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, April 04, 2005

1949 Ballot Discussion

1949 (April 10)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

305 99.7 1928 Carl Hubbell-P (1988)
252 92.0 1928 Dick Bartell-SS (1995)
238 78.6 1928 Chuck Klein-RF (1958)
225 79.8 1931 Tommy Bridges-P (1968)
220 70.9 1931 Lon Warneke-P (1976)
079 31.1 1935 Mace Brown-RP (2002)
104 22.4 1935 Rip Radcliff-LF (1962)

1949 (April 10)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

100% 20-47 Biz Mackey-C (1897) #3 c - 2 - 8*
00% 20-47 Frank Duncan-C (1901) #10 c - 1 - 5*

Players Passing Away in 1948

HoMers
Age Elected

71 1925 Mordecai Brown-P
53 1941 Babe Ruth-RF/LF

I would have loved watching the Babe on “Sports Challenge” or “The Way it Was” during the seventies, but…

Candidates
Age Eligible

79 1915 Frank Bowerman-C
76 1914 Al Orth-P
68 1919 Art Devlin-3b
68 1921 Joe Tinker-SS
66 1921 Harry Lord-3B
63 1924 Bob Groom-P
62 1920 Bill Sweeney-2b
53 1940 Herb Pennock-P
48 1940 Hack Wilson-CF


Thanks to Dan and Chris, as usual!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 04, 2005 at 01:53 AM | 127 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2005 at 12:13 AM (#1232542)
Hubbell is a definite. I'm also assuming that Mackey is, but the MLE's will paint a clearer picture of his value.

I say no to everyone else.

Does anyone want a Dick Bartell thread?
   2. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2005 at 01:11 AM (#1232588)
Another big change is in order for my ballot this week. Gavy Cravath is coming on.

Prelim 1949
1) Carl Hubbell: In terms of value, he seems like the Bob Gibson or Jim Palmer of his era. Good enough for me.

2?) Biz Mackey: Depends of course on what the MLEs say. If he's Rick Ferrell with a little more of a stick, he might not appear quite this high, but will still likely appear on my ballot.

3) Mule Suttles.

4) John Beckwith.

5) Hugh Duffy.

6?) Gavy Cravath: I'll wait to see how Brent's MLEs and the group's discussion shake out, but I think the stats that PhillyBooster and others have provided show Cravath to have been major league material from 1903 onward. The trick is what years he gets credits for his minor league exploits. Depending on how much you give him, his peak, prime, and career value resemble HOMers Keeler and Goslin rather closely.
With so many NB votes coming in the near future, it would be easy to just check out and vote on autopilot, but I think we need to pay very close attention to backloggers in anticipation of 1958 and beyond when they will resurface. And I'm pretty sure that the peculiar path that Cravath took to the big leagues deserves another close look, especially now that we've got some stats to work with.

7) Geo Van Haltren.
8) Geo Burns.
9) Jose Mendez.
10) Ted Lyons.
11) Eppa Rixey
12) Spot Poles: C.P. Bell true believers, this is your man.
13) Earl Averill.
14) Edd Roush.
15) Tommy Leach.

New guys:
Chuck Klein: The George Foster of his day.
Lon Warneke: The George Uhle of his day.
Rowdy Richard Bartell: Fred Pfeffer, Donie Bush, Buddy Lewis, guys like that seem comparable.
Tommy Bridges: Another in the Root, Bender, Marquard, Mullin class of pitchers...
Frank Duncan: I don't get the impression he could hit much, but seems to have been a leadership-type catcher. In the Schalk mode perhaps? That doesn't do it for me.
   3. DavidFoss Posted: April 05, 2005 at 01:18 AM (#1232598)
Does anyone want a Dick Bartell thread?

I'm not sure if we need one, we can keep the discussion here I guess, but I'm always intrigued by 252/92.0 guys that I had never heard of.

He's got some nice RF numbers, but ranks only a B+ fielder by WS... not amazing enough for me to forgive the 96 OPS+
   4. Kelly in SD Posted: April 05, 2005 at 08:24 AM (#1233026)
1949 Prelim:
1. Carl Hubbell: Among post deadball pitchers, he has the third most career win shares (Lyons, Rixey), the second highest 3 cons years peak (Dean), the highest 3-yr non-cons yrs peak, and the highest 7 years prime. Including post-1893 pitchers, Willis beats him barely for 7 year prime. 7 times STATS all-star, 6 times win shares NL all-star, 2 times win shares Cy Young for NL. Slightly above-average defensive support per Chris J., but totally average offensive support. Only Dean has more Black Ink and and no one has more Grey Ink. At least 8 top 10s in ERA, ERA+, wins, BB/9, K/9, IP, and Men on Base. Makes my PHOM this year.
2. Mickey Welch: PHOM 1901
3. Charley Jones: PHOM 1906
4. Pete Browning: PHOM 1921
5. Hugh Duffy: PHOM 1919
6. Earl Averill: Makes PHOM this year with Hubbell
7. Wes Ferrell: Slight move up because Suttles moves down and reconsidered the era in which he pitched. Currently battling Mendez for next in line for PHOM
8. Jose Mendez
9. Ted Lyons: 3 yrs of WWII credit done as decline phase. I know he completed every start at the age of 42, but he had to slow down at some point. Will make my PHOM just a step behind Ferrell.
10. Vic Willis: PHOM 1942. Slight move up because not discounting his early numbers as much. Career started before deadball era began.

Positions 11-22 are all within an eyelash of each other in my system. There is literally one percent of difference between them. I could see them all being inducted.
11. Edd Roush: PHOM 1940
(Vance)
12. Mule Suttles: Drops from 7th because I had the wrong career totals. Still see eventual PHOM and HOM.
13. George Burns: PHOM 1938
14. Dobie Moore
15. Burleigh Grimes: Big beneficiary of adjusting my ratings for post-deadball pitching.
16. John Beckwith
17. George Van Haltren: PHOM 1939. Moved down slightly because of lack of all-star apps, though he competed with Burkett, Hamilton, Clarke, Ryan, Kelley, Keeler, Delahanty, etc.
(Terry)
18. Gavy Cravath: This is based on credit for 1910 and 1911 at his per/yr ws totals. May give credit for one or two pre-1908 seasons as well.
(Faber)
19. Wilbur Cooper
20. Tommy Leach
21. Hughie Jennings: The Dean of Shortstops
22. Dizzy Dean: The Jennings of Pitching
23. Cool Papa Bell: High average, long career players who lack big seasons do not score well in my system. Trying to figure out how to give more weight to defense.
I wonder where all the support for Max Carey, who debuted in ninth place behind 6 or 7 HoMers and Beckley, and was elected in 5 elections, went since this is Carey-plus. Bell debuted in 17th place.
24. George Sisler
25/26: Larry Doyle and Cupid Childs
27. Rube Waddell
28. Spots Poles
29. Clark Griffith
30. Eppa Rixey: This is with the benefit of adjusting my rankings for post-deadball conditions. Long-career, no peak, much better support than teammate Luque, not the number 1 on his teams, blecch. (see Chris J.'s runsupportindex website.)
31. Roger Bresnahan
32. Frank Chance
33. Jimmy Ryan
34. Wally Berger
35. Ben Taylor
36. Bill Monroe
37. Dick Lundy: I think he should be higher, but this is where the numbers put him.
38. Jack Fournier - 3 years of minor league credit
(Carey)
39. Hack Wilson
40. Roy Thomas
41. Fielder Jones
   5. Kelly in SD Posted: April 05, 2005 at 08:26 AM (#1233029)
Biz Mackey is under consideration, but I have no idea where to place him. I look forward to the Mackey thread.
If he is Rick Ferrell-plus, he will not make my ballot. If his great defense is supported by some hitting ability, he should make the tail end of the ballot.
   6. Kelly in SD Posted: April 05, 2005 at 08:37 AM (#1233031)
1949 Recap:

1949 top 15 position player in AL by win shares
AL
Williams of40
Joost ss 35
Stephensss32
Doerr2b25
Kell3b24
D DiMaggioof24
Dobyof24
Henrich        of24
Chapman        of24
Valoof24
Pesky3b23
D Mitchellof23
Wertzof23
Rizzutoss22
C Michaels2b22

Williams has led every full season he played since 1941.

1949 top pitchers in AL by win shares
Lemon31 (tie)
Parnell31
Trucks27
Newhouser25
Kinder22
Garcia21
Hutchison19
Page19
Raschi19
Benton18
Wight18

This is Newhouser’s sixth straight year on the AL all-star team by win shares.
The Red Sox had 5 players in the top 14, the Yankees had 1. The Yankees win by a game.

1949 top 15 position players in NL by win shares.
Musialof40
Kinerof37
J Robinson2b36
Reesess32
Slaughterof29
Ennisof27
B Thomsonof26
Campanellac24
Sniderof24
Elliott3b23
Furilloof23
Stanky2b21
Hodges1b21
Schoendienst2b20
4 tied with 19

1949 top pitchers in NL by win shares<pre>
Spahn 24 tie
Pollet24
Heintzelman23
Newcombe21
Raffensberger20
R Meyer20
Roe19
Dickson19
Koslo19
Brechen18

League all-star teams can be figured by the above numbers except for AL: catcher: Berra 21, and first: Vernon 21

The STATS all-time handbook agrees with the NL win shares team completely, but for R Meyer over Heintzelman.
In the AL, they choose Eddie Robinson over Vernon, Stephens over Joost, and Kinder over Newhouser.

Win Shares Gold Gloves: AL listed first, underlined player with most
C: Hegan, Campanella
1b: Vernon, Hodges
2b: Doerr, Schoendienst
3b: Pesky, Elliott
ss: Stephens, Hamner
of: D DiMaggio, Chapman, H Evers, Thomson, Ashburn, Musial

MVP voting:
Ted Williams
Jackie Robinson

Rookie of Year:
Roy Sievers
Don Newcombe

No Cy Young yet, but highest MVP placement by a pitcher in each league:
Joe Page, 3rd
Warren Spahn, 7th.

Pennant Race information:
Both pennant races were decided by one game, Yankees and Dodgers over Red Sox and Cardinals. The Red Sox had the best home record, 61-16, but lost the pennant because they were 35-42 on the road – 8 games worse than the Yankees, who had the best road record. Similarly, the Cardinals had the best home record in the NL, but lost the pennant to the team with the best road record.

The Yankees led throughout the year until the Red Sox take first place on Sept 26.
Dodgers take half game lead on Cards with a doubleheader sweep and a Cards loss on Sept 29.
Red Sox go up 4-0, lose 5-4 as Yankees win to tie the season with one game left on Oct 1.
Red Sox can’t touch Vic Raschi for 8 innings, lose 5-3 when Yankees score 4 runs in the eighth – Oct 2.
Dodgers win in 10 innings to win NL by one game over Cards.
World Series:
Game 1: Allie Reynolds beats Don Newcombe 1-0 when Tommy Henrich hits a 9th inning homer.
Game 2: Preacher Roe wins 1-0 when Snider knocks in Robinson in the 2nd.
Game 3: Yankees win 4-3 when they score 3 in the ninth and the Dodgers can only get 2 back.
Game 4: Allie Reynolds provides 3-1/3 perfect innings of relief, Yankees win 6-4.
Game 5: Yankees 10, Dodgers 6.

Other team info: St Louis Browns and Washington were the worst major league teams, both losing over 100 games. The fans in Chicago could compare whose team was worse than the other as they finished with the 13th and 14th worst records in the game.
The best any team did against another was 17 wins: Yankees over St Louis, Red Sox over Chicago, Cardinals over Cincinnati, Dodgers over both Cubs and Cincinnati.

The Dodgers led the majors in steals by 55 with 117 (White Sox were next with 62). STATS lists caught stealing for the Dodgers and their percentage is 73% successful. The Yankees are the best percentage stealers in the AL at 66%. Detroit is only successful on 43% of their attempts.
This was the height of the walk-boom and the AL averaged one more walk per game than strikeout. Not so coincidentally, the average AL team turned 186 double plays this year.
16 AL pitchers walked over 100 men, including Dick Weik of Wash who only threw 95 innings.
Ted Williams just missed his THIRD triple crown when George Kell won the batting title by .34291 to .34276.
Williams’ and Stephens’ 159 RBI would be the highest between Foxx’s 175 in 1938 and Manny Ramirez’s 165 in 1999 (and Sosa’s 160 in 2001.)

This information has been gathered from BaseballReference.com, STATS All-Time Handbook, Baseball Rookies Encyclopedia, and baseballlibrary.com.
   7. Kelly in SD Posted: April 05, 2005 at 08:46 AM (#1233032)
Dagnabit, forgot to remove the tabs. Trying again.

1949 top 15 position player in AL by win shares
AL
Williams    of  40
Joost       ss  35
Stephens    ss  32
Doerr       2b  25
Kell        3b  24
D DiMaggio  of  24
Doby        of  24
Henrich     of  24
Chapman     of  24
Valo        of  24
Pesky       3b  23
D Mitchell  of  23
Wertz       of  23
Rizzuto     ss  22
C Michaels  2b  22

1949 top pitchers in AL by win shares
Lemon      31 (tie)
Parnell    31
Trucks     27
Newhouser  25
Kinder     22
Garcia     21
Hutchison  19
Page       19
Raschi     19
Benton     18
Wight      18


1949 top 15 position players in NL by win shares.
Musial        of  40
Kiner         of  37
J Robinson    2b  36
Reese         ss  32
Slaughter     of  29
Ennis         of  27
B Thomson     of  26
Campanella    c   24
Snider        of  24
Elliott       3b  23
Furillo       of  23
Stanky        2b  21
Hodges        1b  21
Schoendienst  2b  20
4 tied with       19

1949 top pitchers in NL by win shares
Spahn          24 tie
Pollet         24
Heintzelman    23
Newcombe       21
Raffensberger  20
R Meyer        20
Roe            19
Dickson        19
Koslo          19
Brechen        18
   8. Kelly in SD Posted: April 05, 2005 at 08:49 AM (#1233033)
Other oorts from 1949:

The Giants sign their first black players, Monte Irvin and Ford Smith, a pitcher who never makes the majors. Irvin and Hank Thompson (who was the first black to play for the Browns also) become the first black players for the Giants.
By the end of the year, there are 8 black players on teams: Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe, Monte Irvin, Hank Thompson, Larry Doby, Luke Easter, and Satchel Paige. That is 5 Hall-of-Famers and Luke Easter who was born too late.
First black players in All-Star game: Robinson, Campanella, Doby, and Newcombe.

Fred Saigh controls 90% of the Cardinals.
The Browns are now controlled by the DeWitt brothers.
Joe DiMaggio becomes the first $100k a year player, suffers from heal problems for much of the year.
Several lawsuits against baseball over Mexican League bans in various stages.
Monuments unveiled in Yankee Stadium.
Elmer Valo becomes first AL player with 2 bases loaded triples in one game.
Johnny Mize hits 300th career homerun.
White Sox move their fences in to create more homeruns then move them out when Yankees come to town; AL bans moving fences once season starts.
Bobby Shantz pitches 9 hitless innings in relief in his second appearance ever.
White Sox score in all 8 innings in a game at home.
Earl Torgeson misses several months after separating his shoulder in an attempt block Jackie Robinson while trying to turn a double play.
The Indians start the year so badly, they hold a second Opening Day.
Eddie Waitkus is shot by 19-year old admirer.
Talk about overkill: Monte Kennedy hits a grandslam and shuts out the Dodgers, 16-0.
Also, Giants sweep a double-header 10-0, 9-0.
Wally Moses gets 2000th hit.
Luke Appling sets record for most games at short.
Dom DiMaggio has 34 game hitting streak ended by his brother.
First forfeit in 7 years as Philadelphia fans throw bottles at an umpire.
Mize acquired by Yankees as pennant race insurance. One of several moves that causes leagues to create various trading deadlines.
Latrell has some old company: Pepper Martin suspended for rest of season for choking an ump in minors.
First benefits granted under player pension plan. In less than 25 years, labor strife will cause the first regular season games to be cancelled. Early stirrings of players seeking to assert their rights as workers.
White Sox trade Joe Tipton for Nellie Fox.
Gillette buys World Series broadcast rights with all money going to player’s pension fund. Again, this leads slowly to greater player consciousness and the Players’ Union.
Bill Veeck sells Indians. Hank Greenberg named GM.
Yankee players suffer 71 different injuries that cause them to miss games during the year.

Overall attendance is over 20 million, but a slight decrease (700,000) from the year before. Yankees and Indians are over 2.2 million. Browns draw 270,000.
American League considers allowing the spitball, but the measure fails, 7 to 1. (I wonder who voted to allow it?)
There are 384 night games. There were only 81 in 1940.

Charlie Gehringer elected to Hall of Fame by BBWAA and Kid Nichols and Three-Finger Brown by the Old-Timers Committee.
   9. Rusty Priske Posted: April 05, 2005 at 12:50 PM (#1233071)
Hmmm...so far I don't have Hubbell anywhere near what you guys have. I will keep looking and try to see what I am missing. I haven't been accused of udnerrating pitchers...just catchers.

Prelim:

PHoM: Mule Suttles & John Beckwith

1. Mule Suttles
2. Eppa Rixey
3. Jake Beckley
4. George Van Haltren
5. John Beckwith
6. Ted Lyons
7. Mickey Welch
8. Edd Roush
9. Tommy Leach
10. Cool Papa Bell
11. Sam Rice
12. Hugh Duffy
13. Biz Mackey
14. George Sisler
15. Carl Hubbell

16-20. Lundy, Ryan, Averill, Moore, Childs
21-25. Powell, Grimes, Monroe, Griffith, Sewell
26-30. Streeter, Mullane, Doyle, White, Gleason
   10. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 05, 2005 at 01:40 PM (#1233106)
Rusty, can I ask why you are so down on Hubbell? To me he looks like the second best pitcher of his era, and the best (Lefty Grove) is one of the 3-5 best ever. Even if Hubbell isn't inner circle he certainly seems to be top half. Just want to know what you are seeing in case I am missing simething.
   11. PhillyBooster Posted: April 05, 2005 at 02:34 PM (#1233163)
Rusty, can I ask why you are so down on Hubbell?

He's probably not giving full credit for his work in astronomy, and getting that telescope thingie named after him.
   12. Jim Sp Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:24 PM (#1233479)
Bartell #25, Klein #26, Bridges #53. Warneke a nice career but not close to the ballot. Seems to me that Bartell needs a thread. As I recall the NBJHA had Warneke rather high, I'm not sure why. He had two great years and some other nice years, which is a good career but not nearly enough.

This year it's between Mackey and Jud Wilson for my 2nd PHoM choice.

1)Hubbell--
2)Mackey--I’ve been assuming he was an easy HoM choice, he may move down due to MLEs. For now I’ll hold him here.
3)Averill--Looks like a HoMer to me even without PCL credit, but I do give him some PCL credit as he was obviously major league quality before arriving in the majors. Compare him to Goslin: Averill has a higher OPS+ (133/128), and is an A+ CF vs. a C+ LF. Goslin has career length, mostly because Averill plays in the PCL for a while.
4)Lyons--Between Alexander and Feller, only Grove and Hubbell are obvious pitching electees. Lyons is the best of the rest, I’d take him before Vance, Coveleski, Faber, and Rixey.
5)Sewell--109 OPS+, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). Yes, I am allowing for his switch to 3B at the end of his career.
6)Schang--His rate stats would put him in the HoM, but a look at each individual year isn’t impressive. Still, a hitting catcher with his career length isn’t common...Bill James rates him a C+ fielder in Win Shares, but says he was a good catcher in the NHBA.
7)Doyle— His hitting is legitimately outstanding, he played 2nd base, and a C+ defender by Win Shares. 126 career OPS+, compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. #19 all time in innings at 2B. Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
8)Beckwith-- Was Beckwith, in his prime, was the best hitter in the Negro Leagues? He played a considerable amount at the difficult end of the defensive spectrum. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his “unusual circumstances”. His selection as manager indicates to me that his intangibles weren’t all negative. Could be higher. He made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
9)Suttles--Struggling with where to put him.
10)Beckley— Behind the big 3, much better than other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production, we’re not talking about Ed Kranepool here.
11)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115 for such a long career.
12)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
13)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
14)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
15)Cuyler--I think he’ll be below the in/out line.


Ferrell—one of the top 100 pitchers of all time, but not on my ballot currently.
Sisler--I don’t see his case being very strong. His peak was not long enough to merit election, though he certainly was a great hitter for a few years.
Griffith In my PHoM but off the ballot.
Hughie Jennings—If he played SS his whole (short) career, I’d be listening. He played a lot of 1B, though. His peak is impressive but it’s just not enough career.
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:28 PM (#1233492)
1949 Prelim.

1. Carl Hubbell (new, PHoM 1949). James has him at #13 among pitchers but only #94 overall. How can this be? I have him #19 among pitchers and #75 overall. An obvious choice.

2. Biz Mackey (new, PHoM 1949). This is prelim. Not yet sold, I don't think he was Jud Wilson. Could move down, won't move up.

3. Hughie Jennings (2, PHoM 1927). Nice peak.

4. George Sisler (5, PHoM 1938). Would he have been more valuable with a normally shaped career? Same value distributed differently?

5. Rube Waddell (7, PHoM 1932). Prime ERA+ 152.

(5A. Dazzy Vance. Next in line for PHoM if Mackey drops.)

6. Mule Suttles (6). Similar to, though better than, a number of other sluggers.

7. Edd Roush (9). Top 'o the CF glut.

8. Chuck Klein (new). Impact player, even considering the park. Al Simmons light.

9. Teddy Lyons (14).
10. Cool Papa Bell (15). Both moving up. Usually I like peak and prime more, but their consistency over remarkable lengths of time is very impressive.

11. Larry Doyle (11).
12. Dobie Moore (3).
13. Dick Lundy (10).
14. John Beckwith (17).
15. Joe Sewell (20). Good hitting IF. Lundy also had the great glove.

Drops out: Bond (8), Williamson (12), Gomez (13). Gotta get that consensus score up, though my prelim is definitely short on pitchers. But I also think the HoM is short on IF more so than pitchers.

16-20. Traynor, Browning, Joss, Gomez, Griffith.
21-25. Bond, Averill, Cicotte, Duffy, C. Jones.
26-30. Dean, Welch, Monroe, Redding, H. Wilson.
31-35. Williamson, Bresnahan, Ferrell, McCormick, Cuyler.
36-40. Childs, Bancroft, Rixey, Taylor, Veach.
41-45. Leach, Mays, Dunlap, Poles, Berger.
46-50. Beckley, Mendez, Tinker, Evers, Chance.
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:29 PM (#1233495)
1949 Prelim.

1. Carl Hubbell (new, PHoM 1949). James has him at #13 among pitchers but only #94 overall. How can this be? I have him #19 among pitchers and #75 overall. An obvious choice.

2. Biz Mackey (new, PHoM 1949). This is prelim. Not yet sold, I don't think he was Jud Wilson. Could move down, won't move up.

3. Hughie Jennings (2, PHoM 1927). Nice peak.

4. George Sisler (5, PHoM 1938). Would he have been more valuable with a normally shaped career? Same value distributed differently?

5. Rube Waddell (7, PHoM 1932). Prime ERA+ 152.

(5A. Dazzy Vance. Next in line for PHoM if Mackey drops.)

6. Mule Suttles (6). Similar to, though better than, a number of other sluggers.

7. Edd Roush (9). Top 'o the CF glut.

8. Chuck Klein (new). Impact player, even considering the park. Al Simmons light.

9. Teddy Lyons (14).
10. Cool Papa Bell (15). Both moving up. Usually I like peak and prime more, but their consistency over remarkable lengths of time is very impressive.

11. Larry Doyle (11).
12. Dobie Moore (3).
13. Dick Lundy (10).
14. John Beckwith (17).
15. Joe Sewell (20). Good hitting IF. Lundy also had the great glove.

Drops out: Bond (8), Williamson (12), Gomez (13). Gotta get that consensus score up, though my prelim is definitely short on pitchers. But I also think the HoM is short on IF more so than pitchers.

16-20. Traynor, Browning, Joss, Gomez, Griffith.
21-25. Bond, Averill, Cicotte, Duffy, C. Jones.
26-30. Dean, Welch, Monroe, Redding, H. Wilson.
31-35. Williamson, Bresnahan, Ferrell, McCormick, Cuyler.
36-40. Childs, Bancroft, Rixey, Taylor, Veach.
41-45. Leach, Mays, Dunlap, Poles, Berger.
46-50. Beckley, Mendez, Tinker, Evers, Chance.
   15. Ardo Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:32 PM (#1233505)
Prelim ballot:

At this stage, I am confident in my rankings, with one exception. Beckwith #4 and Suttles off-ballot last year seemed extreme, as the gap between the two is not THAT large.

Lundy and Sewell each move up one spot with augmented SS bonus.

1) Hubbell - by far.
2) Lyons (3) - the gap between #2 Lyons and #11 Rixey is razor-thin. I don't see a definite #2-type candidate this year.
3) Averill (5)
4) Mackey (new) (tentative)
5) Beckwith (4)
6) Griffith (6)
7) Lundy (8)
8) Roush (7)
9) Mendez (9)
10) Sewell (11)
11) Rixey (10)
12) Suttles (off)
13) Sisler (13)
14) Ferrell (off)
15) Beckley (15)

(14) Duffy, Klein, (12) Bell, Redding, Bridges, Schang, and Leach are all ballot-worthy, but fall short.
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:44 PM (#1233557)
1949 Prelim.

1. Carl Hubbell (new, PHoM 1949). James has him at #13 among pitchers but only #94 overall. How can this be? I have him #19 among pitchers and #75 overall. An obvious choice.

2. Biz Mackey (new, PHoM 1949). This is prelim. Not yet sold, I don't think he was Jud Wilson. Could move down, won't move up.

3. Hughie Jennings (2, PHoM 1927). Nice peak.

4. George Sisler (5, PHoM 1938). Would he have been more valuable with a normally shaped career? Same value distributed differently?

5. Rube Waddell (7, PHoM 1932). Prime ERA+ 152.

(5A. Dazzy Vance. Next in line for PHoM if Mackey drops.)

6. Mule Suttles (6). Similar to, though better than, a number of other sluggers.

7. Edd Roush (9). Top 'o the CF glut.

8. Chuck Klein (new). Impact player, even considering the park. Al Simmons light.

9. Teddy Lyons (14).
10. Cool Papa Bell (15). Both moving up. Usually I like peak and prime more, but their consistency over remarkable lengths of time is very impressive.

11. Larry Doyle (11).
12. Dobie Moore (3).
13. Dick Lundy (10).
14. John Beckwith (17).
15. Joe Sewell (20). Good hitting IF. Lundy also had the great glove.

Drops out: Bond (8), Williamson (12), Gomez (13). Gotta get that consensus score up, though my prelim is definitely short on pitchers. But I also think the HoM is short on IF more so than pitchers.

16-20. Traynor, Browning, Joss, Gomez, Griffith.
21-25. Bond, Averill, Cicotte, Duffy, C. Jones.
26-30. Dean, Welch, Monroe, Redding, H. Wilson.
31-35. Williamson, Bresnahan, Ferrell, McCormick, Cuyler.
36-40. Childs, Bancroft, Rixey, Taylor, Veach.
41-45. Leach, Mays, Dunlap, Poles, Berger.
46-50. Beckley, Mendez, Tinker, Evers, Chance.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:45 PM (#1233561)
1949 Prelim.

1. Carl Hubbell (new, PHoM 1949). James has him at #13 among pitchers but only #94 overall. How can this be? I have him #19 among pitchers and #75 overall. An obvious choice.

2. Biz Mackey (new, PHoM 1949). This is prelim. Not yet sold, I don't think he was Jud Wilson. Could move down, won't move up.

3. Hughie Jennings (2, PHoM 1927). Nice peak.

4. George Sisler (5, PHoM 1938). Would he have been more valuable with a normally shaped career? Same value distributed differently?

5. Rube Waddell (7, PHoM 1932). Prime ERA+ 152.

(5A. Dazzy Vance. Next in line for PHoM if Mackey drops.)

6. Mule Suttles (6). Similar to, though better than, a number of other sluggers.

7. Edd Roush (9). Top 'o the CF glut.

8. Chuck Klein (new). Impact player, even considering the park. Al Simmons light.

9. Teddy Lyons (14).
10. Cool Papa Bell (15). Both moving up. Usually I like peak and prime more, but their consistency over remarkable lengths of time is very impressive.

11. Larry Doyle (11).
12. Dobie Moore (3).
13. Dick Lundy (10).
14. John Beckwith (17).
15. Joe Sewell (20). Good hitting IF. Lundy also had the great glove.

Drops out: Bond (8), Williamson (12), Gomez (13). Gotta get that consensus score up, though my prelim is definitely short on pitchers. But I also think the HoM is short on IF more so than pitchers.

16-20. Traynor, Browning, Joss, Gomez, Griffith.
21-25. Bond, Averill, Cicotte, Duffy, C. Jones.
26-30. Dean, Welch, Monroe, Redding, H. Wilson.
31-35. Williamson, Bresnahan, Ferrell, McCormick, Cuyler.
36-40. Childs, Bancroft, Rixey, Taylor, Veach.
41-45. Leach, Mays, Dunlap, Poles, Berger.
46-50. Beckley, Mendez, Tinker, Evers, Chance.
   18. Rusty Priske Posted: April 05, 2005 at 06:23 PM (#1233687)
Is there war time or something I am missing? I see a guy who is 20th in Win Shares out of the list of guys I am currently tracking. The only guys I have with less WS in the 14 guys above him (excepting NLers), are Hugh Duffy and George Sisler.
   19. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 05, 2005 at 10:34 PM (#1234235)
Sunny,

Can you please post your ballot again? I don't think I got it the 4th time! ;-)

Rusty,

We are beginning to get into the era where career WS for pitchers will be misleading. There is a reason that James has his HOF 'cutoff' for position players at 325 WS and 250 for pitchers. They don't get quite as many WS per season and they don't rack up as many WS in their decline phase.
   20. jimd Posted: April 06, 2005 at 01:16 AM (#1234596)
Charlie Gehringer elected to Hall of Fame by BBWAA and Kid Nichols and Three-Finger Brown by the Old-Timers Committee.

Just noting that they will hold their 1949 election at the same time we do.

Also note that they've already elected Hubbell (in 1947; no 5 year rule yet). While we were electing Gehringer and Wilson in 1948, the BBWAA elected Herb Pennock and Pie Traynor.
   21. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2005 at 04:07 AM (#1234993)
Kelly From SD --

Love all of the 1949 information in the reports, but I was under the impression this election was taking place before the 1949 season started, around January or so. The Indians are still basking in the glow of their WS title over Southworth's Boston Braves.

If I'm wrong, I'll adjust my own 'timely' tidbits accordingly.
   22. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2005 at 04:50 AM (#1235070)
Overall attendance is over 20 million, but a slight decrease (700,000) from the year before. Yankees and Indians are over 2.2 million. Browns draw 270,000.

This is just the beginning of a major five year decline in attendence... one that will hit the minor leagues a lot harder too causing the end of several higher-letter leagues.

A major shift in american leisure is occurring at this time. Americans are falling in love with television.
   23. Ardo Posted: April 06, 2005 at 04:58 AM (#1235080)
I see a large number of high placements for Biz Mackey. He's the third-best NeL catcher, behind Gibson and Santop. Is that really exceptional?
   24. Michael Bass Posted: April 06, 2005 at 05:17 AM (#1235095)
I don't know whether Mackey will be high on my ballot or not, but catcher is by all expert consensus the strongest position by a wide margin in Negro League ball, so being 3rd is hardly an disqualifier to a high position.
   25. Kelly in SD Posted: April 06, 2005 at 07:33 AM (#1235173)
David,

I'm not sure. If you are right, I must be prescient or something. Here is some info on 1948:
Recap of the 1948 season:

Top 15 position players in each league, by win shares:
AL
Ted Williams  of  39
Lou Boudreau  ss  34
Joe DiMaggio  of  34
Tommy Henrich of  29
Bobby Doerr   2b  27
Eddie Joost   ss  26
Dom DiMaggio  of  26
Vern Stephens ss  25
Ken Keltner   3b  25
Hank Majeski  3b  25
Joe Gordon    2b  24
Mullin        of  22
Ferris Fain   1b  21
Johnny Pesky  3b  20
Jerry Priddy  2b  20
Hoot Evers    of  20
Dale Mitchell of  20

This is William’s fifth year in a row (except for WWII years) being best in AL.

NL
Stan Musial      of  46
Johnny Mize      1b  30
Ralph Kiner      of  30
Bob Elliott      3b  27
Enos Slaughter   of  26
Jackie Robinson  2b  25
Sid Gordon       3b  25
Del Ennis        of  24
Pee Wee Reese    ss  23
Andy Pafko       of  23
Whitey Lockman   of  23
Rojek            3b  21
Richie Ashburn   of  21
Alvin Dark       ss  20
Jeff Heath       of  20

Musial has been the best every year back to 1943, but for a war year and Johnny Mize in 1947.
The 46 win shares is the most in the NL since Hornsby in 1922 with 47. In fact, Honus Wagner’s 59 in 1908 is the only higher win shares score by a position player in National League history (to 1948). Wagner got 46 two times himself.

Top pitchers in each league, by win shares (w/ at least 17)
AL
Hal Newhouser  27
Bob Lemon      26
Gene Bearden   22
Dobson         20
Carl Scheib    20
Ned Garver     18
Mel Parnell    18
Scarborough    18
Art Fowler     17

This is Newhouser’s fourth straight year being the best in the AL. In 1944, he finished second to teammate Dizzy Trout’s 42, with a 35.

NL
Johnny Sain        28
Hal Brecheen       27
Schmitz            22
Johnny VanderMeer  20
Leonard            19
Rex Barney         18
Jansen             17
Wilks              17   

1948 marks the sixth straight year with a different pitching leader. Mort Cooper had the most win shares in 42 and 43.

Win Shares All-Star teams
AL
C: Berra 18
1B: Fain 21
2B: Doerr 27
3B: Keltner / Majeski 25
SS: Boudreau 34
OF: Williams 39
OF: J DiMaggio 34
OF: Henrich 29
P: Newhouser 27
P: Lemon 26
P: Bearden 22
P: Dobson 20

NL
C: Campanella 12
1B: Mize 30
2B: Robinson 25
3B: Elliott 27
SS: Reese 23
OF: Musial 46
OF: Kiner 30
OF: Slaughter 26
P: Sain 28
P: Brecheen 27
P: Schmitz 22
P: VanderMeer 20

WS Gold Gloves (AL then NL)(overall best underlined)
C: Jim Hegan / Del Rice
1B: Mickey Vernon / Johnny Mize
2B: Snuffy Stirnweiss / Danny Murtaugh
3B: Johnny Pesky / Frankie Gustine
SS: Vern Stephens / Pee Wee Reese
OF: Dom DiMaggio, Joe DiMaggio, Dale Mitchell / Ralph Kiner, Carl Furillo, Hal Jeffcoat.

MVP:
AL: Lou Boudreau
NL: Stan Musial
Considering Boudreau was the best shortstop in baseball and managed the World Series Champions, I think it was a good pick.

Rookie of the Year: (Only one this year)
Alvin Dark, though Richie Ashburn had one more win share
In the AL, rookie with most win shares was: Gene Bearden
In the AL, the rookie with the highest placement in MVP voting was Gene Bearden: 8th

There was no Cy Young, but
NL: by win shares: Johnny Sain, by MVP vote: Johnny Sain (2nd to Musial)
AL: by win shares: Hal Newhouser, by MVP vote: Bob Lemon (5th)

Teams and Post-Season:
In the AL, there was that league’s first playoff, a one game affair won by Gene Bearden and the Indians over Boston, 8-3. The win was Bearden’d sixth in 18 days. The Yankees were there to the end, but playing catch-up. They were not eliminated until the second-to-last game of the year. Similar to the following year, the Red Sox had the best home record in the league, but lost the pennant to the team with the best road record in the league. Also, like 1949, the Red Sox were 7 games better at home, 8 games worse on the road than the Indians. Cleveland started the year off hot, 6-0 in April, but Philadelphia actually led for most of May. The Red Sox were great in June and July, 43-15 overall, (after being 14-28 on Memorial Day), but Cleveland closed out August and September 44-20. Boston slightly overachieved their pythagorean projection, 96 to 94, while the Indians underachieved, 104 to 97.
In the NL, Boston led the most days and the Giants and the Cardinals each led for about a month each, but I cannot tell when. Boston clinched with a week to go.
Only the White Sox managed to lose 100 games in either league though their Northern citymates were last as well. The best any team did against another was 17 wins by the Yankees over the Senators and the Cardinals over the Phillies.
The Giants and Indians led their leagues in homeruns at home and on the road. Brooklyn dominated in stolen bases with 38 more steals than anyone else. There are no records of caught stealing for the NL, so the Red Sox led the majors with a 69% success rate (on 55 attempts.)

In the World Series:
Game 1: The pick-off. Feller allows 2 hits and loses 1-0 to Sain after a controversial call on a pick-off attempt at second base.
Game 2: Lemon leads the Indians to a 4-1 victory.
Game 3: Bearden continues his clutch pitching, with a 2-0 shutout.
Game 4: The Indians go up 3 to 1 as Steve Gromek defeats Sain, 2-1.
Game 5: It is tied at 5 going into the top of the 7th with Feller still pitching for the Indians, while Spahn has come in the 4th for Boston. Four pitchers and 6 runs later, the Indians get out of the 7th. Boston wins 11-5 as Bob Elliott hits 2 homers.
Game 6. Tight game the whole way. Bearden relieves Lemon with one out in the eighth and finishes off the Braves. The Indians are world champs. With their pitching and recruitment of Negro Leaguers, they look to be the new power in the AL. What are the Yankees thinking hiring that clown, Stengal?
   26. Kelly in SD Posted: April 06, 2005 at 07:35 AM (#1235177)
And a little bit more:

Oorts and Facts from 1948: (short since I cannot access BaseballLibrary.com right now)
Integration process:
Larry Doby and Satchel Paige debut with the Indians.
Roy Campanella debuts with the Dodgers.
Johnny Antonelli, 18, given $75000 in Bonus Baby money
Pat Seerey hits 4 homeruns in a game for White Sox
Joe DiMaggio, Ralph Kiner, and Gene Hermanski have 3 homerun games. (Any relation to Tom of video instruction fame...Or does he not an H at the front of his last name?)
Wally Westlake, Jackie Robinson, and Joe DiMaggio hit for the cycle.
DiMaggio does his two feats just 3 days apart, May 20 and 23.
Bob Lemon no-hits Detroit.
Rex Barney no-hits the Giants.

Attendance Figures:
Cleveland: 2.6 million
Yankees: 2.4
Detroit: 1.75
Boston: 1.56
Philadelphia: 945,000
Washington: 795,000
Chicago: 778,000
St. Louis: 336,000

Pittsburgh: 1.5 million
Giants: 1.46
Boston: 1.45
Brooklyn: 1.4
Chicago: 1.2
St Louis: 1.1
Cincinnati: 823,000
Philadelphia: 767,000

Combine the 2 St.Louis teams and they do no better than tie either the Giants or the Dodgers. One of those teams HAD to move.

The Hall of Fame elected Herb Pennock and Pie Traynor by just 3 and 2 votes.

Information courtesy of BaseballReference.com, Win Shares, The Baseball Rookies Encyclopedia, and The Sports Encyclopedia Baseball
   27. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2005 at 01:34 PM (#1235352)
Wow, Kelly... I was feeling like a big meany for pointing out your prescience for 1949 info and you don't skip a beat and quickly dump out 1948 data for us! Amazing! Thanks!
   28. TomH Posted: April 06, 2005 at 02:44 PM (#1235492)
Peak/prime pitcher battle
Ferrell vs Griffith

Wins above team (WAT) is by no means a perfect measure (just ask Drysdale about comparing him to Koufax), but it may shed a lot of light on these two - one guy won a lot with his bat, the other often 'pitched to the score'.

Ferrell's HoM case rests on the years 1929-36, when we went 161-94 (.631 wpct). The rest of his career he was 32-34. Griffith's record from 1894-1901 was 175-101 (.634 wpct); outside of that he was 62-45. So they have comparable 8 year primes.

Griffith's team winnign pct when you subtract his W-L mark ("rest of team") was .478 those years. Ferrell's was .485.

That's a real close apples-to-apples, ain't it?

Griffith was better outside of his 8 prime years. Ferrell may have some 'league quality' bonus, but I don't think it's too much.

Griffith looks better by Win Shares, Ferrell by WARP3.

I can see strict career voters leaving them both off, but they look to me like they are the Duffy/Ryan of CFers.
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 06, 2005 at 03:02 PM (#1235551)
Ferrell's HoM case rests on the years 1929-36, when we went 161-94 (.631 wpct). The rest of his career he was 32-34. Griffith's record from 1894-1901 was 175-101 (.634 wpct); outside of that he was 62-45. So they have comparable 8 year primes.

Based solely on those numbers, Ferrell is definitely ahead of Griffith. Averaging twenty wins per season during the thirties trumps twenty wins per seasons during the nineties any time.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 06, 2005 at 03:12 PM (#1235578)
Re: Ferrell & Griffith

Ferrell was 74% as good as the major league leaders of his time in wins, while Griffith was only 69% as good.
   31. TomH Posted: April 06, 2005 at 03:15 PM (#1235583)
Agree, John, that times were diffeent. BP translated stats show Ferrell having a 248 IP advantage over the 8 yr comparison, which is worth about an extra 17-11 W-L mark. Of course, Griffith leads by a nose in a few other small markers (higher wpct, lower wpct of teammates, and 20 net wins outside the prime....)
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 06, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1235602)
Of course, Griffith leads by a nose in a few other small markers (higher wpct, lower wpct of teammates, and 20 net wins outside the prime....)

Agreed.
   33. DanG Posted: April 06, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1235612)
DavidFoss

Love all of the 1949 information in the reports, but I was under the impression this election was taking place before the 1949 season started, around January or so. The Indians are still basking in the glow of their WS title over Southworth's Boston Braves.


You're right David, the election will be January 1949, so this discussion is now in the fall of 1948.
   34. andrew siegel Posted: April 06, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1235613)
I once calculated pitching seasons by dividing a pitcher's IP by the fifth highest IP total for his league every season and adding the sums. I've posted my findings for most of the pitchers eligible before 1930. The system isn't perfect (I probably should have used major league leaders and shifted the number up and down based on teams) and it assumes rather than proves that a pitching season of less innings in 1920 is worth the same as a pitching season of more innings from 1890. Nonetheless, Griffith had a surprisingly low total (9.8 seasons). Since Ferrell was such a workhorse, he actually has a longer career by this metric than Griffith (10.0 seasons). When that point is combined with Ferrell's much better peak, I think it is no-contest. I've got Ferrell in the top 8 and Griffith somewhere in the 20's.
   35. TomH Posted: April 06, 2005 at 04:17 PM (#1235755)
Since Griffith piched in when the majors were one 12-team league, I'd expect this result. But agree, their career lengths are actually about the same, given the time conditions. Clark's candidacy really rests on whether he was better than his ERA suggests; much the same for Mickey Welch.
   36. TomH Posted: April 06, 2005 at 04:19 PM (#1235762)
BTW, you can sponsor Wes' BB-ref page for a mere $15.
   37. jimd Posted: April 06, 2005 at 06:02 PM (#1236013)
Relative pitching order by WARP during 8 year prime:

Griffith: 0 Best overall, 2 1st-Team selections, 3 2nd-Team selections
1894 Rusie, Meekin, Breitenstein || Young, Griffith, Mercer
1895 Hawley, Young, Nichols || Rusie, Breitenstein, Cuppy || (7th)
1896 Cuppy, Young, Breitenstein || Hawley, Killen, Nichols || (10th)
1897 Nichols, Rusie, Breitenstein || Mercer, Callahan, Griffith
1898 Nichols, Griffith, Tannehill, Seymour || Cunningham, McJames, Young, Maul
1899 Tannehill, Young, McGinnity, Leever || Willis, Hughes, Kitson, Griffith
1900 Young, Hahn, Mercer, Griffith || Dinneen, Garvin, Phillippe, Leever
1901 Young, Mathewson, Hahn, Willis || Orth, Nichols, Donovan, Phillippe || (12th)

Ferrell: 1 Best overall, 4 1st-Team selections, 2 2nd-Team selections
1929 Marberry, Lucas, Hudlin, Clark || Ferrell, Grove, Malone, Vance
1930 Grove, Ferrell, Stewart, Vance || Lyons, Collins, Uhle, Malone
1931 Grove, Ferrell, Benge, Brandt || Gomez, Clark, Hubbell, Meine
1932 Grove, Hubbell, Warneke, Dean || Lucas, Crowder, Ferrell, Ruffing
1933 Hubbell, Warneke, Schumacher, Brandt || Grove, Dean, Mungo, Hadley || (26th)
1934 Dean, Davis, Hubbell, Gomez || Mungo, Harder, Rowe, Warneke || (20th)
1935 Ferrell, Grove, Dean, Harder || Davis, Blanton, Hubbell, Rowe
1936 Hubbell, Grove, Ferrell, Dean || Allen, Bridges, Mungo, Ruffing

Note: # All-star selections changes from 3 to 4 in 1898 along with the schedule change from 132 to 154 games. (STATS All-Time All-Stars also observes this change.) Relative pitching loads also change at this time and does not shift back when the schedule drops back to 140 games from 1900-1903. Arguably, one could justify having a fifth starter selection beginning during the mid-1920's, which would give Ferrell another 1st team selection.
   38. andrew siegel Posted: April 06, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1236080)
jimd--do you have a database with WARP numbers or did you do your all-star selections by clicking on each team?
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 06, 2005 at 07:41 PM (#1236491)
Prelim:

1) Lyons - with WII credit, his domination over Hubbell in IP allows him narrowly place ahead of the Meal Ticket
2) Beckwith
3) Hubbell
4) Bresnahan
5) Childs
6) Duffy
7) Van Haltren
8) Beckley
9) Schang
10) Grimes
11) Arlett
12) Welch
13) Chance
14) Browning
15) Mackey - don't know where he actually belongs, but I'll leave him here for now.

Still haven't decided about Bridges and Warneke (depending on WWII credit).

I'll have to say no to Klein and Bartell.

When WS for each season of Cravath's minor league career are created, I'll take a look at him again.
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: April 07, 2005 at 12:07 AM (#1237124)
Still catching up; Giant challenges at work of late..

Jud Wilson career looks like this?

1922 - BAL BLA SOX (parttime) 1B
1923-25 - BAL BLA SOX 1B
1926-28 - BAL BLA SOX 3B
1929 - BAL BLA SOX 1B
1930 - BAL BLA SOX 3B
1931 - HOME GREY 3B
1932 - PIT CRAW 3B
1933 - PHI STAR 3B
1934-37 - PHI STAR 1B
1938-41 - PHI STAR 3B
1940-41 - HOME GREY 3B
1942-43 - HOME GREY 2B
1944---
1945 - HOME GREY 3B (parttime)
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 07, 2005 at 12:22 AM (#1237187)
Howie:

Wilson played for the Greys in 1940 and '41 exclusively; he also played some games with the Greys in '32
   42. Howie Menckel Posted: April 07, 2005 at 12:41 AM (#1237254)
Thanks, Murph. The "1938-41" was a typo, should be 1938-39. I'll add the Greys for 1932.

Otherwise plausible?
Not worrying about being exact; the idiots who didn't let these guys play in the bigtime took care of that a long time ago. I just like to put everybody together on my lists, not that any of these guys are alive to enjoy it..
   43. jimd Posted: April 07, 2005 at 01:04 AM (#1237330)
do you have a database with WARP numbers or did you do your all-star selections by clicking on each team?

I have a collection of team pages (through 1940) from last fall's version of WARP. I have also written some scripts to process them so that I do aggregate multi-team players. When my current work crunch eases, I intend to upgrade to the latest WARP (at some point) and do some more stuff with this data.
   44. Ardo Posted: April 07, 2005 at 01:44 AM (#1237457)
Why are Earl Averill and Edd Roush not the consensus #1 and #2 CFs? Averill's 10 (!) year peak from 1929-38, against the strongest competition thus far, is the best sustained peak of any OF on the ballot.

Roush, for his part, finished in the NL top 5 for OPS+ in 5 consecutive years (1917-21), with two firsts. Yes, league quality was low and so was Roush's PT, but that's still darn impressive.

As icing on the cake, both men, particularly Roush, were outstanding defensive CFs (as was Hugh Duffy, who falls just off my ballot this year).

Comments from those who rank Van Haltren or Klein above Averill and Roush?
   45. Chris Cobb Posted: April 07, 2005 at 01:56 AM (#1237493)
I have them

Van Haltren
Roush
Averill

Van Haltren's peak is a little lower, but his career is longer. That more than makes up for the lower peak. Averill played in a better league, but it's not clear Roush's competition was tougher than VH's during the 1890s; I make a competition discount, but it's not as severe as WARP3.
   46. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: April 07, 2005 at 02:14 AM (#1237534)
I once calculated pitching seasons by dividing a pitcher's IP by the fifth highest IP total for his league

Did you account for the fact that Griffith's league was 50% larger?

every season and adding the sums. I've posted my findings for most of the pitchers eligible before 1930. The system isn't perfect (I probably should have used major league leaders and shifted the number up and down based on teams) and it assumes rather than proves that a pitching season of less innings in 1920 is worth the same as a pitching season of more innings from 1890. Nonetheless, Griffith had a surprisingly low total (9.8 seasons). Since Ferrell was such a workhorse, he actually has a longer career by this metric than Griffith (10.0 seasons).

Accounting for league size, I'd say Griffith had the longer career then (would Ferrell have 9.8 seasons worth of the 5th best starter in all baseball as Griffith did? Or the 7th or 8th best (accounting for there being more teams when Ferrell played)?

Griffith also has among the best MOWPs and MOWP+s and middle-of-the-road MOWP+6s and MOWP+4, while Ferrell's near the bottom of the pack on all of them. Ferrell was used primarily against 2nd division teams while with Boston, and that's a good chunk of his prime right there. Also, I figure that Ferrell had better defensive support.

Just as pitchers I'd put Griffith ahead on prime and career. The wildcard is hitting which obviously favors Ferrell (though please note that Griffith was tied for 10th out of 31 1890s pitchers for OPS+ so while he was no Ferrell he was no slouch either) and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not good at adjusting for.
   47. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 07, 2005 at 02:16 AM (#1237547)
If you schedule adjust his WS, GVH has a nice peak. Via WS of course.
   48. andrew siegel Posted: April 07, 2005 at 02:11 PM (#1238283)
Here's a very preliminary ballot. I'm having a very hard time sorting out numbers 2 through 20.

(1) Carl Hubbell (new)--Not the King, but a solid member of the Court.

(2) Hughie Jennings (4th)--The next 8 are very close but if I had to induct only one of those guys I think I'd make room for the only player with a Musial-Mays-Collins level peak who is not a first or second ballot HoMer.

(3) Hugh Duffy (5th)--Was among the very best players in baseball for a few years in the early 1890s and has the best season-length adjusted 10-year WS run of anyone on the ballot.

(4) Biz Mackey (new)--This is obviously a tenataive placement. I am downgrading him and the next two players b/c/ I am worried that we are slightly overrating 1920s and 1930s players by inducting the top x percent of white players and the top y percent of black players w/o/ realizing just how high a percentage of a mythical integrated league x + y would be.

(5) Mule Suttles (3rd)
(6) Earl Averill (6th)

(7) Ted Lyons (7th)--Still trying to figure out where he goes. Might be as high as second.

(8) Wes Ferrell (9th)--A fabulous peak/prime and a sufficiently long career when you see how many IP he threw in his big years relative to the league.

(9)George Van Haltren (10th)--The body of his work is amazing--PCL superstar, fourteen year run as a 25-30 WS/year player in a very tough major league environment achived while transitioning from pitcher to speedster to mature hitter, significant post-majors run in the new PCL. I think he belongs, but, at the very worst, he is the captain of the All-Time Team for the Hall of the Very Good. Should be a bigger figure in baseball history.

(10) John Beckwith (8th)--I'm being somewhat stubborn with him, but I'm not convinced that the sum of his extraordinary parts would have made him a superstar in the major leagues.

(11) Cupid Childs (11th)--Holds firm
(12) Eppa Rixey (13th)
(13) Burleigh Grimes (14th)
(14) Dobie Moore (12th)--Eagerly awaiting new WS.
(15) Charley Jones (15th)

Roush is 16th, followed by Sisler, Sewell, Lundy, and Chance. Vic Willis is my next pitcher. I am singularly unimpressed by the other new eligibles, none of whom make my top 50. Chuck Klein has to be one of the most overrated players in major league history.
   49. David C. Jones Posted: April 08, 2005 at 04:58 AM (#1240269)
Andrew wrote:

I am worried that we are slightly overrating 1920s and 1930s players by inducting the top x percent of white players and the top y percent of black players w/o/ realizing just how high a percentage of a mythical integrated league x + y would be.

I don't see how we can be overrating anything, considering that all the candidates we have considered to date, white or black, played in segregated leagues, and we elect a fixed number of guys every year. All we have to do is rank the eligible guys. The only chance for us to overrate the segregated league players comes when the leftovers start getting compared to the guys who played in integrated leagues.

Here is my tentative ballot:

1. Biz Mackey. A great defensive catcher who could also hit? Sign me up. If I had my choice of any player eligible for the HOM right now to start a team with, I'd take Mackey. He'll possibly move down to #2 on my list based on the projections, but I doubt it, and he won't go any further than that. I didn't realize how much I liked him until I did some research on him tonight. It's a disgrace that he isn't in the Hall of Fame.

2. Carl Hubbell. Neck and neck with Mackey. At first I thought he would definitely be at the top of my ballot, but after thinking a bit more carefully about it I just don't think he's THAT good. Oh, he's damn good alright, but he's not at the same level as Grove, Williams, Alexander, Johnson or Young, because he doesn't have the career value of any of those guys and his peak is slightly worse than most of them. But he's damn good, and I have no doubt that he'll get elected this year.

3. John Beckwith. My support for him is unwavering. I am very comfortable with having him near the top of my ballot year after year, as I feel certain that he is quite deserving. The stats tell the story, and the fact that he played demanding positions (third base, shortstop) cinches it.

4. Mule Suttles. Probably a bit better hitter than Beckwith, but has defensive issues.

5. Jose Mendez. Unbelievable peak; the bit of success from the 1920s tells me his value had some legs to it.

6. Edd Roush. Really hope more voters get on this guy's bandwagon.

7. Wes Ferrell

8. Rube Waddell

9. Cannonball Dick Redding

10. George Sisler

11. Ben Taylor

12. Ted Lyons

13. Dick Lundy

14. Vic Willis

15. Cool Papa Bell

That's my ballot as of right now. Bridges and Warneke I both have placed in the 40s. I've got Chuck Klein 27th, and Dick Bartell 75th. Klein is sort of like the Dizzy Dean of hitters, although his peak seems to have been even shorter than Dizzy's.
   50. andrew siegel Posted: April 08, 2005 at 05:40 PM (#1240956)
Of course we can be overrating the 1920s and 1930s if we are (without justification) electing a higher percentage of players from the 1920s and 1930s than we did from earlier eras. I haven't crunched the numbers myself but several others have and it seems clear that we are heading for a particularly high number of players born in the relevant decades. I think part of the reason for that is that we are electing all the guys who look like they are HoMers from the majors of that era AND all the guys from the Negro Leagues who look like they would have had similar stats in the majors, without realizing that some of those guys (maybe whites, maybe blacks) would have have been knocked down a rung if they were all allowed to play together. This point has already been acknowledged by people like John Murphy who try season by season to evaluate who were the best players by position white OR black. Therefore, Dobie Moore and John Beckwith are held against Joe Sewell while Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx are held against Mule Suttles.
   51. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 08, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1241011)
I think part of the reason for that is that we are electing all the guys who look like they are HoMers from the majors of that era AND all the guys from the Negro Leagues who look like they would have had similar stats in the majors, without realizing that some of those guys (maybe whites, maybe blacks) would have have been knocked down a rung if they were all allowed to play together. This point has already been acknowledged by people like John Murphy who try season by season to evaluate who were the best players by position white OR black. Therefore, Dobie Moore and John Beckwith are held against Joe Sewell while Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx are held against Mule Suttles.

Andrew, good summing up of a chunk of my HoM philosophy (which is different than if I were compiling a list of the 100 best players of all-time, BTW).

If we want to be fair to all eras, we have to be careful about electing too many players (above and beyond population issues) from later generations.

That's why I'm not as crazy about Suttles and Sewell as some. There were guys around that time who were just as good, if not better. Regarding Suttles and first basemen, I fully supported Gehrig and will support Foxx, Greenberg, Mize and (I'm assuming) Leonard from the twenties and thirties, so I believe you can have a surplus at a position from a particular generation, but Suttles appears to have been inferior to them as a group. Yeah, he would have hit a ton of homers, but the sum total of his achievements compared to his contemporaries don't impress me that much.

As for Sewell, it looks like some air escaped from his balloon. :-)
   52. DavidFoss Posted: April 08, 2005 at 06:40 PM (#1241115)
As for Sewell, it looks like some air escaped from his balloon. :-)

Yup, hard to believe that Sewell was about 7 points from induction back in 1940.

Back to DavidCJones's comment... I think often we just express the need to discuss the era distribution of our inductees. "Concern" doesn't necessary imply the need for era-adjustments, but perhaps a just curiosity as to how we are doing in that department.

Its been quite a while since we've seen "HOM-ers Per Year" reports and "HOM-ers By Position" reports. With the plethora of first ballot inductees of late, they haven't seemed as necessary as they may have been in backlog elections, but if anyone is tracking those, it might be fun for an update.
   53. David C. Jones Posted: April 08, 2005 at 07:03 PM (#1241197)
I would agree that perhaps a few Deadball Era candidates are being overlooked, but I think the 19th century was sufficiently covered. By my count, we have at least 39 HOMers already inducted whose career value was concentrated in the 19th century. As a fan of the 19th century, I think that itself is too high a number, and I would definitely give players from 20s and 30s a major edge over players from the 1870s-1890s based simply on the respective talent pool that each generation drew from. It was significantly more extensive for the latter era. In fact, I would say that if we don't induct at least 40 players (black and white) from the 20s-40s then we will have weighted things much too heavily towards the 19th century. And 40 is the MINIMUM as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I would put just as many Negro Leaguers in the HOM as 19th century guys, but I really doubt that we'll come anywhere close to having 40 Negro Leaguers in the HOM by the time we're "done."
   54. andrew siegel Posted: April 08, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1241336)
By the way, I think I agree with David that we may have elected too many "19th-century" guys. But I still think that the 1890s (and to a lesser extent the 1900s) are under-represented. Because of the way we drew up our schedule and the fact that we weren't fully ready to evaluate the very early guys when we started, we dipped fairly low into the pool of guys who thrived 1876-1892. I'm not sure who I'd remove (and I still have Charley Jones on my ballot) but there are an awful lots of HoMers per team in say 1885 or 1886.
   55. PhillyBooster Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:02 PM (#1241363)

Its been quite a while since we've seen "HOM-ers Per Year" reports and "HOM-ers By Position" reports.


Here's a HoMer Per Year Report. Only players who are semi-regulars (appx. 70+ games played) are counted). As you can see, the former high of 1890 (29) was passed or equalled in several years in the mid-1920s. This is perhaps to be expected, though, as the Negro Leagues are becoming organized, and the Negro Leaguers tend to have longer careers, so several "generations" are represented in any given year. There's a sharp drop of to the present after 1925 or 1926, though, and some players are not yet eligible, so it's unclear whether or how much the new peak will increase. Leaving aside the war year of 1918, there are between 20 and 31 HoMers every year from 1898 to 1831. Low 20s predominate, with a noticeable blip upward from 1923 to 1928.

Year: Total (Lg1/Lg2/Lg3/Lg4)

Lg1 = National League
Lg2 = American League or American Association
Lg3 = Negro League or pre-Negro-League
Lg4 = Players League or Federal League

1871: 10
1872: 11
1873: 12
1874: 12
1875: 12
1876: 11
1877: 10
1878: 12
1879: 16
1880: 15
1881: 20
1882: 20 (19/1)
1883: 20 (17/3)
1884: 22 (18/4)
1885: 23 (20/3)
1886: 23 (18/4/1)
1887: 23 (19/3/1)
1888: 22 (18/3/1)
1889: 24 (19/4/1)
1890: 29 (14/0/1/14)
1891: 26(22/3/1)
1892: 28(27/0/1)
1893: 22(21/0/1)
1894: 22(20/0/2)
1895: 20(18/0/2)
1896: 20(18/0/2)
1897: 18(16/0/2)
1898: 20(18/0/2)
1899: 20(18/0/2)
1900: 20(18/0/2)
1901: 22(15/5/2)
1902: 21(7/11/3)
1903: 20(8/9/3)
1904: 24(10/11/3)
1905: 25(11/11/3)
1906: 23(9/10/4)
1907: 24(8/12/4)
1908: 25(9/12/4)
1909: 24(7/12/5)
1910: 24(7/11/6)
1911: 27(10/11/6)
1912: 25(8/11/6)
1913: 26(9/10/7)
1914: 25(7/10/7/1)
1915: 27(7/10/8/2)
1916: 27(8/13/6)
1917: 25(7/11/7)
1918: 19(5/9/5)
1919: 20(5/10/5)
1920: 22(6/9/7)
1921: 22(6/9/7)
1922: 24(7/9/8)
1923: 27(8/9/10)
1924: 29(9/10/10)
1925: 31(8/13/10)
1926: 32(8/15/9)
1927: 28(7/13/8)
1928: 26(7/11/8)
1929: 22(5/10/7)
1930: 20(5/8/7)
1931: 20(5/8/7)
1932: 19(4/8/7)
1933: 16(4/7/5)
1934: 16(4/7/5)
1935: 14(3/6/5)
1936: 13(3/5/5)
1937: 11(1/5/5)
1938: 10(1/4/5)
1939: 7(2/2/3)
1940: 5(0/2/3)
1941: 5(0/2/3)
1942: 1(0/0/1)
1943: 1(0/0/1)
1944: 1(0/0/1)
1945: 1(0/0/1)
   56. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:06 PM (#1241386)
In fact, I would say that if we don't induct at least 40 players (black and white) from the 20s-40s then we will have weighted things much too heavily towards the 19th century.

We already have twenty, yet we're still waiting to see (not in any particular order) Gibson, DiMaggio, Dickey, Hack, Waner, Leonard, Ruffing, Medwick, Irvin, T. Williams, Reese, Appling, Cronin, Rizzuto, Vaughan, Boudreau, Slaughter, Ott, Newhouser, Spahn, Feller, Dandridge, Lombardi, Gordon, Herman, B. Elliot, Wells, Dihigo, and I'm probably missing a couple more (plus Lyons, Beckwith, Ferrell, Sewell, and the rest of that era's backlog). Looks like they'll be doing OK. :-)
   57. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:08 PM (#1241394)
Thanks, Matt!
   58. Howie Menckel Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:24 PM (#1241461)
HOMers by year (10 G min)
1856-65 - 1 to 2 (3 in 1864)
1866-67 - 4
1868---- - 6
1869-71 - 8 to 10
1872-78 - 11 to 12
1879-80 - 16 to 17
1881-84 - 20 to 22
1885-87 - 23 to 24
1888-89 - 25
1890-92 - 29 to 30
1893----- 26
1894-03 - 21 or 22 (20 in 1900)
1904-07 - 24 or 25
1908-15 - 26 to 28 (25 in 1912)
1916----- 31
1917-22 - 22 to 26
1923-28 - 28 to 31
1929----- 23
1930-32 - 20 or 21
1933-35 - 16 or 17
1936-37 - 13
single digits so far for the rest.

Not surprisingly, steady growth from the 1850s thru the 1880s. Two and three league options in 1890-92, and several ageless wonders, produced a peak there.
Then a decade-long trough, 1894-03, gradual rebuild from there. Mid-1920s already have a significant number of inductees; from late-1920s on, the numbers will grow as the longtime stars finally become eligible.
   59. Al Peterson Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:31 PM (#1241493)
Posted by Satchel Paige on April 08, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1241386)

We already have twenty, yet we're still waiting to see (not in any particular order) Gibson, DiMaggio, Dickey, Hack, Waner, Leonard, Ruffing, Medwick, Irvin, T. Williams, Reese, Appling, Cronin, Rizzuto, Vaughan, Boudreau, Slaughter, Ott, Newhouser, Spahn, Feller, Dandridge, Lombardi, Gordon, Herman, B. Elliot, Wells, Dihigo, and I'm probably missing a couple more (plus Lyons, Beckwith, Ferrell, Sewell, and the rest of that era's backlog). Looks like they'll be doing OK. :-)

I said "Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you." Heck, John just had a bunch of guys pass me by...
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:39 PM (#1241522)
Sorry, Satch. I had thought that I had your name posted, but it appears that I didn't. A thousand pardons. :-)
   61. David C. Jones Posted: April 08, 2005 at 08:48 PM (#1241563)
Well, like I said, 40 is the absolute minimum. I just think it's ridiculous to be talking about potentially overrating the 20s and 30s guys when we've already got so many players from the 1880s in there, when baseball recruited almost exclusively from New England. Don't get me wrong; I don't blame the voters because all they were doing was following the rules, ranking the best players as they saw them each year. But I think the system, the way it was designed, was pretty much destined to see that 19th century guys got elected more easily than players from latter eras. And I don't even have anything in particular against the system; I just think given all the players from the 19th century that we've already inducted, it seems a little ridiculous to fret that we might have too many folks from the 1920s and 1930s in the HOM.
   62. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 08, 2005 at 09:10 PM (#1241625)
But I think the system, the way it was designed, was pretty much destined to see that 19th century guys got elected more easily than players from latter eras.

The system, as you know since you were there at the beginning of the project :-), was to be fair to all eras. I think we have done a good (but not perfect) job with that so far. I'm happy it was setup in a way to negate the heavy timelining that would have occurred if we just picked the 200 best players of all-time as of now.

As for the twenties and thirties, I should point out that I don't think we're anywhere near over representing them. I'm only concerned about picking the right guys, IMO, from that era.
   63. Chris Cobb Posted: April 08, 2005 at 09:12 PM (#1241634)
My sense of the appropriate range 1920-40 is that we should be electing about 45 players from those two decades.

We're not in any danger of running over yet, or of drawing the induction line too low: only Bill Terry among the electees so far is below my own hypothetical in-out line for these decades.

I suspect we'll come in a little higher than 45, though, and that we'll be a little low on the 1910s, the 1940s, and maybe the 1950s. Even though we'll be making efforts to be fair to WWII-era players, I think its negative impact on the game may be very difficult to factor out of our analysis entirely.
   64. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 08, 2005 at 09:29 PM (#1241701)
And with so many three-man and four-man in the somewhat distant future, it's possible that by the time we reach the 70s-80s-90s, we'll understand some of the effect of WW2 and be able to go back and elect backloggers from the effected eras.
   65. Chris Cobb Posted: April 08, 2005 at 09:31 PM (#1241713)
Thought this might be interesting for our discussion of “how many” from the 1920s and 1930s.

Here are my in-decade rankings for the 1920s and 1930s. I see the in-out line for the 1920s as falling somewhere between Sisler and Schang; for the 1930s, between Herman and Averill. Placements of NeL players not yet studied are provisional. Players also ranked in decades before and after these two have the other decade indicated; players in the HoM appear in all caps.


1920s         1930s
RUTH            Gibson?
COBB(10s)       GEHRIG
CHARLESTON      Paige(40s)?
SPEAKER(10s)    GROVE
E. COLLINS(10s) STEARNES
Hornsby         Ott
ALEXANDER(10s)  Foxx
FRISCH          Vaughan
HEILMANN        GEHRINGER
COVELESKI       SIMMONS
---------------------------
ROGAN           Waner
GOSLIN          Hubbell
Beckwith        Appling(40s)
Rixey           Dickey
VANCE           HARTNETT
FABER           J. WILSON
CAREY           COCHRANE
Roush           Cronin
Mackey?         Wells?
Sisler          Lyons
----------------------------
Shocker         Greenberg
Grimes          W. Ferrell
Mays            Suttles
Schang          B. FOSTER
Wi. Cooper      Herman
Arlett          Ruffing
Hoyt            Medwick
Moore           Averill
Lundy           Bell
Sewell          TERRY

   66. jimd Posted: April 08, 2005 at 09:43 PM (#1241770)
Wild guess at the intended distribution of HOMers through time:

1870's 8
1880's 16
1890's 12
1900's 16
1910's 20 (NeL bonus +4)
1920's 20
1930's 20
1940's 18 (WWII discount/end of NeL bonus)
1950's 16
1960's 20
1970's 25
1980's 26
---------
Total 217

If my count is correct, we'll have 228 HOMers after the 2006 election, so that leaves 11 extra slots for early 1990's guys, pre-MLB/NeL pioneers, and miscellaneous backlog.
   67. sunnyday2 Posted: April 08, 2005 at 10:50 PM (#1242055)
I think the discussion of how many HoMers per decade has the potential to just be a code for a couple of different prejudices unless they're out in the open. Well it's still a code but the translation ought to be accessible.

1. Are we electing skill or value? The prejudice against the 19th century, like James' timeline, is fundamentally a prejudice in favor of electing skill rather than value. And of course, we are the Hall of Merit, not the Hall of Value. So who can say that is wrong? And of course everybody, or almost everybody, is really voting for some skill and some value (and some of the bullshirt dump too), it's just a question of how much of each. I would say that I like about 2 parts value to 1 part skill while the average here is probably 50/50, which is fine, but the extremes are almost down to 0 at each end.

2. Another way of saying the same thing, I suppose, is whether we are electing the best 220 players all-time or not. And of course, there is no question that we are electing the best 220 ever, we are not. But there is some remorse over that.

But anyway, it is way too early to know if we have elected too few or too many from any given era. Compared to Cooperstown? Well, the big problem with Cooperstown is not really the obvious mistakes (Tommy McCarthy, George Kelly, etc. etc.). Not that that isn't a REALLY BIG problem. But the problem that is threatening to become even bigger is Cooperstown's refusal to honor modern players who are not minimally qualified (on the Kiki Cuyler or Chief Bender model) but players who are exceptionally well qualified by the Joe Medwick and Red Ruffing model--players like Alan Trammell and Bobby Grich and Dick Allen and etc. etc. etc.

So compared to Cooperstown we are likely to do vastly better on both counts. But will we elect too many players from the '70s-'80s-'90s? It's way too soon to know.

The only issue before us now is whether to elect player X from the Golden Age, or player Y from the deadball, or player Z from the 19th century. And everybody has heard my speech before: HoMers are outliers. Demographics doesn't mean anything. It comes down to cases: Hughie Jennings or Joe Sewell? Which was better cannot be discerned by looking at the numbers of their peers who have already been honored.

Not to say that HoMers per year aren't interesting. But if I thought it was really important, the table above clamors for more players from the 1870s and 1897 and no other time, anyway.
   68. OCF Posted: April 09, 2005 at 12:00 AM (#1242280)
Chris J: Yes, go ahead and use the Gibson material.
   69. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: April 09, 2005 at 12:41 AM (#1242441)
OCF. Thanks & added it.
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: April 09, 2005 at 01:11 AM (#1242569)
Yep, sunnyday, I don't necessarily think anyone has to look and say, 'Whoa, low number of 1890s guys, I gotta change my ballot!'
It is what it is, and it's worth it for voters to be aware of it. But many have looked into this, and have been satisfied that no adjustments are needed.
I do think that the brutal style of the 1890s, and the revolution in pitching early in the decade, and so on, weigh against 'raw' numbers for those guys, and I give that a bit of weight. But I'm not suggesting a quota, by any means.

Anyway, here's an update of a couple of other charts. I have the other positions, too, but these two seemed most interesting to me. Again, doesn't mean there's anything to be 'fixed,' but cool to see what we hath wrought ;)

HOM SPs, by year, through 1948 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G and mainly this position to be listed:
1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878--- (1) - Ward
1879--- (2) - Ward Galvin
1880--- (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884--- (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1855-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889--- (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890-91 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1892--- (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893--- (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894--- (4) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1895--- (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Wallace
1896--- (3) - Young Nichols Wallace
1897-98 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1899-00 (3) - Young Nichols McGinnity
1901--- (5) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902--- (5) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903--- (6) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown
1904-05 (7) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown
1906-07 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh
1908--- (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh Johnson
1909--- (7) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh Johnson
1910--- (8) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams
1911-12 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh Johnson Williams Alexander
1913--- (7) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander
1914--- (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber
1915--- (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Ruth
1916--- (8) - Plank Foster Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Ruth
1917--- (6) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Ruth
1918--- (4) - Johnson Williams Faber Covaleski
1919--- (5) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1920--- (4) - Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1921--- (6) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922-24 (7) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1925--- (8) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Grove
1926--- (9) - Johnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance B Foster Grove
1927--- (7) - Johnson Williams Alexander Rogan Vance BFoster Grove
1928--- (7) - Williams Alexander Faber Rogan Vance BFoster Grove
1929--- (6) - Williams Faber Rogan Vance BFoster Grove
1930-32 (5) - Williams Faber Vance BFoster Grove
1933--- (3) - Faber Vance BFoster Grove
1934--- (1) - BFoster
1935--- (2) - BFoster Grove

Welch would be 1880-91
Griffith would be 1891 and 1894-1906
Rixey would be 1912-17 and 1919-33
Lyons would be 1924-30 and 1932-42


HOM 1Bs, by year, through 1948 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1860-71 - Start
1872--- - Start, Hines
1873--- - Start, Anson, O'Rourke 1B-OF
1874--- - Start, Anson 1B-3B, O'Rourke
1875--- - Start, Anson 1B-OF, McVey 1B-OC
1876--- - Start, McVey
1877--- - Start, Spalding, White 1B-OF, Sutton 1B-2B
1878--- - Start
1879--- - Start, Anson, McVey, Brouthers
1880--- - Start, Anson
1881--- - Start, Anson, White 1B-2O, Connor
1882--- - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey 1B-OF, Connor 1B-O3
1883--- - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey, Connor
1884--- - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey
1885--- - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey, Connor
1886-88 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1889-90 - Hines, Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1891--- - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1892--- - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Ewing
1893-94 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1895-96 - Anson, Connor, Ewing
1897--- - Anson, Lajoie
1898--- - Wagner 1B-3B
1899
1900--- - Delahanty
1901--- - Kelley
1902-03
1904--- - Kelley
1905-10
1911--- - Lajoie 1B-2B
1912-17
1918--- - Magee 1B-OF
1919-20 - Heilmann
1921-22
1923--- - Wilson
1924--- - Wilson, Terry
1925--- - Wilson, Terry, Gehrig
1926-28 - Terry, Gehrig
1929--- - Wilson, Terry, Gehrig, Lloyd
1930--- - Terry, Gehrig, Lloyd, Charleston
1931-33 - Terry, Gehrig, Charleston
1934-36 - Wilson, Terry, Gehrig, Charleston
1937--- - Wilson, Gehrig, Charleston
1938--- - Gehrig

Beckley would be 1888-1906
Jennings would be 1900-02
Sisler would be 1915-22 and 1924-30
Suttles would be 1925-30, 1932-36, 1938-39 (roughly)
   71. OCF Posted: April 09, 2005 at 05:10 AM (#1243121)
Chris J:
OCF. Thanks & added it.
Two minor details to be fixed: The Gibson/Drysdale game in which Gibson's first-inning WP broke his scoreless innings streak was won by the Cardinals 5-1, not 2-1. That was originally my mistake.
Also, the broken leg happened in 1967, not 1968.
   72. Paul Wendt Posted: April 09, 2005 at 05:51 PM (#1243267)
Chris J. #47
The wildcard is hitting which obviously favors Ferrell (though please note that Griffith was tied for 10th out of 31 1890s pitchers for OPS+ so while he was no Ferrell he was no slouch either) and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not good at adjusting for.

Unless the distribution is unusual, 10th of 31 is nearly average in magnitude despite being notably above average in rank. If the distribution is unusual, I suspect a selection bias in the 31.

David C. Jones #49
I don't see how we can be overrating anything, considering that all the candidates we have considered to date, white or black, played in segregated leagues, and we elect a fixed number of guys every year. All we have to do is rank the eligible guys.

Any bias must be in the size of the annual quota --too high in the early and middle years.
   73. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: April 09, 2005 at 06:04 PM (#1243313)
If the distribution is unusual, I suspect a selection bias in the 31.

The selection: pitchers who started 200 or more games.

It also includes a few random guys I RSId (Garvin, Eddie Smith) but that should't affect the 1890s).
   74. EricC Posted: April 09, 2005 at 06:45 PM (#1243457)
1949 prelim.

1. Schang
2. Lyons
3. Hubbell
4. Sewell
5. Averill
6. Suttles
7. Gomez
8. Bridges- I'm aware that my system always seems to be chasing after the shiny new borderline pitchers, but on a case-by-case basis, so many shiny new pitchers do seem borderline-worthy.
9. Mendez
10. Rice
11. Ferrell
12. Bresnahan
13. Myer
14. Manush
15. Rixey
16. Mackey-will eventually make my ballot.
   75. Howie Menckel Posted: April 10, 2005 at 01:11 PM (#1244881)
HOMers by percentage of games played at position (min 10 pct)

C (5.13) - Cochrane 100, Hartnett 98, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (8.58) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Anson 83, Wilson, 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 (8.40) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, 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, Wilson 10

3B (5.24) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Wilson 40, 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 (28.46) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, Simmons, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 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

SP (22.10) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Ward 16

Caveats:
Totals treat all careers as equal.
Numbers a little off on players like McVey and White due to changing schedule length.
Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers.
Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching weight of players like Ruth or Caruthers.
   76. Howie Menckel Posted: April 10, 2005 at 01:12 PM (#1244884)
Damn, that 'submit' button has no mercy.
Wilson guesstimate at 1B is '40.'
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: April 10, 2005 at 01:13 PM (#1244885)
Actually, it's 45 at 1B. sigh.
   78. Howie Menckel Posted: April 10, 2005 at 01:57 PM (#1244897)
How are we doing in National vs American vs Negro League players per year? These numbers are in that order, starting in the first year that the Negro Leaguers start to be serious competitors in this 'race' (minimum 10 G):
YEAR NL/AL/NEGRO
1910 - 8/13/6
1911 - 10/11/6
1912 - 9/10/6
1913 - 9/11/7
1914 - 7/12/6 (1 Federal)
1915 - 8/9/7 (2 Federal)
1916 - 9/14/8
1917 - 7/12/6
1918 - 6/10/6
1919 - 7/10/6

1920 - 6/9/7
1921 - 6/10/7
1922 - 8/10/8
1923 - 8/10/10
1924 - 9/11/10
1925 - 9/13/9
1926 - 9/14/8
1927 - 8/14/8
1928 - 7/13/8
1929 - 7/9/7

The AL never loses its lead.
The Negro Leaguers catch the National Leaguers in 1920, and it's a virtual dead heat for the decade.

FYI, here's the 1924 version, I have 'em all but don't want to waste any more space. Asterisks for fewer than half team's games, or fewer than 1 IP per inning:

1924
NL (9) - Wheat, Alexander, Groh, Carey, Hornsby, Vance, Terry, Frisch, Hartnett
AL (11) - W Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, E Collins, Heilmann, Covaleski, Faber, Ruth, Gehrig*, Goslin, Simmons
Negro (10) - Hill*, Santop, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, Rogan, Charleston, B Foster*, Stearnes, Wilson
   79. Rick A. Posted: April 11, 2005 at 01:38 AM (#1246562)
1949 Prelim ballot

Haven't placed Biz Mackey yet, so he's not on the list. Also made some changes on my ballot. I decided to give a big years bonus to pitchers since I believe that I may have been underrating short career, high peak pitchers. The main beneficiaries of this are Dizzy Dean, Wes Ferrell and Burleigh Grimes (had a couple of good peak years)

I also hope to re-evaluate Negro League pitchers soon, since I think that we may be underrating them.

1. Carl Hubbell
2. Charley Jones
3. Pete Browning
4. John Beckwith
5. Ted Lyons
6. Mule Suttles
7. Cupid Childs
8. Hughie Jennings
9. Burleigh Grimes
10. Eppa Rixey
11. Vic Willis
12. Bill Monroe
13. Dobie Moore
14. Wes Ferrell
15. Hugh Duffy
   80. jhwinfrey Posted: April 11, 2005 at 03:54 AM (#1246798)
1949 Preliminary Ballot

The phone line at my house is starting to fizzle out, so I probably won't get much time to sort through the threads before my ballot. If you see any glaring errors, please feel free to email me!

1. Biz Mackey -- Long career plus a positional bonus put him on top.
2.Jake Beckley
3. Carl Hubbell -- Just not enough seasons to climb to the top of my ballot--a great pitcher, though.
4. Mickey Welch
5. Eppa Rixey
6. Burleigh Grimes
7. Mule Suttles
8. John Beckwith
9. Dick Lundy
10. Cool Papa Bell
11. Tommy Leach
12. Dick Redding
13. Jose Mendez
14. Carl Mays
15. Ted Lyons

Other newcomers:
39. Dick Bartell--I have him ranked just behind Dave Bancroft.
72. Tommy Bridges--Just behind Herb Pennock.
75. Chuck Klein--Just behind Kiki Cuyler.
94. Lon Warneke--Between Babe Adams and Bobby Mathews.

The newcomers push Heavy Johnson, Babe Herman, Travis Jackson, Ray Schalk, and Heinie Groh out of my top 100.
   81. Paul Wendt Posted: April 11, 2005 at 04:42 AM (#1246840)
Several distributions of HOMers by year, league, and fielding position are maintained here. What is it that should be approximately uniform if the HOM project is executed well?

This question is inspired by the great conceptual differences among the distributions. For example, on the one hand, Cap Anson counts 27 times and Amos Rusie 9 times; on the other hand, each counts once.
   82. Howie Menckel Posted: April 11, 2005 at 12:51 PM (#1247101)
Yes, Paul, in effect that question is what I'm tossing out there.
As it's silly to expect a 'perfectly even' distribution, it would be equally silly to vote just to try to make one.

I don't look at 1894-1903 and their 'low totals' as a problem, per se, in part because the years just before them are skewed a bit by a ton of old-timers who just wouldn't quit (White, O'Rourke, et al).
What intrigues me is the fact that it's also the rare time when the number of teams contracted - so I think it was harder to shine in 1896 than in 1906, for instance, because there was only one league.
I'm not convinced that is fully accounted for in a number of voting systems, but once I put this info out there, I feel as if I've done my part.

Another approach could be to track total win shares by the HOM players per year; that would illuminate, for instance, things like the several short-time Heinie Groh years that helped keep the NL total afloat and so forth.
   83. TomH Posted: April 11, 2005 at 01:42 PM (#1247152)
Howie, (I'm always up for asking others to do more work) here's a suggested quick'n'easy way to modify/slice your previous chart of HoM by league and year to account for full vs nominal seasons:

Make a second table that only counts seasons with Win Shares above 15, or WARP above 4.0. This would show the number of active significantly contributing players. Of course, you'll need to guess the NegLegrs.

I believe the trend that suggests we are going to honor more NeLers of the 1920s than NL MLB players of that era begs for more discussion.

YEAR - NL/AL/NEG
1910 - .8/13/.6
....
1923 - .8/10/10
1924 - .9/11/10
1925 - .9/13/.9
1926 - .9/14/.8
1927 - .8/14/.8
1928 - .7/13/.8
1929 - .7/.9/.7
   84. Chris Cobb Posted: April 11, 2005 at 03:01 PM (#1247265)
I believe the trend that suggests we are going to honor more NeLers of the 1920s than NL MLB players of that era begs for more discussion.

It's clear, isn't it, that the WARP league quality adjustments have seriously hurt the cases of the borderline NL candidates from this period?

That said, disregarding WARP3, the pool of 1920s NL candidates remaining is not tremendously impressive:

Eppa Rixey
Edd Roush
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Wilbur Cooper
Dave Bancroft

I don't actively use WARP in my system, and the only players on this list whose election I advocate are Rixey and Roush, though Grimes and Maranville wouldn't be bad choices.

Who am I missing?

The remaining pool of Negro-League candidates for the 1920s:

Mule Suttles
John Beckwith
Biz Mackey
Dick Redding
Cool Papa Bell
Dick Lundy
Dobie Moore
   85. Michael Bass Posted: April 11, 2005 at 03:40 PM (#1247341)
I believe the trend that suggests we are going to honor more NeLers of the 1920s than NL MLB players of that era begs for more discussion.

Eppa Rixey
Edd Roush
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Wilbur Cooper
Dave Bancroft



Mule Suttles
John Beckwith
Biz Mackey
Dick Redding
Cool Papa Bell
Dick Lundy
Dobie Moore


I think Chris is implying something similar, but I certainly would vastly prefer the latter list to the former list were I putting together a team. In fact, in my rankings, just taking these 13 guys, 7 of the top 9 are are on the latter list.
   86. karlmagnus Posted: April 11, 2005 at 04:01 PM (#1247385)
We have one or two NLers of the 20s still to come; Paul Waner surely counts, for example.
   87. Chris Cobb Posted: April 11, 2005 at 04:04 PM (#1247391)
I should add that the late 1920s are going to get a boost in the NL from Hubbell, Ott, and Waner.

There was a dearth of new stars entering the NL from the end of WWI to the mid-1920s, which corresponds to a time in which an exceptional number of stars were entering the NeL: I suspect that 1920 to 1925 may end up being the best-represented years in NeL history. In the late 1920s, however, the only HoMer-type star (I think) to debut was Satchel Paige, where the NL had a number of great players begin their careers. The next wave of NeL greats didn't arrive until the early 1930s, with Gibson, Leonard, and Dandridge.
   88. sunnyday2 Posted: April 11, 2005 at 09:31 PM (#1249144)
I've already submitted a prelim, but with Biz Mackey dropping, dropping, dropping, I have a major dilemma: What backlogger to elect to my PHoM. Here's the start of my ballot. I got totally hung up at #6, where my new PHoMer will go.

1949

The year of my birth though 1950 would have been the first baseball season of my life, well, unless life begins at conception. That woulda been March or else very early April, as I understand I was a bit premature.

1. Carl Hubbell (new, PHoM 1949). Clear choice.

2. Hughie Jennings (2 last year-4-3, PHoM 1927). Hughie is killing my consensus score, but I can't resist the big peak.

3. George Sisler (5-6-5, PHoM 1938). Plenty of career value and a high peak. The odd shape of his career confuses some.

4. Dobie Moore (3-5-4, PHoM 1942). The black Hughie Jennings...well, that's overlooking Jennings' famous meetings (two of them) with the pope and Moore breaking his leg jumping out a whorehouse window.

5. Rube Waddell (7-7-7, PHoM 1932). Prime ERA+ 152 still the best around.

6. My next PHoMer will go here. I am considering, in alpha order:

a. Chuck Klein--yeah, yeah, I know, short career (well, not really), short peak/prime (well, not really), park effects (okay, really). Still...hard to say Mule Suttles was better.

b. Dick Lundy--300 WS, .314 in a .270 league (MLE .280), Bill James says he was surely a better fielder than Lloyd or Wells. Almost surely a better player than Joe Sewell game per game, and 1600 more PA, and almost 2X as many as a SS.

c. Teddy Lyons--if I can't decide among the position players, there's always room in the PHoM or HoM for another pitcher.

d. Edd Roush--better than Averill? I think so, or at least close enough to more than make up for with 300 games and 1,000 AB. Better than Klein? Better than Suttles? Better than Bell? Ouch.

e. Mule Suttles--better than Beckwith? Better than BeckLEY? Better than Lundy? More valuable than Lundy? I don't think so. Better than Klein?

I almost cast my ballot with Lundy at #6...I guess if I want to get my consensus score back up it would be obvious to go with Lyons or Suttles. If that were the choice right now I would take Lyons. Suttles just looks too much like a lot of other corner-guys: Of course, at least one of them is named Stearnes.

Whoever said the Mackey was our toughest challenge, well, you were close. He is causing one of my toughest challenges.
   89. TomH Posted: April 12, 2005 at 11:04 AM (#1250259)
Effect of ‘bad attitude’ on HoM voting

We’ve bandied this subject about many times before, mostly whenever somebody with perceived “issues” (like Beckwith) hits the ballot. I wish to try to explain where I come from on this; even if it doesn’t affect anyone else’s opinion.

Many have stated something like “bad attitude should only be counted if it affects performance on the field”. I agree with that statement 100%. But as I analyze a player’s value, I find that depending on your reference, you get different answers to the question as to if a player’s behavior might affect his value.

Let’s say there was a talented player - great hitter and fielder. But he had documented problems getting along with teammates and managers. Let’s say he was traded (or let go in free agency) a few times, due in part because his team thought he was a problem.

Now, should we dock him some credit for these issues? Well, on the team success level, we should only penalize him if we see that his teammates performed poorly when with him; as if they were ‘uninspired’ to play with him. This might show up if they were talented and didn’t win, or he was traded to a team and they got worse when he arrived. But barring that, we ought to give him whatever credit his stats earned.

But. What if I look at it from a GM level? If I am running ONE team, I want that team to win. I wish to draft and develop and trade for a player who will help ME. And, you know, in real life, people don’t get along. In my office, some engineers don’t want to be on projects with other engineers. For good reason; it’s stressful and unrewarding. So the projects suffer because people don’t want to join the project this loser is on. And so, this engineer (or shortstop) is less valuable to his boss than another equally talented person who gets along well with his colleagues.

I have a friend who knows Steve Farr, the ex-MLB pitcher. One winter Farr was traded for the Royals to the Yankees. My friend asked how he felt. Farr was disappointed to head for the big city and play for Mr. Steinbrenner, but he said “at least I'm away from Danny Tartabull!”. He hated playing with Mr. Tartabull. Unfortunately for Mr. Farr, Mr. Tartabull got traded to the Yankees soon after…. :(

And so, my point is this: when it comes to the Dick Allens of the world, I will assess whether the player’s conduct was a contributing factor to his team’s ability to keep his talent (or at least get comparable talent in a trade) on that team. In Dick Allen’s case, I believe is it eminently reasonable to penalize him because teams got tired of having him, and arguably got less for him than if he had stayed. All in all, I believe Dick Allen still ought to be in the HoF (and the HoM); but it is arguable.

Another example - Ty Cobb. He never got traded. But Detroit tried to trade him, and was rebuffed in a deal that if accepted surely would have hurt them long-term. If he had played in 1980, would the modern Tigers let him leave for another team as a free agent? Very likely, in my opinion. For these and other reasons, I have Cobb rated as “only” my 7th best all-time OFer; otherwise he might be 4th.

In John Beckwith’s case, I do knock him a bit, from the limited data we have about his affect on teammates. Not a huge amount, but on a tight ballot, enough to bump him from middle-high to low on my ballot.
   90. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 11:08 AM (#1250261)
"B+ fielder by WS... not amazing enough for me to forgive the 96 OPS+"

Since when does a 96 OPS+ have to be forgiven by a B+ fielding SS. I'd say that makes him a very good hitter for a shortstop and a very good fielder which in turn makes him a pretty decent candidate overall . . .
   91. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 12, 2005 at 11:36 AM (#1250268)
Great discussion guys.

I don't have much to add right now, but keep it going!

I do think we are shorting the 1890s players some, mainly for the reasons Howie mentioned in post 82.

I'm pretty strongly advocating Griffith, Beckley and Jennings from that era. Van Haltren, Ryan, Duffy, Griffin and Childs as worthy of support. The problem is that all 9 of them are pretty similar in their qualifications, and none of them blows you away. So they split the vote and none of them gets in.

I don't think that's a problem . . . more of an explanation in addition to Howie's than anything else.
   92. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 12, 2005 at 02:03 PM (#1250372)
Joe,

I might tack Herman Long onto the list of guys deserving consideration. He's a Sewell/Bancroft/Lundy kind of player in his era.

TomH,

I understand your reasoning on Allen and it seems reasonable or for MLB players, however, (at risk of repeating myself) I think that Negro League players need to be viewed a little differently.

The economic, social, contractual, and geographic pressures on Negro League players were very very different from those on MLB and white minor-league players. In addition the information we have about Negro League players and their personalities (and the transactions they were involved in) is sketchier than the info we have on players from the pre-war era and sometimes sketchier than what we've got on early 19th-century players.

For someone like Beckwith about whom there is conflicting personality information, it's worth taking a moment to consider whether the character standards applied to MLB players fit the circumstances of the Negro Leagues closely enough to be effective.
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 12, 2005 at 02:06 PM (#1250379)
But. What if I look at it from a GM level? If I am running ONE team, I want that team to win. I wish to draft and develop and trade for a player who will help ME. And, you know, in real life, people don’t get along. In my office, some engineers don’t want to be on projects with other engineers. For good reason; it’s stressful and unrewarding. So the projects suffer because people don’t want to join the project this loser is on. And so, this engineer (or shortstop) is less valuable to his boss than another equally talented person who gets along well with his colleagues.

Tom, I just respectfully don't buy this when it comes to baseball (or sports in general). I also doubt anyone could document this through stats.

I've had jobs where I was stressed out over a co-worker (though I don't believe it affected my work), but the interaction in an office environment is totally different than on the field.

This is kind of a back door attempt to penalize the player despite what the Constitution states. I have no problem with this for the first year of eligibility, but Beckwith has been on the ballot for years now.

We have two cases of Beckwith fighting with somebody (whether they're true or not is another matter). One was with an umpire: I doubt any of his teammates were affected by that. The other was when he knocked out Bill Holland for making faces over a play.

If there were constant threats and intimidation by Beckwith, then I might buy Tom's assertion. But I doubt being just a pain in the ass affects anything in the stats. Regarding Dick Allen, I have yet to read anything that he did that would have stressed me out if I had played with him. If his teammates did, then they were wusses, IMO.

I wouldn't have wanted to run with Beckwith after the game, mind you. He sounds like he was a winner there. :-) But Beckwith's reputation on the field appears to have been blown up considerably more than it actually was. We already know from either Gary or Gadfly that one of the stories about him was factually incorrect. I think we need to take that into account in regard to whatever Riley has documented.

I think if we're going to penalize Beckwith over player relationship problems, we need to see evidence that it hurt the team on the field.

BTW, I'm not that exorcised over this issue. Beckwith is going in someday anyway, so I'm not sweating it. :-)
   94. TomH Posted: April 12, 2005 at 04:16 PM (#1250707)
trying not to be crotchety (I'm too young to be crotchety! Really!)

(TJH) it’s stressful and unrewarding. So the projects suffer
(JM) I don't buy this when it comes to baseball...I also doubt anyone could document this through stats.

(me again) Not document it thru stats? All I have to do is find one player who was traded for less than "stats" value because his team didn't want his persona.

(JM) This is kind of a back door attempt to penalize the player despite what the Constitution states.
(me again) Absolutely not. I merely firmly believe the fact that the Cardinals traded Dick Allen in 1970 to the Dodgers for comparatively little hurt the Redbirds, and this is relevant to the Value (meritability) of Dick Allen.

Regarding Beckwith in particular, I will re-assess whether I am making too much of a few incidents whose veracity might be questioned. But with respect to the point in general....I stand very firmly on the prinicple.
   95. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 12, 2005 at 04:41 PM (#1250758)
(me again) Not document it thru stats? All I have to do is find one player who was traded for less than "stats" value because his team didn't want his persona.

That's not proof, Tom. I'm talking about proof that a player affected his teammates' performance on the field because of his behavior. If the GM made a foolish trade, then Beckwith shouldn't be penalized for that.

(JM) This is kind of a back door attempt to penalize the player despite what the Constitution states.
(me again) Absolutely not. I merely firmly believe the fact that the Cardinals traded Dick Allen in 1970 to the Dodgers for comparatively little hurt the Redbirds, and this is relevant to the Value (meritability) of Dick Allen.


Again, what did Allen do? Was he beating up the other players for their lunch money or did he just say stupid things to the press? Looks like your beef is with the GM, not Allen, IMO.

Hornsby is another one that fits the same description (though we hardly heard a peep about his character at the time of his election). He was certainly a pain in the ass, but is that cause for trading him for lesser players? His case is a little more complicated since he was a manager (as was Beckwith), but I wouldn't have traded him (or Allen) unless I got equal compensation.

trying not to be crotchety (I'm too young to be crotchety! Really!)

It's OK, Tom, Every once in a while we need to be crotchety. :-D
   96. Michael Bass Posted: April 12, 2005 at 04:46 PM (#1250775)
Not document it thru stats? All I have to do is find one player who was traded for less than "stats" value because his team didn't want his persona.

I can find 100 examples of teams making stupid moves for stupid reasons. Who's to say "bad attitude" isn't one of those? And how is it the player's fault that the GM is more worried about attitude than winning baseball games (or erroneously thinks attitude wins baseball games)?

Absolutely not. I merely firmly believe the fact that the Cardinals traded Dick Allen in 1970 to the Dodgers for comparatively little hurt the Redbirds, and this is relevant to the Value (meritability) of Dick Allen.

And this made him less valuable to the Cards in 1970? Or to the Dodgers in 1971? To be clear, you're putting a minus on his stats for one of these years?

I'm with John in that I think this is an end run around the constitution, but we've already let far more ridiculous things than this go, so the constitution ship has sailed.
   97. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 12, 2005 at 04:51 PM (#1250786)
Regarding Beckwith in particular, I will re-assess whether I am making too much of a few incidents whose veracity might be questioned.

...and I will also if events can be documented that show that Beckwith did hurt his team.
   98. karlmagnus Posted: April 12, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1250802)
Albert Belle? Sammy Sosa? Nomar Garciaparra? They've all been traded for less than full value at some point. It's a "fuzzy logic" question -- at some point the fact that a guy is e.g. in and out of jail seriously affects his value, but the dividing line is not a sharp one. Allen's close to the line, Nomar (one of my favorite players) is clearly a GM mistake by the arrogant Epstein, Denny McLain is probably the other side of the line.
   99. TomH Posted: April 12, 2005 at 05:09 PM (#1250821)
And how is it the player's fault that the GM is more worried about attitude than winning baseball games (or erroneously thinks attitude wins baseball games)?
---
I must not be able to clearly write what I'm thinkin....

Take Hornsby. A reasonable candidate for best-ever 2Bman. Traded often, typically for less than what one would reasonably expect if we were playing a table game like APBA or DMB or SOM. Now, were all the GMs who traded him away foolish? Possibly. But if you create an atmosphere in which a GM is likely to engineer a trade for less-than-market value, isn't that a detriment to the team? And so, given a close call, I'll take Collins or Morgan as my all-time 2B guy if I were builidng a team.

What if in 2008, Albert Pujols is a free agent, and refuses to sign with team X, despite their $50M overtures, because he publicly states that he won't play with player Y. Doesn't the hindrance of drawing the best player in the game reflect on player Y's value to team X? It's downright ignorant to suggest otherwise [ I'm *not* claiming ignorance on anyone's part in this discussion so far, but the wrath of Tom may be kindled eventually :) ].

Now, if you wish to argue that I need a definite instance of something like the above before downgrading a player, I understand. But I hope others can live with my view that sometimes a combination of suggestions / insinuations might suffice to adjust a player's ranking somewhat. We're not playing innocent-until-proven-guilty here like we *need* to in the justice system. I'm going with 'preponderance of evidence'.
   100. karlmagnus Posted: April 12, 2005 at 05:18 PM (#1250842)
I think it should have to be a pretty serious and repeated problem before marking a player down, even slightly. I'd mark McLain down, or probably Strawberry, but not Sosa, or say B-H Kim, who currently has an ERA of 1.8 in Colorado and just seems to have found the Epstein circus impossible to deal with. And what about George Davis or Amos Rusie or the Black Sox, who were victimized by the owner?
Page 1 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
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.3294 seconds
49 querie(s) executed