Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, February 14, 2005

1945 Ballot

From many comments on the discussion thread, there appears to be a consensus that Goose Goslin and Willie Foster will be the next HoM selections. Kind of hard to dispute that. But maybe newbies Tony Lazzeri and Heinie Manush, or possibly another backlogger, will fool us.

Returnees include: John Beckwith, Eppa Rixey, Clark Griffith, Wes Ferrell, George Van Haltren and Jake Beckley.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2005 at 03:54 AM | 179 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. David C. Jones Posted: February 18, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1152894)
Okay, here's my official ballot. Comments are over in the discussion thread, so I'll just post it here.

1. John Beckwith
2. Dick Lundy
3. Spotswood Poles
4. Rube Waddell
5. Jose Mendez
6. Dick Redding
7. Bill Monroe
8. Edd Roush
9. Gavvy Cravath
10. Bill Foster
11. Oliver Marcelle
12. Judy Johnson
13. Goose Goslin
14. Eddie Cicotte
15. Addie Joss

Guys who just missed the cut for me:

George Sisler
Wes Ferrell
Carl Mays
Larry Doyle
Kiki Cuyler
Heinie Manush
Tony Lazzeri
Dobie Moore
   102. OCF Posted: February 18, 2005 at 07:55 PM (#1152946)
What sort of consensus score is that? Low of course, but not off the charts. The consensus score won't be final until all the votes are in. For now David's appears to be the lowest so far but only 2 points below EricC and John Murphy and 3 points below karlmagnus.
   103. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 18, 2005 at 08:06 PM (#1152965)
For now David's appears to be the lowest so far but only 2 points below EricC and John Murphy and 3 points below karlmagnus.

Mine should recover by next election. By then, my new system should be in full effect.
   104. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 18, 2005 at 08:10 PM (#1152983)
David, are you the David Jones who is also the #1 fan of Dode Paskert?
   105. David C. Jones Posted: February 18, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1153060)
Yes.
   106. PhillyBooster Posted: February 18, 2005 at 09:42 PM (#1153165)
1. Eppa Rixey (3) -- Lots of way above average innings. Lots of solid seasons. War credit. Protects employees from illegal lie detector tests..

2. Jake Beckley (4) -- I consider myself equal parts "peak" and "career", but I think this peak-minded electorate is leaving me with lots of career guys on top.

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

4. Bill Wells (off) -- Early on the Rube Foster bandwagon, but late on Bill's. Better than Redding.

5. Jose Mendez (5) -- We seem to love Wes Ferrell. I think Ferrell was no Jose Mendez.

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


7. Mickey Welch (9) -- Am I getting bored, or just less impressed with his numbers to 400th time I've looked at them? I don't know. In any case, I'm less inspired about pushing his candidacy than I have been in previous years, and his "subjective points" ranking is starting to slide a little.

8. Goose Goslin (8) -- okay, he's got the Win Shares, but not really much else. Is he really better than George van Haltren? I think this ranking is lower than most, but I could see him going either up or down from here.

9. Roger Bresnahan (10) -- A highly-leveraged catcher. Look at his PA/G compared to his peers. Either he got lots of rest in blowouts, or, more likely, he was #1 off the bench on his days off. If you had a catcher who could hit like left fielder, wouldn't you try to get an extra PA out of him on his rest days? Amazing peak, and a long-enough career if you know who to compare him to.

10. John Beckwith (11) -- I am satisfied that he was sufficiently better than Sewell to warrant a ballot spot.

11. Pete Browning (12) -- One of the best hitters ever, but with one of the shortest careers. Season adjusted, he's Albert Belle.

12. Bill Monroe (13) -- still one of the best.

13. Clark Griffith (14) -- The HoM needs more PITCHERS.

14. Dick Redding (15) -- Like this guy.

15. Tommy Leach (off) -- My next "career only" candidate after Beckley.

T16. Wes Ferrell and Vic Willis. I'm going to need more convincing before I put a guy with fewer innings than Bob Caruthers (Ferrell) on my ballot. Willis looks very good compared across eras, but maybe a little less compared to his peers.

18. Wally Schang -- Pitchers and catchers reporting! 11 of my top 18 are pitchers or catchers!

19 & 20: Pick 2 of: Sewell, van Haltren, Jennings, Sisler, and Childs.
   107. Chris Cobb Posted: February 18, 2005 at 10:32 PM (#1153242)
4. Bill Wells (off) -- Early on the Rube Foster bandwagon, but late on Bill's. Better than Redding.

Phillybooster, do you mean Bill Foster? If not, who is Bill Wells?
   108. KJOK Posted: February 19, 2005 at 05:12 AM (#1153650)
Using OWP, playing time, and defense (Win Shares/BP) for position players, applied to .500 baseline. Using Runs Saved Above Average and Support Neutral Fibonacci Wins for Pitchers. For Position Players AND Pitcher, heavily weight comparison vs. contemporaries.

1. JOHN BECKWITH, 3B/SS. . Estimated 164 OPS+ over 7,419 estimated PA’s, and played left side infield. THE best hitting 3B/SS in the Negro Leagues. Major League comp is probably Dick Allen.

2.BILL FOSTER, P. 205 MLE Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 125 MLE ERA+ in over 3,000 estimated innings makes him a Juan Marichal comp.

3. DICK LUNDY, SS. Estimated 122 OPS+ over 9,684 PA’s with at least VERY GOOD defense puts him ahead of Sewell. Comp is Joe Cronin.

4. JOE SEWELL, SS. .549 OWP. 346 RCAP. 8,830 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Comp is Barry Larkin. Best major league SS of the 1920’s, AND 3rd best SS of 1910-1930 period.

5. GOOSE GOSLIN, LF. .635 OWP. 257 RCAP, 9,823 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Very similar to Fred Clarke and Al Simmons offensively.

6. ROGER BRESNAHAN, C. .651 OWP. 282 RCAP, 5,373 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Best Catcher between Ewing and Cochrane, except for Santop.

7. WALLY SCHANG, C. .595 OWP. 271 RCAP, 6,422 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Not quite the hitter or fielder Bresnahan was, but played more games at Catcher, making him almost as valuable.

8. CLARK GRIFFITH, P. 256 RSAA, 199 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, and 121 ERA+ in 3,385 innings. Career-wise, close to McGinnity. Keeps moving up due to comparison with contemporaries as one of the best pitchers of the 1890’s.

9. HUGHIE JENNINGS, SS. .607 OWP. 263 RCAP. 5,650 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Best SS of the 1890’s. Great offensively and defensively. SS defense and longer career value put him ahead of McGraw.

10. JOHN McGRAW, 3B. .727 OWP. 459 RCAP. 4,909 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Was CAREER ALL-TIME OBP% leader until Ruth qualifies in 1923, EVEN adjusting for League, and is STILL #3 behind Williams and Ruth. AND he played 3B, where offensive output was generally very low. Plus led his team to 3 consecutive championships.

11. BILL MONROE, 2B. Estimated 132 OPS+ over 8,276 PA’s. Def: VERY GOOD. Comps are somewhere between Rod Carew and Bobby Bonilla.

12. BEN TAYLOR, 1B. Estimated 138 OPS+ over 9,091 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Comp is probably Fred McGriff. He’s Bill Terry plus about 3 more Bill Terry type seasons.

13. RUBE WADDELL, P. 254 RSAA, 222 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 134 ERA+ in 2,961 innings. He was a more effective version of Nolan Ryan (fewer walks) and a LH clone of Dazzy Vance.

14. CUPID CHILDS, 2B. .609 OWP. 354 RCAP. 6,762 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Best 2nd baseman of the 1890’s.

15. TONY LAZZERI, 2B. .599 OWP. 325 RCAP. 7,304 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. A more modern version of Cupid Childs.

LEFT OFF THE BALLOT:
NEWBIES:

HEINIE MANUSH, LF. .604 OWP. 89 RCAP. 8,415 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Only 89 RCAP dooms him behind the current OF glut.

RETURNEES:

EPPA RIXEY, P. 217 RSAA, 229 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, and 115 ERA+ in 4,495 innings. Closest comp is probably Red Faber. Just off the ballot.

WES FARRELL, P. 200 RSAA, 159 Neut. Fibonacci Wins, and 117 ERA+ in 2,623 innings. He could certainly hit, and had some really great years, but falls short in BOTH rate and duration pitching measures relative to other candidates.

FRANK CHANCE, 1B. .720 OWP. 308 RCAP. 5,099 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Excellent hitter and good fielder back when 1st base was MUCH more important defensively. Top seasons blow away Beckley’s best. Loses out to Ben Taylor as best early century 1st baseman due to playing time.

GEORGE SISLER, 1B. .611 OWP, 205 RCAP. 9,013 PAs. Def: FAIR. Jake Beckley comp but with higher peak. Just misses ballot.

PETE BROWNING, CF/LF. .745 OWP. 478 RCAP. 5,315 PAs. Def: POOR. Baseball’s premier hitter in the 1880’s. Much better hitter than any eligible outfielder.

DICK REDDING, P. 183 MLE Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 114 MLE ERA+ in 3,556 innings. Was the 2nd best Negro League Pitcher in his era, behind only Williams.

DAVE BANCROFT, SS. .498 OWP, 157 RCAP, 8,244 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT. Much better hitter than Maranville. Similar to Bobby Wallace and Ozzie Smith, so surprised he’s not getting more votes.

MIKE TIERNAN, RF. .678 OWP, 350 RCAP. 6,722 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Compared to Van Haltren’s .620 OWP, 167 RCAP, and average defense, Tiernan looks superior.

TOMMY LEACH, CF/3B. .552 OWP, 121 RCAP, 9,051 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT – 3B, VERY GOOD – CF. Just slightly below Collins defensively, and he played longer. Basically did everything well, but doesn’t have the one outstanding area to get noticed.

JAKE BECKLEY, 1B. .596 OWP. 245 RCAP. 10,492 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. A very good for a long time player. Not as good as Sisler due to peak differences.

GEORGE VAN HALTREN, CF. .620 OWP. 167 RCAP. 8,992 PAs. Def: FAIR. A notch below Tiernan.

HUGH DUFFY, CF/LF. .623 OWP. 154 RCAP. 7,838 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Just not in the elite OF class offensively.

EDD ROUSH, CF. .622 OWP, 205 RCAP. 8,156 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Edge of playing CF not enough to overcome Tiernan’s edge in offense.

LARRY DOYLE, 2B .632 OWP, 273 RCAP, 7,382 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Best hitting 2B between Lajoie and Hornsby. Won MVP in 1912, finished 3rd in 1911. Finished in Top 10 in OPS+ 8 times. Hit like Ken Williams, only played longer and played 2B.

MICKEY WELCH, P. 179 RSAA, 225 Neutral Fibonacci Win Points, 113 ERA+ in 4,802 innings. I don’t see the basis for all the support he seems to be getting. Even if you GRANT he somehow “pitched to the score” where others didn’t (highly dubious) the adjustment for the few games where that MIGHT have happened can’t bridge the large gap in performance between Welch and the already elected pitchers. Plus, like Willis, we’ve already elected the best pitchers from his era.

TONY MULLANE, P. 241 RSAA, 240 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 118 ERA+ in 4,531(!) innings. He could hit a little too. Had a very good career AND some really good individual seasons. AA discount keeps him from being much higher.

BURLEIGH GRIMES, P. 129 RSAA, 175 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 107 ERA+ in 4,180 innings. Less value than even Quinn.
   109. Howie Menckel Posted: February 19, 2005 at 02:36 PM (#1154144)
"DavidFoss,
The war in Europe is surely winding down but the invasion of Japan still awaits us."

In that vein, my father is stationed in England as this WW II balloting continues, flying 35 missions over Germany in a B-17 as a bombardier.

If he's lucky enough to make it, I'll be born 16 years later, eventually become an HOM voter, and get this year's ballot in sometime this weekend.

(insert wisecrack here)
   110. Howie Menckel Posted: February 19, 2005 at 07:26 PM (#1154417)
1945 ballot, which is our 48th.

Lazzeri closer to my ballot than Manush, who is not nearly the player Goslin was (I had thought before this project the gap wasn't so great, either).

1. WILLIE/BILL FOSTER - Better than half-brother Rube, but he didn't get the traditional 'shiny new toy' bump in his first year or elected in his second. Some heavy season workloads that leave me feeling like his career was as productive as it could be under the circumstances. Bittersweet to read this: Detroit slugger Charlie Gehringer told Foster after a 1929 game involving the two, "If I could paint you white I could get $150,000 for you right now."
2. GOOSE GOSLIN - A step below the inner circle, but has plenty of juice for HOM even with the needed adjustments for era. Cleared 135 OPS+ seven times, wow. Career accomplishments very similar to Wheat.

3. CLARK GRIFFITH - Glad to see further (and more profound, frankly) analysis of how and why the 1890s are underrepresented. It's remarkable how much better Griffith's W-L was than the teams he pitched for. It's time for Clark to move up.
4. HUGHIE JENNINGS - One solid season short of an "elect me" slot on my ballot, but the best player in baseball nods and the difficulty of the era have him back in the running. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies almost nothing else - and even plays so many games at 1B rather than SS.
5. EPPA RIXEY - Moving ahead of some colleagues as I review the WW I issue. If only he had one huge year. Pretty baffled that Faber got in immediately, while Rixey sits on the fence. I may have to consider league quality more deeply.
6. GEORGE SISLER - I never realized before this project the extent of the 'two Sislers' career. But he also matches some HOMer's peaks while providing a significant added portion of a career. Not clear on some of the anti-Sisler sentiment; overrated by the average fan, but a great half-career in particular.
7. WES FERRELL - Needs more analysis from me; 117 ERA+ not dazzling, but it's misleading with the late-career bad IP. Hitting bonus, too. Kind of a weird player.
8. CUPID CHILDS - Continues to rise with a bullet. The majors' best 2B, or nearly so, for most of his career is something that we just don't see on this ballot.
9. MICKEY WELCH - Regains the slots he lost last year. If you look at the amount of lopsided scores AND compare them to the fewer and less lopsided losses by Keefe in yest's post in the Welch thread, the 'pitching in a pinch' circumstancial evidence is there. Went 61-34 vs HOMer pitching opponents.
10. JAKE BECKLEY - Top 10 in RBIs TWELVE times. How many HOMers did that? I'm finally convinced that he really wasn't quite as good as Keeler after all, but he can still grab a ballot spot in this bunch.
11. JOHN BECKWITH - His thread has boosted him onto my ballot, but I'm still not all the way sold on him. A great player for a time and glad to see him get some deserved props, though.
12. DICK LUNDY - He really does present a problem for Sewell, doesn't he? I think Sewell needed to be a slightly better fielder and Lundy needs a tiny bit more evidence.
13. EDD ROUSH - My first time voting for him; I have a problem with the games he missed in a lot of years, but his D and high level of play gets him a vote from me at last.
14. JOE SEWELL - Just manages to stay on ballot. Slugged exactly the league average in his career, split between SS and 3B. That's good, but not real exciting. We've already elected a lot of SSs, let's see if he measures up to a new crop of them.
15. TOMMY LEACH - The half-career at 3B and his overall defensive skills don't get enough credit; we may have to be careful in general not to underrate the 'hybrids.'


JUST MISSED
BURLEIGH GRIMES - Not quite Faber, and thus not quite Rixey, either. Barely off my ballot.
GEORGE VAN HALTREN - Seems very similar to Beckley, only he's an OF and not a 1B. Pitching helps, not quite enough. Still, I'm softening a little.
PETE BROWNING - Missed last year for the first time in many years. Spectacularly good hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time.
LARRY DOYLE - Misses after a few yrs on ballot; needs to outmaneuver Childs for a slot. Awesome hitting stats for a 2B; with a little longer career and decent fielding, he'd be a HOMer.
PIE TRAYNOR - Reached 120 OPS+ only twice. Long career for a 3B, but tough competition for INF slots right now. Probably better than the 29th slot he occupies.
Mendez and Bresnahan will get a fresh look from me in 1946, although the awesome crop will likely still keep them off the ballot.
   111. PhillyBooster Posted: February 19, 2005 at 10:54 PM (#1154705)

Phillybooster, do you mean Bill Foster? If not, who is Bill Wells?


Er, um, yes. Bill Foster. I think I went to high school with Bill Wells.
   112. yest Posted: February 20, 2005 at 04:24 PM (#1155779)
Oscar Charleston and Dazzy Vance make my pHoM this year

1. George Sisler finished 4 in the NL in batting average in 1928 (made my personal HoM in 1936)
2. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
3. Goose Goslin see Gehrig (made my personal HoM in 1944)
4. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
5. Joe Sewell love the strikeouts (made my personal HoM in 1939)
6. Sam Rice if he got 13 more hits would he make the HoM? (made my personal HoM in 1940)
7. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
8. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
9. Rube Waddell most Ks/9IP 7 times in a row tying with Vance for the record led in it 1 more time (made my personal HoM in 1917)
10. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles (made my personal HoM in 1940)
11. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
12. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
13. Clark Griffith 54th in wins (made my personal HoM in 1912)
14. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg.
15. Edd Roush323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)
16. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
17. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
18. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)
19 Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie (made my personal HoM in 1939)
20. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
21. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
22. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
23. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
24. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits
25. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits
26. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)
27. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)

explanation for players not on my ballot
Hugh Jennings not enough career
Eppa Rixey I don’t find anything special in most of the 20’s pitchers
Bill Foster I’m not confident in MLEs
Tommy Leach I don’t even understand the argument for him
John Beckwith I’m not enough confident enough in his case to put him higher then he is
Wes Ferrell to high a ERA
   113. Jeff M Posted: February 20, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1155792)
1945 Ballot

1. Lundy, Dick – I see that most have Lundy slotted lower than Beckwith. I’ve been a bigger proponent of Beckwith’s than most, but I’ve got Lundy around 380 WS and Beckwith around 350, primarily due to defense (and position). They are both HoMers.

2. Beckwith, John – I’ve got him at roughly 350 WS, which given his position at 3B/SS is one hell of a number. Would have won a couple of MVPs, and you can only say that about so many third basemen and shortstops.

3. Foster, Willie – I do not pretend that I know whether I have Foster slotted correctly. After reading the HoM posts, I’ve given him a rating halfway between Coveleski and Vance, and in this particular election that puts him here. He is a HoMer either way.

4. Browning, Pete -- I have discounted his 82-85 and 89 seasons but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. One of the best hitters we've evaluated or ever will evaluate. An outfielder in the early years, so I doubt his suspect defense detracts much from his overall value. Would have been in the majors earlier if not for the ear problem.

5. Monroe, Bill -- He certainly appears every bit as good as Grant, but competition was stiffening in his era, so he deserves more credit than Grant, IMO. I don’t see him getting elected now that Grant is in, but I would have preferred Monroe.

6. Sisler, George – Thought he would come in higher, but has poor defensive scores and WARP doesn’t like him much. Also doesn’t have the typical HoM RBI and runs scored numbers (even though I realize those are stats dependent on others). Very strong adjusted counting stats, and also fares well in WS.

7. Waddell, Rube – I’ve was holding him behind Griffith because his win totals are less impressive, but RSI gives some of the reason why, so I’ve moved Waddell ahead rather than letting him float at the end of my ballot.

8. Roush, Edd – Fine hitter without a lot of pop, but he certainly didn’t have any trouble getting around the bases for triples. Had several MVP-quality years (by WS standards – WARP doesn’t like him quite as much if you adjust the way they calculate defense). Not as good as Carey in the field, but contributed a lot more at the plate, and that’s a bigger factor for an outfielder.

9. Jones, Charley -- No additional credit for blacklisted seasons. I think he has been overlooked from the beginning because of the relatively short career and lack of notoriety. Also, he was a bit chunky.

10. McGraw, John – The guy’s OBP was .466! I would prefer a longer career, but among the backlog, I think he deserves some recognition. Plus, we aren’t too deep at 3b in the HoM.

11. Griffith, Clark -- An excellent win pct on some bad teams. I boost his win totals and win pct by approximately 1/2 of his WAT. Has a nice career Linear Weights total also.

12. Duffy, Hugh -- Some good normalized counting stats, good grey ink and scores well on WS and WARP1 measures.

13. Rice, Sam – Rounding out the ballot with a glut outfielder.

14. Bresnahan, Roger – Hurt by his play in the outfield, but still the best eligible catcher.

15. Joss, Addie – Squeezes back on the ballot. Hurt primarily by not having a long enough career to make a greater impact.

Required Disclosures:

Goslin, Goose – He’s #17 in my system, behind Bobby Veach and ahead of Wes Ferrell. A very good player, but his numbers are inflated by a high run-scoring environment. When the numbers are adjusted, he looks much more ordinary. Also my adjustment to WARP’s fielding ratings for outfielders takes him down a notch.

Rixey, Eppa – He’s #28 in my system, behind Mickey Welch and ahead of Spotswood Poles. I’ve got to side with the WARP analysis on this one…at 275 IP per year, he’d give you a WARP of about 4.2. I like steady, but I need some brilliance too.

Ferrell, Wes – He’s #18 in my system, behind Goose Goslin and tied with Larry Doyle, Tommy Leach and Joe Sewell. An excellent pitcher from ’29-’36. A couple more good years and he’s on the ballot.

Van Haltren, George – He’s #44 in my system. Go away, George. Make a few all-star teams. Then we’ll talk about the Hall of Merit.

Beckley, Jake – All career. Not much peak as HoMers and HoFers go. Only ordinary in grey ink and Keltner tests. He’s #22 in my system, behind Ferrell/Sewell/Doyle/Leach and tied with Vic Willis.
   114. Andrew M Posted: February 20, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1155935)
1945 Ballot

1. (3) Goose Goslin. I have some reservations about putting him at the top, but he put up some impressive hitting stats (128 OPS+, 620 BRAR) in almost 10,000 plate appearances. Among the league leaders almost every offensive category (including triples and stolen bases) many times.

2. (4) George Van Haltren. A very good player for a very long time. His unadjusted career Win Shares are similar to Goslin’s without quite as high a peak. Adjusting his career to 162 game seasons he has around 400 career WS with 3 seasons above 30, 6 more above 25, and an average of 28 per season. Plus almost 700 innings of OK pitching, for which I do give him some credit.

3. (5) Clark Griffith. Although I am happy with the 5 pitchers I have on this ballot, I have struggled a lot with the order to put them in. Griffith has more peak than Rixey and more career than Waddell or Ferrell. His .620 career win pct. for some pretty mediocre Chicago teams is impressive--as are his 121 ERA+ and 1895-1901 peak.

4. (7) Hugh Duffy. Looking at his Win Shares he looks like the best of the high peak/prime, 8000 plate appearance, 10-12 quality year outfielders. Impressive peak/prime numbers over 3, 5, 7, 10 years (incl. 8 seasons over 25 adjWS/8.9 WARP), good black and gray ink, A+ CF/OF defense, and an MVP caliber year (1894). Rapid decline around age 33, but enough career (336 adjWS) to merit serious consideration. Docked slightly for only playing 40% of his games in CF.

5. (10) Eppa Rixey. Throw out the years he was fighting in or recovering from WWI and you have a stretch between 1916 and 1928 when he was averaging 275 innings and 21 WS per season with an ERA+ no lower than 109 and as high as 143. Sure his peak wasn’t that high, but an ERA+ of 115 in 4500 innings tells me he should be on the ballot someplace.

6. (8) John Beckwith. A great hitter who could also could play some SS and 3B. I’m not sure whether Dick Allen is the right comp, but I’ll take the word of those of you who know much more about him than I do.

7. (9) Larry Doyle. Higher career OPS+ (126) than all but a handful of 2B. Consistently in NL top 10 in HRs and slugging pct. Also captained World Series teams and won an MVP award. 8 time STATS NL all-star. The contemporary accounts I’ve read suggest that his fielding was indeed a concern, though the conclusions writers drew varied considerably. For me, I assume John McGraw would not have played him if his fielding was not adequate or his bat didn’t compensate for his fielding. Contemporary accounts also make it clear that he was considered a major star.

8. (11) Edd Roush. Looks very similar to Hugh Duffy to me with more games in CF. Arguably the best player in the NL during his peak (1917-1920.) In fact, at his peak, I’d argue he was better than Goslin, but he lacks Goose’s consistency. A difficult player for me to get a real handle on.

9. (12) Cupid Childs. Excellent peak and a relatively short career, though I’m willing to make some allowance for era on this. Best 2B of the 1890s before Lajoie arrives. 3, 5, 7 year aWS and WARP not quite up to Jennings, but 20% more plate appearances than Hughie.

10. (6) Willie Foster. Reputation as the greatest left-handed pitcher in the Negro Leagues intuitively sounds HoM-worthy. Chris’s estimates strongly suggest he’s not as good as his reputation, but he did win 70% of his games with some impressive black/gray ink estimates.

11. (13) Dobie Moore. Given conservative credit for his 7 years in the army, his career begins to look long enough HoM worthy to me and moves him just ahead of Jennings on my ballot, though Hughie’s peak was perhaps slightly higher.

12. (14) Rube Waddell. Lots of strikeouts, of course, but also Top 10 in fewest hits per 9 innings for 8 years, shutouts for 9 years. Career ERA+ of 134, DERA of 3.63/3.81. Relatively short career, but a considerable peak—like the next guy….

13. (new) Wes Ferrell. I respect his WARP numbers and accept that he was a great pitcher for a brief time. Like Waddell, I can understand arguments that he should be ranked either higher or lower than I have him.

14. (15) George Burns. Slightly less peak than Duffy and slightly less career than Roush, but the same basic 7-10 years peak/prime numbers, with 3 seasons (1914, 1917, 1919) that were of MVP quality. His fielding numbers in 1922 suggest he could have been a quality CF had McGraw played him there.

15. (new) Jimmy Ryan. Back on the ballot. I don’t have anything new to say about him except I have him just below GVH and H. Duffy. My schedule-length WS adjustment makes him look more or less interchangeable with Goslin.

Next 5:
16. Tommy Leach
17. Hughie Jennings
18. Roger Bresnahan
19. George Sisler
20. Joe Sewell

Required disclosures:
Jake Beckley. Behind Sisler, Chance, and Taylor on my list of 1B. I like him more than I initially did, but not enough to vote for him.

New Guys
Tony Lazzeri. As a Friend of Larry Doyle, it is hard for me not to like Lazzeri as well. He has only 79 fewer PAs than Laughing Larry and a similar OPS+ (121 to 126). My recollection is that Win Shares has him as a worse fielder than Doyle.

Heinie Manush. Somewhere in the corner OF glut. Probably just below Cuyler. Did pretty well in MVP voting and had more power than I realized.
   115. favre Posted: February 20, 2005 at 11:55 PM (#1156287)
1.John Beckwith
2.Goose Goslin

I am jumping on the Beckwith bandwagon. Chris Cobb and Gary A. have done an excellent job at presenting his case. At worst, he was a great hitting 3B/SS with around 280 career WS; my guess his total WS are somewhere between 325-250. As several others have mentioned, he is very comparable to Dick Allen.

Last ballot I said that Goslin was overrated; I have since decided that I was underrating him. As Howie points out, seven seasons of 135 OPS+ is pretty impressive.

3.Jake Beckley
4.Clark Griffith

Beckley does not have much peak, of course, but a great career: 330-340 adjusted WS, thirteen seasons with an OPS+ of 123 or higher. Between 1895-1901, Griffith never had a season ERA+ lower than 119 in a hitter’s era. In those seven seasons, Griffith was 154-87, .639 WP; his team’s WP was .449 without him.

5.Tommy Leach
6.Eppa Rixey

There seems to be a little backlash against Leach, which I don’t quite understand. Leach a) played great defense at two key positions b) was a pretty good hitter; with six seasons over 122 OPS+ c) has 324 Win Shares; we’ve elected every position player with more except Van Haltren d) Was a productive player every season from 1901-1914 (with the exception of the 1911 season) e) has a peak, with seasons of 31 and 29 WS. He’s a much better pick than, say, Joe Sewell.

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

7.George Sisler
8.Edd Roush

“Is Sisler the player whose career was most affected by a single injury?” I asked last week. I guess he’s not…at age 29, Sisler would have seemed to be a lock for the HoM. He had a great run from 1917-1922, hitting .407 and .420 in a couple of seasons, was first or second in stolen bases every year for five years. He played at a position which had not seen a dominant star since the 1890s.

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

9.Bill Foster
10. Rube Waddell

I see these two players as very similar—big, hard-throwing lefthanders with high peaks. As almost everyone has said, Foster is one of the top five NeL pitchers of all-time, which should rightfully earn his induction.

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

10.Ned Williamson
11.Hugh Jennings
12.Cupid Childs
13.Roger Bresnahan
14.Larry Doyle
15. Wally Schang

Like Leach, Williamson was an excellent fielder and decent hitter, but played in more offense-friendly and overrepresented era. I now have Jennings ahead of Childs. Childs has more career value, but not by a huge amount, and Jennings’ peak is so much better. Doyle was a similar hitter to Childs, but has more questions about his defense.

Bresnahan makes my ballot for the first time in years. I’m not entirely convinced he belongs, but the gap we have at catcher in the late 1890s-early 1900s weighs on me, and Bresnahan was so much better than his contemporaries. I have just above Schang, whose hitting and long career earns him the last ballot spot.


18. Wes Ferrell Ferrell and Mckey Welch are the players that I find the toughest to gauge. Traditional stats and Win Shares see Ferrell as essentially the same type of player as Carl Mays (to be fair, James has Mays at #38 and Ferrell at #40, well within HoM range). WARP sees Ferrell as something more special, but I don’t trust WARP. Could be underrated, but right now Ferrell will hang just off my ballot.

19. George Van Haltren Van Haltren was merely a good hitter in a high offense era, and I think his WS totals are distorted by his pitching stint.
   116. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 12:40 AM (#1156341)
You have two #10, favre.
   117. Patrick W Posted: February 21, 2005 at 02:25 AM (#1156485)
Everybody up two, prefer the backlog to the rookies – Lazzeri can’t pass Doyle, Manush hangs out in Tiernan territory.

1. John Beckwith (3), Bkn (--), SS / 3B (’19-’34) (1940) – Appears to me to rank solidly among banned HOMers (a little above Grant Johnson). I estimate an EQA of 0.330 from the MLE’s. Short career, but definitely worthy by the numbers.
2. Joe Sewell (4), Clev. (A), SS / 3B (’20-’33) (1939) – Don’t let it be said I have no love for the prime/peak guys.
3. Goose Goslin (5), Wash. (A), LF (‘22-‘37) (1945) – I hate to put Goslin over longtime favorites VH & Ryan, but he wins every close call test I measure them by.
4. George Van Haltren (6), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – Even un-adjusted, most career WS among 1B-OF. Leads the pack from the 90s holdovers.
5. Jimmy Ryan (7), Chic. (N), CF / RF (‘85-‘03) (1926) – Don’t really understand the lack of support. I guess I never will.
--. Dazzy Vance, Bkn (N), SP (’22-’35) (1945)
6. Dick Lundy (8), Atlantic Cty (--), SS (’16-’34) – I see a comparison here with Frank Grant. Those who liked Grant should see something worthy in Lundy. As such, my guess is he makes the P-Hall and falls short of the group HOM.
7. Ben Taylor (9), Ind. (--), 1B (’10-’26) (1938) – Similar to Beckley and Beckley’s in the P-Hall.
8. Eppa Rixey (10), Cinc. (N), SP (’12-’33) – Solid above average ERA for a good number of innings.
--. Red Faber, Chic. (A), SP (’14-’33) –
--. Heinie Groh, Cinc. (N), 3B (’12-’27) –
9. Jake Beckley (11), Pitt. – Cinc.(N), 1B (’88-’07) (1929) – Treading water.
10. Harry Hooper (12), Bost. (A), RF (’09-’25) (1931) – More emphasis on offense over defense for the OF’s gives Hooper the jump over Fielder.
11. Bill Foster (13), Chic. (--), SP (’23-’37) – Vance isn’t in on my ballot, Coveleski made it in while pinched between Taylor and Beckley, and the prelim numbers I’ve thrown in say Foster is below those two. Even if they are similar choices, right now Foster is third in line.
12. Wes Ferrell (14), Clev. (A), SP (’29-’38) – Foster ahead because of ~400 extra IP.
13. Rube Waddell (15), Bost. (N), SP (’97-’09) – Seeing as how he’s not in the P-Hall, a good bet for my personal Most Total Ballot Points since 1909. Hate to see him go, but it won’t be long now.
14. Clark Griffith (--), Chic. (N) - NY (A), SP (’91-’14) – Resurfaces after a year off.
15. Urban Shocker (--), St.L (A), SP (’16-’27) – Too many pitchers at the tail end of the ballot, but at the end of the day, I’ll take any of these 5 before anyone else off the ballot.

Last year’s top ten is in my top 15 (I believe this is the 1st time I can say that since I’ve gotten started here).
   118. Chris Cobb Posted: February 21, 2005 at 06:00 AM (#1156866)
1945 Ballot

Very difficult ballot. The eligible candidates are becoming so closely packed that I have a very hard time seeing a rational basis for distinctions between one player and another. I see the top 4 candidates as standing out from the rest, but as nearly equal in value to each other. Then there’s a slight drop down through the next 7, then from 12-32 it’s becoming exceedingly hard to establish any sort of justifiable rank order.

1. Clark Griffith (4). Best candidate available from the underrepresented and underrated 1890s, which brings him to the top in our last backlog year for quite some time. Without contraction, there’d be no questions about his career length. Also the best pitching post-1893 candidate according to Pennants Added. Superior to several elected pitchers by virtually every measure. An unfortunately large number of posts using Win Shares to question Griffith’s standing; WARP takes a more favorable and in my opinion more accurate view.
2. Goose Goslin (3). A clear HoMer, though not an all-time great. Enough questions raised about him in the discussions that I am dropping him a bit this year.
3. John Beckwith (6) His status as an eventual HoMer is properly solidifying.
4. Eppa Rixey (5). Long, solidly above-average career. Runner-up in 1942 now may have a long wait ahead of him, though election in 1945 is possible. He matches up well with the second-tier pitchers of the 1930s and 1940s, though, so I’m confident he’ll get elected eventually.
5. Hughie Jennings (9). The greatness of his peak will not diminish with time. Would represent 1890s well. Flipping him with Ferrell so far.
6. Wes Ferrell (8). WARP rates him as a clear HoMer, nearly as valuable as Grove during his 9-year prime. WS rates him less highly. My analysis is closer WARP. He and Willie seem close in value. Foster has more value outside his 9-year prime than Ferrell does; Ferrell’s peak is higher because his hitting value. My system weighs Ferrell’s peak advantage ahead of Foster’s career advantage, but only slightly. Ferrell has a decent shot at being the first twentieth-century pitcher not elected to the HoF to be elected to the HoM.
7. George Van Haltren (10). Pennants added should remind the electorate that Van Haltren was a heck of a player. Even if WS overrates centerfielders and VH gets a boost from pitching, he’s a candidate who oughtn’t to be slipping towards oblivion just yet. Van Haltren was in an “elect-me” spot on my 1931 and 1932 ballots. I’ve lowered my view of outfielders in general since then, which caused Jennings to pass him, but everyone from Van Haltren up clearly merits eventual enshrinement, in my view.
8. Edd Roush (11). Very similar in value to VH. Should be getting a bit more support. Missed a lot of games, but when he was on the field in his prime he was top-notch.
9. Bill Foster (7). Moving him down a little bit in response to his projected MLEs. I would like to know more about his hitting, which would nudge him up or down. In the absence of more data, I assume he was an average hitter for a pitcher, so that he neither gains nor loses value as a result. I note that the indirect evidence of his greatness remains strong: (1) consensus expert choice as best NeL lefthanded-pitcher of all time, (2) #2 among all Negro-League pitchers in black ink, based on Holway’s stats, with his career falling during the period of Negro-League history with the fullest stats and probably the highest level of competition, (3) his playoff record of 18-9 (including several legendary performances), which indicates he was a great big-game pitcher and thus confirms he had the dominance necessary for a great peak, (4) a documented stretch of 9 seasons as a work-horse starter without injuries. Given the available statistics, I’m not sure _exactly_ how great he was, but I’m sure he was great.
10. Tommy Leach (12) Finally getting his due. Won’t have a chance at election until the 1960s, but it looks like he’s more firmly on the radar now.
11. George Sisler (14). Nice peak.
12. Larry Doyle (16). Best of an over-looked teens group of middle-tier stars.
13. Rabbit Maranville (19). So, I’m impressed by great defensive infielders with long careers. Yes, his hitting was very poor late in his career but a good peak and a _long_ career.
14. Spotswood Poles (20). Back on the ballot after a long absence. Like Maranville and Doyle above him, he benefits from my reevalution of candidates who peaked in the teens. I’m inclined to think that the non-all-time greats had their peaks squashed by Cobb, Speaker, et al.
15. Jose Mendez (13). I think Mendez more likely to hold his value under-reevaluation than Redding, so he holds a ballot spot.

Consensus top-10 returning players not on my ballot.
Jake Beckley. Liking him better as I give the quality of competition in his prime due weight. I moved him up 20 places in my rankings as a result of a reconsideration of the remaining 1890s stars. He’s now at #30. If we make good progress into the backlog in the 1960s-1970s, he could make my ballot.
Joe Sewell. Right behind Beckley at #31. Likely Beckley, I don’t see him as unworthy of the HoM, but, also like Beckley, I see him as near the bottom of a large group of borderline candidates. There really is a not a whole lot of difference between Beckley & Sewell and Doyle and Maranville, or anyone else in between 12 and 32.

1945 Off-Ballot, through 32

16. Burleigh Grimes
17. Dick Redding
18. Urban Shocker
19. Mickey Welch
20. Hugh Duffy
21. Carl Mays
22. Rube Waddell
23. Jimmy Ryan
24. Roger Bresnahan
25. Wally Schang
26. Cupid Childs
27. Buzz Arlett
28. Dobie Moore
29. Ben Taylor
30. Jake Beckley
31. Joe Sewell
32. Dick Lundy
   119. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: February 21, 2005 at 06:04 AM (#1156875)
1945 ballot:

1. George Sisler: Practically a perennial all-star before the illness, good but not great after – still, was the STATS all-star 1B in 1925, and a probable runner-up to Gehrig in ’27. Good black & gray ink. (PHOM 1938)

2. Goose Goslin: All-star-type outfielder for many years. Best eligible outfielder. I find him similar to Wheat, better than Kelley, Sheckard.

3. Burleigh Grimes: 270 wins, .560 W% and quite a few of his teams were mediocre at best. Retro-Cy, 5 STATS AS, 9 all-star quality seasons. All that in spite of a 107 ERA+! Now that’s pitching in a pinch! : -) (PHOM 1942)

4. Clark Griffith: Solid, long career. A top pitcher in the offense-heavy 90s.

5. Joe Sewell: Ten all-star caliber seasons in a 14-year career, A- defender, above-average offense for a middle infielder. May have been the best of a weak lot at ss, however. (PHOM 1939)

6. Willie Foster: If he’s 3F Brown, he’s #1; Coveleski, down a few; Vance, down a few more; Mays, just off.

7. Pete Browning: Mr. Peak. 8 STATS AS. Monster hitter. Shorter career version of Heilmann. (PHOM 1927)

8. Hugh Duffy: Solid WS and WS/162, MVP in ’94, excellent defense. (PHOM 1940)

9. Roger Bresnahan: I dropped him behind Schang for a few years, but Roger’s career suggests brilliance, Wally’s doesn’t. (PHOM 1932)

10. Jake Beckley: Mr. Career. 3 STATS AS, 10 all-star quality seasons. Good gray ink. (PHOM 1926)

11. Mickey Welch: Still think he’s worthy of induction, but pitchers of his era are well-represented already, and he’s not as good as his enshrined brethren. (PHOM 1929)

12. Pie Traynor: Bill James isn’t too fond of him, but still has him 15th all-time at 3b, which makes him 2nd/3rd so far, behind Baker and the still-active Hack. He may well have been overrated historically, but I think he’s being underrated here.

13. John Beckwith: From all I’ve read, I have no doubts that he was a great hitter and that his defense left a lot to be desired. He probably would not have played a right-spectrum position in the majors, but there certainly would have been a place for that bat.

14. Tommy Leach: A+ defense at two important positions, solid offense for the era.

15. Rube Waddell: Slips back on. Terrific ERA, ERA+, strikeouts, but the W-L is worse than what you’d think given those.

Required explanations:
Rixey: Good for a long time. 8th on my pitcher list.
Van Haltren: Good, not great. STATS AS teams: nada. Wish he’d either get elected or go away.
Wes Ferrell: I’ve got about 15 pitchers under serious consideration and he’s in the bottom 5 of those. Fewer innings than any of the others; I prefer Foster, Mays, & Waddell among the low-innings guys.

Also in the mix, not necessarily in order: Dick Redding, Larry Doyle, Vic Willis, Carl Mays, Eppa Rixey, Ben Taylor, Jose Mendez, Bill Monroe, Wally Schang, Spots Poles, Dick Lundy, Edd Roush, Wilbur Cooper, Urban Shocker, Dave Bancroft, Waite Hoyt.

New people:
Lazzeri’s right behind Doyle at 2b; Doyle’s been on my ballot.
Manush is in the outfield crowd, well off the ballot.
   120. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 21, 2005 at 07:05 AM (#1157001)
Absolutely, thanks so much to John for all he does to keep things organized around here (and actually thanks to a bunch of people who contribute more than I do.)

None of the new guys make my ballot, although Lazzeri came closer than I expected. Goslin and Foster make my PHoM this year

1. Goose Goslin (3) Has more career value than any other OF on the ballot, and is among the best peaks. Clearly a solid HoM selection.

2. Bill Foster (4) This is where Vance was, and about where Coveleski would be. His reputation warrants placement this high, and the numbers don't disprove it. Going by the MLEs, he didn't peak as high as Ferrell, but he maintained his level longer.

3. Tommy Leach (5) I think I've said before, I have a weakness for what I see as "complete players", without a strong weakness in their argument, and Leach is that way to me. Excellent fielder at important positions, OK hitter. Among the candidates he has one of the best career arguments. His peak isn't great, but it's certainly respectable. I'm not sure why he dropped off so much, if he's getting a "CF bonus" from Win Shares, what about Van Haltren? Made my PHoM in 1940.

4. John Beckwith (9) Could hit the heck out of the ball, questionable defense at big positions, not the friendliest guy to be around. This is still in flux, but for now he looks better than the middle infielders.

5. Wes Ferrell (12) His peak is pretty huge, but his career is short for a HoMer. Comes out ahead of all the other ML pitchers in latest revision of my ranking system. Could be somewhere else entirely next year.

6. Bill Monroe (8) A good player at an important defensive position, with a great reputation for his fielding. Seems to have had a longer career than any of the other 2B candidates. Helped by Made my PHoM in 1939.

7. Joe Sewell (6) Yes, the American League had no shortstops in the 1920s. But it was probably the stronger league (although less dramatically than in the 1910s), and Sewell was clearly one of the top 10 position players in the league. I see him as just a little better than Childs. Both middle infielders, good hitters, Sewell was a little better fielder. Similar career lengths, were both best at their positions in a decade (among white ball players). Sewell was probably playing in a better league. Made my PHoM in 1939.

8. Dick Redding (14) If I was sure he was the #5 pitcher in Negro Leagues history, he’d be in my PHoM. But I’m not, so he’s not. I'm also not sure the teens need many more pitchers. Do see him as closer to Foster than I had before, so he moves up.

9. Cupid Childs (7) He could hit the ball pretty well for a 2B and his defense was decent. I'd say his defensive advantage outweighs Doyle's offensive one. His career is on the short side, but he was the best second baseman of the 1890s, whatever you feel that's worth (among white players, at least). Slides down this year because he looks awfully similar to Lazzeri. Made my HoM in 1932.

10. George Van Haltren (10) Kind of a dividing line for me, as I can't see putting him in without Carey and Ryan as well. I know he was a CF, but he only made the top 10 in OPS+ 3 times, and was 10th twice (in 1888 and 1901) and 7th once (in the 1891 AA). That just doesn't seem like a HoMer to me.
(10A Max Carey)

11. Jimmy Ryan (11) Behind GVH because he dropped off fairly strongly after his accident. Never going to get that far away from him.
(11 A Bill Terry)

12. Eppa Rixey (16) I might be underestimating him, and he did throw a ton of innings, but I still see him behind Vance and Ferrell. (I'm growing more convinced Faber was a mistake - which I eventually went along with, so a comparison isn't helping.) I'm definitely not rushing to put in any more pitchers from his era.

13. Dick Lundy (13) I agree, the MLE’s look very similar to Sewell, with a bit less peak, so he’s a little lower. This could be on the high side, but he was a very good player.

(13A Sam Thompson)

14. Jose Mendez (16) A very good pitcher who had some excellent seasons, but doesn’t quite match up to Redding. The MLEs still look a little extreme to me.
(14A Rube Foster)

15. Hughie Jennings (15) His peak still leaps out at you, but there's just so little around it that I can’t put him higher than this.

16. Spotswood Poles (18) His numbers seem similar to Monroe's, but he's an OF instead of a 2B. His defensive reputation appears good.
17. Ben Taylor (22) Maybe I'm underrating 1Bmen, but I'm not yet convinced. A little better than Beckley and Sisler to me for now. Top-3 Negro League 1B isn’t necessarily enough for me to put him in the HoM, though.
18. Tony Lazzeri (new) Looks pretty close to Childs for me, although the Pennants Added could change that. Didn't think he'd be this high.
19. Rube Waddell (21) The ERA and K's look nice, but the career just wasn't long enough or consistent enough.
20. Jake Beckley. (23) There is a TON of career value, but his average season is just too average to give him that much credit.
21. Bobby Veach (20) Has good peak value and a halfway decent career value. Packed more punch into his career than Hooper. Seems like a good fielder for a corner OF.
22. Dave Bancroft (19) Looking at how their Win Shares compared to the rest of their leagues, Sewell does have an edge, but it's not a huge one. Wins the award for "Best Frankie Frisch Selection".
23. Mike Griffin (39) I liked Joe's argument, he's very closer to GVH and Ryan in WARP in significantly fewer games, so he was packing a bigger punch.
24. Burleigh Grimes (30) Another pitcher from the 20's clump, closer to Rixey and Faber than I previsously thought.
25. George Sisler (28) Not too different from Terry, but a worse fielder, and has more near or below average years.
26. Larry Doyle. (24) Amazingly similar hitter to Ed Konetchy, but definitely a worse fielder. Is the 2B offense better than the 1B Defense?
27. Charley Jones (25) Hard to be sure how much credit to give for the blacklisted years, but clearly a good player.
28. Roger Bresnahan (27) I was underrating catchers, and didn’t realize how good his CF years were. But the career’s still too short.
29. Edd Roush (48) Oops. Not that far off the other CFers, but still too many weak years.
30. Clark Griffith (26) I think the 1890s will have to suffer with 3 HoM pitchers, he just lacks the greatness I feel I need to see.
   121. Ken Fischer Posted: February 21, 2005 at 01:22 PM (#1157185)
1945 Ballot

Major changes on my ballot this week.

1-Bill Foster
So often put in shadow of his big brother…but still considered by many to be the best left-hander in the history of the Negro Leagues.

2-George Van Haltren 344 WS
8 of Van’s top 10 similar batters are in the other hall. I consider Van at the top of the list of the many worthy outfielders with long credentials waiting to get in the HOM.

3-Goose Goslin 355 WS
Gray Ink is off the charts. Clemente is his comp. Pretty good company. Goose played in the hitter’s era of the 20s but was top notch…just overshadowed by the Ruths and Gehrigs.

4-Dick Redding
James & Neyer rank Redding’s fast ball #2 from 1910 – 1919 behind Walter Johnson. Dick would be in the other hall if the annual Negro league picks started in 1995 had continued for a couple more years.

5-Dick Lundy
Besides being a great hitter Lundy is considered by Negro League expert John Holway to be one of the best defensive shortstops of all-time.


6-Wally Schang 245 WS
Schang belongs in a special group of most overlooked ballplayers…Schang, Dahlen, B. Mathews, Start, Pike, Barnes, B. Johnson, etc. He played for several flag winners. Schang had great plate discipline. At the age of 39 he led the AL in HBP.

7-Pete Browning 225 WS
Pete does have a down side…but is getting a raw deal due to his prime being in the AA. He was a key player relied on by his teammates for most of his career. Grey Ink looks favorable. The Players League year removes the AA discount as an obstacle for me.

8-Mickey Welch 354 WS
His win shares numbers show he was more than just the 1885 season. McCormick, Mullane and Mathews also deserve another look from the 19th Century.

9-John Beckwith
Read somewhere he once hit four HRs in a game at Crosley Field. Played for at least 13 teams. Read a lot about how he was a nasty guy…but he did manage for awhile…some boss didn’t think he was all bad.

10-Hughie Jennings 214 WS
Probably the #3 SS of the 90s after Davis & Dahlen.

11-Wes Ferrell 233 WS
6-20 win seasons in 8 years during the live ball era. Wes is usually short changed because of his high ERA but that's unfair when he's compared to dead ball counterparts.

12-Jake Beckley 318 WS
Like his career value. Connor, Crawford and O’Rourke and Clarke are all comps. Jake will eventually make into the HOM.

13-Eppa Rixey 315 WS
Rixey matches up well with Grimes & Faber. He had a long and interesting career. He is known for his time with the Reds but made it into the Series only once with the Phils early in his career.

14-Joe Sewell 277 WS
Very hard to strike out and had a tough act to follow (Chapman’s death). He made position change (to third base) late in his career and continued to still have great numbers.

15-Burleigh Grimes 286 WS
Grimes matches up well with the recently elected Faber. His 270 wins and a high Grey Ink are impressive.
   122. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 03:35 PM (#1157254)
I have 43 ballots counted so far (I have left favre's ballot uncounted until he has it corrected).

Still missing ballots from Joe, robc, mbd1mbd1, Adam Schaefer, Philip, Esteban Rivera, Guapo, jimd, Max Parkinson, Bleacher and RMc.
   123. OCF Posted: February 21, 2005 at 03:50 PM (#1157281)
John, I have 44 ballots, and no, I'm not counting favre yet either. Have you accounted for new voter David C. Jones? I have the same list of not yet voted as you have.
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 03:58 PM (#1157285)
44 (without favre) it is, OCF.

Early on, for some reason, the ballot counter was adding up an extra ballot that wasn't there, but it seems to have corrected itself.
   125. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 21, 2005 at 04:25 PM (#1157321)
Are you not counting Trevor's ballot unless he posts it in the ballot thread? (Since I'm not tallying, I have no idea one way or the other.)
   126. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 04:40 PM (#1157338)
Devin, I'm not counting it as of yet since Trevor hasn't posted it here yet (though I probably will transfer it over later if he forgets to do so since there is nothing wrong with it and follows all of the rules).
   127. Esteban Rivera Posted: February 21, 2005 at 04:54 PM (#1157356)
Ballot for 1945:

1. Mickey Welch - The 300 game winner. The discussion of the past couple of "years" have made me realize that Welch should be a HOMer. Is not that far behind Keefe.

2. Hughie Jennings - A monster for five years in all aspects of his time's play.

3. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 90's. Then he just fell off. Was an outstanding defensive outfielder. I feel his peak gives him the edge over Ryan and Van Haltren.

4. Goose Goslin - The definition of what the next tier down from the first is to me. Had a great career in the shadow of some all-time greats.

5. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress. I buy the "greatness can't take full advantage off lower competition" idea. Proved he could hold his own in the Player's League.

6. Clark Griffith - The more that I look at him the more I realize I have been underestimating his accomplishments. The fourth best pitcher of the 90's should be in.

7. Rube Waddell - Was a special picher. I buy the run support analysis and also believe in the higher value of being a phenomenal K artist in his time and place. His career record isn't that impressive but you have to remember that there were some stretches where he was jettisoned because his managers did not know how to deal with his unique personality.

8. George Sisler - Put up enough career with a very good to great peak that he goes above Beckley.

9. Bill Foster - This is where a best guess places him. Is considered to be the best left-handed pitcher in the NNL. Chris Cobb's work has me really scratching my head on how to peg him.

10. Bill Monroe - Keep gaining confidence in him. Seems to be one of the best second basemen of his time.

11. Dobie Moore - Fantastic peak with just enough career at shortstop.

12. John Beckwith - Excepting his hitting, still have many uncertainties about him and what type of career he would have actually have had. Finally am convinced he should be on the ballot.

13. Jake Beckley - The career man. What he accomplished during his career is enough to offset the lack of peak, so to speak.

14. Roger Bresnahan - Edges out Schang and Shalk. I believe his versatility is a major plus in his case. I can understand not giving him credit if you think his playing time at other positions was worthless but when he was an outfielder he was one of the best ones in the league. Not many players in history would be able to pull that of.

15. Wes Ferrell -Makes it onto the ballot. Probably will stay because of the peak.


Not on ballot but made Top 10:

Eppa Rixey - The flatness of his career keeps him on the cusp of the ballot.

George Van Haltren - Consistency but not the best at position.
   128. Max Parkinson Posted: February 21, 2005 at 06:43 PM (#1157510)
1945 ballot:(MP HoMers in bold, this year’s inductees are Ferrell and Foster)

1. Hughie Jennings

Still crazy after all these years… Hughie remains the only player on the ballot with the “Best Player in the Game” belt. I’m not sure that a good chunk of you will ever be convinced of my argument, but I’d rather a superduperstar for 5 years, with a blah 6 or 7 than a pretty good player for 15. For those 5 great years, Hughie was more valuable offensively than A-rod in his prime, and was otherworldly in the field. 5 possible MVP years are much more than anyone else here can claim…

It seems as though Hughie isn’t going to make it for a while, now. Pity.

2. Wes Ferrell

The peak/prime voter in me. I don’t hold his (unsuccessful) comeback attempts against him at all.

3. John Beckwith

I went with the assumption that Beckwith in the big leagues wouldn't have lasted long at 3rd base, and would've ended up at 1st or left field. Taking Chris Cobb's WS estimates, I compared him to his contemporaries at the bat-first positions of LF,RF and 1B. He falls behind the no-brainers, but was comparable to Konetchy, Sisler and Keeler (not a true contemporary). Assuming average defensive value at 1B or LF, which is no stretch at all, he falls just ahead of Ed and Terry.

I understand that this is a conservative estimate of Beckwith’s defensive capability, but I can point to a number of current big-leaguers who were shortstops at AA or AAA or even for a year or two in the majors who would never be considered ML SSs or even 3rd basemen – Miguel Cabrera, Chipper Jones, Gary Sheffield, Jeff Bagwell, not to mention Delgado and Phelps (catchers, which is a similar proposition of good bat at key defensive positions who got shifted leftward on the spectrum).

4. Clark Griffith

As discussed in the Mickey Welch thread, Griffith is the best pitcher not yet inducted from a pretty damn good era of baseball, the one-league late ‘90s, where the other 3 are inner-circle types in Young, Nichols and Rusie. Contrast Welch, who would be at best the 7th best pitcher from his decade. Note the late ‘90s (as it’s true that Stivetts and Breitenstein would give him a run for his money if the pre-mound days were considered…)

5. Bill Foster

I think I’ve got the eligible NLs in the right order (Beckwith, Foster, Redding, Monroe, Moore, Lundy, Mendez, Taylor), although I could be convinced that Taylor should jump some. The tricky part is slotting them in with the ML players. I’m pretty comfortable with Taylor here.

5. Goose Goslin

Here’s a pretty good test case for how good you can be (Merit-wise) without ever being the best at your position in the game. Goslin could never be considered the best corner outfielder in the MLs during any multi-year stretch, thank you very much George Herman. Nevertheless, he was an elite-level player, and I think that he belongs on a ballot.

7. Ed Konetchy

Ahead of Sisler? Well, it’s close but yes. Whereas Rixey had the better extended prime than Faber, it wasn’t better by enough to overcome Faber’s peak lead. Here, Konetchy’s prime is better by enough to overcome Sisler’s peak. Take defense for example. Sisler was acknowledged as a great glove man, but it was really only true while he was young. Konetchy was as good as that for most of his career. Konetchy never had Sisler’s great few seasons, but he wasn’t nearly as bad at his worst.

8. Dick Redding

I think he slots in best here. But really, I’ve got a system that has a possible point range from 0 to 5950. The Babe is #1 with just over 4600, and 5 other players are above 3000. 14 more are better than 2000. I’ve got 46 players (retired and active) between Jennings (1618) and Eddie Cicotte (1420), a gap of less than 200 points. If I think Redding’s in this region, the margin of error puts him anywhere from 4 to 35 on this ballot.

9. Harry Hooper
10. George Burns

An excellent defensive RF, who would have played centre if an all-time great wasn’t there, and a great leadoff hitter of the teens.

11. Rube Waddell

A beneficiary of my correction for previously overpenalising poor-hitting and poor-fielding pitchers. He was certainly both. But those K’s…

12. Bobby Veach

Peak was higher than Hooper, but prime not as long. Was the 3rd best OF in the AL a few times; not too shabby when the other 2 are Cobb and Speaker.

13. George Sisler
14. Bill Monroe
15. Burleigh Grimes

The long-career spitballer. Could make the MP HoM someday.


Others:

16-20. Cuyler, Sewell, Moore, Uhle, Maranville
21-25. Rixey, Taylor, Shocker, F. Jones, Lundy
26-30. Roush, Bancroft, Mays, C. Jones, Mendez
31-35. Luque, Cicotte, Pennock, Duffy, Quinn
36-40. Leach, Seymour, Hoyt, Fletcher, Tinker
41-45. Shawkey, Lazzeri, Rommel, Buffinton. Youngs
46-50. Willis, Traynor, Bottomley, Bush, Stivetts

Manush is at 86.


Required:

Beckley – 56 on my ballot.

GVH – I just don’t see what the fuss is about. When the next candidate lull comes, someone please sell this guy to me, ‘cause he’s not even close right now. 69 on my ballot.

Rixey – Long career vs. High Peak/Prime. I tend to vote Option B (as opposed to J). 21 on my ballot.
   129. Trevor P. Posted: February 21, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1157570)
My debut ballot:

#1) George Van Haltren – long career, OPS+ above 120 (sort of a personal benchmark figure for me, the sabermetric equivalent of 2500 hits), and held his own as a pitcher. Gets a small bonus simply due to his versatility in 1888-90.

#2) Edd Roush – seems similar to GVH, with a higher OPS+ but lacking the pitching innings. I don’t quite understand his lack of support.

#3) Goose Goslin – Impressive offensive stats, but not as stunning as I’d thought. A HOMer nonetheless, but with a slight discount for being a corner outfielder.

#4) Eppa Rixey – as a career voter, 4500 innings of above-average baseball (not counting another 200 or so for missing 1918) wins me over. The Jake Beckley of pitchers.

#5) John Beckwith – reading over the evidence on his thread, I’m thinking he was a tremendous hitter playing a position he was totally unsuited for. I admit, I’m still not sure whether playing a horrendous 3B/SS is more or less valuable than being a competent 1B or LF. But his hitting gets him here, for now.

#5) Dick Lundy – I like the suggested 121 OPS+ better than Joe Sewell’s 109. If we were going to pick one shortstop from the 1920s, I’d rather it be Lundy. Also seems to be an A fielder, much like Sewell, without ever shifting to third base. Long career.

#6) Jake Beckley – even without any supposed peak, still managed to post a 125+ OPS over 9500 plate appearances. Someone compared him to a turn-of-the-century Mark Grace; I’ll say John Olerud instead.

#7) Wes Ferrell – more peak than career, but only two seasons' worth of innings less than Ed Cicotte, and combining the 117 ERA+ with his impressive (for a pitcher) hitting gets him on the ballot.

#8) Clark Griffith – looks like Cicotte, whom I’ve slotted one slot below him, except with more innings. One huge year (1898) and at least five others where I’d say he was an all-star candidate.

#9) Ed Cicotte – right now, the eligible pitchers – most of which are borderline candidate, to be sure – seem a step ahead of the borderline eligible position players. Over 3000 innings, an ERA+ at 123, and some massive peak seasons (1913, 1917, 1919).

#10) Burleigh Grimes – yes, another hurler. Doesn’t seem as impressive as Rixey, and initially that 107 ERA+ scared me off, but as Kelly from SD pointed out in the voting thread, Burleigh Arland was among the top three pitchers in his league six times, and one of the two best five times. Low defensive support, as well, gets him on my inaugural ballot. Could move up.

#11) Hugh Duffy – GVH with a shorter career but a higher peak. The fact that he’s #11 while Van Haltren is at the top of my ballot is a testament to how close I’m perceiving this class of players to be.

#12) Larry Doyle – short career, but that 126+ OPS is impressive for a middle infielder, even if he wasn’t exactly Ozzie Smith with the glove. Top three in the league twice.

#13) Bill Foster – not positive about where he falls; if he’s Dick Redding, he’s probably around #25 or so, but if he’s as good as his reputation, then I’d slot him in the top three. #13 is about midway, so that’s where I’ll place him.

#14) Rube Waddell – this is taking into account the tremendous amount of unearned runs he allowed. Still not sure how to weight that, but if it drops his ERA+ to somewhere around 125+ then I’ll put him here for now, given he threw slightly less innings than Cicotte.

#15) Wally Schang – Rates above Bresnahan; loses 0.00005 of a point for not being nicknamed “The Duke of Tralee,” but more than makes up for that by virtue of actually appearing on the field once in a while. Nice rate stats for a catcher from this period; 117 OPS+ required a double take when I first looked at it.

Lazzeri falls behind Doyle in the 2B rankings; I'm eyeballing him around Cupid Childs' level. Manush looks to be maybe around #40 or so overall.
   130. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 07:43 PM (#1157589)
Trevor, you have one problem: you have two #5's.
   131. mbd1mbd1 Posted: February 21, 2005 at 08:12 PM (#1157618)
1945 ballot: Down year for new eligibles. Lazzeri and Manush come in around 30-35.

1. Goose Goslin (3) - Deserving.
2. George Van Haltren (4) - He'll probably always be the top of the backlog for me.
3. Eppa Rixey (5) - Best pitcher of the backlog.
4. Jimmy Ryan (6) - Top of my ballot all shifted up.
5. Edd Roush (7) - I think Ryan and Roush are currently on opposite sides of my in/out line.
6. Roger Bresnahan (9) - Not sure he'll ever make it - our standards for catchers are pretty high, and he compiled a lot of his value as an outfielder.
7. Kiki Cuyler (10) - I'm much higher on Cuyler than the consensus, but I've been consistently high on the Very Good outfielders.
8. Joe Sewell (11) - I like Sewell, but he didn't hold up well next to Frisch.
9. Hugh Duffy (12) -
10. Harry Hooper (NA) -
11. Jake Beckley (NA) - Back on after Gehrig's election.
12. Bill Foster (13) - I trail the consensus on the two Negro Leaguers in the top 10. I'm confident that they belong in my top 15, but it's tough to confidently place them within that group.
13. Sam Rice (14) -
14. Rube Waddell (8) - Rube fell a few spots while most everyone else moved up a notch or two. Perhaps his way of honoring Hunter Thompson?
15. John Beckwith (NA) - was just off the ballot last year; is just on it this year.

next five: Doyle, Leach, Ferrell, Willis, Grimes. Ferrell was on the tail end of my ballot last year, and could be back on again soon. Griffith is behind several other pitchers such as Mendez and Mays (and the others already listed).
   132. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 21, 2005 at 09:07 PM (#1157698)
Here's my first ballot in a good long while...

1. Bill Foster – Best LHP in Negro League history. Far and away the best black pitcher of his era (1920s). Gets credit from me for his remarkable postseason performances. And unlike others here, I don’t discount Negro Leaguers based on the uncertainty of their stats. Uncertainty can cut both ways: He might also be better than we think.

Will the Fosters be the only brother combo in the HOM? Lloyd Waner and Rick Ferrell hope not.

2. Goose Goslin – The one guy Larry Ritter pushed into the HOF who richly deserved it. Hitting record speaks for itself. Like Foster, he also gets postseason credit from me. Was arguably the best player in both 1924 and ’25 World Series.

3. Wally Schang – What’s not to like here? 117 OPS+ in an era when catchers were not expected to hit. Adequate defensively. Very long career for a catcher (or for anyone, for that matter). Extraordinarily durable. Honestly, it shocks me that he hasn’t been elected already.

4. Pete Browning – Ranks 12th all-time in OPS+. Against weak competition, yes, but not THAT weak. Proved his mettle as a hitter in the NL after switching leagues at age 30. I think Browning’s been on every HOM ballot I’ve ever cast.

5. John Beckwith – The Albert Belle of the Negro Leagues. Will be interesting to see how he compares to Mule Suttles. Tremendous hitter.

6. Eppa Rixey – Not as sexy as Wes Ferrell, but pretty clearly superior as a pitcher. Longevity and durability in the extreme.

7. Dick Redding – Was Curt Schilling to Smoky Joe’s Randy Johnson, except did it for a longer period of time. Alas, gets no extra credit for having one of the best baseball nicknames of all time.

8. Hughie Jennings – I have a weakness for peak value. So did Hughie.

9. Rube Waddell – Not much I can say about him that I haven’t said on other ballots. Much better pitcher than Ferrell, with more career IP.

10. George Sisler – I think HOM voters are overcompensating for Sisler’s overratedness. The man batted .340 and collected 2800 hits, for chrissakes. Walks or no walks, that’s a HOMer. His peak ranks in all-time top five among 1B.

11. Joe Sewell – Trying not to vote with my heart here, as Sewell has always been one of my favorites. Short career, but then I’m a peak voter. Tremendous hitter for a SS, and good defense too (excepting his 1920 September callup).

12. Gavy Cravath – 30th all-time in OPS+. Am also giving him credit for tremendous seasons in the high minors.

13. Jake Beckley – An above average hitter for 18 consecutive years. Career after age 30 was arguably better than any other eligible player. Before 30 he wasn’t bad either.

14. Roger Bresnahan – Terrific hitter who killed his catching career by working an astounding 139 games behind the plate in 1908. Would rank higher had he caught more and played other positions less.

15. Spots Poles – The Richie Ashburn of the Negro Leagues? Or the Rod Carew? Anyway, I think his candidacy was dismissed rather too easily, so I’m giving him the last spot on my ballot.

---------
Just Missed:

16. Edd Roush – I like him, just couldn’t squeeze him onto the ballot.

17. José Méndez – See above.

18. Wes Ferrell – Not as good as Foster or Rixey in my view. Relatively short career: Only 8 productive seasons. Sub-200 win total hurts his cause; good hitting helps it. A fine pitcher, but despite what Dick Thompson says, nowhere near the level of Lefty Grove.
   133. jimd Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:00 PM (#1157794)
Ballot for 1945

Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

In the midst of revising my system (yet again). Maybe next election.

1) H. JENNINGS -- If he had any kind of career, he'd be first-ballot, inner circle.

2) J. SEWELL -- Nice combination of WARP peak and career.

3) W. FOSTER -- Top NeL pitcher needs some support.

4) W. FERRELL -- Great peak and longer than some of the other high peak pitchers.

5) C. CHILDS -- Best offensive 2b of the 90's.

6) F. DUNLAP -- Great two-way player; bypassed for some reason.

7) G. GOSLIN -- Similar to Van Haltren but better.

8) J. BECKWITH -- Moving him up based on discussions.

9) H. DUFFY -- Underrated.

10) G. VAN HALTREN -- Not much more to say.

11) B. VEACH -- Good peak relative to great competition. Excellent defensive fielder does not get enough credit.

12) T. LEACH -- Pennants Added convinced me that my system underrates him.

13) F. JONES -- Still an all-star player when he walked away.

14) G. SISLER -- Overrated but still good.

15) R. MARANVILLE -- Rarely the best but often second best or close.


Just missing the cut are:
16-19) Jimmy Ryan, Harry Hooper, Eppa Rixey, Dick Redding,
20-23) Ned Williamson, Herman Long, Ray Schalk, Edd Roush,
24-27) Dick Lundy, Jim McCormick, Wally Schang, Jose Mendez,
28-31) Del Pratt, Gavy Cravath, Roger Bresnahan, Sam Rice,
32-35) Tommy Bond, Rube Waddell, Clark Griffith, Jake Beckley
   134. Dick Thompson Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:16 PM (#1157808)
Eric,

While I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on most SABRmetric drivel one way or the other, I do have a lot of respect for people who do real research. And Eric, I do know that you are a researcher, so please tell me exactly how much research you have done into Wes Ferrell and Lefty Grove?

I have looked over some material here and have to say I am shocked at what passes for research. A quick review of some of my early 1935 notes shows Ferrell facing the Yanks when they were in first place, the White Sox twice when they were in first place and one in third place and the Indians once when they were in second place. (I only looked about a handful of games). Maybe the guy who tallies data from retrosheet and passes it off a original research can tell me how that fits into Ferrell avoiding the better teams while with Boston?

Ferrell was clearly the better pitcher in 1929, 1930 and 1935 when compared to Grove. His career value is not in the same ballpark as Grove's but depending on what you consider peak, Ferrell was at least as good (total value)as Grove, if not better (adjusting or team and managerial use) from 1929-1936.

Its all about the research, Eric; original research, not plagiarizing material by hitting a few computer keys, reorganizing a few numbers, and then trying to palm it off as original.

I was thinking about maybe voting in this process but came to realize that you guys are more scattered than the BBWAA.

I could go on and say that I think Bill Jackman was a better pitcher than Redding, Mendez, Foster (either one) and likely Paige, but I won't. But at least Eric, you are one of two or three guys here who understands that comment, and what reseach will go into any final conclusions I come too over the next several years.

Please leave my name out of any future posts. If I want my name mentioned then I will post it for you all to see.
   135. jimd Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:24 PM (#1157819)
killed his catching career by working an astounding 139 games behind the plate in 1908.

Astounding? Maybe not. Deacon McGuire catching 132 games in 1895 (before shinguards were introduced) is astounding, as is Johnny Kling in 1903. Bresnahan didn't even lead the league in games caught in 1908. George Gibson had seasons of 140, 150, and 143 games caught from 1908-10. That's astounding.
   136. jonesy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:24 PM (#1157820)
I couldn't have said that any better, myself.
   137. OCF Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:30 PM (#1157832)
We have 48 correct ballots and 3 defective ballots.

The defective ballots: favre, Trevor, and Max Parkinson. In Max's case, we can probably read his mind bout his 2 #5's and no #6, but in the case of favre and Trevor, I'm not willing to attempt mind reading. They really need to tell us what the fix is.

Still missing: Bleacher, Guapo, Joe Dimino, Philip, RMc, robc.
   138. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:31 PM (#1157836)
Yikes. Sorry, Dick, that was just a little aside intended to be somewhat humorous. I didn't mean for it to even be taken seriously, much less for you to take offense. My most sincere apologies. You are certainly the world's foremost expert on Wes Ferrell; I can respect that fact while simultaneously disagreeing with your conclusions.

At the same time, I certainly do not appreciate your implication that I and/or the other HOM voters are plagiarizers.

Is it just me, or has the mood in these HOM threads become a lot chillier and more uptight than it was when I last visited a few months ago?
   139. Max Parkinson Posted: February 21, 2005 at 10:53 PM (#1157865)
Damn, sorry John. Foster at #5, and Goslin at #6. Thanks for paying close attention.

MP
   140. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:07 PM (#1157883)
While I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on most SABRmetric drivel one way or the other

Gee, could have fooled me.
   141. sunnyday2 Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:08 PM (#1157886)
>Is it just me, or has the mood in these HOM threads become a lot chillier and more uptight than it was when I last visited a few months ago?

Eric--yes.

Maybe there is something else at work, I don't know, but to me it dates from the beginning of a Joey Harrington/Heisman Trophy campaign here on behalf of Wes Ferrell. Most of us who aren't FOWF have been berated for not paying attention, etc., and now for the first time, for doing shoddy research. Clearly if we don't come to the correct conclusion--i.e. elect Wes Ferrell--well then this has all been a complete waste of two years.

Well, I disagree. There are lots of people here (well about 50 or so) who have a stake in the HoM electing the right 220 ballplayers. And yes, it takes some of the fun out of it having people passing judgment on us who don't give a gd about 219 of them.


Oh and BTW, we could very easily elect Wes Ferrell in 20-30-40-50 years. I guess that is too late.

And as for Bill Jackman, I guess we are already supposed to know what he-who-cannot-be-named plans on spending the next several years "researching" (most of us, of course, have no idea exactly what that means) before coming to any "final conclusions."

Sheesh.
   142. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:12 PM (#1157889)
Well, thanks, sunnyday, that explains things. I didn't realize Ferrell had become a political football in my absence.
   143. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:13 PM (#1157891)
Damn, sorry John. Foster at #5, and Goslin at #6. Thanks for paying close attention.

Actually, OCF pointed it out first in post #137, but thanks anyway. :-) I had noticed the problem in your ballot, but as OCF stated, your ballot was easier to figure out than Trevor's and favre's were.
   144. Chris Cobb Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:17 PM (#1157897)
Is it just me, or has the mood in these HOM threads become a lot chillier and more uptight than it was when I last visited a few months ago?

Eric,

The mood of the group ebbs and flows. Right now things are more uptight than they were a dozen elections ago, but they were a good deal mellower about a dozen elections ago than they were a dozen elections before that. Ranking the Negro-League players gets passions running high, and we find our forebearance somewhat taxed by eruptions of partisanship surrounding other players as well.

With all due respect to the researchers who have generously shared their findings with this group, it is a challenge for us who are voters of the group to maintain genial relations with contributors whose purposes are not those of the electorate when they do not respect our purpose. We are here to bring the Hall of Merit into being as best we can: this calls on us, who are amateurs of the game (though professionals or even professional researchers, perhaps, in other walks of life), to find out as much as we can about hundreds of players and use that information as best we can to construct fair rankings. That is a fundamentally different project from intense biographical research into particular players, and I would hope that the researchers who share their knowledge with us would respect that difference, rather than denigrating our project.

Nonvoters and voters alike should also remember that the electorate's purpose requires that we work together long-term, which requires that we maintain genial relations with each other even when we disagree week and week after week about players we come to care about. That calls on us to treat one another's ideas, however much we disagree with them, with respect.
   145. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:23 PM (#1157903)
I suppose it would be tasteless of me to comment on the irony of HOM voters being accused of plagiarism by someone who prohibits us from crediting him by name...
   146. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:31 PM (#1157912)
I suppose it would be tasteless of me to comment on the irony of HOM voters being accused of plagiarism by someone who prohibits us from crediting him by name...

I don't understand this charge of plagiarism anyway. Are voters or non-voters here lifting passages word for word from Dick Thompson? If that's the case, he should point out each individual case and those individuals should take their lumps. If not, then charges of plagiarism should be dropped, IMO.
   147. jonesy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 11:58 PM (#1157935)
Baseball-fever.com

This guys says he post regularly on HOM on baseballprimer.




12-24-2004, 12:16 PM
cubbieinexile
Registered User Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,926


One more example of the holes in ERA+ (which is the same hole as in ERA).

Here are the big three of the 1930 Philadelphia Athletics.

The teams are listed in order of runs scored.

Grove pitched:

1. 16.2 innings against NY.
2. 46.2 innings against Washington.
3. 48.0 innings against Cleveland.
4. 56.0 innings against Detroit.
5. 34.1 innings against StL.
6. 35.2 innings against Chicago.
7. 53.2 innings against Boston.

Earnshaw pitched:

1. 32.2 innings against NY.
2. 33.3 innings against Washington.
3. 56.0 innings against Cleveland.
4. 46.2 innings against Detroit.
5. 47.2 innings against StL.
6. 38.2 innings against Chicago.
7. 41.0 innings against Boston.

Walberg pitched:

1. 54.0 innings against NY.
2. 52.1 innings against Washington.
3. 20.1 innings against Cleveland.
4. 17.0 innings against Detroit.
5. 38.1 innings against StL.
6. 19.0 innings against Chicago.
7. 08.2 innings against Boston.


Grove ERA+ 184
Earnshaw ERA+ 105
Walberg ERA+ 100

Someone sure took a bullet for the team, and I don't think it was Lefty



A few things to point out. The three best offenses that year werer the Yankees, A's, and the Senators. With Boston and Chicago being the worst. Take a look at Walberg. He played the most innings against the best offenses and played the least amount of time against the worst offenses. Meanwhile the great LEfty Grove plays the fewest innings against the best offenses and plays the most innings against the weakest. Grove gets the blow you away ERA and ERA+ while Walberg gets the shaft.

ERA+ is supposed to be some sort of normalizer that allow us to view each pitcher equally without bias. I just don't see that happening.

cubbieinexile
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cubbieinexile
Find all posts by cubbieinexile
Add cubbieinexile to Your Buddy List

#22 12-24
   148. Buddha Posted: February 22, 2005 at 12:07 AM (#1157950)
Without plaigerizing material, what would Internet message board posters do with their time?

I can't think of a more aptly named poster than Dick Thompson.
   149. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 22, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1157992)
1. Goose Goslin (2) - (going from memory, don't have my sheet handy ~.850 PA, ~250 WSaR, ~375 WS). One of the lesser known greats. For a guy that didn't play for the Yankees or A's, it's pretty amazing he was a top player on a teams that won 2 World Series and 3 other pennants.

2. Eppa Rixey (4) - (280-237 CJ, .687 PA, 206 WSaR, 331 WS) Rixey is clearly the top pitcher on this ballot. He'd be over 300 CJ wins (and around .770 PA and 370 WS) if he hadn't served in the military in 1918-19. 300 game winners are a rare breed (especially after 1892) and in just about any other conditions before 1985, Rixey would have been one. It's a shame that he's considered a mistake Hall of Famer by many because of his W-L record, which was tainted by pitching for some bad teams. He's every bit as good as Robin Roberts was, for example.

3. Charley Jones (5) - (.714 PA, 197 WSaR, 287 WS) Give him credit for his blackballed years at .0875 per year and he's at .889 PA. That's basically his 1878, he was better than that in 1879, 1884 and 1885. Throw in 33 WS per year and we're at 343. Top 7 in OPS+ in the league every year he played from 1876-85, and he played some CF too. Wow.

4. Hughie Jennings (6) - The Sandy Koufax of position players. Crammed 9 years production into 5 magnificent seasons.

5. Clark Griffith (7) - (231-152 CJ, .765 PA, 216 WSaR, 320 WS). He rates as the top post 1893 pitcher on the ballot, by a long-shot - though earlier pitchers seem to have an advantage on PA (more innings in a season = more pennant impact). He falls behind Rixey when Rixey's war credit is included. It was also tougher for pitchers to have the same pennant impact in Rixey's era, so ties tend to go to the modern pitcher on this basis.

Why the rush on McGinnity and the stonewalling of Griffith? I just don't get it. I think we were way too friendly to McGinnity, but I can't see how he'd be in and Griffith out - Griffith absolutely deserves eventual induction.

6. Bill Monroe (8) - (Esitmated 344 WS if you give him credit for A defense) Still not convinced he was better than Grant or Johnson, but I am confident he was a star.

7. Gavy Cravath (9) - (.533 PA, 152 WSaR, 220 WS) Too much to ignore - either he was a freak of nature or there's a lot missing. Just giving him 4 years of extra credit at .075 PA, or 29 WS per season (he was better than that 3 times in his 30s) moves him to 336 WS, .833 PA.

8. Jake Beckley (10) - (.712 PA, 215 WSaR, 369 WS) A very good player for a very long time, much better than an average player. 11 seasons over 20 WS, which is understated by about 2-3 per season because of WS undervaluing 1B in his era. That has a lot of value in my opinion.

9. Wes Ferrell (11) - Great pitcher at his best and a good hitter. Combined value higher than I ever realized.

10. Bill Foster (12) - seems to me that he's similar to Coveleski, and this is about where I'd slot him.

11. Tony Lazzeri (n/e) - Quite a hitter for a 2B. I like him better than Childs (though they are quite similar) because 2B was more important defensively in Lazzeri's time.

12. Mike Griffin (13) - We're forgetting about him guys. Great defense, very good offense and a star during the one league era, where it was tougher to stand out. Reassessment moves him back onto the ballot.

13. George Van Haltren (14) - (.898 PA, 259 WSaR, 412 WS; .774/225/361 not counting the pitching) - Nice, long, consistent career, very good player for a long time. Not a bad fielder, but not a great one either, pretty good hitter. Never had a monster year, he didn't make any Stats All-Star teams, but he also played mostly in a one-league era, where only 3 All-Star OFs were named per year, not 6. Should get a signficant bump for his pitching, though it is easy to forget about it.

14. Tommy Leach (15) - (.775 PA, 226 WSaR, 355 WS) Win Shares loves this guy. He's underrated as a 3B and overrated as a CF because of the time he played in, but in the end it's a wash. Sure it wasn't a great league, but that's an awful lot of WS to turn your back on. He's also the 3rd highest rated 3B to date by WARP3 - just a hair behind Cross and Groh.

15. Dobie Moore (16) - (Estimated 300-340 WS depending on war credit and defensive quality). Great player, career cut short.

*****

16. Wally Schang (17) - (.567 PA, 174 WSaR, 262 WS) The best white catcher we've seen since Buck Ewing. 117 OPS+ that was OBP heavy (career .393 OBP) and he lasted 19 years, though he never played more than 134 games in a season. He rates higher on WS and WARP3 (70.8) than Charlie Bennett (.525, 154 WSaR, 239 WS, 68.4 WARP3).

Schang is miles ahead of Schalk (.390 PA, 120 WSaR, 206 WS), and as far as I can tell, any white catcher of the era 1910-30 era.

17. Jimmy Ryan (18) - (.809 PA, 235 WSaR, 378 WS) Great player from 1888-92, and a very good player during the remainder of his long career.

18. Edd Roush (19) - (.796 PA, 228 WSaR, 340 WS) Great player from 1917-1920. His peak was every bit as good as Sisler. Sisler 1916-1922: 145 WSaR. Roush's best 7 seasons 152 WSaR. Sisler, one season at 25 WSaR. Roush two above that and another at 24. The remainder of their careers isn't close. I can't see voting Sisler over Roush. Even giving Sisler at 10% overall bonus for 1B not being measured correctly (which wouldn't even apply to 2nd half of Sisler's career, where 1B became a more offensive position Roush is ahead on all three measures.

19. Ben Taylor (20) - (Estimated 326 WS) Almost a direct replica of Beckley. Says a lot about the tightness of the ballot.

20. Jim McCormick (21) - WARP and WS like him much better than Welch.

21. Hugh Duffy (22) - (.820 PA, 231 WSaR, 348 WS) What? The guy I bashed, bashed and bashed again? I guess I was discounting his 1891 too heavily. It needs to be deflated, but not as much as I had. I also laughed away his 1894 as a very good year, but not a historic one in context - again, I was probably too harsh there.

22. Vic Willis (23) - (251-203 CJ, .734 PA, 207 WSaR, 322 WS) - I like Mike Webber's pet too.

23. Spotswood Poles (24) - (~332 WS)

24. Heinie Manush (n/e) - similar offensively to Roush, but he was a LF, not a CF.

25. Dolph Luque (25) - (with 3 bonus seasons at roughly .500 I see him at 239-199 (207-166 CJ), .667 PA, 197 WSaR, 297 WS)
26. Frank Chance (26) - (.649 PA, 185 WSaR, 257 WS) - don't forget to give him a slight catcher boost if that's something you do . . .
27. Roger Bresnahan (27) - (.579 PA, 170 WSaR, 249 WS)
28. George Sisler (28) - (.660 PA, 190 WSaR, 317 WS) Most of what I want to say about him is covered in the Roush comment. Additionally, Sisler was a great player from 1916-22. 1B had more defensive responsibility and Sisler still hit like a great outfielder. I see as quite similar to Don Mattingly, but Sisler was able to sustain his greatness a little bit longer and would have to rank ahead if forced to choose among them. I give him a 7.7% bonus for playing 1B - this is the percentage of his pennants added that game before 1923 (the date I generally use as my cutoff for deadball the deadball 1B bonus).
29. Mickey Welch (29) - (302-215 CJ, 1.414 PA, 341 WSaR, 536 WS) - I can't tell if RSI or WARP tells the true story. Extremely divergent opinions. Sad to see that he died this year without being elected.

Others within shouting distance:

Close but can't even order them at this point: Dick Redding, Jose Mendez, Dick Lundy, Urban Shocker, Carl Mays, Burleigh Grimes (should I be giving him any military service credit?), Rube Waddell, Jack Quinn, Eddie Cicotte, Herb Pennock, Harry Hooper, Ed Konetchy, Joe Sewell, Travis Jackson, John Beckwith, Ed Williamson, Lave Cross, Pie Traynor, Herman Long, Sam Rice, Fielder Jones, Larry Doyle, Cupid Childs, John McGraw, Rabbit Maranville, Joe Tinker, Dave Bancroft, Mike Tiernan, Pete Browning, Kiki Cuyler, Waite Hoyt.
   150. OCF Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:12 AM (#1158059)
12. Mike Griffin

Aw, Joe, you had to do that to me? I had to add another line to my spreadsheet to take care of the number of candidates receiving votes. What I think that means is that we have a new high in number of vote recipients.

-

Most of the venom in Dick Thompson's post wasn't actually aimed at Eric, it was aimed at Chris J. Chris probably doesn't need to defend himself - we know what he's done for us.
   151. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:16 AM (#1158067)
What I think that means is that we have a new high in number of vote recipients.

Easily.
   152. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1158082)
Man, are you guys in trouble. Two people have already violated the don't-use-my-name decree.
   153. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:32 AM (#1158083)
Man, are you guys in trouble. Two people have already violated the don't-use-my-name decree.

I think I'll survive his wrath. :-)
   154. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:32 AM (#1158084)
I have looked over some material here and have to say I am shocked at what passes for research. A quick review of some of my early 1935 notes shows Ferrell facing the Yanks when they were in first place, the White Sox twice when they were in first place and one in third place and the Indians once when they were in second place. (I only looked about a handful of games). Maybe the guy who tallies data from retrosheet and passes it off a[s] original research can tell me how that fits into Ferrell avoiding the better teams while with Boston?

Gee, I have no idea who this could be referring to. . . . I'm being attacked in multiple directions at once so I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with the "passes it off" bit. I've been pretty damn open all along that what I do comes from retrosheet. The idea that I've been dishonestly pretending to do all the tallying myself is garbage.

As for the not doing original research bit - again, I've never pretended to be anything other than someone who farts around with retrosheet. If doing research means serious archival work I clearly am not doing research nor have I ever pretended to do that sort of heavy lifting.

Is that what "original research" means, though? As far as I can tell, original research means, having a question that as near as one can tell hasn't been answered yet, looking through the available and important records to figure it out, and then coming up with an answer. That's what I do. If that ain't original then rest assured I don't do primary research. Am I supposed to apologize that the records I look through are easily available? The results I do ain't perfect, but I never claimed they were.

As for one other part of the flame - A quick review of some of my early 1935 notes shows Ferrell facing the Yanks when they were in first place, the White Sox twice when they were in first place and one in third place and the Indians once when they were in second place. (I only looked about a handful of games).

Well, my retrosheet-plagarized notes says that Ferrell started 7 games against the last place A's that year, 6 games against the seventh place Browns, 7 games against the sixth place Senators in 1935, and 6 more games against the fifth place White Sox that year. He had four starts each against the three teams that ended up against teams with winning records.

Oh yeah - about the bit of using his starts against the White Sox to show he was being used to face the better teams - I don't buy that. The White Sox finished dead last in '34, 6th place in '33, dead last in '32, dead last in '31 - and then started '35 by winning 13 of their first 17. Given their previous track record, I have some serious doubts if the rest of the AL really took them that seriously rather then seeing them as an April wonder.

Its all about the research, Eric; original research, not plagiarizing material by hitting a few computer keys, reorganizing a few numbers, and then trying to palm it off as original.

Again, I've always been very clear that I get all the stuff I got from retrosheet. If someone wants to deem that original research or something else is a choice each of you can make on your own. Do you judge if a project is "original research" or not based on the degree of difficulty a person had compiling it or by if the results tell you something you didn't know before?

I've got a great deal of respect for your work, and the time/effort you've put into it. Go #### yourself.
   155. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:40 AM (#1158095)
I've been pretty damn open all along that what I do comes from retrosheet.

100% correct.
   156. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:43 AM (#1158099)
And the Retrosheet folks would not consider that plagiarizing... in fact, Chris's work is exactly the sort of project the Retrosheet data was gathered for in the first place.
   157. Michael Bass Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:44 AM (#1158101)
Moreover, isn't the purpose of Retrosheet largely to expediate work like Chris's?

I've been on record as saying certain parties have been too hard on jonesy, but post 134 (not by jonesy of course, don't want him to be unfairly trashed for what someone else said) is the single most ridiculous post in the history of this project. And that covers a lot of ridiculous posts.
   158. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:47 AM (#1158104)
And the Retrosheet folks would not consider that plagiarizing... in fact, Chris's work is exactly the sort of project the Retrosheet data was gathered for in the first place.

Without a doubt. We're not talking about the Elias Bureau here.
   159. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:56 AM (#1158125)
The sad part of all of this is that if Chris had been propping up Ferrell instead of knocking him down, he would not have been flamed about being a plagiarizer.

For the life of me, I don't understand the fixation on a single player. I was Dickey Pearce's #1 fan, but I was never afraid of facts knocking him off my pedestal that I made for him. I never felt emotionally tied to him or any other candidate. Maybe spending years on research for a single player will do the opposite to you.
   160. Howie Menckel Posted: February 22, 2005 at 01:58 AM (#1158131)
Thanks, Dick, I mean anonymous, but I think I'll stick with my 'plagiarizing' compadres right here.

Feel free to try to develop a project that draws in 40 to 60 fairly sane people and gets them to stick time and effort into it for two years - and another two more to come.
Get back to me when you succeed!

I haven't felt so riled up since that girl in 4th grade tried to infiltrate our all-boys treehouse, lol.
   161. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:01 AM (#1158140)
I think Dick's post was completely out of line, and I'm sorry to see it, because he is someone that I respect, and I would have liked to have seen him as a part of this. I hope he'll reconsider at some point.

But, to criticize AN ENTIRE PROJECT, based on what some people are saying about one player is ridiculous. Talk about not seeing things clearly when you are emotionally invested in something, wow.

I'll put our record up against the BBWAA (errors of ommission) and the Veteran's Committee (errors of commission) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Then he takes potshots at the research, as if any research is worthless unless you go back to actual 1935 newspapers and look things up. Again, ridiculous.

I really don't want to comment further, because I may say something I'll regret, but if it wasn't for the registration system, I would have thought that post came from a troll.

Dick, instead of just trashing everything with ill-conceived and flat out incorrect attacks, how about making your case instead, and convincing us that we are wrong. It's happened before, where as a group someone has pointed out something that we were missing in our analysis and we changed our minds. See Pearce, Dickey or Spalding, Al or Bennett, Charlie as examples.

It's a lot more constuctive to take that approach, as opposed to the, 'I'm going to take my ball and go home, because you all are simply beneath me' route.
   162. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:03 AM (#1158145)
The election is now over. Results will be posted shortly.

If favre or Trevor resubmit corrected ballots within the next hour or so, I will add them in.
   163. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:11 AM (#1158162)
I also think it's wild Wes Ferrell has come a heckuva lot closer with this body than he ever did with the sanctioned bodies, but we are, 'more scattered than the BBWAA', whatever that means (as if that's the criteria for judging our work anyway).

I'll stop now.
   164. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 02:21 AM (#1158186)
I also think it's wild Wes Ferrell has come a heckuva lot closer with this body than he ever did with the sanctioned bodies, but we are, 'more scattered than the BBWAA', whatever that means (as if that's the criteria for judging our work anyway).

But Joe, we dabble in SABRmetric drivel, so our opinions are considered second-rate.
   165. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 22, 2005 at 03:02 AM (#1158282)
One quick point of clarification: I don't really mind if someone considers what I do to be "original research" or "research" or "drivel" or whatever. Just as long as everyone is clear on where I get it from and how I figure it. From that, people can come to their own conclusions on the merits (or lack thereof) of what I do. What bugs me is any statements that insinuate or flat out state that I'm trying to con people into thinking I'm doing something different than what I do.

I mentioned at the outset of my presentation at SABR 34 that I use retrosheet, the description of What is RSI? and Median Opponent Winning Percentage on my website both credit retroshet, I've always given the site the credit it's due here, on primer, and even in the Old Rod Neyer Message Board. I also nominated it for the primey for best stats site (even mentioning that even if b-ref was eligible for a primey nomination I'd still vote for retrosheet).

I don't mind if anyone thinks my work is worthless, I do very much mind the implication that I'm unethical in compiling and promoting my potentially worthless work.
   166. favre Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1158454)
"You have two #10, favre."

CRAP! Here's how my ballot should look, if someone wants to add to the totals:

1. Beckwith
2. Goslin
3. Beckley
4. Griffith
5. Leach
6. Rixey
7. Sisler
8. Roush
9. B. Foster
10. Waddell
11. E. Williamson
12. Jennings
13. Childs
14. Bresnahan
15. Doyle


Sorry about that.
   167. favre Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:30 AM (#1158471)
Let me amend the previous post: I'm sure it's too late to add the corrected ballot to the totals. I figured I'd post it anyway.
   168. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2005 at 04:31 AM (#1158473)
favre's ballot has been included.
   169. Jeff M Posted: February 22, 2005 at 05:58 AM (#1158646)
Is it just me, or has the mood in these HOM threads become a lot chillier and more uptight than it was when I last visited a few months ago?

Funny, the reason I no longer participate in discussions is because one of the HoM voters made this awfully ugly about a year ago and could never muster an apology for an unwarranted personal attack. The irony is that the attack was provoked by a suggestion that voters spent too much time advocating a candidate without presenting data. Much of the fun of the project was lost for me when the comments turned personal.

There is no excuse for the language or tone of Mr. Thompson's post. Frankly, I had never heard of him before that post and suspect I never will again. Best to ignore him. Don't let him get to you the way someone got to me.
   170. Rick A. Posted: February 22, 2005 at 06:45 AM (#1158704)
Man, the negativity displayed by some people in this thread is overwhelming.

As someone who doesn't contribute to this wonderful project as much as others, let me say that I really appreciate the work and thoughts of those who do contribute.

So, Chris J., Chris Cobb, John Murphy (Personally, I've always liked your lead-ins), Joe D., OCF, jimd, Kelly from SD and probably dozens of others. Thanks for all your work. Each of you makes this fun project even more fun and worthwhile.
   171. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:04 AM (#1158745)
What Rick said.
   172. KJOK Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:30 AM (#1158798)
I hate to even get into Mr. Thompson's post, but in fairness to those on this project who may not have seen Mr. Thompson's post on Mr. Treder's 1930's HBT article, I'll repost here (and to make sure I'm not plagerizing, these are MR. THOMPSON'S own words, not mine:

"Steve,

It took me five minutes to pull these up. No hitting, just his pitching. Of course, then again, without ERA+, OPS+ and DIPS available to them, none of these guys probably knew anything about baseball in the 1930s. You'll have to wait for the book to read more.....

Steve,

You're credibilty is kind of flapping in the breeze here. I really admire your knowledge base regarding the PCL and the 50s and 60s, but you're way off base regarding the 30s.

The only statistical difference between Gomez, Grove, Dean and Hubbell from Ferrell is that those guys played on championship or near championship caliber teams while Ferrell, for the most part, was always on a fourth place club.

Select your own statistical measurement of choice, be it WARP, Win Shares or TPR, for all put Ferrell roughly in the same category as the other four in Ferrell's peak seasons of 1929-1936. ERA+ has a major flaw in that it has no idea of the caliber of the competition that a pitcher faces.........

Mack, McCarthy, Stengel, Johnson, and Huggins all refered to Ferrell as a great pitcher. So we should take Steve Treder's word that he wasn't (sorry Steve)?...........

Steve, don't base you understanding of the 1930s on revisionist history. You presented absolutely zero original material in you pieces on the 30s. You just manipulated a few numbers. This is so different from the great points you present regarding more current eras....."

I didn't repeat all of the quotes and such in favor of Ferrell's greatness, so for the FULL responses go here:

Mr. Thompson's Ferrell Arguments
   173. DanG Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:36 AM (#1158820)
I'm reminded of some ancient history.

In this project's beginnings, there was discussion about to whom the voting should be open. People came out overwhelmingly in favor of an open electorate; there would be minimal qualifiers and no cutoff of membership.

Should the voting privilege be restricted to an elite few? Or should we maybe tighten up rules as to what passes for a valid ballot? As we near the halfway point in the project, with a gradual addition of new voters, perhaps we should revisit this topic.

Another possible area of discussion is about exactly what we are trying to do here. There are several distinct approaches to ballot construction, some of which we may want to discourage.

The different approaches emphasize different aspects of the candidates. Some of these are: favoring pitchers more; ignoring most pitchers; favoring Negro leaguers; shunting aside most Negro leaguers; favoring 19th century players; extreme timelining against 19th century players; varying discounts for league quality; emphasis on "reality check" or traditional stats; myopic emphasis on an uberstat, usually WARP or win shares...you get the idea.

There is little consensus here as to what is important, that we end up with an ever-increasing number of candidates being named on ballots. Perhaps this is what a certain commenter meant by "scattered". IMO, if a reasoned discussion can come to some conclusions as to what are and what are not valid approaches, it would benefit the project.
   174. Sean Gilman Posted: February 22, 2005 at 07:49 AM (#1158862)
There is little consensus here as to what is important, that we end up with an ever-increasing number of candidates being named on ballots. Perhaps this is what a certain commenter meant by "scattered". IMO, if a reasoned discussion can come to some conclusions as to what are and what are not valid approaches, it would benefit the project.


The whole point of having an electorate is to have a variety of approaches. At the heart of this project lies the idea that no single one of our measurements is the "correct" way of looking at things. But, taken together, the HOM makes as correct a statement as is currently possible.

As for the fact that there was a record number of candidates voted for this election, you can chalk that up to it being a backlog year, and a year with the largest backlog to date (because it's the most recent election, of course).

If we all agred on what methods to use and which candidates to vote for, there wouldn't be much reason to show up every week, would there?
   175. OCF Posted: February 22, 2005 at 08:07 AM (#1158891)
Sometimes a Ruth or Cobb shows up on the ballot and we don't have to be very smart to elect him. But there are more candidates who are only barely good enough to be elected, and even more candidates who are close but not quite good enough. It's reasonable that as we include more of baseball history, we accomulate more of those just-outside candidates. We had a "backlog" year in 1945 - no significant new candidates. So everyone's ballot racheted down a couple of notches, and we all had to go find another couple of players to include. My reaction when I see votes for those I'm not voting for, like Burns or Schang, or Willis? Those guys have cases too; none of those votes is ridiculous. Sometimes I wind up thinking that even though I don't have a vote to spare for so-and-so, I'm glad someone is looking out for him.
   176. DavidFoss Posted: February 22, 2005 at 08:54 AM (#1158954)
There is little consensus here as to what is important, that we end up with an ever-increasing number of candidates being named on ballots. Perhaps this is what a certain commenter meant by "scattered". IMO, if a reasoned discussion can come to some conclusions as to what are and what are not valid approaches, it would benefit the project.

Well, we have a growing number of players eligible for induction. Far more than the BBWAA or VC usually considers. Its only natural that the "consensus" is blurring as time goes on.

We have "only" 15 slots on the ballot, so any finish below about 30th gets into the area of "do we really have enough of a voting sample at this point?". Also, its been observed that some candidates (e.g. Jennings) tend to jump up and down in relation to other candidates due to a particular ballot distribution. In Hughie's case its a top-heavy distribution on relatively few ballots that gains and loses its oomph when his top votes are or are not in elect-me slots.

Because of these effects, its clear to me that the exact order of the backlog is not a good predictor of future-induction beyond 2-3 years into the future. When the 60s come and we start electing three a year and we're digging into the backlog again, we'll need to be vigilant in recalling players that none of us thought were ballot-worthy in the early 50s. Case in point would be to look at what Frank Chance did last year... coming from off the ballot and leap-frogging 16 returnees.

A run-off vote each week of only players listed in the top 25-30 or so would eliminate much of the observed "scatter" of our voting. (25-30 is just a number I came up with off the top of my head here). This is not a logistically plausible suggestion, but a thought experiment to explain why our votes exhibit more scatter than the HOF votes.
   177. McCoy Posted: June 06, 2005 at 05:21 AM (#1384173)
Little late and probably pointless but since Jonesy's email is not working I'm going to put it here, where it all started.

Jonesy has accused me (Cubbieinexile) of plagiarizing apparently one of his posts. Looking back at my post in the literal sense I did, but Jonesy then goes on and puts words in my mouth that I never said. He claims that I say I am a regular in the HoM. I am not and I have never claimed to be. So in that regard he is telling a falsehood. The second problem I have with his post concerns a mistake I made, one that was pretty obvious I made but that he ignored it to make his point. In my original post all of his original words are in a darken grey quote box. My mistake was when I did the cut and paste job I failed to get his name at the top. I did not notice it until I came across this plagiarism accusation. I'm thinking Jonesy is not a stranger to discussion boards and he is fully aware of the quote function on these boards, but he ignore the quote function and failed to mention it when slamming me. To me if I am guilty of something it is sloppy crediting not plagiarism, which to me is a pretty serious charge to make, which is why I am responding so many months later.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=22585
   178. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 06, 2005 at 02:05 PM (#1384519)
He claims that I say I am a regular in the HoM. I am not and I have never claimed to be. So in that regard he is telling a falsehood.

Jonesy is definitely wrong at any rate about you being a regular here.

Jonesy hasn't been here since the 1945 election because he agreed with Dick Thompson's ridiculous assertion that Chris J. was a plagiarizer himself because he uses Retrosheet. I guess finding out that nobody was on his side here dispirited him (Wes Ferrell's sputtering candidacy probably didn't help, either) and he hasn't been seen since. Which is a shame because he was a very informative poster.

Did you proclaim the work as original and solely of your own efforts, McCoy? If you didn't, charges of plagiarism fall flat with me.
   179. McCoy Posted: June 06, 2005 at 05:13 PM (#1384880)
No I did not. The link is at the bottom of my post. In it you can see that I was quoting someone else. Again I would say that what I did wrong was a sloppy job of crediting. It just irks me that instead of emailing me or posting a message to me explaining his views he just charges me with plagiarism several months after the fact in a forum that I do not frequent.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.6753 seconds
49 querie(s) executed