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 07, 2005

1945 Ballot Discussion

Hall of Famers Heinie Manush and Tony Lazzeri lead the Class of ‘45. Will they both go in this election or will they be perennial returnees for decades to come?

1945 (February 13)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

285 67.5 1923 Heinie Manush-LF (1971)
252 76.7 1926 Tony Lazzeri-2B (1946)
203 55.1 1924 Earl Whitehill-P (1954)
183 50.6 1923 Ossie Bluege-3B (1985)
149 54.1 1928 Pinky Whitney-3B (1987)
139 37.6 1928 Carl Reynolds-RF/CF (1978)
128 37.7 1924 Luke Sewell-C (1987)
113 31.6 1928 Fred Frankhouse-P (1989)

1945 (February 13)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

12% 27-39 George Giles-1B (1909) #6 1b - 0 - 1*
12% 25-40 Webster McDonald-P (1900)0 - 0*
04% 27-39 Ted Trent-P (1903) 4 - 3*
00% 30-39 Harry Kincannon-P (??)0 - 0*

Players Passing Away in 1944
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

85 1900 Tony Mullane-P
78 Kenesaw Mountain Landis
77 1905 Jouett Meekin-P
70 1917 Topsy Hartsel-LF
70 1918 Jack Powell-P
68 1917 Kid Elberfeld-SS
65 1921 Roger Bresnahan-C
63 1921 George Mullin-P
54 1926 Claude Hendrix-P
39 1944 Ed Brandt-P

For the great lists submitted by Dan and Chris, I thank them.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 07, 2005 at 04:16 AM | 211 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 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2005 at 03:56 AM (#1140423)
Here's an updated AL vs NL vs Negro Leagues HOM roundup, 1901-24 (minimum 10 G; non-regulars or players appearing in both leagues have an asterisk):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1915
NL (8) - Mathewson, Wagner, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby*
AL (9) - Lajoie, Crawford, Jackson, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Faber, Ruth
FL (2) - Plank, Brown
Negro (7) - Hill, Santop, Foster*, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Charleston*

1916
NL (9) - Mathewson*, Wagner, Brown, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby
AL (14) - Lajoie, Crawford, Plank, Jackson*, Baker, Wallace*, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth
Negro (8) - HRJohnson*, Hill, Santop, Foster, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Charleston

1917
NL (7) - Wagner*, Magee, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby
AL (12) - Crawford*, Plank*, Jackson, Baker, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth
Negro (6) - Hill, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Charleston

1918
NL (6) - Magee, Wallace*, Wheat, Groh, Carey, Hornsby
AL (10) - Jackson*, Baker, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber*, Ruth
Negro (6) - Hill, Santop*, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Charleston

1919
NL (7) - Magee*, Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey*, Hornsby, Frisch*
AL (10) - Jackson, Baker, WJohnson, Cobb, Speaker, ECollins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth
Negro (6) - Hill, Santop*, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Charleston

1920
NL (6) - Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby, Frisch
AL (9) - Jackson, Johnson*, Cobb, Speaker, E Collins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth
Negro (7) - Hill, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Rogan, Charleston

1921
NL (6) - Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby, Frisch
AL (9) - Baker, W Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, E Collins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth
Negro (7) - Hill, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Rogan, Charleston

1922
NL (7) - Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby, Vance, Frisch
AL (9) - Baker*, W Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, E Collins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth
Negro (7) - Hill*, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Rogan, Charleston

1923
NL (7) - Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby, Vance, Frisch
AL (9) - W Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, E Collins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth, Gehrig
Negro (7) - Hill*, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Rogan, Charleston

1924
NL (8) - Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby, Vance, Terry, Frisch
AL (9) - W Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, E Collins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth, Gehrig*
Negro (7) - Hill*, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Rogan, Charleston


So the AL grabs the lead in 1902 and doesn't relinquish it. By around 1912, we're electing about as many Negro Leaguers as National Leaguers, and by 1920 the American League is barely ahead of the Negro League superstar count...
   102. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:16 AM (#1140465)
HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min 10 pct)

C (4.15) - Cochrane 100, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (8.13) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Anson 83, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10

2B (7.13) - McPhee 100, E Collins 98, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Wright 10

3B (4.84) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, McVey 14, Richardson 13

SS (8.37) - Pearce 96, Glasscock 94, Wright 89, Dahlen 88, Wallace 77, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16

OF (24.10) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Keeler 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Santop 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10

Infield - 32.62/6.52 per slot
Outfield - 24.10/8.03 per slot

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching of players like Ruth or Caruthers.

So we feel as if we've elected 8 2Bs to 6 1Bs, but these numbers tell a slightly different story.
   103. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:34 AM (#1140502)
Karl,

Seeing as how we just elect Lip Pike a few yeras ago and guys like Duffy, Jennings, GVH, and Griffith are getting a lot of support something tells me that are going to elect another 19c player or two, not to mention any other 1900-1920 players. Hopefully that player(s) isn't Jake Beckley :-)

Sunny,

I was being facetious on the ERA comment. Sorry if it came out wrong.

I do NOT feel that Joss and Ferrell's IP totals are of equal value. Yes, it is the same amount of outs, but in the context of their times, Ferrel's getting 7500 outs was much more valuable than Joss's.

Also, DERA doesn't take into affect Joss's defensive support. Or maybe should say that it does adjust his numbers for defensive support. It assumes a keague average defensive support. It may overrate strikeouts, but it takes defensive and bad luck into account. ERA+, however, does not adjust for defensive support.
   104. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:35 AM (#1140504)
DERA stands for DIPS ERA, which stans for Defense Independent Pitching Statistics.
   105. Brent Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:37 AM (#1140513)
It does seem to me that the BP timeline on pitchers is excessive.

Clay Davenport doesn't know how the quality of play has changed over the decades, and neither does anyone else. Look, if you asked a scientist to design a controlled experiment to tell you whether Barry Bonds was a better hitter than Ted Williams in the same environment, he'd tell you that it would be impossible (without the possibility of time travel). If it's impossible to design a controlled experiment to measure something, why would we think that all the number crunching in the world is going to give us the answer. All that Warp2 and Warp3 can tell us are the results of whatever assumptions are implicit in how they are calculated.

I think it is possible for statistical methods like Davenport's to measure differences in league quality at a point in time when large number of players are moving from one to another, for example during the late 1880s. They may be informative about shifts in quality of play when large numbers of players leave, such as World War II. But measuring the gradual changes in quality of play over the decades? That I don't believe is possible with any validity.

Rather than using Warp2 or Warp3 or statistics adjusted "for all time" for that, I think it is best to use your own good judgment and common sense. My common sense says that pitchers have been about equally important throughout most of baseball history, so I don't want to elect a whole bunch for the deadball era and very few for the liveball era.

BP has some good stats. Warp1 and the statistics "adjusted for season" are very useful. But I don't trust their timeline adjustments because I think they are trying to measure what is impossible to measure.
   106. Chris Cobb Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:46 AM (#1140526)
At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I will try to answer sunnyday2's objections as someone who understands how DERA is calculated. That doesn't mean that I know the formula, but it means that I have replicated its findings to my own satisfaction, and thus trust them to sweat the finer details that I can't do by hand.

jimd is exactly right: not adjusting for team fielding behind a pitcher is like not adjusting for park effects. Like park adjustments, fielding adjustmens are _perfect_ and they are done in different ways, but our data approach what happens on the field much more closely when we make these adjustments than when we don't.

Sunnyday2 wrote:

2. As to the defense, I just don't understand how you know he had a better defense. His UER suggest otherwise. And how good the Indians defense was when other people were pitching is irrelevant. Joss could simply have suffered from randomly bad defense. The point is what kind of defensive support *he* got. Michael's hypothesis is reasonble but a hypothesis. How do we know that Joss got great defensive support? And Matt's (Philly's) e.g. is also speculation and based on a small sample.

You know by calculating team defensive efficiency.

Because I didn’t simply want to take WARP’s word for it on defense, I have calculated the defensive efficiency for each team of each pitcher who has been a serious candidate for the HoM and calculated the impact of that efficiency on the pitcher’s record, giving the pitcher credit for preventing hits on balls in play above the team average efficiency.

I have posted these findings from time to time. I don’t do it all the time, because it’s tedious, but I also don’t do it because WARP’s calculations always show pretty similar results.

I can tell you that I find that Joss pitched on above average fielding teams (in terms of def. efficiency) in 6 of 9 seasons, and that I see those defenses as having saved 120 runs above average during those seasons, with Joss's contribution to hit-suppression (at which he was very good) also accounted for. Joss's share of those 120 runs saved gained him 4.3 wins above average.

Going to NRA and DERA in WARP, converting them to NRA+ and DERA+ and using the pythgorean method, I find that WARP's assessment of Joss's defensive support is that it gained him 5.0 wins above average in his career.

This is the sort of similarity that gives me some confidence that I know basically what WARP is doing, and that they are making the same sort of adjustments that I make when I try to account for the contribution of fielding support to pitchers' success. Since they have more calculating power and better data, I expect their conclusions are better than mine, but we agree pretty closely. The win shares' systems makes similar adjustments, but the set ratios that it uses on pitching and fielding don't separate the two as well as WARP does.

I believe it was long ago determined that WARP splits credit for defensive efficiency between fielders and pitchers 70/30, possibly with some variation according to ERA, so DERA is _not_ DIPS ERA, as jschmeagol has claimed. It recognizes pitchers’ contribution to preventing hits on bip, but it also recognizes that the majority of credit for doing this goes to fielders.

As to errors. Up until about 1910, error rates were high enough to have a fairly significant impact on scoring, and variations in fielding percentages by team could significantly impact pitchers’ runs allowed. I am certain WARP accounts for this. I track team and league fielding percentages, although I do not use them in my formula (one of the details I can't sweat out by hand), and I have noted that WARP and I tend to disagree a bit more when team fielding average above or below league average by more than 10%. After 1910, team fp are so high, and so similar, that it is rare that they have a significant impact on pitchers’ RA from team to team. Occasionally a pitcher may get unlucky, but for a career the effect is negligible. Defensive efficiency is where the differences occur.

If anyone wants to see the formulas I use, or more of this data, I'd be happy to post it.

Full disclosure: Ferrell is a pitcher for whom my findings about defensive support differ slightly from WARP's: I see his defensive support as very slightly above average for his career, giving him 1.0 win above average. WARP sees Ferrell's defense as costing him 2 wins above average. I suspect the difference here lies in the park factors we are using for Fenway: my results agree with WARP's for the Cleveland years.

Also, this post is not meant to explain or defend everything that WARP does to turn DERA into pitching runs above replacement. That's another matter, and _that_ is where all the adjustments for era happen in WARP. But DERA itself is a good stat. I stand by it as the most reliable measure of pitching quality, on an inning-for-inning basis, that we have available to us.
   107. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:56 AM (#1140541)
dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit
I didn't update for the 1940 election, with Pike and Rogan. I did do 1941-44..


the needed corrections:

2B (7.31) - McPhee 100, E Collins 98, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Wright 10

OF (25.48) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Keeler 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Santop 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10

Infield - 32.79/6.56 per slot
Outfield - 25.48/8.49 per slot

Next time I'll also refine the early-era guys and maybe the P/Hs, too.
   108. Brent Posted: February 12, 2005 at 05:04 AM (#1140558)
A question. BP shows Joss as a very good fielder. Over his career he has 24 FRAA ("fielding runs above average") and his "Rate" at pitcher is 109, which is very good (100 is average). He's shown as an above average fielder every season but one. BP's assessment appears to be consistent with his range factors and fielding percentage.

When I noticed this, I thought that maybe one of the reasons he has such strong defensive support is because his support his being boosted by his own fielding. But when I compared the differences between Joss's NRA and DERA and the differences for his teammates, it appeared that they were about the same. Does anyone know whether BP adjusts for a pitcher's own fielding when calculating DERA?

(Note - I'm not sure whether they should or shouldn't; I guess I can see arguments either way. But it would be nice to know which way they do it.)
   109. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2005 at 05:09 AM (#1140576)
SP (20.11) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Ward 16

So that's:
C----4.15
1B---8.13
2B---7.31
3B---4.84
SS---8.37
OF--25.48
P---20.11
   110. Chris Cobb Posted: February 12, 2005 at 06:41 AM (#1140760)
jimd asked:

Can someone name me a HOM pitcher who played his whole career for mediocre-to-bad teams?


Dazzy Vance? During his 11-year run with Brooklyn, the team's finishes:

1 -- 0
2 -- 1
3 -- 1
4 -- 2
5 -- 0
6 -- 6
7 -- 1

The team was good a couple of times, but mostly not. It's worth noting that in the year of their single second-place finish, Vance was 28-6 with a 173 ERA+ (it's a 171 DERA+, btw) _and_ the team beat their Pythagorean projection by 11(!) games. Without Vance having probably the single greatest season by a pitcher in the decade and a lot of luck, this second place team was strictly mediocre: replace Vance with an average pitcher and average luck, and they don't break .500 .

Red Faber pitched for some good White Sox teams up to 1920, but from 21-34, the last 14 years of his career, the Sox were strictly second division, though sometimes as a 5th place club they had a winning record.

Those are the worst cases I could spot with a little looking.

Walter Johnson has the rep of pitching for terrible teams, but the Senators finished in the first division in half of his seasons (the Senators really were terrible for Johnson's first five years before Clark Griffith arrived.)

Ferrell never pitched for a great team; Ted Lyons, when he becomes eligible, will have an even more impressive sequence of team-based futility as a backdrop for his candidacy, I think.
   111. OCF Posted: February 12, 2005 at 08:28 AM (#1140946)
I should point out something that might not have been obvious on that dump of "number sort of like career RA+" I did above. A big part of the reason this number comes in so much lower than ERA+ for Joss and Waddell is not unearned runs. Instead, it's the sliding exponent of the Pythaganport formula used to convert RA+ into winning percentage. A 125 RA+ in 1932 is worth more in terms of winning percentage than a 125 RA+ in 1908. The RA+ from each year was put through that formula to become wins and losses, then I translated that W-L record back "flat" to become the number I posted.

That brings up the following point: Let's ignore the 19th century pitchers, including Rusie and Nichols, for the question I'm about to ask. But leave everyone else in, including those like Spahn, Koufax, Clemens, and Mark Prior who aren't eligble yet. Here's the question: what pitcher, good enough to at least get some HOM votes, pitched over his career in the highest average run environment? I think I have an answer to that: Wes Ferrell.

That in turn brings up another point about Ferrell: pitchers in high scoring times face more batters per inning than pitchers in low scoring times. The pitcher from high scoring times do more work and face more strain to pitch the same number of innings. Compare Ferrell to (for instance) Coveleski, and Ferrell is short about 400 innings. However in terms of effort expended, the difference is quite a bit smaller.

This one insight may be enough to earn Ferrell another place or two on my ballot.
   112. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:18 PM (#1141169)
I always figured DERA waas DIPS ERA or some modified version of DIPS ERA. DIPS ERA is a stat that was created by BP, actually by Voros McCracken when he was a part of BP, and when they cite it in their articles they call it DERA.

If DERA sint' DIPS ERA then what exactly is it? I know it adjusts for defense, doesnt' it also adjust for being 'unlucky' or 'lucky' on BABIP? Maybe I just simplified what went into the calculation, I have a habit of oversimplifying things.
   113. Chris Cobb Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:39 PM (#1141182)
From the BP glossary:

DERA

Defense-adjusted ERA. Not to be confused with Voros McCracken's Defense-Neutral ERA. Based on the PRAA, DERA is intended to be a defense-independent version of the NRA. As with that statistic, 4.50 is average. Note that if DERA is higher than NRA, you can safely assume he pitched in front of an above-average defense.


More relevant details appear in the PRAA definition:

PRAA

Pitcher-only runs above average. The difference between this and RAA is that RAA is really a total defense statistic, and PRAA tries to isolate the pitching component from the fielding portion. It relies on the pitching/fielding breakdown being run for the team, league, and individual. The individual pitching + defense total is compared to a league average pitcher + team average defense, and the difference is win-adjusted.
   114. Chris Cobb Posted: February 12, 2005 at 04:49 PM (#1141194)
I should have added:

Although I don't have intimate knowledge of what McCracken does, I believe that his system derives a "defense-neutral" ERA from a pitcher's component stats: the runs that it gives us are "expected runs," not actual runs. WARP does some calculations of this sort to get their delta-h, delta-r, and delta-w numbers, but that is not where their "defense-adjusted" ERA comes from. They derive that by measuring the fielders' contribution in comparison to league average (defensive efficiency being a major component of that measurement) and adjusting the pitcher's total runs allowed accordingly. Their DERA is thus based directly on the runs that were actually given up, not on expected runs. If you want to know the difference between runs actually given up and expected runs, delta-r tells you that, and you can look at the pitcher's career record to see if he just got lucky some year or if he had a sustained ability to prevent runs above what his component stats suggest he should have given up.
   115. Michael Bass Posted: February 12, 2005 at 07:56 PM (#1141380)
As for my ballot, pretty much moving everyone up one. Dunlap and Monroe return at the bottom. Foster moves down a touch, Redding might move up some. Both are now below Mendez.
   116. Brent Posted: February 12, 2005 at 09:42 PM (#1141524)
In # 24 jschmeagol wrote:

The thing that jumps out here is that I may be overrating CFers...I do rely heavily on Win Shares so maybe I am overrepresenting that position.

It seems like every ballot I see two or three comments asserting that win shares overrates center fielders. In a trivial sense there's a problem; in the letter grade that James assigned to outfielders he did not differentiate between center fielders and corner outfielders, so the CFers almost all get higher grades. (For example, Edd Roush - who was probably about an average CFer - gets a grade of A- with 3.52 WS / 1000 Inn, while Goose Goslin - who was probably slightly above average as a corner outfielder - gets a grade of C+ with 2.58 WS / 1000 Inn.)

But what matters in WS is not the letter grade but the points assigned, and as far as I know the only effect of position on WS is through fielding WS. The average CFer gets credit for about 1.5 to 2.0 more WS per season than the average corner OFer, that is about 5 to 6 runs. Does that seem like too much to you, taking account of the difference in fielding responsibilities and replacement levels? It doesn't to me.

So I'd like to ask, exactly what evidence is there that win shares overrates CFers? If the only evidence is that some of the better available candidates are CFers, I guess I'd be more inclined to say that's a reflection of the candidate pool, rather than of the rating system.
   117. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2005 at 09:42 PM (#1141525)
Thanks Chris.

It seems taht for our purposes DERA is even better than DIPS ERA. DERA deals with real runs given up, DIPS ERA is more useful in future projections.
   118. TomH Posted: February 13, 2005 at 12:34 AM (#1141730)
Griffith has some big numbers, but they were in a context where the best pitchers had much bigger numbers. And only 4 years among the league's best and never within fewer than 10 win shares of the top.
-----
But most people agree that Griffith was Better than his 'Win Shares', becaue he won more games than his runs allowed suggest. One win a year would be conservative, which would put him at
1895: tied for 2nd
1896: tied for 3rd
1898: 2nd
1901: tied for 2nd
which is much more impressive
   119. Paul Wendt Posted: February 13, 2005 at 04:40 AM (#1142212)
jschmeagol #25:
The bottm of my CF depth chart right now has guys like Fielder Jones, Charley Jones, and Jimmy Ryan. I would love to have some more catchers but I can't see Bruce Petway or Bob O'Farrell being better than the CFers named above. Same with guys like Fournier, Dunlap, Long, and Art Devlin.

How likely is it that CF is just a really strong position in baseball history up until this point? If my Top 50 is to be believed it could be contrued as being twice as deep as most other positions.


Players tend to move from CF to an easier position but we tend to classify them at their best, hence we see more centerfielders than leftfielders (and probably more shortstops than thirdbasemen).

CF Duffy, Ryan, CJones
OF Browning

Those four classifications by jschmeagol illustrate my point. Most would list Browning CF rather than CJones, but none of the four played the majority of his games (or even his OF games) in center.

I don't quarrel with the classification, although CJones is a stretch. My point is simply that we see more players (with long careers?) as CFs than as LFs or RFs.
   120. Paul Wendt Posted: February 13, 2005 at 04:25 PM (#1143033)
My point is simply that we see more players (with long careers?) as CFs than as LFs or RFs.

Let me restate that more "actively":
We envision more players as CFs than as LFs or RFs.

--
jimd #41
If a player could have played either position, I wouldn't include such players when arguing for positional balance. (There are no 1b-men that could have played SS.)

Offhand, we don't even see Joe Torres, Dick Allens, Rod Carews moving from SS to 1B.

--
sunnyday2 #52
Some pitcher primes as I see them. Listed in order of (IP/100) + (ERA+ - 100)

Joss 8 years, 2220 IP, 148 ERA+ (e.g. 22 + 48 = 70)
Waddell 6 years, 1772 IP, 152 ERA+


This sunny measure is easy to calculate in a glance at a line of pitching statistics published by BB-Ref or TB. Granted such a measure, should a pitcher's "prime" be defined as the span which maximizes it?

--
Phillybooster #86
Let's look at Joss's "Best" year by ERA+: in 1908 he had an ERA+ of 205, with 42 Earned Runs, but 77 Total Runs (55% earned, 45% unearned runs).

The non-Joss Indians had 277 earned runs, out of 380 total runs (73% earned, 27% unearned).

The options are either (a) the defense was much worse when Joss pitched, or (b) Joss got rattled after an error, and gave lots of runs (the 17 home runs that Joss gives up after a two out error are all "unearned"). The second seems more likely.


(c) Official scoring helped Joss. I doubt this can explain half of the 45%-27% difference, especially if it was hometown bias, effective in only half of the games.

Note that good defense decrease both earned and unearned runs, while sympathetic scoring decreases earned and increases unearned.

--
Chris Cobb #110
> Can someone name me a HOM pitcher who played his
> whole career for mediocre-to-bad teams?

Dazzy Vance? During his 11-year run with Brooklyn,
. . .
Red Faber pitched for some good White Sox teams up to 1920, but from 21-34, the last 14 years of his career, the Sox were strictly second division,
. . .
Walter Johnson has the rep of pitching for terrible teams,
. . .
Ted Lyons, when he becomes eligible, will have an even more impressive sequence of team-based futility


Interesting. Chris Cobb's three answers and the traditional one all remained with one club --Vance thruout his regular career (~2700/2966 ip) and the the other three forever.

--
OCF #111
The pitcher from high scoring times do more work and face more strain to pitch the same number of innings. Compare Ferrell to (for instance) Coveleski, and Ferrell is short about 400 innings. However in terms of effort expended, the difference is quite a bit smaller.

Alternatively(*): in high scoring times, there are more batters a team needs more pitchers. Each pitcher takes a smaller share of the workload and so has less value(#) although no less merit(@).

* this may be OCF's point "in other words"
# sunnyday's point
@ the crux of the HOM argument

--
Brent #116
So I'd like to ask, exactly what evidence is there that win shares overrates CFers? If the only evidence is that some of the better available candidates are CFers, I guess I'd be more inclined to say that's a reflection of the candidate pool, rather than of the rating system.

In his five seasons before injury, CF Jimmy Barrett was four times the best player on his team and once second best to a pitcher's career year. Is that reasonable?
   121. Paul Wendt Posted: February 13, 2005 at 04:28 PM (#1143035)
No, I didn't spend 11-1/2 hours writing that.
   122. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 13, 2005 at 04:36 PM (#1143036)
No, I didn't spend 11-1/2 hours writing that.

Could have fooled me, Paul. ;-)

In his five seasons before injury, CF Jimmy Barrett was four times the best player on his team and once second best to a pitcher's career year. Is that reasonable?

That's why I compare each player to his contemporaries at their positions. It eliminates any positional biases that might pop up in WS.
   123. andrew siegel Posted: February 13, 2005 at 05:07 PM (#1143055)
Wes Farrell is not an HoMer on unadjusted traditional stats. However, every one involved in this project understands that there are a zillion things you need to adjust for in calculating someone's merit (park, defense, offensive support, league quality, league run environment, hitting, etc., etc., etc.). I agree that we should not blindly trust any one metric that attempt to make these difficult adjustments. However, we have three comprehensive metrics (WARP, WS, and TPR) and two homegrown pithing metrics that adjust for most or all of these issues. On every single metric, Ferrell is at least a borderline HoMer. On many, he is a clear HoMer. The weight if evidence on his behalf is quickly becoming overwhelming. He'll be up a few slots from my prelim.
   124. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 13, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1143062)
The evidence taht I have that WS overrates CFers si that CFers perform disporportionally well in most every system including mine. I was just asking why this must be.

That said, Paul's explanation sounds very reasonable. Players who start their careers in CF (and most likely spend their peak years there) are players who are atheltic enough to play deep into their 30's, maybe even their 40's.

And lastly, as a carrot to Karl, I just moved Jake Beckley back inot my top 50. I realized that I ahd zero reason to have him below Sam Rice. Now we just need to elect the right 32 players without any good newbies coming along for Beckley to get on my ballot around 1961! ;-)
   125. jonesy Posted: February 13, 2005 at 05:42 PM (#1143073)
Ferrell's demise was more rapid that one would expect from looking at his stats.

1937 is weird. He and Cronin apparently were still at odds from 1936. Wes pitched very well in spring training (1937) and then, for whatever the reason - be it his decision or Cronin's - pitched about half of the team's first 15 games. No doubt in cold weather and less than perfect weather. Grove appears to be missing-in-action, or at least waiting for the weather to get warmer.

Wes pitched pretty badly while with Boston. There were theories. He was trying to work his fastball into his array of pitchers; his control was off, etc., etc., etc. Cronin said Wes was faster than he had been in years but it was his control. Some of the writers felt that the batters had just seen all all tricks.

What is not evident from the routine stats is that once he got away from Boston and Cronin, and back to working for Bucky Harris, who never used him on short rest, his pitching was fine.

In the calender year that ran from June 12, 1937, (his first start for Harris at Washington) through June 3, 1938, Ferrell's line looked like this:

36 games pitched.
34 games started.
28 complete games.
19 wins.
16 losses.
288.1 innings pitched.
306 hits allowed.
123 walks.
115 K's.
4.09 ERA.

These numbers are virtually identical to his 1936 season and the 4.09 ERA must have been well under the league average for that period.

Ferrell had elbow surgery to remove bone chips after the 1938 season. He never recovered. During the second half of 1938 he was truly horrible, but he pitched pretty well in the first half. My assumption is that the elbow gave out at mid-season.

Carl Hubbell blew out his elbow at the same time. He, though, stopped pitching immediately and had surgery right away. Ferrell continued to try and perform. Grove, Dean, Hubbell and Ferrell all had major arm issues in 1938.
   126. karlmagnus Posted: February 13, 2005 at 05:46 PM (#1143076)
jschmeagol, the following eligible candidates before 1961 have more hits than Jake Beckley:

1950 Paul Waner 3152

So I think you'll find Beckley climbing pretty rapidly up your ballot by '61!
   127. Brent Posted: February 13, 2005 at 08:55 PM (#1143253)
I asked:
…exactly what evidence is there that win shares overrates CFers?

In # 120, Paul Wendt answered:
In his five seasons before injury, CF Jimmy Barrett was four times the best player on his team and once second best to a pitcher's career year. Is that reasonable?

I don’t know—why isn’t it reasonable? Comparing WS with WARP1 over those five seasons, Barrett is first three of those seasons, and only once, for 1901, does there appear to be a major disagreement regarding Barrett’s rank versus other position players. Showing WS (WARP1 in parentheses), with best value under each system shown in bold:

1900 Cincinnati
Outfield: CF Barrett 23 (7.8), LF Crawford 12 (4.1), RF McBride 9 (2.0)
Best players: Barrett 23 (7.8), Beckley (1B) 21 (6.6), Hahn (P) 21 (8.2)

1901 Detroit
Outfield: CF Barrett 23 (8.9), RF Holmes 16 (5.1), LF Nance 13 (5.4)
Best players: Miller (P) 30 (8.5), Barrett 23 (8.9), Elberfield (SS) 22 (10.3), Siever (P) 22 (4.3)

1902 Detroit
Outfield: CF Barrett 22 (8.5), LF Harley 11 (3.7), RF Holmes 7 (3.1)
Best players: Barrett 22 (8.5), Mercer (P) 19 (7.5)

1903 Detroit
Outfield: CF Barrett 26 (10.7), RF Crawford 25 (9.5), LF Lush 19 (8.6)
Best players: Barrett 26 (10.7), Crawford 25 (9.5), Mullin (P) 23 (7.3)

1904 Detroit
Outfield: CF Barrett 26 (8.7), RF Crawford 21 (6.0), LF McIntyre 17 (6.9)
Best players: Barrett 26 (8.7), Mullin (P) 25 (7.3), Crawford 21 (6.0)

First, looking at comparisons of the outfield positions, it would appear that WS slightly favors RFers, while WARP1 slightly favors CFers and LFers. One would have to look at more teams and seasons to see if this holds up, but I don’t see that the above numbers support the claim that WS overrates CFers.

The one major disagreement regarding best player is for 1901 when Elberfield, a very good defensive shortstop (rating of A- in Win Shares), is shown as the team’s best player. This is an example of the tendency of WARP to give more weight to fielding. If the WARP estimates of fielding are indeed more accurate, then WS would tend to undervalue the defensive positions and overvalue the offensive positions. But center field, which is near the center of the defensive spectrum, would seem like the position that should be least affected.
   128. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 13, 2005 at 10:58 PM (#1143439)
Brent,

I think what Paul went on to say wasn't that Win Shares overrates CFers year to year, but since the players who play their younger years in CF tend to have longer careers than those who start at 1B or LF, they look better when all is said and done.

karl,

If only I used career hits as the impetus of my system. If only...
   129. Paul Wendt Posted: February 14, 2005 at 03:12 AM (#1143833)
As an explanation, I meant both what jschmeagol says in #124, 128 about the players and what I tried to emphasize by changing the verb at the top of #121, about how we understand them..
> Let me restate that more "actively":
> We envision more players as CFs than as LFs or RFs.

In yet other words, we tend to classify players with split careers as CFs rather than as LFs or RFs. (The Banks and Carew cases show that the same is true of SS and 2B relative to 1B.)

jschmeagol listed 8 cf and 8 of (otherfield) candidates. If classified strictly by career games played at cf and of, the count would be 5 cf and 11 of.
   130. Michael Bass Posted: February 14, 2005 at 03:07 PM (#1144500)
Minor issue that probably can be fixed when getting up today's ballot thread: The 1944 Results thread link in the header doesn't seem to work right.
   131. Daryn Posted: February 14, 2005 at 05:52 PM (#1144746)
Does anyone know where i'd find a list of all players who played/were selected to ten or more all-star games? I'm wondering if any 12 or more time all-stars have ever been left out of the HoF.
   132. ronw Posted: February 14, 2005 at 07:55 PM (#1144982)
Daryn:

Go to www.baseball-almanac.com, but there is no one listing of selections, you could check the names.

I have all ineligible players (active, not retired 5 years, or banned) with 12+ selections:

Cal Ripken (19)
Pete Rose (17)
Tony Gwynn (15)
Barry Bonds (13)
Roberto Alomar (12)
Ken Griffey, Jr. (12)
Mark McGwire (12)

Others that are close include:

Elston Howard (12), but a few in the dual game 1959-1962 years;
Ken Boyer (11), but a few in the dual game 1959-1962 years;
Del Crandall (11), but a few in the dual game 1959-1962 years;

Barry Larkin (11)

And the eligible player selected to All-Star Games in the most years without being elected to the HOF:

Bill Freehan (11)
   133. Daryn Posted: February 14, 2005 at 09:19 PM (#1145171)
Thanks a lot, Ron. I had counted (it seems, miscounted) 12 for Larkin.
   134. David C. Jones Posted: February 15, 2005 at 05:07 AM (#1146014)
I've been meaning to join up with this for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it. Looks like I missed the 1945 ballot deadline, but I'll be happy to jump on board for 1946. I'll just have to get myself up to speed on who hasn't been elected, so I can craft the best ballot possible.
   135. Michael Bass Posted: February 15, 2005 at 05:42 AM (#1146033)
Ballots aren't due till next Monday, so you have a full week.

My recollection of our custom is that we ask new voters to post their ballot here first. Make sure to give at least a little talk of how you made decisions, and a blurb for why you like your top 15. Also make sure to note any top 10 returners not on your ballot, and explain why you don't like them so much.

Glad to have more aboard!
   136. TomH Posted: February 15, 2005 at 02:01 PM (#1146444)
Q1: Who has the highest RCAP (runs created above position) among 20th century players not yet elected to the HoM?

Q2: If this person who was obviously a great hitter also played great defense, had a decently long career (about 8000 PA), played on two World Series winners, was 4 times in the top 10 in MVP voting, and played in a high quality league (AL 20s/30s), wouldn't you think we'd sweep him in to the HoM?

A1: Joe Sewell
A2: We've sat down and mantra-ed 'poor overall quality of shortstops' so long it's apparently affected our brains. It seems downrght silly not to have Sewell on a 15-man ballot.
   137. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 15, 2005 at 05:07 PM (#1146698)
David:

IIRC, you were were one of the ones that helped us out with the WS extrapolations for the early greats of the game. I always wondered why you never signed up after doing all of that work.

As for joining up now, I echo Michael's sentiments.

Good to have you back with the project!
   138. DanG Posted: February 15, 2005 at 06:49 PM (#1146863)
Thanks a lot, Ron. I had counted (it seems, miscounted) 12 for Larkin.

According to BB-Ref it really is 12 years for Larkin. If I'm not mistaken, the lists at BB-almanac count only games actually played. If a player didn't get in the game or was a no-show due to being injured, then they don't count him. So BB-almanac is not a really good resource for this question.

I think someone among us has this list. I remember seeing it on the net some time ago. IIRC, Freehan is indeed the leader among players eligible for the HOF.
   139. David C. Jones Posted: February 15, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1146959)
Oh, so I have a full week. Excellent. I'll start working on it tonight. I've got to familiarize myself with who hasn't been inducted, so I can get a better sense for where things are.
   140. David C. Jones Posted: February 15, 2005 at 07:53 PM (#1146963)
My biggest area of interest is probably baseball pre-1920, and the Negro leagues, so I'll be looking at those selections very closely, in addition to the other candidates.
   141. Al Peterson Posted: February 15, 2005 at 09:26 PM (#1147124)
Q1: Who has the highest RCAP (runs created above position) among 20th century players not yet elected to the HoM?

Q2: If this person who was obviously a great hitter also played great defense, had a decently long career (about 8000 PA), played on two World Series winners, was 4 times in the top 10 in MVP voting, and played in a high quality league (AL 20s/30s), wouldn't you think we'd sweep him in to the HoM?

A1: Joe Sewell
A2: We've sat down and mantra-ed 'poor overall quality of shortstops' so long it's apparently affected our brains. It seems downrght silly not to have Sewell on a 15-man ballot.


Alright, lets see. Joe Sewell a great hitter. According to some eligibles I've tracked here is JS along with the two people directly above him and two people directly below him.

OPS+: Pratt, Fielder Jones, Sewell, Gardner, Leach
EQA: Daubert, Huggins, Sewell, Pratt, Traynor
OWP: Leach, Williamson, Sewell, Pratt, Gardner

Darn near murderer's row there.

As for the rest of the facts, lets check on Pie Traynor shall we:

Great fielder?: Check
8000 PA?: Check
2 WS Winners?: Nope, but in 2 WS
4 times top 10 MVP?: Actually Pie was 6 times top 10.
High quality league?: 20s/30s NL ain't bad

And we all know Pie is waltzing into the HOM.
   142. David C. Jones Posted: February 15, 2005 at 11:53 PM (#1147368)
Can anyone explain to me why Dick Lundy is not among the eligibles listed for 1945? By my count his playing career ended in 1939, after that he was a manager in the 1940s. Was his playing during that time significant enough to delay his eligibility?
   143. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 16, 2005 at 12:11 AM (#1147393)
Lundy is in the eligibles for 1943 I believe. We don't count seasons with fewer than 10 appearances when deciding when someone should be eligible.

TomH,

Since the metric that you used was Runs Created Above POSITION, one would think that positional strength would be a factor in that metric.

You cant' say that we are all batty for discounting Sewell due to his playing a weak position, then use as proof that he was better than the weak position that we are discounting for. You should probably come up with evidence that 1920's NL SS's WEREN'T as bad as we say they were. When you use regular RC or RCAA Sewell drops down quite a bit. Why? Because a) SS isn't an offesnive position (cant' count that against him really), and b) it was weak during this era (count that against him).

According to WS, Sewell isn't rlealy any better than Bancroft, Tinker, and Long. He does put a little distance between them with WARP, however. So the two all encompassing metrics that we use aren't totally enamored with him, so there must be something fishy.

If you dont' like to use WARP or WS, fine. But then understand that for those of us who do, Sewell doesn't look too tasty.
   144. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 16, 2005 at 12:13 AM (#1147395)
I don't know why I said 1920's NL SS's, since Sewell played in the AL. 1920's SS were weak in general. The NL was probably a little deeper, but Sewell makes things even I guess.
   145. OCF Posted: February 16, 2005 at 01:10 AM (#1147464)
David Jones: Lundy has already been eligible for several years, and has been drawing a handful of votes each year he's been eligible.

See this for a page on which we collect threads for Negro League players and
this specific one for more on Lundy.
   146. TomH Posted: February 16, 2005 at 01:57 AM (#1147524)
"Alright, lets see. Joe Sewell a great hitter."
----
Okay, what I should have said was 'he was a great hitter for a shortstop'
'''''''''''
"You should probably come up with evidence that 1920's NL SS's WEREN'T as bad as we say they were. When you use regular RC or RCAA Sewell drops down quite a bit."
----
Umm, no, he doesn't. Here are the leaders among shortstops from 1900 to 1940 in RCAA:
# player RCAA
1 Honus Wagner 938
2 Arky Vaughan 414
3 Joe Cronin 204
4 Joe Sewell 124
T5 Luke Appling 103
T5 George Davis 103
7 Bill Keister 63
8 Cecil Travis 53
9 Kid Elberfeld 51
10 Bobby Wallace 26
11 Ray Chapman 24

Anyone wish to argue that Joe Sewell DOESN'T belong in the HoM from that list?
Yes, by WS Sewell isn't too far ahead of others. But by WARP he is. And by offense+defense he is.
   147. Chris Cobb Posted: February 16, 2005 at 03:17 AM (#1147645)
Tom,

Something doesn't look right about that list. Are you cutting off George Davis's and Bobby Wallace's play before 1900 and Cronin's and Applings after 1940? And/or are you counting only seasons when these players were at the shortstop position?

Here's their RCAA, according to WARP1/2, which has a somewhat different view of some players:

Honus Wagner 802/622
Arky Vaughan 451/453
George Davis 352/223
Luke Appling 312/279
Joe Cronin 302/252
Joe Sewell 183/108
Bobby Wallace 113/18
Cecil Travis 108/103
Ray Chapman 102/53
Kid Elberfeld 99/40
Bill Keister 66/35

Also
Bill Dahlen 212/73
Hughie Jennings 179/101

This list suggests a rather different relation of Sewell to the top shortstops, though he's clearly better than the obvious non-Homers.
   148. DavidFoss Posted: February 16, 2005 at 03:24 AM (#1147654)
Anyone wish to argue that Joe Sewell DOESN'T belong in the HoM from that list?

That's half of Appling & Davis. Adding the 19th century puts Jennings, Glasscock and Dahlen safely ahead of Sewell. With the bat, he's close to the older Cleveland SS Ed McKean (Sewell easily trumps McKean with the glove, though).

CAREER
1876-1944
SS

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Honus Wagner               1011   
2    Arky Vaughan                471   
3    George Davis                379   
4    Joe Cronin                  242   
5    Hughie Jennings             206   
6    Jack Glasscock              188   
7    Bill Dahlen                 186   
8    Luke Appling                171   
9    Ed McKean                   131   
10   Joe Sewell                  124   
11   Cecil Travis                105   
12   Frank Fennelly              104   
13   Sam Wise                     94   
T14  Lou Boudreau                 87   
T14  Ross Barnes                  87    


I have Sewell about where the electorate does... on the in/out line. He's come close a couple of times and would not be a bad induction, but he'll have to wait once Appling/Cronin/Vaughn become eligible.
   149. DavidFoss Posted: February 16, 2005 at 03:25 AM (#1147656)
(Career values cutoff at 1944 in the previous table)
   150. KJOK Posted: February 16, 2005 at 08:31 AM (#1148062)
And the point I've tried to make about Sewell is that using RCAA is actually a less favorable presentation of Sewell, as SS during his time didn't hit all that well. Using RCAP, he comes out much better:

CAREER
1876-1944
SS


RCAP                           RCAP      PA     
1    Honus Wagner               1060    11738   
2    Arky Vaughan                596     7424   
3    George Davis                452    10159   
4    Joe Cronin                  430     8827   
5    Joe Sewell                  346     8330   
6    Luke Appling                304     7584   
7    Bill Dahlen                 291    10400   
8    Jack Glasscock              289     7548   
9    Hughie Jennings             262     5655   
10   Ed McKean                   212     7621   
11   Bobby Wallace               195     9612   
12   Travis Jackson              185     6679   
13   Cecil Travis                173     4614   
14   Dave Bancroft               157     8244   
T15  Frank Fennelly              142     3451   
T15  Jack Rowe                   142     4626   
T17  Sam Wise                    137     5140   
T17  Lou Boudreau                137     3579   
19   Ray Chapman                 134     4596   
20   Kid Elberfeld               112     5272   
   151. TomH Posted: February 16, 2005 at 01:58 PM (#1148167)
"Are you cutting off George Davis's and Bobby Wallace's play before 1900 and Cronin's and Applings after 1940?"
"Adding the 19th century puts Jennings, Glasscock and Dahlen safely ahead of Sewell."
--
Yes, totally agree. I did only use the years 1900-1940 previously, so as to only cover those whose careers overlapped with Sewell, and because in the 1945 election we haven't used any 1940s stats yet. I didn't mean to imply Sewell was better than Davis, Dahlen, Appling, etc.. Only that it seems odd to leave him off a ballot. I'm not pushing for Sewell's election; I only have him about #8. I merely wished to pont out that many comments made by people NOT voting for him seemed to fall more into the category of "he doesn't overwhelm me" and "shortstops didn't all that good in 1925", rather than "his WS and WARP and RC and defense don't get him on the ballot". The HoF has sadly dissed all-around players like Grich and Santo and Whitaker and Trammell (and they will Larkin and Biggio, too, I bet); I hope we don't do the same.
   152. Chris Cobb Posted: February 16, 2005 at 03:20 PM (#1148234)
Here's KJOK's table with one more column, FRAA W1/W3. Since there is considerable agreement that fielding runs above average can be used appropriately with Batting Runs Above (Replacement) Position, I figure this is a good place to add them in to a consideration of Joe Sewell. (These are full-career totals for Appling, Sewell, and Vaughan.)


CAREER
1876-1944
SS


RCAP                           RCAP      PA      FRAA     
1    Honus Wagner               1060    11738    236/167
2    Arky Vaughan                596     7424    71/67
3    George Davis                452    10159    81/27
4    Joe Cronin                  430     8827    57/42
5    Joe Sewell                  346     8330    100/86
6    Luke Appling                304     7584    25/4
7    Bill Dahlen                 291    10400    227/155
8    Jack Glasscock              289     7548    171/80   
9    Hughie Jennings             262     5655    113/82   
10   Ed McKean                   212     7621    -151/-215
11   Bobby Wallace               195     9612    182/131
12   Travis Jackson              185     6679    -13/-25   
13   Cecil Travis                173     4614    35/31   
14   Dave Bancroft               157     8244    108/73 
T15  Frank Fennelly              142     3451    18/-50
T15  Jack Rowe                   142     4626    -61/-109
T17  Sam Wise                    137     5140    -44/-104
T17  Lou Boudreau                137     3579    158/145
19   Ray Chapman                 134     4596    6/-16
20   Kid Elberfeld               112     5272    11/-22

   153. DavidFoss Posted: February 16, 2005 at 05:22 PM (#1148488)
I understand that Sewell should get a bit of a bonus for playing in a light-hitting-SS era. After all, it was like Cleveland had an extra bat in the lineup for a several years.

I still think that RCAP overrates him, though. RCAP only compares a player to 7 other players. That's just not a large enough sample for me... I've seen RCAP numbers do some pretty strange things on a year by year basis. Also, it tends to favor guys like Sewell more than it favors megastars like Wagner... as Wagner was good enough to single-handedly raise up the average of the entire position, effectively cancelling his positional bonus.

I've giving Sewell a slight boost this year, but not an RCAP-level boost.
   154. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 16, 2005 at 05:54 PM (#1148547)
KJOK,

My argument is that RCAP overrates Sewell because his contemporaries weren't that strong as a group. I really dont' put much weight on RCAP for Sewell, it won't convince me of anything except that 1920's SS's weren't a strong group. If you want to use that metric to convince me you should find evidence that says that 1920's SS's weren't as weak I say seem to think.

TomH,

You list shows that he is worse that Wagner, Cronin, and Vaughn. If you go by the players entire careers, he would be lower than Appling and Davis. He is also lower than Dahlen and roughly equal to Jennings without Jennings peak. To me that list says that he is just under the in/out line (unless you are a real friend of Cecil Travis), which is enough for me not to put him on my ballot.

I have Sewell at #25, meaning that he is a real long shot ot ever make my personal HOM.
   155. TomH Posted: February 16, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1149188)
He is ... roughly equal to Jennings without Jennings peak.
--
Yes, if you consider Sewell's extra 2700 PAs of average hitting and above-avg defnese to be of no value.

If Sewell's contemp SS were poorer-than-avg hitters by 5 runs a year each, take 5*11 years off his RCAP and you get "only" 291 runs above average with the bat and maybe 100 more with the leather.
   156. KJOK Posted: February 17, 2005 at 05:18 AM (#1149816)
If you want to use that metric to convince me you should find evidence that says that 1920's SS's weren't as weak I say seem to think.

Well, part of the problem here is that since you have already determined it's a "weak" group, you reject metrics (such as RCAP) that disagree with that, and accept ones that agree with your position...

But, let's try this (exluding negro leagues) :

SS, 1870's - 1880's
1. Glasscock
2. Ward
3. Wright
4. Pearce
5. Wise
6. Fennelly

SS, 1880's - 1890's
1. Davis
2. Dahlen
3. Glasscock
4 Ward
5. Jennings
6. Long

SS, 1890s' - 1900's
1. Wagner
2. Davis
3. Dahlen
4. Wallace
5. Jennings
6. Long

SS, 1900's - 1910's
1. Wagner
2. Wallace
3. Maranville
4. Tinker
5. Peckinpaugh
6. Elberfeld

SS, 1910's - 1920's
1. Sewell
2. Bancroft
3. Jackson
4. Maranville
5. Peckinpaugh
6. Chapman or Fletcher?

SS, 1920's - 1930's
1. Vaughan
2. Cronin
3. Sewell
4. Bancroft
5. Bartell
6. Jackson

SS, 1930's - 1940's
1. Vaughan
2. Cronin
3. Boudreau
4. Appling
5. Bartell
6. Stephens

What I conclude here is:

1. Over any 20 year period thru the 1940's, there are about 4 SS's per period who are HOM worthy.

2. Yes, 1910-1920 looks relatively weak (although #2-#6 looks stronger than the preceding period #2-#6 as Maranville falls from 3 to 4), so maybe only 1 or 2 SS from that period should go in, but Sewell is #1.

3. 1920-1930 DOESN'T look like a weak period (the top 2 players remain the top 2 in 1930-40), and even in that group Sewell is #3.
   157. Michael Bass Posted: February 17, 2005 at 05:24 AM (#1149831)
Well, part of the problem here is that since you have already determined it's a "weak" group, you reject metrics (such as RCAP) that disagree with that, and accept ones that agree with your position...

I'm a Sewell supporter, but this statement makes no sense to me. A strong RCAP doesn't refute the argument that a player played in a time of weak shortstops. Can we all agree that the worse your competition at a position gets, the higher your RCAP goes?
   158. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 17, 2005 at 03:44 PM (#1150262)
KJOK,

But Sewell didn't play SS when Cronin, Appling, and Vaughn were playing SS. He had already moved down the defenseive spectrum by that time. His contemproaries arent' those guys but guys like Bancroft, Maranville, Peckinpaugh,and Jackson. And how much support are they getting for the HOM? Out of that group only Peck played in the AL. Being the best of a weak group doesn't make you a HOMer. And if there is a weak group then the afverage or replacement level for that group will be lower, which will boost your RCAP. RCAA makes even things out a bit since it is using league average.

If you factor in Pop Lloyd, Dick Lundy, and Dobie Moore, I think you get a slightly different story on whether or not Sewell was the best SS of his time. If you want to count Lloyd as a contemporary (he may be a little early) then I would have Sewell as the 4th best.

4th best of your time period is definitely not a strong HOM argument on its own. And taking a look at BP's RCAA he doesn't really stand out from the pack either.

Tom,

Yes, Sewell 2700 PA's of average baseball does help him but a) he was playing 3B, and b) shouldn't Jennings get a boost for playing at an elite level for those five years? His entire career is based on those five years and he is essentially even with Sewell if Chris Cobb's numbers are correct. That isn't evidence of Sewel's greatness so much as evidence of Jennings greatness to me.
   159. TomH Posted: February 17, 2005 at 04:22 PM (#1150300)
If you factor in Pop Lloyd, Dick Lundy, and Dobie Moore....then I would have Sewell as the 4th best.
--
The three best shortstops of the era all happen to be playing NeL ball? A stretch I am definitely not willing to make.
   160. ronw Posted: February 18, 2005 at 12:00 AM (#1151175)
In the Ballot thread, Chris Cobb wrote:

The elections schedule, in larger terms, was fair in that it made slots available in proportion to the number of teams playing.

If the 1890s guys got shortchanged (and I agree they did), it was because we didn't account sufficiently for increases in quality of competition in the 1890s over the 1880s and elected about three 1880s players in place of about three 1890s players.


I understand, but as emailed to me by a follower of the board, the problem with the system is that it is tied to the # of teams. During the 1890's, the number of HOM players did not diminish, although the number of teams contracted. Because we didn't tie the number of electees to the potential HOM players, but rather to the number of teams, players from the only contraction period affected by our election have not had the same opportunities for election that later players have. I tend to agree with this hypothesis.
   161. EricC Posted: February 18, 2005 at 12:42 AM (#1151266)
But Sewell didn't play SS when Cronin, Appling, and Vaughn were playing SS. He had already moved down the defenseive spectrum by that time. His contemproaries arent' those guys but guys like Bancroft, Maranville, Peckinpaugh,and Jackson.

When you take into account differences in league strength during this time (and I'm sure that everybody is :-) ), you find that Bancroft and Jackson are not even in the same league as Sewell (pun intended). Maranville and Peckinpaugh were very good players, but even a FOJS like me has to draw the line somewhere.
   162. EricC Posted: February 18, 2005 at 12:51 AM (#1151290)
During the 1890's, the number of HOM players did not diminish, although the number of teams contracted. Because we didn't tie the number of electees to the potential HOM players, but rather to the number of teams, players from the only contraction period affected by our election have not had the same opportunities for election that later players have.

If true, then that was an unfortunate decision in retrospect. It doesn't help that many of the best infield choices (Childs, McGraw, Jennings) had short primes, and that the best remaining outfield choices (Ryan, Van Haltren, Duffy) conspired to be so near each other in merit.
   163. KJOK Posted: February 18, 2005 at 01:23 AM (#1151336)
I'm a Sewell supporter, but this statement makes no sense to me. A strong RCAP doesn't refute the argument that a player played in a time of weak shortstops. Can we all agree that the worse your competition at a position gets, the higher your RCAP goes?

Not exactly. The more the demands of playing a position thins out the available talent pool, or changes IN OTHER POSITIONS change the composition of the talent pool by position, the more that position will have a lower average offense RELATIVE to all other positions.
   164. KJOK Posted: February 18, 2005 at 01:28 AM (#1151345)
KJOK,

But Sewell didn't play SS when Cronin, Appling, and Vaughn were playing SS.


Yes, but I'm purposely expanding the the range of years to counter the argument that Sewell was just the "best of a weak group" which can happen for a year or maybe for 10 seasons (which seems to be the anti-Sewell argument), but to show that from the 1910-1930's range, Sewell was one of the top 3 SS's in the major leagues.
   165. David C. Jones Posted: February 18, 2005 at 04:55 AM (#1151744)
This is my ballot that I am planning on submitting, which I am posting here first in accordance with the principle that first-time voters should do so. Anyway, here goes. I am planning for a trip, so I don't have time right now to give detailed reasons for each choice where, but will respond to specific questions that anyone has. At the end I will briefly go over why I didn't pick guys who were among the top 10 returnees from last year's ballot.

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 (Ghost) Marcelle
12. Judy Johnson
13. Goose Goslin
14. Eddie Cicotte
15. Addie Joss

Okay, as for the guys I'm not taking from the top 10 returnees:

Eppa Rixey - ERA+ of 115 over 4494 2/3 innings. I had him in the 20s on my ballot. I like him, but his BB/SO ratio is less than stellar. He was more of a control pitcher later in his career, more of a strikeout guy earlier in his career, but never really combined the two. I like him, but I like other pitchers a lot more.

Clark Griffith - He had a great year in 1898. Never really ranked among the league leaders in innings pitched. A great control pitcher, he relied heavily on his defense, as he was definitely not a strikeout guy. Lifetime ERA+ of 121 is pretty good, but he only had one standout year. Otherwise was more of a consistent pitcher, not a great one. If he racked up more innings I would like him more.

Wes Ferrell - I have nothing bad to say about Wes Ferrell. He was 17th on my ballot, and I expect him to move up in future years, at some point, anyway. He was definitely overused by a mediocre team, and paid the price for it. I'd have him higher if his career was a bit longer.

George Van Haltren - You guys have alreay elected everybody from the 19th century except John Wilkes Booth. But I honestly don't see anything that special about this guy. Good hitter, never spectacular, very consistent.

Jake Beckley - Let's see, a good-fielding first baseman with an OPS+ of 125 for his career. Extremely consistent. Given the quality of play of this era, I'd say that we're looking at the 19th century version of Mark Grace. Next.

Joe Sewell - Pretty consistent from 1921 to 1929, when his Win Shares totals were always between 21 and 29. Quality-wise, I'd say he's on par with Dave Bancroft, with Sewell having a bit better bat and Bancroft having the better glove. Both Sewell and Bancroft would be HOM worthy if they had played as long as Bobby Wallace, and actually Wallace is I think a borderline case as well.

Hughie Jennings - Simple problem. He was hurt way too much. He's like the Frank Chance of shortstops. When he played he was definitely HOM caliber, but he didn't play enough.
   166. OCF Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:05 AM (#1151769)
David:
That ballot would make you the best friend of:

Beckwith (tied with Ardo and John Murphy)
Lundy
Poles
Monroe
Cravath
Marcelle (only vote so far)
Johnson (only vote so far)

Are the rest of us missing the boat that badly with respect to the Negro League players? Could you argue the case for them?
   167. Chris Cobb Posted: February 18, 2005 at 06:37 AM (#1151965)
David,

It's really more important for us to see explanations for the players you are voting for than the players you aren't voting for. In fact, we can't approve your ballot without explanations. As you'll see from the ballot thread, we all provide at least brief explanations every time.

I'll also second OCF's question about the Negro League players in general. I'll also ask a more specific question on Oliver Marcelle. Documented NeL average (from MacMillan 8th edition) .305, slugging .388, 11 seasons as a regular. Outstanding defensive third baseman. You rank him ahead of his contemporaries Joe Sewell and Pie Traynor, both better hitters comparing ML stats to NeL stats straight up, both very good to excellent defensive players, with longer careers, yet you have dismissed Sewell as not ballot-worthy because he doesn't have enough career. I'm not a big supporter of either Sewell or Traynor, but I just can't see any evidence to justify ranking Marcelle ahead of either of them, if you are applying consistent standards.
   168. David C. Jones Posted: February 18, 2005 at 08:50 AM (#1152217)
You guys have underrepresented the Negro Leaguers in your earlier vote, in my opinion. They are so well represented on my ballot because I believe the players in question are superior to the white players who are eligible.

As for Marcelle, a good indication of his hitting ability can be gained by looking at his stats for the Cuban Winter League, which are more reliable than any stats available for the Negro Leagues. In 1923-1924, he batted .393 for Santa Clara, with a slugging percentage of .528. That same year, Oscar Charleston batted .375 with a .534 slugging. For his career in Cuba he batted .302 with a .454 slugging percentage. That .302 would rank him near the top ten all-time ni Cuban history up to 1961, minimum 1,000 at bats. Lloyd was a .329 hitter, Wells was .320. I'm comfortable saying that Marcelle was not as good a hitter as either. But anyway, by comparison, playing in the offense-soaked major leagues of the 1920s and 1930s, Traynor batted .320 with a .435 slugging percentage. Sewell batted .312 with a .413 slugging percentage. Neither of them ever led the league in any significant offensive category. In other words, I have good reason to believe that Marcelle was a better hitter than both. He was certainly as good, if not better, a fielder than either one of them. And since neither Sewell nor Traynor was much on the basepaths, and Marcelle was considered an excellent basestealer, I think it is fair to conclude that he was a better all-around player than either of them. Subjective factors, so important to gaining an understanding of the Negro Leagues, also weigh in Marcelle's favor. The black sportswriters, who actually saw him play, ranked him the greatest third baseman in the history of the Negro Leagues in 1953, ahead of Johnson and Dandridge. John Henry Lloyd also thought him to be the greatest third baseman in Negro League history. True, Cool Papa Bell said that Johnson was better, but Bell was more Johnson's contemporary than he was Marcelle's, so the choice is not surprising.

That's my reason for putting Marcelle on my ballot.

To briefly go over the rest of it:

Beckwith's greatness seems pretty obvious when you look closely at the available stats. This is a guy who was a versatile fielder who consistently ranked among the league leaders in batting average and home runs. I think he was probably the greatest third baseman in baseball history up to that time. Too bad he was such an ass.

Lundy's another easy choice. Considered the best black shortstop of the 1920s, he was a switch-hitter who hit for average and power, and was considered a great fielder as well. In his eight seasons in the Cuban League he batted .341.

I've read the thread on Poles with interest, but I think the statistical equivalencies put too fine a point on it. I'll be damned if Poles, a left-handed hitter who could run the 100-yd dash in under 10 seconds, would hit .290 in the major leagues. Everybody who saw him play ranked him as one of the four or five best players in black baseball, and some thought him the best. .319 lifetime hitter in Cuba, which is just about what Wells hit there. .594 average against major league competition. Great fielder. Paul Robeson, who knew more about Poles than anyone here ever will, thought him on par with Jesse Owens, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson in the pantheon of great black athletes.

Rube Waddell-- I'm surprised he hasn't been put in by now. Lifetime ERA+ of 134. Fantastic BB/SO ratio. Tremendously good peak years in 1902, 1904-1905, and a very good pitcher for most of the rest of his career. Racked up strikeouts like nobody else in the game at that time. Take a look at his 1904 season. 349 strikeouts. Nobody else came within 100 strikeouts of that figure. Lead the league in strikeouts per nine innings pitched every year from 1902-1908. Six straight strikeout titles. And yet his walk rates are reasonable for that time span.

Jose Mendez - Great pitcher for the Monarchs in the 1920s...74-25 record in Cuba. Pitched KC to a WS victory over the Hilldales in 1924. And that was at the end of his career. At the beginning, he pitched for the Cuban Stars, going 44-2 for them in 1909, including a perfect game. Embarrassed major league competition when he faced them. My only reservation about Mendez is that he didn't spend enough time in the States. Otherwise he would be at the top of my ballot.

Dick Redding - Long, impressive career. No-hit the Cuban Stars in 1911. He was probably inferior to Smokey Joe Williams, but he racked up the wins and strikeouts almost as quickly.

Bill Monroe - In my mind he's right up there with Frank Grant, who I see has already been inducted. The numbers are of course unreliable, but even into his mid to late 30s he was good enough to bat cleanup, protecting Pete Hill in the lineup of the 1911 Chicago American Giants. Was a critical component to many of the great black teams of the pre-1920 era.

Edd Roush - I think he gets underrated by people. A very good fielding center fielder with a lifetime OPS+ of 126. Had three years with 30 or more Win Shares.

Gavvy Cravath - The first thing you have to understand about Cravath is that, through no fault of his own, he was left in the Pacific Coast League for his entire 20s. He was a crucial piece to one of the greatest minor league teams of all time, the Minneapolis Millers of 1910-1911. Prior to that he helped the Los Angeles Angels win two pennants in the PCL. Once he finally escaped the minor leagues thanks to a clerical error, at the age of 31, he put up OPS+ numbers of 119, 172, 160, 171, 147, and 153.

Bill Foster - He probably deserves to be higher than this, but this is where he is for now. Is he the greatest lefthanded pitcher in Negro League history? I don't know. He might be. We do know that he won three pennants with Chicago from 1926 to 1933. Put up a lot of gaudy numbers, especially in 1926, when he went 21-3.

Oliver Marcelle - Already discussed.

Judy Johnson - Very similar to Marcelle. Good hitter, great fielder. Versatile fielder, not as fast as Marcelle. Key ingredient to the Hilldale championship clubs of 1923 to 1925, when Riley credits him with batting averages of .391, .369, and .392.

Goose Goslin - Why is he lower than Edd Roush? Because he was only a marginally more effective hitter, with an OPS+ of 128, and because he was not as good a fielder or baserunner. I pause at that only because Goslin gets more Win Shares, 356 to 314, but Roush overall had a slightly better peak than Goslin did.

Eddie Cicotte - 123 ERA+ in 3223 innings. Pretty good BB/SO ratio. Great seasons in 1917 and 1919. Rather inconsistent throughout his career. By the time he hit his stride, he was all done.

Addie Joss - In approx. 1,000 fewer innings, Joss posted an ERA+ 19 points higher than Cicotte. His best year, 1908, was better than any of Cicotte's best years. In my mind, it was a virtual toss-up between these two. I went with Cicotte just because he racked up so many more innings, but in future ballots I might change my mind.
   169. Daryn Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:19 PM (#1152383)
My two cents in favour of David's now explained preliminary ballot -- I think David may be exactly right that we are missing the boat at least as far as blackball hitters go. Since integration, black hitters' representation among the league's elite as compared to white hitters has been very high. We are electing black hitters at what appears to be a much lower ratio. Since I have hedged my bets by having several blackball hitters in the 16-25 range of my ballot, I welcome more focus and debate on whether these athletes truly belong.
   170. Chris Cobb Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:35 PM (#1152401)
I think David C. Jones's ballot, with explanations, certainly meets our standards of reasonableness and should, when posted on the ballot thread, be counted in the 1945 election.

Nevertheless, the argument justifying voting for Oliver Marcelle plays fast-and-loose with matters of sample size, league quality levels and league offense levels.

I think ranking Oliver Marcelle over Joe Sewell is somewhat more justifiable than ranking Pie Traynor over Oscar Charleston, but both seem to me fly in the face of all available evidence.
   171. DavidFoss Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:57 PM (#1152431)
I think David C. Jones's ballot, with explanations, certainly meets our standards of reasonableness and should, when posted on the ballot thread, be counted in the 1945 election.

Seconded (or is it thirded?). Not exactly a consensus ballot, but we welcome unique viewpoints here. I'm interested in reading what you add to the weekly debate.

Welcome David!
   172. karlmagnus Posted: February 18, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1152510)
I agree we have to accept David C. Jones' ballot, but I wish we could have ballots from Ty Cobb and Cap Anson to balance it. I'm fed up with being the lone voice of reason and statistical reality around here.
   173. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:05 PM (#1152544)
I'm fed up with being the lone voice of reason and statistical reality around here.

I hope you're wearing your flak jacket, karlmagnus, because you're asking for incoming with that line.
   174. Chris Cobb Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:08 PM (#1152550)
Karlmagnus, I thought you'd be happy to have Mr. Jones aboard as a fellow suppporter of Eddie Cicotte :-).

More seriously, given how dubious I am about some of Mr. Jones's rankings, I can only imagine how karlmagnus views them. Nevertheless

I'm fed up with being the lone voice of reason and statistical reality around here

sells the electorate as a whole a bit short, doesn't it? I certainly have seldom had the pleasure of discussion with a group more committed to the exercise of reason or more statistically literate.

I expect that some of Mr. Jones's points of difference with the electorate will be smoothed out through reasoned discussion.
   175. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:12 PM (#1152555)
BTW, I agree David's ballot passes the test, though he makes my ballot seem like it was filled out by Simon Legree. :-)
   176. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:24 PM (#1152578)
David's ballot is obviously fine from a 'legal' standpoint, even if some of us think he's going overboard with the Negro Leaguers.

Chris Marcelle and Judy Johnson over Sewell, I guess could be justified (though I agree with your analysis), but Traynor over Charleston??? That is simply undefendable, IMO.

But seriously David, one needs to be careful with glowing press reports of the 20s and 30s. Of course the blackball writers are going to pump their players up. Just like the PCL writers pumped their players up, etc.. I'd recommend considering all of the evidence, and not giving disproportionate weight to just two winter league seasons (as an example, it seems you make a similar argument for Judy Johnson) that support your viewpoint.

I'm curious, what do you think of the WS translations Chris has done (not sure if he got to Johnson and Marcelle yet).

Taking your Johnson comment, I could easily construct a similar one for Traynor:

"Pie Traynor - Very similar to Jimmy Collins. Good hitter, great fielder. Key ingredient to the Pittsburgh championship clubs of 1925 (WS) and 1927 (Pennant), when he hit for batting averages of .320, .317 (1926, when they finished 4 1/2 games out), and .342. He also hit .356 and .366 the following two years."

Those batting averages are every bit as impressive as Johnson's when the quality of competition is taken into account. Traynor actually had league average power too, unlike Johnson. I like Johnson, he's the only Hall of Famer that shares my birthday, and he's a Maryland/Delaware guy too, but he's not a very good candidate here.

I'm no supporter of Traynor's, but just using it as an example. If you want to convince us he's worthy, you are going to have to do a lot more comparison wise. Show me how he compares to Heinie Groh for example, a borderline HoM 3B.

Again, your ballot is fine as far as counting it, but I'd definitely take a more careful look at all of the Negro Leaguers. I think we've been very fair to them as a group.
   177. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:28 PM (#1152583)
Hey, WTF, they changed Johnson's birthday? Jeez.

It was always 10/26, now B-R is showing it as 10/20. That is brutal. I hope Sean made a mistake.
   178. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:28 PM (#1152585)
I expect that some of Mr. Jones's points of difference with the electorate will be smoothed out through reasoned discussion.

Strangely, I both agree and disagree with this sentiment. (And CC, I'm not picking on you, I'm just using your statement as a jumping off point for a meta-discussion). In practice, I think DCJ's ballots might well become a bit more smoothed out over time with regard to the consensus of the electorate.

On the theoretical/abstract side of things, is that a good thing? There is merit and value in having certain voters with outlier beliefs [Donie Bush, anyone??? ; )] especially where those beliefs challenge the consensus to consistently and thoughtfully reconsider its positions and assumptions.

I think any system of protracted and reasoned discussion followed by well-considered balloting will lead toward more rather than less consensus because we must scrutinze and defend ours (and other's) positions, but nonconformist voters present us with much to think about.

And actually, looking at my own ballots, I think I've become more consensified over time (OCF do consensus scores indicate that such is true?), though I wasn't too too much of an outlier to begin with. Anyway, I'm rambling....

Anyway, welcome DC Jones!
   179. Chris Cobb Posted: February 18, 2005 at 06:22 PM (#1152700)
Chris Marcelle and Judy Johnson over Sewell, I guess could be justified (though I agree with your analysis), but Traynor over Charleston??? That is simply undefendable, IMO.

I brought it up as an example of a "simply undefendable" ranking that the HoM has been willing to count as part of a valid ballot.
   180. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: February 18, 2005 at 06:22 PM (#1152702)
Welcome to the board, David. One thing I'd like to point out:

Rube Waddell-- I'm surprised he hasn't been put in by now. Lifetime ERA+ of 134.

Rube Waddell: King of the Unearned Run (in the notes section).
   181. Michael Bass Posted: February 18, 2005 at 06:51 PM (#1152783)
Even as the (now-dethroned) voter who most favors the NLs, that ballot looks a little NL heavy to me. OK, a lot. :) Marcelle and Johnson are the two of course that stand out. I actually prefer Marcelle to Johnson based on what we know of the two, but neither are likely to make my ballot any time soon.

Anyway, like Joe and Chris, I agree we pretty much tossed all ability to challenge ballots out the window w/Traynor vs. Charleston (if not some questionable incidents in the teens and early 20s), so it's good by me.
   182. David C. Jones Posted: February 18, 2005 at 07:17 PM (#1152858)
I have seen Chris's statistical work, but it's not something I would put a lot of stock in myself, because I don't have a lot of faith in the Macmillan. Also, if you run the numbers and say that, for instance, Poles is really a .290 hitter, what do you mean by that? .290 hitter when? In 1908? In 1925? Given the fluctuating value of a .290 hitter, I don't know what it means to say somebody is a .290 hitter, because that only has meaning when tied to a specific offensive environment.

As for Marcelle and Johnson, I would remind people that I have them 11th and 12th on my ballot, not first and second.

Chris, I find the accusation that my choice of Marcelle over Sewell is the equivalent of Traynor over Charleston completely absurd. Joe Sewell had what, a 109 OPS+, 277 Win Shares? Again, qualitatively I don't see a tremendous amount of difference between him and Dave Bancroft. Marcelle was considered by many to be the greatest third baseman in the history of black baseball up to 1953. As for the Cuban winter league stats, I cited his 1923-1924 performance as evidence of how he was at his best, but I also went through the trouble of putting together all his Cuban League stats, which extended to nearly 1,000 at bats, to get a more complete picture of his value, and compared that performance to players, like Wells and Lloyd, whose greatness is not (hopefully?) questioned. I have no idea how anyone can determine that Marcelle's lifetime average in the Negro Leagues, which is one offensive environment quite distinct from that which prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s in organized baseball, can be conclusively determined to be "no better than" another performance in a completely different offensive environment. I mean, with Traynor we are talking about a guy with an OPS+ of 107. So in order for anyone to presume that Traynor (or Sewell) is clearly better than Marcelle, you have to determine that Marcelle would basically have been league average had he played in white baseball. I suppose that's entirely possible, but it gives Marcelle absolutely no benefit of the doubt, and lends little credence to the people who actually saw him play. My point in all this is just that, to put Traynor or Sewell ahead of Marcelle, you have to make just as many tenuous assumptions as you do to put Marcelle ahead of Sewell-nor.

Anyway, I'm happy to be on board, and look forward to many more arguments in the future. I am out of town for the next week, and will try to get my next ballot in, but might not be able to. We'll see.
   183. OCF Posted: February 18, 2005 at 07:40 PM (#1152915)
Dr. Chaleeko said:

And actually, looking at my own ballots, I think I've become more consensified over time (OCF do consensus scores indicate that such is true?)

That's not really what happened. Since consensus scores bounce up and down dramatically from year to year as the nature of the candidate pool changes, the thing to look at is your score minus the average consensus score for that year.

You became a voter in 1930, and for the first four years, you were above the average consensus score. Your highest relative consensus score of +6 was in your very first year. Starting at 1934, you slipped to at or below average, bottoming out at a relative -7 in 1939, after which you have recovered and are slightly above average in the last two years.

Take another entering voter: jschmeagol. He's been +5 to +11 above average consensus every year he's voted, and he was like that from the beginning. There's no trend with him. Tiboreau is also like that - well above average consensus, with no trend. Andrew M. was right at average in his very first year (1930), as far above average as he ever would be in 1931, and above average since. Buddha had his highest relative consensus score in his third year of voting and his lowest in his 5th year of voting.

There's really not much evidence that we grind down the eccentrics among us. There is some tendency for the supporters of the likes of Donie Bush, Lave Cross, or Mike Tiernan to eventually give up on trying to convince the rest of us and to move on, but even that tendency has its exceptions.
   184. Chris Cobb Posted: February 18, 2005 at 10:02 PM (#1153200)
Chris, I find the accusation that my choice of Marcelle over Sewell is the equivalent of Traynor over Charleston completely absurd. .

I didn't say that it was the equivalent; I said that it was more justifiable, but that it resembles the Traynor over Charleston mistake in that it flies in the face of all available evidence. I should have said all available statistical evidence.

If you want to survey the collection of evidence about levels of offense and levels of competition in the Negro Leagues, and addresses to the issue of sample size, I strongly suggest that you read through the John Beckwith thread and the Major-League equivalencies thread, where most of the relevant data and analysis has been posted.

The major conclusions that have been generally accepted as reasonable by the electorate are

1) The level of offense in the NeL began the 1920s at a level about 10% lower than the major leagues, and by the end of the decade it was about the same (varying by 1 or 2% from major-league averages).

2) The level of competition in the NeL was lower than in the major leagues, by a factor estimated variously as low as .82 and as high as .95. No one makes the argument that the level of competition was equal; the demographic evidence makes such equality highly improbable.

Given this evidence, the absolute best-case scenario for Negro-League statistics for the 1920s as a whole is that they would need no downward adjustment when converted to a major-league environment, with the lower offensive level canceling out the lower competition level, unless there are significant park factors involved, and there's no indication that Marcelle played in parks with extreme park factors.

In looking at Marcelle's NeL statistics, then, the best-case scenario is that they show about how he would have performed in the majors over the same stretch of time.

You doubt the MacMillan data. Well, the data published in Holway shows Marcelle's career average as .302, and the data posted on the Marcelle thread for his 1921 and 1928 seasons is pretty consistent with this picture of his career. This data is as reliable as the data for the other NeL players.

(Incidentally, iIf you are willing to accept the stats as evidence for Beckwith [you wrote of him, Beckwith's greatness seems pretty obvious when you look closely at the available stats. This is a guy who was a versatile fielder who consistently ranked among the league leaders in batting average and home runs. I think he was probably the greatest third baseman in baseball history up to that time] then you ought to take seriously the stats from Marcelle, which are derived from the same sources.)

OK, so MacMillan has Marcelle at .305 ba and .388 sa for his career. What about walks? The 1921 and 1928 data on the Marcelle thread show him at drawing 5.1 and 5.2 walks per 100 pa, a bit below the NeL averages of 8.0 and 7.5 walks per 100 pa during those seasons. So we don't have evidence that he was above-average for the NeL in terms of plate discipline. But to give him the benefit of the doubt, let's assume his plate discipline would have been about average in the majors. I don't have time at present to calculate an exact figure, but spot checks suggest that it's about 8.0 per 100, which is about the NeL's rate, anyway.

At that rate, Marcelle would have a career OBP of about .360, for a career OPS of 748 in a career from 1918 to 1930.

The major league with a lower offensive level, the National League, had a league OPS from 1919 to 1929 (Marcelle's years as a regular) of about 725, giving him a career OPS+, following these estimates of 103, close to but still meaningfully below both Traynor, 107, and Sewell, 109, in a shorter career than either one of them had.

I'll note that to get Marcelle this close to Sewell and Traynor, we had to 1) employ a competition adjustment at least 5% higher than most of the electorate accepts as accurate and 2) give Marcelle credit for 19 points of OBP for which there is no statistical warrant.

I'll remind you at this point that you said Joe Sewell didn't have enough career to make the ballot, and that Marcelle has less than he does, and even the best-case projection shows him as below Sewell as a hitter.

If you want to jettison this statistical evidence and go with the testimony of experts, then a) what becomes of the argument for John Beckwith, whose case depends on the statistics, not on what his contemporaries said b) what do you do with Pie Traynor's enduring reputation as the greatest third baseman of all time, and c) how do you justify ranking Marcelle ahead of Goose Goslin, when it takes every possible generosity of interpretation of Marcelle's career to get him to a point at which one might _possibly_ consider ranking him ahead of Joe Sewell?

You say that it takes just as many tenuous assumptions to rank Sewell ahead of Marcelle as vice versa. Examination of the case shows that, even with all the tenuous assumptions in Marcelle's favor, the available data can at most support a view of Marcelle as _nearly_ as good as Joe Sewell.
   185. jimd Posted: February 18, 2005 at 10:16 PM (#1153219)
You guys have underrepresented the Negro Leaguers in your earlier vote, in my opinion.

In your opinion, who is missing from the HOM that should already have been elected? For each individual, when was he eligible, and who would you remove to make room for him? (In a sense, this is asking you to build your own Personal Hall of Merit (PHOM), a construct that many of us maintain in parallel with the consensus one.)
   186. EricC Posted: February 19, 2005 at 12:32 AM (#1153419)
I'm fed up with being the lone voice of reason and statistical reality around here.

karlmagnus- Not that I agree with everything that you say by a long shot, but I think that your intuition about how to rank NELers amongst major leaguers is a lot closer to the truth than many here may feel comfortable admitting.
   187. karlmagnus Posted: February 19, 2005 at 01:12 AM (#1153463)
Thank you, EricG. I don't expect people to agree with everything, anyway -- life isn't like that. And I'm completely lost on the Negro leagues without Chris Cobb -- I have a fair idea of how many I would elect, which I use as a guide, but no idea which, beyond the totally obvious Gibson/Charleston.

Thus even though I've done some work on the '46 ballot, I'm just staring vacantly at Stearnes and Suttles until Chris has worked his wizardry and given me something to gnaw at. I prefer to use Chris minus a modest percentage, to make the demographics not too violently out of whack, but Chris's work is CRUCIAL to determining which borderline cases make it to my ballot, and where.
   188. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 19, 2005 at 02:01 AM (#1153509)
Karl,

I know you are wrong (joking) on a lot of things, but you should at least get the name of the few people that agree with you right! Eric C ;-)

David,

As par the earlier discussion on this very thread, I am not a FO Joe Sewell by any means. Actually I have him at 25, so I am probably not his biggest enemy, but I digress. Anyways, I can't imagine having Marcelle and Johnson above him. Johnson resembles Goerge Kell to me, Marcelle reminds me of Clete Boyer.

note: those similar players were developed through my highly technical "pulling things out of my ass" system.
   189. David C. Jones Posted: February 19, 2005 at 06:06 AM (#1153712)
I think Marcelle was a better hitter than Johnson, so I don't agree with the Kell/Boyer comparison. Marcelle might be a useful comp for George Kell.

Chris, can you tell me what studies you use to determine the relationship between the offensive environment of the Negro Leagues and 1920s-1930s major league baseball? Has anything similar been done for the Cuban Winter League?

Also, where do you get the range of .80 to .95 for the major league equivalencies? Is this based on the performance of late 40s/early 50s ex-Negro Leaguers once they moved into the majors?

Since it is quite apparent that I am the only one in Marcelle/Johnson's corner, I will be revisiting my ranking for each of them in future ballots. I had to compress a lot of data in a limited time to get caught up this week, and it will take time to spot errors.
   190. Howie Menckel Posted: February 19, 2005 at 02:22 PM (#1154141)
David,
I like both the maverick-ian quality to your initial ballot and willingness to take some hits for it.

My query is re Waddell: What difference does it make, retrospectively, how many batters Waddell struck out in a year, or career? An out is an out, basically.

Looking forward, I know how well high K-rates for young pitchers correlate with future success. But once the career is over, all that matters to me is what you did with your skills.
Do you think the unearned run anomoly with this rather emotional player is a coincidence? It appears he consistently failed to handle adversity, costing his team (and him) wins. That is hardly irrelevant.
Million dollar arm, 10 cent head.
   191. DavidFoss Posted: February 19, 2005 at 02:46 PM (#1154151)
My query is re Waddell: What difference does it make, retrospectively, how many batters Waddell struck out in a year, or career? An out is an out, basically.

Strikeout pitchers deserve a higher Pitching-vs-Fielding split because more of their outs are independent of the fielders.

The fact that one of the greatest strikeout pitchers was also "King of the Unearned Run" has me scratching my head a bit.
   192. Chris Cobb Posted: February 19, 2005 at 03:56 PM (#1154202)
Chris, can you tell me what studies you use to determine the relationship between the offensive environment of the Negro Leagues and 1920s-1930s major league baseball? Has anything similar been done for the Cuban Winter League?

The studies I've used are those shared with us here (posted in the John Beckwith thread -- I'll try to find the most relevant post numbers) by Gary A. He has done comprehensive box-score research for 1921 and 1928 (and, if I remember correctly, now 1920) to calculate league batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentages. He's also been using this data to calculate raw park factors for these seasons. It's an invaluable resource. I believe it is his part of the larger research project that is intended to produce a genuine statistical encyclopedia for the NeL (he can say more if he wishes).

For some seasons without that data, I have used the comprehensive listing of individual seasonal batting averages in Holway's _Complete Book of Baseball's Negro Leagues_ to identify the median batting average for a starting player for a few seasons.

We have had some very good posts providing a good deal of info about the Cuban Winter Leagues, but I don't think we've had any comprehensive seasonal data published on the site. I hope that others who have been more involved with that line of research will fill in more of the details.

Also, where do you get the range of .80 to .95 for the major league equivalencies? Is this based on the performance of late 40s/early 50s ex-Negro Leaguers once they moved into the majors?

Yes, and on equivalency data for AAA minors (which most research has pegged to about .92 of ML), to which NeL quality of play has sometimes been compared, and on estimates of changes in competition levels within the Negro Leagues themselves. The exact equivalency level has been a subject of much debate, but I think the debate has narrowed to the range of values I listed. I should also mention that for candidates who played a considerable amount prior to 1920, the evaluations of the HoM electorate have been significantly influenced by the MLE projections created by the integrated nines project (www.i9s.org), which has created comprehensive projections for virtually all of the NeL stars of that period from 1901 on. There's been a lot of debate over the validity of their projections, but they are undeniably useful as a starting point for analysis. Many voters have also found the MLE projections created by KJOK and available on the yahoogroups site, to be helpful. I struggle with them myself because they are calibrated to a 1950-2000 major-league level, and I have trouble seeing how to translate that into contemporary terms. But others are better at that than I am, and find those interpretations quite valuable.

At the moment, as I may have mentioned in an earlier post, I am using a fixed .87/.82 conversion factor for ba/sa in my own MLE translations. This doesn't account for possible changes in competition levels, which I don't think we have the data yet to determine quantitatively, but which I'm sure are part of the picture. This also doesn't account for a serious argument made recently by gadfly (another NeL historian who has been kind enough to share his expertise with the project) that the data I have used for the conversion factor don't account sufficiently for park effects and are therefore too low by at least 5%.

I've been trying to get the time to review his data in that argument against my findings. If you want to review that argument, it's also in the John Beckwith thread. To find that thread, go to the NeL homepage, follow the link to Discussions of Negro League candidates, and that will bring you to an alphabetical listing by last name of the discussions on all the NeL candidates to whom the HoM has given serious consideration.

The Beckwith thread, as it happens, became the clearinghouse location for the wide-ranging discussion about conversions and about league-wide data.

Speaking of Beckwith, I should mention that I raised the question I did about Oliver Marcelle because it was the one that seemed to me to be unjustifiable given my knowledge, such as it is, of the statistics. While I don't agree with some of your other rankings, I think they are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the available statistics and anecdotal testimony (though Judy Johnson does not look like he was a better hitter than Marcelle, he does have a significantly longer career). I apologize if I seemed abrasive or disrespectful in my characterization of your rankings. Passions tend to run high around the Negro-League candidates for obvious reasons, and there is a tendency to raise the level of rhetoric to drive a point home.
   193. David C. Jones Posted: February 19, 2005 at 04:38 PM (#1154236)
Howie,

As somebody else already mentioned, Waddell's strikeouts are significant in that it indicates that he had to rely on his defense less than anybody else in the game at that time. Leading the league in strikeouts per inning eight times in a nine year span is no trifling thing in that respect.

As far as the unearned runs go, that is not something I studied closely prior to submitting my ballot this week. For next time I'll be crunching the numbers myself and seeing how significant an issue I think this is. I also think that Dean makes for an interesting comparison to Rube. No doubt Rube had a .10 head, I'm just not sure what that actually means yet.

Chris,

No worries about abrasiveness. I appreciate the statistical analysis you've been doing, I just haven't yet decided where it all fits exactly or how it should best be interpreted/used.
   194. sunnyday2 Posted: February 19, 2005 at 08:03 PM (#1154473)
Hypothesis alert (meaning statement that is as of yet neither proven nor unproven, but stated as if proven):

Ruve Waddell was the king of the UER.

We do not know this. I am writing from memory but some months ago someone posted a comparison of Waddell's raw ERA and RA, as well as his average ER and RA and ERA+ and RA+, and said, gee, he sure gave up a lot of UER. The discussion that followed was to the effect that, well, we know the guy was an idiot and therefore we would surmise (hypothesize)that he just couldn't handle it when his fielders made an error.

Not only that but some made the further surmise that he should be docked even below his actual RA+ value for general immaturity, or something like that.

That is the sum total of diagnosis that we have that Waddell was significantly worse (e.g. the king) on UER.

Then a couple weeks ago someone posted that, well, the league average (for one year? for Waddell's career? I don't remember) was that 37% of runs were UE, while for Waddell the number was 41%. The fact is we don't have a clue as to whether that is a statistically significant difference.

If only for one year then, fine, what is the big picture?

Anyway in conclusion the rhetoric and conclusions drawn concerning Waddell and UER has pretty much lapped our actual knowledge.
   195. sunnyday2 Posted: February 19, 2005 at 08:21 PM (#1154502)
Can't wait. 19046 prelim.

1. Simmons if eligible.

2. Stearnes.I just said on the Stearnes thread that I had him 4th without Simmons, but I didn't realize he was a CF.I always thought he was a corner OF.

3. Jennings
4. Sisler
5. D. Moore
6. Waddell--4% more UER than average, that's what we really know so far.
7. Bond
8. Doyle
9. Roush
10. Williamson
11. Traynor
12. Dean--love that peak but, sure, I need to look closer.
13. Suttles--definitely need more consideration
14. Averill
15. C. Jones

16. Joss
17. Beckwith
18. Lundy
19. Sewell--a HoMer someday but only a SS 8 years
20. Cicotte
21. Browning
22. Griffith--a HoMer someday I think
23. McCormick
24. H. Wilson
25. Childs
26. Rixey
27. Cuyler--maybe a HoMer, not as bad a HoFer as I thought, marginally behind Goslin
28. Ferrell
29. Monroe
30. Redding

All of these guys almost down to #30 could be HoMers someday. I haven't looked at how deep we're gonna get electing 3 a year but all of the above and another 10-15 players (e.g. Welch, Berger, Mendez, Mays, Dunlap, Van Haltren, etc. etc.) need to remain in consideration probably forever.
   196. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: February 19, 2005 at 11:38 PM (#1154747)
Rube Waddell was the king of the UER.

We do not know this


This is true. I only checked about 8-10 pitchers, but Waddell was so far out on his own I just dubbed him King of the UER. I still stand by it because my God he's out there.

Then a couple weeks ago someone posted that, well, the league average (for one year? for Waddell's career? I don't remember) was that 37% of runs were UE, while for Waddell the number was 41%. The fact is we don't have a clue as to whether that is a statistically significant difference.

What really matters isn't comparing his UER rate to the league's rate, but to his team's rate. Defense and errors veer considerably from team to team. That's what I did in the notes section on Waddell in my site.

Result: it's more than 4%. He allowed 45 more unearned runs than one would expect. He should've had 307 unearned runs by actually had 352 in his career, 14.7% than he should've based on his teams.

If only for one year then, fine, what is the big picture?

It ain't just one year. The big picture? His ERA adjusted for excessive UER rises from 2.16 to 2.30. My thumbnail guesstimate is that his ERA+ falls from 134 to 126ish. Given the importance of his ERA and ERA+ to his candidacy that is important.

The system I used in figuring that Rube allowed more unearned runs on the whole has to, by its very nature, leave the combined sum for pitchers on a team or in a league at around zero. Almost everyone else was within a few/couple points. What makes it even more impressive in Waddell's case is he rang up these unearned runs in a short career. Aside from Waddell it had the biggest impact, the only person that had a sizable impact when Mickey Welch, who gave up 34 fewer UER than one would expect. This has less impact because he threw over 50% more innings on Waddell.

I find it really unlikely any upcoming candidates will challange Waddell because of baseball's ever declining unearned run totals, and he's far ahead of any current candidates for the HoM that I'm aware of.
   197. OCF Posted: February 20, 2005 at 03:08 AM (#1155093)
Of course, if you just take the unearned along with the earned and value pitchers by RA+, Waddell still looks quite good. See my many other posts on the subject. (He has, however, recently slipped outside my top 15.)
   198. Trevor P. Posted: February 21, 2005 at 12:28 AM (#1156332)
Another new voter! Who knew that the possibility of voting for Heinie Manush and Tony Lazzeri would draw such a crowd?

Things you should know: I'm a career voter, I'm still learning to synthesize Negro League stats, and I enjoy long moonlit walks by the seaside.

Please fire away.

#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 less than Cicotte, and combining the 117 ERA+ with his impressive (for a pitcher) hitting gets him on the ballot. I vaguely recall a post mentioning that while his contemporary Lefty Grove pitched the lion’s share of his innings against cellar-dwelling teams, Ferrell faced Grove’s A’s and other above-average teams with greater regularity. That counts as well, in my mind.

#8) Clark Griffith – looks like Ed 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.
   199. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 21, 2005 at 12:36 AM (#1156339)
Welcome, Trevor!

Your ballot looks fine to me, so you can post it on the Ballot thread when you get the chance.

and I enjoy long moonlit walks by the seaside.

Way too much information there. :-)
   200. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 21, 2005 at 01:20 AM (#1156407)
I just want to get this posted, I'll copy it to the '46 discussion thread when it comes up. What I did is to take about the top 20 or so pitchers for each season by WS, then saw how much each was above or below the pitcher in 15th place, an added 5 to signify a level of acheivement for making the list. So, in 1931, the 15th place pitcher was George Uhle (19 WS). Lefty Grove had 42 WS, so he gets ((42-19)+5)=28 points for that year. Fred Fitzsimmons made the list with 18 WS, he gets 4 points. Basically, it recognizes seasons where the pitcher was a very good player, and ignores the average or below-average seasons. Then I added it up, and here are the totals from 1893-1937 (which should finish off Hubbell and Ferrell), with HoMers in bold:

Young: 264
Johnson: 264
Alexander: 187
Mathewson: 179
Nichols: 170

Grove: 169
Walsh: 116
Hubbell: 107
McGinnity: 106
Ferrell: 96
Brown: 95
Rusie: 94

Willis: 93
Cooper: 87
Griffith: 83
Coveleski: 83
Mays: 81
Grimes: 81
Breitenstein: 79
Dean: 78
Hawley: 72
Vance: 71
Plank: 70

Cicotte: 63
Tannehill: 62
Rixey: 62
Shocker: 61
Vaughn: 60
And some selected below 60:
Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro: 58
Waddell: 56
Uhle: 54
Lyons: 54 (incomplete)
Warneke: 52
Joss: 50
Faber: 49

It's obvious this favors 1890s pitchers, so the ratings of Breitenstein and Hawley doesn't mean they're candidates, but it doesn't help Griffith to see them so close.

With war credit, Rixey probably matches up well with Cooper, Mays and Grimes.

Ferrell looks pretty impressive, but this is a peak/prime measure.

This also continues a trend I'd been seeing in my pitcher re-evaluations, namely that Faber's looking more and more like a mistake.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.6062 seconds
49 querie(s) executed