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, March 21, 2005

1948 Ballot Discussion

1948 (March 27)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

383 125.2 1926 Charlie Gehringer-2B (1993)
312 106.7 1924 Ted Lyons-P (1986)
245 63.6 1927 Lloyd Waner-CF (1982)
218 71.9 1929 Larry French-P (1987)
192 59.3 1928 Sam West-CF (1985)
185 59.5 1930 Lefty Gomez-P (1989)
162 55.6 1933 Billy Werber-3B (living)
162 50.5 1934 Red Rolfe-3B (1969)
138 36.9 1932 Bruce Campbell-RF (1995)
111 42.3 1934 Harry Danning-C (living)
116 40.8 1930 Clint Brown-RP (1955)
118 40.5 1934 George Selkirk-RF/LF (1987)
120 39.3 1933 Elden Auker-P (living)
101 32.8 1934 Hank Leiber-CF (1993)
085 32.4 1935 Babe Phelps-C (1992)
099 20.5 1930 Eric McNair-SS (1949)

1948 (March 27)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

HF 22-46 Cool Papa Bell-CF (1903) #3 cf - 1.5 - 8*
04% 29-42 Leroy Matlock-P (1907) 3 - 3*
04% 25-42 Bobbie Robinson-3B (??) 0 - 1*
00% 23-46 Nat Rogers-LF/RF(1893) #10 rf - 0 - 3*

Players Passing Away in 1947

HoMers
Age Elected

87 1904 Jack Glasscock-SS
68 1930 Jimmy Sheckard-LF

Candidates
Age Eligible

74 1916 Bob Ewing-P
74 1917 Harry Davis-1b
72 1917 Kitty Bransfield-1b
71 1916 Vic Willis-P
71 1919 Johnny Kling-C
66 1916 Orval Overall-P
65 1923 Johnny Evers-2B
64 1925 Hal Chase-1b
62 1923 Mike Mowrey-3b
61 1927 Ed Konetchy-1B
46 1943 Jimmie Wilson-C
43 1942 George Blaeholder-P

Upcoming Candidate
35 1952 Josh Gibson-C

Thanks Dan and Chris!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2005 at 12:39 AM | 114 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Chris Cobb Posted: March 30, 2005 at 03:59 AM (#1223334)
Eric,

Thank you for bringing up career-length and per-season playing time as a sources of uncertainty. I should have included them, esp. given the recent importance of the latter issue for assessing Bell's career.

Career length is somewhat less of an issue in the data itself, since I run conversions for every NeL season for which a player has data; individual voters will differ on where they draw the boundaries of the major-league equivalent career, but the numbers are there for consideration.

Estimating playing time for Biz Mackey will be, incidentally, a major undertaking. I hope to get some discussion of the problem before I attempt playing-time estimates for him.
   102. karlmagnus Posted: March 30, 2005 at 04:08 AM (#1223347)
I normalize catchers onto a base of 130 games played per annum which equalizes them with other ML players, but doesn't take account of the different in-season ruggedness (as distinct from different long term durability) of different catchers. There's usually 1 season at the start and 1-2 at the end where they're obviously part time so I don't do it for those seasons. It's the same method I used for the 1870s and 1880s that gave Joe Start 4700 hits, FWIW (he should have been known as Cool Papa Start!) but it does de-catcherify catcher batting stats quite nicely.

By this method, Hartnett is a lot better than Cochrane, for example, while Bresnahan isn't very good. When Chris has done Mackey's ML conversions, I'll convert to 130 game seasons, thus taking the durability question out of the equation, and assuming that Mackey is a standardized "good durable" ML player. Others can then make whetever use they like of the result.
   103. DavidFoss Posted: March 30, 2005 at 05:00 AM (#1223419)
Extending Tiboreau's table from page 1 -- #84

                 yrs   g    pa   avg. obp. slg.  ops+ bWS fWS tWS
1922-38 Wilson    17 2352  9879  .336 .431 .448  132  320  58 378
1923-41 Suttles   19 2420 10163  .302 .366 .538  137  314  39 353
1919-35 Beckwith  17 1905  8010  .333 .392 .523  137  263  52 315
1924-46 Bell      23 3230 13637  .297 .365 .382  100  308 111 419

                 top 5     OPS+        WS    WS/162  def:
1922-38 Wilson    141  176 172 149  34 31 29  26.03  B+(1b); C+(3b)
1923-41 Suttles   127  219 158 155  44 31 28  23.63  B-(1b); C-(lf)
1919-35 Beckwith  137  161 157 156  31 29 28  26.79  D(ss)
1924-46 Bell      116  137 137 124  27 25 25  21.02  A+(cf)
   104. Howie Menckel Posted: March 30, 2005 at 05:51 AM (#1223452)
Well, I'll have Suttles over Beckwith.
Don't really care if anyone respects it, not after 50 ballots, lol...
   105. Kelly in SD Posted: March 30, 2005 at 11:52 AM (#1223637)
I am not sure this is the appropriate place to ask, but several posters have mentioned win shares undervalues the defense of deadball-firstbasemen (and 1890s ones as well.) What do you consider to be the appropriate adjustment up? If an excellent firstbaseman earned a little over 2 win shares per 1000 innings in the win shares system, should that get bumped to 3 per 1000 innings? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
   106. TomH Posted: March 30, 2005 at 01:25 PM (#1223655)
(JMurph post #95) "Looking over these numbers, I don't understand how anyone has Suttles over Beckwith. Beckwith has almost as many runs as Mule in 2400 less PA, while playing 3B and SS."
--
Because it's runs above average (or at least a high replacement level), and I've attempted to correct replacement level for position and defense. However, I admit that if Beckwith really *could* play a half-decent 3B or SS in the majors, he should be higher.
   107. sunnyday2 Posted: March 30, 2005 at 02:20 PM (#1223676)
IOW it is redundant to compare the RC numbers AND then give Beckwith a positional boost, because the position is already factored into the numbers, right?

Beckwith's case continues to be difficult. In arriving at an appropriate "discount" of his MLEs along the lines that Chris has discussed, one wonders if Beckwith among all of them would have stuck in the MLs the least as 1) a man without a position and 2) an attitude problem.

OTOH (and this is a question) I also wonder if his play on barnstorming as opposed to NeL teams is fairly represented in his numbers? IOW his apparently short career is possibly due to his barnstorming seasons being under- or non-represented (sort of like pretending Dobie Moore didn't play ball before joining the NeL)? Is that the case or not?

Right now I do give Beckwith a larger discount than the others because of his lack of esteem among his contemporaries. I'm still struggling with whether that is fair or not.
   108. sunnyday2 Posted: March 30, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1223680)
Not that Beckwith is any more difficult than Bell, however. Suttles is the easiest, his skill set seems to be comparable to ML corner OF-1B.

Bell's reputation is completely consistent with NeL folklore, however, and that makes it easier. IOW the old-timers from the NeL (which really means guys who were around in the '30s, so not *real* old timers) almost always opted for guys who were strongly imprinted on the position in question AND were the top defenders. Thus Judy Johnson over Jud Wilson and Beckwith, Bell over Stearnes, etc. etc. etc.

With that in mind, it still looks to me like Bell is more Judy Johnson than Jud Wilson. Or Lloyd Waner rather than Paul.

OTOH career voters and other fans of Max Carey should like him. I was a FOMC and I have Bell 15th for now.
   109. Chris Cobb Posted: March 30, 2005 at 03:11 PM (#1223718)
A note on David Foss's updated table:

The one item on the table that is not current and consistently figured for all players is batting win shares. The bws for Suttles and Beckwith are still based on MLEs prior to the NL-for-the-1930s shift, where Wilson and Bell have win shares pegged to the NL for those years. Both Suttles and Beckwith should see some rise in batting win shares as a result, Suttles more than Beckwith, since Beckwith had only four seasons as a regular from 1930 on.

It's interesting that Beckwith's and Suttles' career OPS+ scores are equal.
   110. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 30, 2005 at 03:11 PM (#1223720)
Sunnyday,

I think Beckwith's case is one where the inequities of the NgL and MLB life are really visible. In the NgLs, whatever issues Beckwith had led to lots of team jumping, possibly to early retirement(s) to run pool halls, and perhaps to an unwillingess to relocate into the west.

In MLB, where the economics were probably more stable and the career path a little more predicatable, it's possible that Beckwith would have had a very different-looking career and that his personality would have been viewed differently. Which is only to say that in examining the role of character and attitude for any player, NgL or MLB, it's important to remember that perceived personality traits are just as often environmental in their origin as internal. And one usually influences the other, often dramatically.
   111. DavidFoss Posted: April 04, 2005 at 02:48 PM (#1231174)
FYI -- looks like the site make you turn on Daylight Savings Time manually by going to 'Your Account'->'Localization Settings'
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 04, 2005 at 02:50 PM (#1231179)
Does anyone want a thread for Dick Bartell?
   113. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 04, 2005 at 03:44 PM (#1231314)
Just a quick thought: does Harry Danning, whose career ends abruptly in 1942, need any further examination for war credit?
   114. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 04, 2005 at 05:48 PM (#1231607)
Dr.,

It could also be argued that an MLB team, itself more stable econmically than its NeL brethren, would have been less likely to a)put up with Beckwith or b) continue to give him chances that he may or may not have deserved. This isnt' to say that Beckwith couldn't have lasted in MLB (your take on the subject is most likely the correct one) just that the argument cuts both ways.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3539 seconds
68 querie(s) executed