM (#1035013)
First basemen hit only slightly less than their all-time cumulative average.

What's the percentage difference, Jim? I thought it was significant enough when I saw it a few weeks ago.

BTW, I don't think Beckley had a great peak, regardless of how you slice it. As I always point out on my ballot, he's there because of his career value. His peak was good, but nothing really special.

To create these hypothetical extra wins, the average 1b-man has to be worse during this period than he is over all time. I don't see this being the case. What I see during this period is a lack of outliers, stars, and a lot of injuries, but not a lack of total performance at the position.

I think the injury factor is important. Beckley was extremely durable for his time when the infield was a dangerous place to man. My system evaluates the difference in career length between a given player and the average player at that position.

...and karlmagnus owes me for my defense of his #1 choice on his ballot! :-)
   95. PhillyBooster Posted: December 22, 2004 at 03:25 AM (#1035061)
I agree here. A lot of Beckley's value is in his longevity at a time when it was very rare. I consider the "extra value" coming from the same place that we find "extra value" for catchers, almost none of whom will have 300 win shares. We recognize that catcher was a tough position, and that players didn't last long. Therefore, we grade catcher kind of "on a scale" so the outliers are recognized.

First base in this era has exactly the same issues (and judging from ALL the catchers we have inducted since 1896, it is probably an underadressed problem for catchers as well. *COUGH* Bresnahan *COUGH*.)

The fact is, when people say "Beckley was only the best in years X, Y, and Z," what they are not saying is that when he wasn't the best, it was to practically a different guy every year. In 1898 it was Dan McGann. In 1899 it was Fred Tenney. In 1903 it was Frank Chance.

When looking at first base averages, I think it's worthwhile to look at individual fluctuations, too. There's maybe some guy better than Beckley, but two years before and two years later, Beckley was better.
   96. Max Parkinson Posted: December 22, 2004 at 03:39 AM (#1035108)
Kelly,

Do you use the year-by-year leaderboards that you have (generously) posted as part of your reasoning? The reason that I ask is that you have Tommy Leach currently ranked 7th, while your 3B leaderboard by Win Shares, which likes Leach at least as much as WARP does (probably more) says that he was the best in his league only once - tied for 1st two other times - and that he was the best in the big leagues only that once. That year he was better than Bradley by 1 Win Share, in the commonly accepted worse league. How much of a league discount would it take for him to fall behind Bradley? In that case, is Leach a little high, or do many other factors outweigh this one?
   97. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 03:41 AM (#1035114)
Average OPS by Position by Decade

Decad 1B LF RF CF 3B 2B Ca SS Pit
1870's +1 +4 -1 +4 +2 +2 +0 +1 -13
1880's 13 +6 +1 +5 +1 -1 -7 -2 -17
1890's +6 +9 +7 +7 +0 -2 -6 -2 -22
1900's +6 10 +9 +8 +0 +2 -9 -1 -29
1910's +6 +7 +9 10 +1 +1 -7 -4 -31
1920's +9 10 10 +8 -3 +1 -4 -7 -32
1930's 13 +8 10 +5 -1 -3 -3 -4 -36
1940's +8 11 +9 +7 +2 -3 -4 -4 -37
1950's +9 10 +7 +7 +4 -3 -1 -5 -40
1960's 11 +9 11 +7 +4 -5 -3 -6 -46
1970's 10 +8 +8 +5 +3 -5 -2 -11-45
1980's +8 +6 +6 +2 +3 -4 -4 -8 -48
1990's +9 +4 +6 +1 +1 -3 -4 -7 -50

Mean.. +9 +8 +7 +6 +1 -2 -4 -5 -36

Note: this is OPS, not OPS+
   98. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 03:57 AM (#1035172)
Jim, what's the base that you are using for your OPS numbers. IOW, 1B during the 1880s was 13 pts better. Thirteen points better than .800? .850?

I apologize beforehand if I'm screwing something up here.
   99. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 04:02 AM (#1035180)
what they are not saying is that when he wasn't the best, it was to practically a different guy every year.

I thought I said that. If not, I meant to.

This works together with the injury point. There was a different best 1b-man every year, because they were easily replaceable. The injuries are less important when the player is easily replaceable. First base-men were replaced all the time during this period and still maintained an OPS significantly higher than average (106, roughly equivalent to a 112/113 OPS+), comparable to the all-time OPS for right-fielders.

Beckley wasn't so much better than the average 1b-man that a large-number of hypothetical extra wins accrued to his team. He just played a lot longer than the guys who wore out quickly. This makes him durable, not great, in the sense that sunnyday2 used that word above. His durability didn't make him the best player on the field at most times.
   100. jimd Posted: December 22, 2004 at 04:05 AM (#1035189)
Those are Ratios. (Avg at Position) / (League Average).
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
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 1.5482 seconds
51 querie(s) executed