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 25, 2005

1950 Ballot

Notable first-time candidates include: Paul Waner, Joe Cronin, Martin Dihigo and George Scales.

Top-ten returnees include: Mules Suttles, John Beckwith, Eppa Rixey, Wes Ferrell, Earl Averill, Clark Griffith, Biz Mackey and George Sisler.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2005 at 12:59 PM | 159 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 25, 2005 at 01:06 PM (#1285886)
I'll submit a ballot sometime later this week. I just don't have the time right now.
   2. karlmagnus Posted: April 25, 2005 at 01:08 PM (#1285888)
I get born this year, but not until after we’ve voted (don’t see my first baseball game until 1971, though—cricket fan through the 60s.) Alarming to think I’m more than half as old as the HOM. Waner marginally #1, as stats only modestly inflated by weak war years. Cronin shortish career, including weak war years, TOTALLY inept manager and a nasty man, so just above Schang, I think. Dihigo slots with Beckwith, Suttles and Ben Taylor as candidates pretty well exactly on the cusp of whether I think they should be in; I’d be happy to elect 1-2 but preferably not 3-4. They are all substantially above Bell and Mackey, however, whom I would be sorry to see elected. Scales off the bottom of my extended list, but only just – just a fraction below Monroe, as it was a shortish career.

1. (N/A) Paul Waner 3152 hits, and only 196 of those during the war years. OPS+ 134. TB+BB/PA .517, TB+BB/Outs .843. Infinitesimally better than Beckley, though you could argue the other way

2. (N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4-3-2-2-1-1-2-6-4-4-2-1-1-1-3-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1) Jake Beckley. Paul Waner is a very close comp, finally (it’s been 37 years till we found one) and it thus makes no sense to have Waner far above Beckley, Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, above Babe, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. Marginally ahead of Welch, as we have seen more 307-win pitchers (now 10 others among currently HOM-eligible) than 2930-hit hitters (now 8 others). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals.

3. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-2-2-3-7-5-5-3-2-2-2-4-2-3-3-2-2-4-3-2-2) Mickey Welch. 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the 1920s and 1930s pitcher glut – 7 more wins than Lefty Grove! 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. With 4802 IP, OK at an ERA+of 113 (but he never heard of ERA) he was far better than most of the 00s and 20s pitchers under consideration, none of whom (other than Young, Matty and Alex) got near 300 wins, and many of whom had ERA+s little better than Welch.

4. (N/A-6-4-3-3-3-5-3-4-4-3-3-5-5-3-4) George Sisler. 2812 hits, OPS+ 124 puts him just below Beckley and Welch. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .748. Better singles hitter than Ichiro!, his record having been set in a 154 game season. And he had power too.

5. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4-6-4-5-6-5-4-6-7-6-5) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) Much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity. Successfully cursed Red Sox for over 8 decades!

6. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4-6-10-8-9-7-5-5-5-7-5-6-7-6-6-7-8-7-6) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA

7. (N/A-12-10-9-10-9-8-7) Eppa Rixey, 266-251 and ERA+ of 115. Huge 4,494 IP, decided I’d been undervaluing him, so moved him up the ballot a bit further. Better than Lyons with WW1 credit.

8. (N/A-10-9-8-11-N/A-15-15-14-10-10-11-12-10-12-11-9-8-9-10-10-9) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season (but that’s more than Pike, with much less of an adjustment, and Jones too missed two prime seasons.) But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF, and also on reflection above Tiernan

9. (N/A) Joe Cronin Only 2285 hits, surprisingly short career, but that’s pretty solid – only 97 during war years. OPS+119, TB+BB .521, TB+BB/Outs .824. Just a little better than Schang, but the margin’s not great.
   3. karlmagnus Posted: April 25, 2005 at 01:09 PM (#1285889)
10. (N/A-9-8-8-9-10-8-10-9-8-7-8-11-11-10) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B. Not as good as Hartnett, though.

11. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8-9-7-9-13-11-10-11-12-12-11) Sam Leever. Pity he wasn’t able to start at the normal time; 2 more years would have made him a NB. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.

12. (N/A-14-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-10-8-7-6-5-5-7-11-9-10-8-6-6-6-8-6-8-8-7-11-12-13-13-12) Clark Griffith He’s another Amos Rusie, but not quite as good. 3385 IP, 237 wins and an ERA+ of 121 not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice. Decided he’s not quite as good as Rixey or Leever, after seeing Kelly’s figures.

13. (N/A-13-14-14-13) John Beckwith. A bit more confident, now I’ve seen we’re not automatically enshrining Lundy/Foster/Johnson. Also, Chris Cobb’s equivalents are looking more solid to me. Definitely better than Suttles, but had a short career.

14. (N/A-14) Chuck Klein. Shortish career but very good one. Very similar player to Beckwith, beats Hack on career length. TB+BB/PA.575, TB+BB/Outs .909, but only 2076 hits. OPS+137.

15. Martin Dihigo. Poor man’s Caruthers, but considerably less good than Caruthers either as a hitter (Caruthers OPS+135) or as a pitcher. Longer career, though. Scrapes over my HOM bar, but only just.

OFF BALLOT

16. (N/A-7-13-11-13-14-14-14-N/A-15-15-15) Hack Wilson TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144 back up above Lazzeri and Childs. (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore. OPS+ slightly below Jones, so here he goes. Just off in this strong year.

17. (N/A-8-7-8-14-13-14-13-9-9-10-11-9-11-10-13-13-15-N/A) Cupid Childs. OPS+119, almost the same as the 90s trio, and TB+BB/PA .470, TB+BB/Outs .797 highly competitive with them. Main negative is only 1720 hits, or about 1780 even if you normalize him to a 130 games played season. Nevertheless, he was a 2B. Just misses again, but will be back on ballot in weak years.

18. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13-14-12-15-15-15-15-N/A) Carl Mays

19.Ben Taylor. Not all that far below Beckley and better than Van Haltren. Put him above Suttles – he’s better, so will be on ballot in weak years.

20. (N/A) Mule Suttles. About halfway between Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman -- out rather than in, I feel, but still close to the boundary – have moved him up a little.
21. (N/A-12-12-14-N/A) Tony Lazzeri
22. (N/A-11-12-15-14-N/A) Joe Sewell
23. (N/A-14-N/A-15-N/A) Sam Rice
24. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-N/A-14-13-15-N/A) Hugh Duffy
25. (N/A-13-15-N/A-15-15-N/A) Vic Willis
26. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes.
27. (N/A) Heinie Manush
28. Earl Averill
29. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan - only 1,983 normalized hits, so only on the ballot in weak years. Does well against the 90s trio, whose OPS+ and rate stats are distinctly lower. TB+BB/PA .518, TB+BB/Outs .850, so close to Browning (in an easier era for hitters).
30. (N/A-11-14-N/A) Rube Waddell
31. Wes Ferrell
32. (N/A) Dick Lundy
33. (N/A) Hughie Jennings OPS+ 117 and he was a shortstop and he had a superb peak, but only 1527 hits. TB+BB/PA .414, TB+BB/Outs .671, so he’s not as good as Childs. Extra bonus for the peak.
34. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle. Normalize 1871-77 season by season to 130 games and he gets 1,577 hits, only 15 less than Pike in 1 less season. Better peak, too. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .751, though this, like McVey and Pike’s figures, includes no “decline” phase. Also, he was a 3B. Why did Meyerle quit? -- unlike Pike, he was nowhere near done in 1877. OPS+164 vs 152 for McVey and 155 for Pike.
35. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
36. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
37. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A) George van Haltren. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s.
38. Cool Papa Bell. Lou Brock minus, without 3000 hits and Brock would only just make this ballot.
39. Kiki Cuyler
40. Biz Mackey. Not quite as good as Schang, very similar to McGuire.
41. Deacon McGuire
42. Jack Quinn
43. Tony Mullane
44. Pye Traynor
45. Jim McCormick
46. Dick Redding
47. Joe Judge
48. Edd Roush
49. Spotswood Poles.
50. Larry Doyle
51. Roger Bresnahan.
52. Wayte Hoyt.
53. Harry Hooper.
54. Jules Thomas.
55. Wilbur Cooper
56. Bruce Petway.
57. Jack Clements
58. Bill Monroe
59. Jose Mendez
60. Herb Pennock
61. Chief Bender
62. Ed Konetchy
63. Jesse Tannehill
64. Bobby Veach
65. Lave Cross
66. Tommy Leach.
67. Tom York
   4. David C. Jones Posted: April 25, 2005 at 02:35 PM (#1285990)
Here's my ballot. I explain things over in the ballot discussion thread.

1. Martin Dihigo
2. Paul Waner
3. Joe Cronin
4. John Beckwith
5. Mule Suttles
6. Jose Mendez
7. Edd Roush
8. Wes Ferrell
9. Rube Waddell
10. Cannonball Dick Redding
11. Ben Taylor
12. George Sisler
13. Dick Lundy
14. Biz Mackey
15. Vic Willis

I have George Scales currently at #26 on my ballot. I think he was a real good ballplayer, and a borderline HOMer.

Top ten returnees not on my ballot:

--Epppa Rixey. Currently at #24 on my ballot. To me he's another borderline case. I had him below Lyons because their stats were comparable, but Ted played in a more difficult league. Lyons only made it as high as #11 for me before getting in.

--Earl Averill. I still like Roush more, because he had more career value than Earl did. Averill is not far off my ballot, though, he's at #18.

--Clark Griffith. Also close to my ballot. I have him at #19. Not quite enough peak to move up farther for me.

--Hughie Jennings. #29 on my ballot. I absolutely love the player he was at his peak. The difficulty I have with him is that there's really nothing else to his career: very short, all peak. He still reminds me of the Frank Chance of shortstops.
   5. Daryn Posted: April 25, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1286067)
1. Waner -- 400+ WS usually does it for me. So does 3000 hits.

2. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data shows those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his oft repeated record against HoMers.

3. Cronin – lots of doubles, one more career extra base hit than Beckley, one less than Chili Davis. I could have him as low 8th, but I have question marks about all of the candidates between 5 and 8. Only beats Beckley because of his position bonus.

4. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (HOMer) are two of his three most similars.

5. Eppa Rixey
7. Burleigh Grimes – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between these two candidates. There is not much of a spread between here and Ferrell, a five person group of whiteball pitchers that includes Waddell and Griffith, the latter of whom I am souring on.

6. Martin Dihigo – I think he is as good as Caruthers. Gadfly calls him Babe Ruth in reverse. Note that he is ahead of Grimes, I just didn’t want to split up the commentary.

8. Dick Redding – probably the 5th or 6th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams and Paige and likely behind Rube Foster, Rogan and Bill Foster), and that is good enough for me.

9. Biz Mackey – I vote career over peak, so I like Mackey the best of the eligible catchers. It is close though, and if new negative info comes, I could have Mackey as low as Schang (who I have in the 20s).

10. Roger Bresnahan – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor. I like him better than Schang because he compared better to his contemporaries, if you count him as a catcher.

11. George Sisler
12. Sam Rice – I like the hits. Sisler way out peaks Rice.

13. Mule Suttles – I’m getting more sold on Suttles and less sold on Beckwith. Suttles’ MLE WS are tough to overlook even if you apply a modest discount.

14. Rube Waddell -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+ and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown). My personal, in/out line is here.

15. Beckwith –The Beckwith thread is funny – Gadfly has him hitting .400 with 40HRs per year and Cobb has him at 315 career WS, which is pretty much how I see him. I might move him down soon --- or he might get elected first.

17. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected. He is barely better than Ferrell, Warneke, Bridges, Gomez, Hoyt, Mendez, Joss, Dean, Luque, Pennock, Quinn, McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Bender, Mays, Cooper, Shocker, Mullane and Mullin.

23. Wes Ferrell -- just ahead of Mendez and Joss.

31. Earl Averill -- outfield glut, with GVH, Roush, Cravath, Duffy and Ryan.
   6. DanG Posted: April 25, 2005 at 06:23 PM (#1286424)
Breaking with tradition, an early ballot from me. My #1 and #2 were elected. In 1950, the trio of Paul Waner, Cronin and Dihigo crowds out the backlog. Jimmie Foxx and Bob Johnson lead the class of 1951. A trio of all-time greats debuts in 1952: Gibson, Ott and Dickey.

1) Paul Waner – Not an inner circle HOFer, still top 100 all-time.

2) Joe Cronin – Probably not among the top 100 all-time.

3) George Van Haltren (3,3,3) - In a glut now with Roush and Duffy, his status as a serious candidate is slowly subsiding. Pennants Added study shows him well. The 1932 election may have been his last, best shot at induction. Now in his 42nd year eligible. As to why he rates above Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he had higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan (and Duffy) actually played more corner outfield. Players with most stolen bases 1891-1900:
1—660 B. Hamilton
2—443 G. Van Haltren

4) Clark Griffith (4,4,4) – The #4 pitcher of his era, behind three first-balloters, but far ahead of #5. Gets extra credit for excelling in the contraction years 1892-1900. Good hitter, too. Highest Complete Game Percentage 1893-1903, minimum 185 GS:
1—94.1% K. Nichols
2—93.4% C. Young
3—93.3% C. Griffith
4—92.4% A. Rusie

5) Tommy Leach (5,5,5) – Every time I think of dropping him, to get in line with the consensus, I look at the guys below him and go, “nah”. I think it’s what Bill James once said, that all-around players get overlooked, while specialists get overrated. Voters like that one area of dominance. Modern comp to, but just a bit behind, Craig Biggio, he could beat you in many ways. Longevity, defense and speed, more important in that era, rate him above Groh. Versatility a plus; it should not be assumed that any typical thirdbaseman of the era could have successfully handled CF. Some voter are docking him too severely for league quality. Had a better peak than Bobby Wallace, but his career was a couple years shorter and he had just a little less defensive value. Among OFers with 750 games 1905-14, he is 2nd in PO/G (behind Speaker) and 2nd in FA (behind Clarke). I like guys who play; longevity is a hallmark of quality. Players with 2100+ games played, 1892-1922:
1—2792 H. Wagner
2—2517 S. Crawford
3—2480 N. Lajoie
4—2383 B. Wallace
5—2308 B. Dahlen
6—2305 T. Cobb
7—2242 F. Clarke
8—2162 E. Collins
9—2156 T. Leach
10—2123 W. Keeler
11—2122 J. Sheckard

6) Earl Averill (6,6,6) – Ranks above Roush on strength of league and minor league credit, otherwise very similar peaks and careers. James ranks them #14-#15 in centerfield.

7) Jimmy Ryan (7,7,7) — Matched my personal record for lowest finish in the balloting of anyone I voted for, finishing 38th, as McCormick did in 1932. Most extra-base hits 1888-98:
<I>1—549 E. Delahanty
2—507 J. Ryan

8) Edd Roush (8,8,8) – Pennants added likes him a lot. Players with OPS of .850+, 1917-25, minimum 3800 PA:
1—1.193 B. Ruth
2—1.037 R. Hornsby
3—.975 T. Speaker
4—.961 T. Cobb
5—.931 H. Heilmann
6—.918 G. Sisler
7—.865 Z. Wheat
8—.864 E. Roush

9) Martin Dihigo – Hard to get a solid stat line on him, but the anecdotal stuff is overwhelming.

10) George Sisler (9,9,9) – The problem I have with Terry’s election is that nearly every system or ranking I see has Sisler slightly higher. This may eventually take care of itself, but not for several decades. In the mean time, Terry looks like an accident of ballot timing. I think George is still among the top 230 players in history, which is clearly HoMer territory. This is probably not the case for Beckley. OPS+ is only half the story: excellent runner (4 SB crowns), great rep as a fielder, great peak, long career (+9000 PA). Does WARP penalize him for the high quality of firstbasemen in his era? Firstbasemen with 2500+ hits through 1980:

1—3418 C. Anson
2—2930 J. Beckley
3—2812 G. Sisler
4—2721 L. Gehrig
5—2646 J. Foxx

11) Eppa Rixey (10,10,10) – Liking him more, but not quite up to Faber’s level. Looks like the GVH of pitchers. Only Grimes had more wins during the 1920s. Most IP, 1921-28:
1—2262 B. Grimes
2—2192 E. Rixey
Lowest ERA, 1921-28, minimum 1200 IP:
1—3.00 D. Vance
2—3.03 D. Luque
3—3.12 E. Rixey

12) Wes Ferrell (11,12,11) – Eight-year prime of 128 ERA+ and 103 OPS+ while averaging 264 IP in a hitter’s league is damn impressive. Only Hubbell pitched more innings in that time. OK, it’s not Koufax, but he kicks Dean’s arse. This is around my HoM cutoff line. Pitchers completing 70% of their starts, 1929-37, minimum 100 CG:
1—74.0% W. Ferrell
2—72.4% L. Grove
3—71.9% D. Dean

13) Biz Mackey (12,ne,ne) – I’ve long been a friend of catchers and he’s the best available, knocking Bresnahan off after a 28-year run. I like the long career. Defense apparently as good as any catcher; if Schalk could hit, he’d have been Biz.

14) Cool Papa Bell (13,-,ne) – I supported Carey and I’m one of Leach’s two best friends. Bell seems to be in the same mold: defense and speed are ++, hitting was solidly above average in a long prime. Could move up.

15)Mule Suttles (14,15,15) – Good slugger. Could move up.

John Beckwith – About half the electorate is sold on him. That’s all it takes to be a HoMer in this environment. For me, he’s fifth in my NeL queue.

Jennings is crowded off.
   7. ronw Posted: April 25, 2005 at 08:42 PM (#1286784)
1950 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. All-Star candidate is roughly the top 16 pitchers and top 32 players. MVP candidate is anyone with double the WS numbers of the worst All-Star candidate in that season. I have incorporated WARP and Pennants Added.)

1. Martin Dihigo Someone this unique, with this long a career, deserves enshrinement. This is no knock on the other two new eligibles, who are more than worthy. PHOM 1950

2. Paul Waner Excellent player. MVP Candidate 1927-29, 1934, 1936-37. All-Star candidate 1926, 1930-31, 1933, 1935, 1938-1939. (14 HOM seasons). PHOM 1950.

3. Joe Cronin One of the top shortstops in history. MVP Candidate 1930-33, 1938, All-Star candidate 1929, 1934-35, 1937, 1939-41. (12 HOM seasons).

4. John Beckwith Great hitter who has been tarnished by history. PHOM 1942.

5. Mule Suttles At first glance, it seems Beckwith was a better fielder, and may have struck out less. PHOM 1949.

6. Cool Papa Bell I always had Carey right behind Van Haltren and Beckley. I think Bell is a little bit better than all three.

7. George Van Haltren Only one season among top 8 players (1898). Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1901. That is 14 consecutive solid years, the majority in a tough consolidated league. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1929.

8. Jake Beckley In his 16 All-Star seasons, he only averaged about 60% of MVP value, so that hurts him with peak voters. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1895, 1897, 1899-1905. (16 HOM seasons) PHOM 1928.

9. Jimmy Ryan Had a nice peak 1888-1891, better than both Beckley and Van Haltren. MVP candidate 1888. All-Star candidate 1886-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1899, 1902. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1930.

10. Earl Averill Dominant during his career. MVP Candidate 1931, 1932, 1934, All-Star Candidate 1929-30, 1933, 1935-1938. (10 HOM seasons)

11. Eppa Rixey Consistently above average. Looking at measures other than Win Shares, he barely sneaks by Grimes. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1916-1917, 1920-1925, 1927-1929, war credit 1918 (12 HOM seasons). PHOM 1939.

12. Wes Ferrell Great peak. MVP Candidate 1930, 1935-1936. All-Star Candidate 1929, 1931-1934, 1937. (9 HOM seasons)

13. Dick Redding Redding belongs with the long-career pitchers.

14. Burleigh Grimes I think he is being overlooked by the electorate, especially given his 1918-1924 peak. MVP candidate 1918, 1920. All-Star candidate 1921, 1923-1924, 1926-1930. (10 HOM seasons).

15. Dick Lundy If actually a 122 OPS+ hitter, he deserves to rate higher.

LAST YEAR TOP TEN/NEW NOTABLES

Biz Mackey – Just off the bottom this week, he’ll be back soon.

Joe Sewell - Looks like the best of the available major league infielders to me, but is looking less impressive over time. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1921-1929, 1931-1933 (12 HOM seasons).

Clark Griffith –I think that he had a relatively short productive career, and didn’t have nearly the peak of a Walsh, Brown, Vance or perhaps even Waddell. He needs to get a pretty steep 1890s pitcher premium to make my ballot. Pitchers ahead of him include Rixey, Grimes, Ferrell, Redding, Mendez, Mays, Willis and Cooper. All-Star candidate 1894-1901 (8 HOM seasons)

Hughie Jennings – Even the greatest five year peak (Babe Ruth) wouldn’t make my ballot by itself. I need some above average play outside that peak. Six years is a little better. Seven years might get a player in my PHOM (see Ed Walsh.) Five just doesn’t give me enough. MVP candidate 1894-1898. (5 HOM seasons)

George Sisler – A decent peak but surprisingly only one 30+ WS season. Averill’s peak was better. MVP candidate 1917, 1920. All-Star candidate 1916-1922, 1925, 1927-1928. (10 HOM seasons.)

George Scales - There are only so many ballot spots.

Missing from my PHOM:

Lyons (now first on the missing list)
Terry (will make it some day)
Coveleski (will make it some day)
Vance (will make it some day)
Faber (may never make it, even with the peak adjustment)
Thompson (will never make it)
   8. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 25, 2005 at 09:17 PM (#1286869)
1950 Ballot----My 20th Anniversary Ballot!

Old Voters Never Die
Why I started voting in 19 and 30, and let me tell you something, mister, that glut you new-fangled voters gripe so much about is filled with two-bit players who wouldn’t know the meaning of the word hustle if they were English perfessers. What do you think this is a hotel???? Why back when I started voting we had to try distinguishing between George Van Haltren, Hugh Duffy, and Jimmy Ryan, three guys who really knew how to play the game as it was meant to be played! And did we complain? Not even a whit, because that’s how we liked it. You youngin’s talk about your glut, well, let’s just see you have to choose between the three of them and then come and talk to me about a glut…. Whaddya’ mean you still have to choose from them? Don’t try and confound me son, I’ve been voting in this here HOM since before you were knee-high to a dial-up modem….

1)Paul Waner: He couldn’t have done it without Jack Daniels’s help…. Best career on the board, and a prime that rivals virtually any eligible’s (though not Jennings). Not a first-tier HOMer, nor again in the Bill Terry mode, but a solid second-tier HOMer who doesn’t have any of the limitations or questions that surround other candidates.
2) Joe Cronin: I’ve always thought of him as the Derek Jeter of his day, probably because I knew his defense was questionable, but he’s better than Jeter and a better defender too. Cronin is the most Meritorious infielder available with a peak equal to Waner’s and enough career value to make him an obvious second-tier HOMer at his position.

Welcome to the Doc’s pHOM Funhouse Paul and Joe.

3)Mule Suttles: Enough peak, prime, career to merit almost-elect-me status.
4)John Beckwith: Second-best SS on this ballot or the best 3B, take your pick. A thumping throwing infielder whose MLE WS projections probably underrate his peak a bit.
5)Hugh Duffy: Nice fat peak and prime, decent extended prime, career’s good enough to get here, but not good enough to rise to the 1 or 2 slot on a crowded ballot.
6)Martin Dihigo: OK, I know this is going to be controversial, but because Dihigo is such an unusual and difficult to understand candidate, I had to get imaginative. So I’ll just put it down, then you can all rip me to pieces. My ranking is based on a weird hybrid approach.
On one hand there’s the speculative approach I discussed in the Dihigo thread, on the other, there’s the value-to-team approach. In the speculative side of my approach, I assumed:
a)that Dihigo wouldn’t start switch hitting, so his 91 OPS+ was replaced by a figure more like a normal career path
b)that he would never have pitched were he in the big leagues
c)that the missing peak years followed a normal, predictable aging pattern
d)that he would begin as a decent CF and around age 31 or 32 would become a corner man and decline to below average.
That got me halfway through is career (through age 31 or so, 1936). Then I decided to start fooling around with back-of-the-envelope OPS+ translations of his VZ and Mexican rate stats as reported in his thread. To do this, I used a conversion factor ranging from .75 upwards to .9ish, depending on the year and how much talent was flowing into Mexico that year. I also gave him a slow decline in PA for the second half of his career. Then I did a rough MLE WS translation using the usual method. This yielded a player who was clearly very, very good. I would place him in the family of players that includes Al Kaline, Dave Winfield, Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, George Van Haltren, Rusty Staub, Roy White, Amos Otis, and others who are identifiable mainly in that they offer a broad mix of well-developed skills on both offense and defense, none of which are dominant by themselves. Most often players of this sort have long careers with low peaks and lots of All-Star type years. The estimates, which due to their speculative nature I have chosen not to publish out but just to talk about are designed to convey an impression to myself only, and they aren’t intended to be a statement of absolute value, that’s why I haven’t published them on the thread. But they tell me what kind of player he was, and that player is in this neighborhood of this area of the ballot, close to GVH, Cravath, Averill, et al.

Then I also looked at the nature of the value to his teams in the Negro League context. I have my suspicions that his pitching was not nearly as impressive as it seems and is somewhat obscured by league-quality issues. However, I did recognize that the flexibility he offered to teams that carried only about 16 men and traveled all over creation by bus to play 200 games a year was very valuable.

The first method acknowledges his broad talent and gets him onto the ballot and somewhere in the area of 6th–13th. The second method recognizes his real value and vaults him over Cravath and GVH. It’s entirely possible that I have over- or under-valued him through faulty reasoning or bad back-of-the-envelope calculations, however, there’s plenty of time to keep examining him and to get it right.

7)Gavy Cravath: Gets MLE credit for 1908 and 1909–1911 which boosts him considerably. As in from off the ballot to ahead of perennial Dr. C fave GVH.
8)George Van Haltren: Still my favorite long-career candidate. He’s like the postal service: no matter what the conditions seem to be, he just keeps showing up on my ballot. Let’s hope then, that he doesn’t carry firearms.
9)George Burns: He’s extremely close to Cravath and GVH, right in ye olde glut. And those big, funny, black-rimmed glasses always made me chuckle.
10)Jose Mendez: Cuba’s answer to Wes Ferrell.
11)Spots Poles
12)Ear Averill
13)Edd Roush: Gluts, gluts, cocoa-gluts, chocolate tasting cocoa-gluts, yummy, crunchy, gluttony!
14) Wes Ferrell: America’s answer to Jose Mendez.
15a) Ted Lyons
15)Eppa Rixey: Upper-ballot action moves my perennial down-ballot hurlers a little fu’ther down than usual. There’s really not all that much difference between him and GVH I suppose, but there’s a lot of talent on this ballot and toward the bottom of it, you could do a Billy Martin lineup-out-of-the-hat and it would make just as much sense.

REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
I still don’t like Griffith and Sisler, and Biz Mackey’s not getting any closer to the ballot this year than he did last year, though I prefer his long-range chances to these other two.

Tommy Leach has to take time out and sit in the corner, but he’ll be back, probably in 1951. Unless…

I did, in fact, reconsider Lundy, and based on what Chris, Jeff M, and others have recently said about him, he’s not at the Jennings/Moore/Monroe/Childs/Doyle area yet, still down by Sewell with the boys sawing backlogs.

George Scales is really awesome in WS translation, but I don’t think there’s any reason to believe he’ll be an improvement over Jennings, Moore, and Monroe.

Vic Harris, I hardly knew ya.

Johnny Allen, you rag arm, I loved you’re shirt sleeve, even when you’re hoppin’-a** mad.
   9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2005 at 10:15 PM (#1287001)
I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

I am integrating the conclusions made by DERA with Win Shares for all pitchers.

I do place (to a certain degree) domination at one's position during the player's era. That doesn't mean that domination-by-default will necessarily help you though (Gil Hodges may have been the best first baseman of his era, but I doubt he'll make my ballot when he becomes eligible).

1) Paul Waner-RF (n/e): Not a Ruth, Gehrig or Schmidt-type, but you don't really have to when you have over 400 WS on your resume. Best major league rightfielder for 1926 (though Arlett probably was better). Best NL rightfielder for 1927, 1928 and 1931.

2) John Beckwith-3B/SS/C (2): Marvelous infielder from the twenties. Appears to have been more "hot corner" guy than shortstop, but that doesn't really hurt him since third base was still mighty tough as a position. Whatever his defense lacked was surely made up (and then some) by a powerful bat. Better than any of the other eligible third basemen, IMO. Probably would have been the best major league third baseman for 1923 and 1929, as well as the best major league shortstop for 1925, if he had been allowed to play.
3) Joe Cronin-SS (n/e): Overrated over the years, but still a HoMer, IMO. Best major league shortstop for 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 (tied with Vaughan). Best AL shortstop for 1938.

4) Martin Dihigo-EVERYTHING! (n/e): I'm not sure if he belongs higher, but I'm very impressed by the sum total of his career, nevertheless. Nobody is really comparable to him. That uniqueness makes him standout among his peers.

5) Roger Bresnahan-C/CF (4): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.

6) Cupid Childs-2B (5): Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896 and 1897.          

Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman. IMO, there's no way that the Laughing One goes above the Little Fat Man.

7) Hugh Duffy-CF/LF/RF (6): "Only" the third best centerfielder of the '90s, but that position was very strong for that decade. Best major league rightfielder for 1890 and 1891. Best major league centerfielder for 1892, 1893 and 1894.

8) George Van Haltren-CF/P (7): Long career of quality play. Best NL leftfielder for 1889 and best AA leftfielder for 1891.

9) Tommy Bridges-P (8): I'm giving him WWII credit, so that pushes him fairly high on my ballot. Still not sure about post-major league credit for him, though. Never the best in his league, but consistently of high quality throughout his career.

10) Jake Beckley-1B (9): Not much peak, but plenty of career. Better than his numbers suggest since first base was tougher during his time than during the ABC boys' era. Best major league first baseman for 1900.

11) Wally Schang-C (10): I've come to the conclusion that the two Erics have a point about Schang - his stats demand more respect from the electorate. Like Bresnahan, we're not doing a good job of placing catchers in their proper context, IMO. Best AL catcher for 1913, 1914. Best major league catcher for 1919, 1921.

12) Burleigh Grimes-P (11): Pitched for a long time behind crappy teams and defenses. Better peak, IMO, than Rixey or Welch places him slightly above those career guys. Best NL pitcher for 1921 and 1929.

13) Mickey Welch-P (12): I have to admit that the 1880's had some fine pitchers. Best major league pitcher for 1885.

14) Buzz Arlett-RF/P (13): I like him better than Suttles, FWIW. I'm comfortable enough with his MLE's to place him here. A truly unique career. Probably would have been the best major league rightfielder for 1926 if he had been allowed to play.

15) Frank Chance-1B/C (14): Best first baseman for the first decade of the 20th century. Even more so than Beckley, the Peerless Leader shouldn't be compared with the ABC boys or the post-1920 grouping of first baseman. The cream-of the-crop from Franklin Adam's famous trio. Best major league first baseman for 1903, 1904. 1905, 1906, and 1907 (close in 1908). Best NL first baseman for 1908.

Suttles, Rixey, Ferrell, Averill, Sisler, Mackey and Griffith all exist in my top-35, but they just fall short.

I'm giving Cravath minor league credit for 1908-11. That leaves him high in the OF glut, but not high enough to get him on my ballot. I'm still taking a look at him, though.

George Scales is an interesting case. I'm seeing him as on the outside looking in, but maybe WS projections might help his case.
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 25, 2005 at 10:31 PM (#1287035)
This is Jim Sp's ballot.

I’ll be on vacation out of the country so this will have to be my ballot. If someone can move it to the ballot thread I’d appreciate that.

Unlikely anyone below Dihigo will go in soon, and Waner and Cronin are going in now or later, so if more information causes me to move Dihigo down
I’ll do that next election.

Scales and Vic Harris look interesting but off ballot.

Griffith, Bresnahan, Welch, Joss, and Jose Mendez are in my PHoM but off my ballot.

1)Waner--Clearly qualified.
2)Cronin--Clearly qualified.
3)Dihigo--In his leagues, I think he was tremendously valuable.
4)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.
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)Mackey--#2 on my 1949 prelim, but more data on his hitting has dropped him to here.
10)Suttles--Struggling with where to put him.
11)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.
12)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.
13)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.
14)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
15)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.

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. #20
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.
Cool Papa Bell--#22.
   11. OCF Posted: April 25, 2005 at 11:43 PM (#1287255)
Was it just Jim Sp or was there one other early/proxy ballot?
   12. OCF Posted: April 25, 2005 at 11:46 PM (#1287275)
1950 ballot. To keep tinkering with it or to let it out there? I think I'll just get this one over with.

1. Paul Waner (new) We do have to hold flank outfielders to a high standard offensively - but Waner meets that high standard. In my calculations, a pretty close match to Heilmann, with just a little less in his biggest years and a little more career. And Waner was a better glove than Heilmann.
2. Joe Cronin (new) The second best-hitting major league shortstop we've seen, and that's not a close call. (I haven't figured Vaughan yet.)
3. John Beckwith (3, 5, 5, 4, 2) Doyle and Beckwith: infielders who could really hit.
4. Larry Doyle (4, 6, 6, 5, 3) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the backlog outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
5. Joe Sewell (2, 4, 3, 3, 4) If only he'd had 2 or 3 more good years - then he'd be an easy choice. I've been his best friend; even lowering him a little, I'm probably still tied for his best friend. He nearly got elected once, and there's still a lot there.
6. George Van Haltren (5, 7, 8, 8, 6) There are those saying we need more 1890's players, but the vote is split. Mine rests with the remaining outfielders.
7. Eppa Rixey (6, 8, 9, 9, 7) A successful long-career inning-eater. No peak.
8. Wes Ferrell (7, 9, 10, 10, 8) Nice early peak, flamed out young as pitcher, stopped hitting as well. The fact that he pitched in the highest average run environment of any ballot-worthy 20th century pitcher puts his 2600 IP in perspective, since high-scoring innings are more stressful
9. George "Mule" Suttles (3, 7, 7, 9) Was he Willie Stargell? Willie McCovey (only shorter)? Or someone else entirely?
10. Earl Averill (-, 10, 11, 11, 10) Offense a little behind VH, Ryan, Duffy; defense a little ahead of them. Career length isn't good, but maybe he left a year of it in the PCL.
11. Jake Beckley (9, 11, 12, 12, 11) Not much peak, long career.
12. Biz Mackey (----, 12) Catcher is a tough position, and catchers do tend to grow old early. Even Cochrane and Hartnett didn't have the hitting careers needed for election as a corner player.
13. George Scales (new) I like Doyle and Childs; I ought to like Scales as well.
14. Hugh Duffy (11, 13, 14, 14, 14) 44th year on my ballot. Defense gets him this far.
15. Cupid Childs (10, 12, 13, 13, 13) Like a lot of people, his career is too short. Not the offensive peak of Doyle, but it is a real peak.
16. Tommy Bridges (----, 15) RA+ PythPat 190-124, which is a record that has to be taken seriously. Ferrell had a higher peak, but Bridges was a terrific pitcher.
17. Martin Dihigo (new) I've probably got him completely wrong. I'm also completely confused. The best can say is that I think I will get a chance to think this through again.
18. Cool Papa Bell (---, 15, 16) A legend, of course, with a very long career. He's down here because I'm not sure his peak is any better than Willie Wilson's.
19. Edd Roush (12, 14, 15, 16, 17) Nearly the same offensive value as the leftover 1890's guys; better hitter than Carey. He'll make it back to my ballot.
20. George Sisler (13, 15, 16, 17, 18) My peak-heavy offensive evaluation system likes Chance ahead of Sisler, and Sisler ahead of Beckley. The order gets reversed because of playing time.
21. Pie Traynor (14, 16, 17, 18, 19) Similar to Sewell: an above-average hitter playing a key defensive position for not quite enough years to clinch his candidacy.
22. Frank Chance (15, 17, 18, 19, 20) Huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time.
23. Rube Waddell (16, 18, 19, 20, 21) The best one left from his generation. Value crammed into a very few years.
24. Jose Mendez (17, 19, 20, 21, 22)
25. Roger Bresnahan (18, 20, 21, 22, 23) Very good offense for a catcher; not enough if we think of him as an outfielder.
26. Dick Redding (21, 24, 25, 24, 24)
27. Jimmy Ryan (20, 23, 24, 25, 25) I've let way too much space creep in between him, Van Haltren, and Duffy, but I don't know how to resolve that.

Jennings doesn't make the top 25 because his peak isn't enough for me. Griffith suffers from lack of IP. They're close. So is Dizzy Dean.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2005 at 01:02 AM (#1287691)
Was it just Jim Sp or was there one other early/proxy ballot?

I believe jwinfrey left one in the discussion thread just in case he couldn't submit a ballot himself. He wasn't as definite as Jim was.
   14. dan b Posted: April 26, 2005 at 02:04 AM (#1288063)
1.Dihigo “Virtually everyone who saw Martin Dihigo play agrees that he was the greatest all-round player who ever lived.” – Holway. If I could pick any player on this ballot to build a team around, I would take my chances with El Maestro.
2.Waner, P If we were building a small Hall, say limiting enshrinement to 100 players instead of 220, Big Poison would make it. 2nd best RF eligible to date.
3.Suttles Bill James likes him more than we do.
4.Cronin 2nd to Waner in 8 year peak.
5.Jennings PHoM in 1908. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar. 1890’s underrepresented.
6.Beckwith PHoM 1940.
7.Mackey Mackey was the only unanimous pick of the Cool Papa’s survey of experts.
8.Duffy PHoM in 1912. 1890’s underrepresented.
9.Leach PHoM 1926.
10.Griffith 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, PHoM 1913. 1890’s underrepresented.
11.Bell Like Mackey, we are underrating this guy.
12.Averill More WS over 10 consecutive years than any other ML player on the ballot except Waner.
13.Rixey More career value than any other pitcher in his era not named Johnson or Alexander put him in PHoM 1939.
14.W. Cooper Of pitchers whose career began after 1910 and are now eligible for our consideration, Cooper has more WS over 10 consecutive seasons than any pitcher except Alexander, Grove and Hubbell. It looks like I am the only friend he has left. PHoM 1942.
15.Cravath Now that we have some mle’s, Gavy jumps on to my ballot and could move higher. Would be in my PHoM had that information been available back in the early 30’s.
16. Mays Pennants added likes him. I still like these guys better than Vance or Faber.
17.Ferrell Considering moving above Mays, but not Cooper.
18.Roush PHoM 1942.
19.Lyons elected, but holding his place in line for PHoM
20.Bresnahan SABR Dead ball era committee has him #1. PHoM 1928
21.Lundy Only Biz Mackey fared better in the Cool Papa’s survey.
22.Burns,GJ
23.Sisler
24.Berger
25.Redding
   15. Kelly in SD Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:22 AM (#1288750)
This 2-part post is in response to the Beckley-fest over in the 1949 results thread. I'll repost it to the Beckley thread later.

First, I looked at how Beckley ranked among the first basemen of his league (and among all first basemen if more than one league. I apologize if there I missed a player who spent time with more than one club in one season.) The rankings are based on win shares, unadjusted totals, though I will also list the STATS selection for best first baseman in each league.

1888: Beckley 14, NL, 4th, Connor 32, Brouthers 29, Anson 27. STATS: Anson
Including AA: 8th, Reilly 25, Tucker 20, Larkin 19, Comiskey 15.
1889: Beckley 19, NL, 4th, Brouthers 28, Connor 26, Anson 21. STATS: Brouthers
Including AA: Tied for 6th, Tucker 30, Foutz 24, Larkin 19
1890: Beckley 21, PL, 2nd, Connor 25. STATS: Connor
Including AA, NL: 4th, Foutz 27, Anson 21.
1891: Beckley 16, NL, Tied for 3rd, Connor 23, Anson 21, Tied w/ Foutz.. STATS: Anson
Including AA: Tied for 6th, Brouthers 29, Werden 19, Larkin 17.
1892: Beckley 19, NL only, Tied for 5th, Brouthers 34, Connor 24, Virtue 22, Ewing 20, Tied w/ Anson. STATS: Brouthers
1893: Beckley 17, NL only, 1st (Brouthers, Connor 16). STATS: Connor
1894: Beckley 17, NL only, Tied for 2nd, Brouthers 21, Tied with Doyle. STATS: Brouthers
1895: Beckley 18, NL only, 2nd, LaChance 18. STATS: Cartwright
1896: Beckley 10, NL only, Tied for 4th, Doyle 17, Connor 14, Anson 12, Tied with Cartwright, LaChance, Tucker. STATS: Doyle
1897: Beckley 15, NL only, Tied for 3rd, Lajoie 21, Doyle 18, Tied with Tenney, Werden. STATS: Lajoie
1898: Beckley 14, NL only, 6th, Joyce 25, Wagner 22, McGann 21, Everitt 18, Tenney 17. STATS: McGann
1899: Beckley 20, NL only, Tied for 2nd, Tenney 25, tied with McGann. STATS: Beckley
1900: Beckley 21, NL only, 1st (E Delahanty 19). STATS: Beckley
1901: Beckley 18, NL, Tied for 1st, Kelley 18. STATS: Kelley
Including AL: Tied for 3rd, Freeman 24, Anderson 20.
1902: Beckley 18, NL, 2nd, Tenney 25. STATS: Beckley
Including AL: 4th, Davis, Hickman 19.
1903: Beckley 17, NL, 4th, Chance 31, Tenney 21, Doyle 19. STATS: Chance
Incluing AL: Tied for 8th, Hickman 21, Anderson 19, Ganzel 18, Tied with H Davis.
1904: Beckley 23, NL, 2nd, Chance 29. STATS: Chance
Including AL: 2nd.
1905: Beckley 16, NL, Tied for 4th, Chance 25, McGann 24, Tenney 17, Tied with Gessler. STATS: Chance
Including AL: Tied for 7th, Davis 26, Donahue 22, J Stahl 21.
1906: Beckley 5

So, best 1st baseman in:
Majors: 2 times1893, 1900
His league, one more time, 1901.
2nd in majors: 1894, 1895, 1899, 1904.
2nd in his league: 1902.

Between the end of the ABC boys and the rise of Chance, 1895 to 1902, Beckley finished:
2nd to LaChance,
Tied for 4th with 3 others,
Tied for 3rd with 2 others,
6th,
Tied for 2nd to Tenney,
1st,
Tied for 3rd,
and 4th.

It appears as though Fred Tenney is the only other long-term first baseman in this period. Here is a direct comparison to Tenney, who never appears in a discussion of the HoM.
1895: Beckley 18, Tenney 4 (as an OF)
1896: Tenney 12 (in OF), Beckley 10
1897: Beckley and Tenney tie
1898: Tenney 17, Beckley 14
1899: Tenney 25, Beckley 20
1900: Beckley 21, Tenney 7
1901: Beckley 18, Tenney 9
1902: Tenney 25, Beckley 18

Shouldn’t a HoMer dominate a period with no other HoMer at the position?
   16. Kelly in SD Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:29 AM (#1288754)
Part 2:

How did Beckley rank on his own teams? This question gets to the issue of whether a team could win it all with Beckley the best player on it or if he was the 2nd or 3rd, etc.
Year, Beckley WS, rank among position players on his team, rank among all players on his team, team record, team finish:

1888: 14, 3rd among position, Kuehne 18, D Miller 15, 5th including pitchers, Morris 34, Galvin 30, team 66-68, 6th out of 8.
1889: 19, 2nd Carroll 23, 3rd Staley 22, team 61-71, 5th out of 8.
1890: 21, 1st, 2nd Staley 27, team 60-68, 6th out of 8.
1891: 16, 2nd, D Miller 17, 4th Baldwin 25, King 20, team 55-80, 8th out of 8.
1892: 19, 4th, Smith 31, Miller 24, Shugart 22, 7th Baldwin, Ehret, Terry 20, team 80-73, 6th out of 12.
1893: 17, 4th, Smith 25, Lyons 21, GVH 20, 6th Killen 42, Ehret 24, team 81-48, 2nd out of 12.
1894: 17, 3rd Stenzel 24, Smith 19, 4th Ehret 21, team 65-65, 7th out of 12.
1895: 18, 2nd Stenzel 28, 3rd Hawley 44. team 71-61, 7th out of 12.
1896: 10, 2 teams
1897: 15, 2 teams, but 14 with 1 so we will use that. 4th Irwin 17, Hoy 16, Miller 15, 7th Breitenstein 34, Rhines 24, Dwyer 23. team 76-56, 4th out of 12.
1898: 14, 6th Smith 27, McBride 21, Miller 21, Corcoran 18, McPhee 15, 11th Hawley 28, Breitenstein 25, Dwyer 21, Dammann 17, Hill 16. Team 92-60, 3rd out of 12.
1899: 20, 2nd Selbach 23, 3rd Hahn 29. Team 83-67, 6th out of 12.
1900: 21, 2nd Barrett 23, 2nd. Team 62-77, 7th out of 8.
1901: 18, 2nd Crawford 24, 3rd Hahn 26. Team 52-87, 8th out of 8.
1902: 18, 2nd Crawford 23, 4th Hahn 29, Phillips 20. Team 70-70, 4th out of 8.
1903: 17, 4th Donlin 24, Seymour 24, Steinfeldt 21, 6th Hahn 24, Ewing 18. Team 74-65, 4th out of 8.
1904: 23, 1st, 3rd Nichols 27, Taylor 27. Team 75-79, 5th out of 8.
1905: 16, 2nd Smoot 23, 2nd. Team 58-96, 6th out of 8.

By rank among position players, team finishes:
1st: 6 / 8 in 1890, 5 / 8 in 1904.
2nd: 5 / 8 in 1889, 8 / 8 in 1891, 7 / 12 in 1895, 6 / 12 in 1899, 7 / 8 in 1900, 8 / 8 in 1901, 4 / 8 1902, 6 / 8 in 1905.
3rd: 6 / 8 in 1888, 7 / 12 in 1894.
4th: 6 / 12 in 1892, 2 / 12 in 1893, 4 / 12 in 1897, 4 / 8 in 1903.
5th or worse: 3 / 12 in 1898.

Over/under .500 by rank among position players:
1st: under, under (60 – 68, 75 – 79)
2nd: under, under, over, over, under, under, push, under (61 - 71, 55 – 80, 71 – 61, 83 – 67, 62 – 77, 52 – 87, 70 – 70, 58 – 96)
3rd: under, push (66 – 68, 65 – 65).
4th: over, over, over, over (80 – 73, 81 – 48, 76 – 56, 74 – 65)
5th or worse: over (92 – 60)

By rank among all players, team finishes:
2nd: 6 / 8 in 1890, 7 / 8 in 1900, 6 / 8 in 1905.
3rd: 5 / 8 in 1889, 7 / 12 in 1895, 6 / 12 in 1899, 8 / 8 in 1901, 5 / 8 in 1904.
4th: 8 / 8 in 1891, 7 / 12 in 1894, 4 / 8 in 1902.
5th: 6 / 8 in 1888.
6th or worse: 6 / 12 in 1892, 2 / 12 in 1893, 4 / 12 in 1897, 3 / 12 in 1898, 4 / 8 in 1903.

Over/ under .500 by rank among all players:
2nd: under, under, under (60 - 68, 62 - 77, 58 – 96)
3rd: under, over, over, under, under (61 – 71, 71 – 61, 83 – 67, 52 – 87, 75 – 79)
4th: under, push, push (55 – 80, 65 – 65, 70 – 70)
5th: under (66 – 68)
6th or worse: over, over, over, over, over, over (80 – 73, 81 – 48, 76 – 56, 92 – 60, 74 – 65)

From the above, it is hard to argue that if Beckley was one of your best players, your team was any good. If Beckley was just another guy, your team was above average. I don’t know how this compares to other HoMers, but intuitively it means that Beckley is not a HoMer. Shouldn’t a HoMer should be a player who leads his team to victory, not just a contributor?
   17. karlmagnus Posted: April 26, 2005 at 11:53 AM (#1288778)
I don't know where all this Beckley-phobia's coming from, but on the Beckley/Tenney comp, Beckley did it for twice as long as Tenney, and therefore has twice the Merit. He wasn't significantly inferior to the ABC boys, either, having finished 1st in 1893 and second in 1894 and 1895, while ABC were still playing.

There's a great deal of selective end-pointing in your analysis. "Between the end of the ABC boys and 1902" for example leaves out BOTH Beckley's strongest periods, at the beginning and end of his career, and takes in only the less strong years in the middle. Beckley's career shape is weird, I quite grant you, but I never heard that an orthodox career shape was a HOM qualification.

Beckley never played in New York, played for non-famous teams and retired just before the baseball media really exploded, which is why he's less well known than other contenders (George Davis used to have this problem, before finally making it into the HOF a few years ago.) If he'd been an Old Oriole like Kelley or Keeler we'd have elected him decades ago.
   18. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 26, 2005 at 12:43 PM (#1288794)
Wasn't it Patrick W that was posting an early ballot because he was getting married?
   19. Rusty Priske Posted: April 26, 2005 at 12:48 PM (#1288802)
PHoM matches my 1-2 on the ballot.

1. Paul Waner (new)

No one is close.

2. Martin Dihigo (new)

The gap between 1 and 2 is large. The gap between 2 and 3 is larger.

3. Joe Cronin (new)
4. Mule Suttles (1,3,3)

These two could have gone either way. Both should get in at soem point.

5. Eppa Rixey (2,4,4)

He keeps coming out high. I'm not a booster, but the numbers don't lie.

6. George Van Haltren (4,5,2)

Most underrated player on the ballot.

7. John Beckwith (5,2,x)

I think I am comfortable with my valuation of him now.

8. Jake Beckley (3,6,6)

He slipped a little, bu the is still the other most underrated player on the ballot.

9. Mickey Welch (7,7,7)

I though the would in or gone by now.

10. Biz Mackey (13,x,x)

I'm not as big a fan as some others, but he is still ag ood candidate.

11. Cool Papa Bell (10,11,x)

I want to put him higher but can't justify it.

12. Tommy Leach (9,8,8)

Slipping a bit.

13. Edd Roush (8,9,9)

Slipping a bit more.

14. George Sisler (14,15,11)
15. Hugh Duffy (12,13,10)

Hangers-on.

16-20. Rice, Lundy, Ryan, Averill, Mullane
21-25. Griffith, Grimes, Powell, Moore, Monroe
26-30. Streeter, Childs, Sewell, Doyle, White
   20. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2005 at 01:21 PM (#1288842)
Shouldn’t a HoMer dominate a period with no other HoMer at the position?

Who was better than Beckley at first between 1888 and 1907? Nobody. He sure dominated his position career-wise.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2005 at 01:23 PM (#1288847)
This is Patrick W's ballot. Thanks, Eric!

I am getting married this Saturday, so I’ll be unavailable to submit a ballot for next week. Can someone post this to the ’50 thread next week (assuming my under-educated placement of Dihigo doesn’t cause my ballot to be invalid). For lack of time, I’ve only slotted in new candidates, not reviewing returnees. Thanks, and have a good discussion everyone!

Patrick W’s 1950 Ballot

1. Paul Waner (n/a), Pit (N), RF (’26-’44) (1950) – 11 seasons of 7+ WARP3 tend to get you an upper spot on the ballot. 2nd best right fielder to date.
2. Mule Suttles (1), St.L - Nwk. (--), 1B / LF (‘23-‘42) (1946) – Just loses out on all the peak measures to Carl, but my calc of his career value is just above Hubbell. Hubbell’s sub-replacement hitting gives Suttles the ’49 crown.
3. Joe Cronin (n/a), Wash. - Bost. (A), SS (’28-’44) (1950) – With a nice Rate2 of 108 during his peak years in WAS (what happened in BOS those first 3 years?!), and a career EQA of 0.286, Cronin rates very well in my system.
--. Jud Wilson, Balt. (--), 3B / 1B (’22-’38) –
4. John Beckwith (4), Bkn (--), SS / 3B (’19-’34) (1940) – Appears to me to rank solidly among banned HOMers (a little above Grant Johnson). I estimate an EQA of 0.330 from the MLE’s. Short career, but definitely worthy by the numbers.
5. Biz Mackey (5), Hilldale (--), C / 3B (’20-’41) – Catcher bonus helps him immensely of course (he’d be in Dick Bartell territory w/out); Santop is obviously the better rate player, but Mackey’s guesstimated 2300 more AB’s closes the race to a photo finish. I think he’ll go in pretty soon on my ballot, but I’ll take Suttles, Wilson and Beckwith first.
6. Cool Papa Bell (6), St.L (--), CF (’24-’42) – Bid McPhee is the comp for me. My guestimate is that Bell has the better EQA and longer career. The A+ fielding is at a different (and lesser) position but McPhee was at the top of my ballot, and Bell would be too – except I’d first take the guys ahead of him on this list.
7. Martin Dihigo (n/a), Cuba (--), RF / P (’24-’45) – B.James’ ranking as the #1 RF has a lot of weight attached with little other information. However, Bingo DeMoss is #1 at his position too, so grain of salt and all. Right now, best I can say is he looks better than Dick Lundy but not any of the others above him now. I hope he’s not elected, because I need more time to look him through.
8. Joe Sewell (7), Clev. (A), SS / 3B (’20-’33) (1939) – On a second look, I can’t justify Sewell over Cool Papa Bell.
9. George Van Haltren (8), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – Leads the pack from the 90s holdovers.
10. Jimmy Ryan (9), Chic. (N), CF / RF (‘85-‘03) (1926) – Don’t really understand the lack of support.
11. Dick Lundy (10), Atlantic Cty (--), SS (’16-’34) – I see a comparison here with Frank Grant. Those who liked Grant should see something worthy in Lundy. As such, my guess is he makes the P-Hall and falls short of the group HOM.
12. Tommy Bridges (11), Detr. (A), SP (’31-’43) – Urban Shocker with close to 400 more IP.
--. Red Faber, Chic. (A), SP (’14-’33) –
13. Eppa Rixey (12), Cinc. (N), SP (’12-’33) – Solid above average ERA for a good number of innings.
--. Heinie Groh, Cinc. (N), 3B (’12-’27) –
14. Ben Taylor (13), Ind. (--), 1B (’10-’26) (1938) – Similar to Beckley and Beckley’s in the P-Hall.
15. Jake Beckley (14), Pitt. – Cinc.(N), 1B (’88-’07) (1929) – Treading water.


Wes Ferrell – Larry French almost jumps him on the list. He drops off the in favor of 3 rookies. He’ll be under consideration for a long while.
Earl Averill – I think Averill only tops Van Haltren with a steep timeline adjustment. My system tries to counteract that somewhat while still acknowledging that competition improves over time. I see Earl as close to (but below) the Beckley / Hooper / F.Jones group among OF/1B. It’s a judgment call, but I’ll stay with the old timers over the rookie.
Clark Griffith – In that vast cloud of players just off the ballot.
George Sisler – I’ve had no love for Caruthers or Sisler, only a little love for Dean. You’d think a Cardinals fan would show more favor to the borderline players from St.Louis. At least I had Wallace on top once.

Ferrell, Averill, Griffith & Sisler were in last year’s top ten, but not in my top 15.
   22. Carl G Posted: April 26, 2005 at 02:19 PM (#1288935)
Here's my official ballot. It should be noted that my error on Bell dropped him just off my ballot. He is still close and will probably re-enter in a weaker year.

1)Paul Waner- No one is even close unless you think really highly of a Negro Leaguer. Everyone with major-league stats is well behind.
2)Joe Cronin- He's not quite what I was expecting, but he's still one of the top 10 SS of all time. His WS numbers look like those of an OF.
3)Martin Dihigo- Extremely valuable to the teams he actually played for.
4)Earl Averill-He's got the 'peak' and, if you give credit for the PCL, he's got the most 'career value' of anyone not named Paul Waner.
5)Mule Suttles- Strong peak, strong career. A definite HoMer.
6)John Beckwith- Best SS not named Cronin. Also a definite HoMer.
From 7 to 14, I've got 5 hitters and 3 pitchers. The difference between them is minimal and probably statistically insignificant.
7)George Sisler- Great 'peak'. More career value than most give him credit for. He's only 24 WS over repl behind Beckley in 3 less 'equivilant seasons'. Beckley career value was definitely better, but when you consider the massive 'peak' advantage, I have to go with Sisler overall.
8)Clark Griffith- I go back and forth on the 3 pitchers on my ballot. None are slam-dunks, but all are very good. Griffith had the best career-peak combo, though.
9)Gavvy Cravath- I gave credit back to 1907. Solid peak and career and just inches up on 'The Glut'.
10)Jimmy Ryan- Close to Gavvy in both, just a smidge behind.
11)Eppa Rixey- Great career value.
12)Vic Willis- Great peak value.
13)Jake Beckley- I've looked into the allegations that WS underrates his fielding because it underrates 1B of the period. According to the book, the average 1B on an average defensive team gets about 12% of his team's defensive value through all periods of history. Beckley, on average seems to get about 1.5 times the DWS of the average 1B so WS clearly sees him as a great defensive 1B. Correct me if I'm making a logical error here, but this implies to me that WS sees him as being 15-18% of his team's def value in an average Beckley season. This hardly seems 'underrated' to me. I can't imagine the greatest defensive 1B ever(even in this period) being worth more than 20% of the team's value. Any nudge up in WS for defensive should be kept on the slight side and I personally have increased his Def WS by 5%(though heavily weighted towards the beginning of his career when I think WS would have undervalued him the most). The thing that impresses me most about Beckley is that almost his entire career was above average(though only slightly). I have him at 16.83 'Equivilant seasons' and 16.06 of them were spent as an above average player. What I dislike about him is that, of the 42 non-pitchers I looked at for this elections, only 2 had a lower 'peak' value in their Best 3 or Best 5 consecutive seasons than Jake, and they were both Catchers.
14) Hughie Jennings-Love those 5 years. Has Albert Pujols done enough to get elected so far?
15) Bresnahan/Mackey-I've decided on a tie here. I've downgraded both from their previous spots because the more I look at them, the less impressed I am compared with other electables.

Wes Ferrell- I've tried giving him every bonus that people have argued for; he still falls a little short. Maybe in a weaker year.

Also close:Cool Papa, Williamson, Waddell, Roush, Duffy, Chance, Childs, and Long
   23. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 26, 2005 at 02:58 PM (#1289008)
Wow, this is the first tie vote for 15th in how many years now???? 30, 40? At least 21 since that's how many elections I've been in and I've not seen one yet.
   24. TomH Posted: April 26, 2005 at 03:18 PM (#1289045)
yes, but it was his tie, not mai thai
   25. TomH Posted: April 26, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1289066)
1950 Ballot
Review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 12 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 95 adjusted for defense and timeline and speed. No real credit for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

I’d like to list 25 guys, but that’s what they pay us the big bucks for, to make tough decisions, right?

5 of 15 on my ballot played in the Negro Leagues. I'm scarce on pitchers (2+ of top 7 and then no others), but that is mostly because we just elected two good ones.

(x) indicates where I voted for them last ballot
[y] indicates their consensus rank from last ballot

1-Paul Waner {new}
Great OPS+, and scored >1600 runs. Four times led league in most times reaching base.
2-Joe Cronin {new}
Almost Barry Larkin. Shortstops with OPS of 850s don’t grow on trees.
3-Mule Suttles (3) [3]
His MLEs look very good, his career was long, and his rep among those who have previously written much about NeLers was great as well.
4-Clark Griffith (4) [8]
Vastly, vastly underrated by conventional stats. Great post-season performances too.

5-Joe Sewell (5) [14]
He may not have any one stat that defines him, but overall he won lots of ballgames for his team. What is there NOT to like about him? He hit great for a shortstop, for any time period, not just his. He fielded great too.
6-Wes Ferrell (6) [6]
Career ERA of 4.04 doesn’t seem impressive...until you compare it to the league/park average ERA of 4.72. When you add in the bat and huge seasons, he’s a very viable candidate.
7-Martin Dihigo {new}
Unique and Talented. Could be #1, could be #30.
8-John McGraw (7) [FORTY TWO!?!]
The peak of Hughie Jennings, with a longer prime. Outstanding RCAP. Mugsy will keep me from ever being the highest consensus guy I guess!
9-George Van Haltren (8) [15]
Hit. Ran. Played D. Pitched. Long career. Played in strong and under-represented 1890s. Would be higher if he was ever the key player on a pennant winner.
10-Cool Papa Bell (11) [12]
If I envision the basestealing of Vince Coleman with the CF ability of a Paul Blair with afterburners, Bell comes out as a HoMer, even with a mediocre bat. And that’s what his rep makes him out to be.
11-Biz Mackey (14) [9]
Schang looks about as good. But Mackey’s fine rep and career length puts him here, above Roger B, with whom he seems comparable if you end Mackey’s career in 1932. Too many people thought Mackey was too good to leave him off my ballot.
12-John Beckwith (15) [4]
He looks to me like the quality (defense and offense) of Killebrew. But: if I were a GM and had to draft one guy at a young age to play his career (I hope) on my team, I would be wary enough to rank him here, instead of the 5-10 spots higher that he would be in a sterile table game environment.
13-Earl Averill (10) [7]
Add in a bit of credit for his PCL years, and he’s on my ballot. Compared to GVH, hit a bit better, fielded about the same, slightly shorter career, didn’t pitch.
14-Cupid Childs (9) [22]
A fine hitting second sacker indeed, whose glove was okay too. Difficulty of playing a long career as an infielder in the 1890s gives him a few bonus points. The only reason he drops a few spots this ballot is a NeL correction I made.
15-Roger Bresnahan (12) [25]
Similar to Chance and McGraw. Great while he played. Catcher bonus gets him on.


Required disclosures:
Eppa Rixey (off) [7]
115 ERA+, but in front of a fairly good defensive team in possibly the weaker league. Would be elect a guy with a 110ish ERA+? Massive amount of career innings doesn’t quite do it.

Others getting squeezed out
Pie Traynor …Fine player, fine rep.
George Sisler ...Equal of Chance and Beckley, although they sure are different!
Rube Waddell ...Unearned runs, and too many HoM pitchers from his era.
Tommy Leach ...Pie Traynor minus the good rep.
Jake Beckley ...Somewhere between Doggie Perez and Fred the Crime Dog McGriff. He’ll have a Ruff time getting into the HoM, though.
Frank Chance ...More Win Shares per game than Henry Aaron! Highest WS/yr among any ballot-eligible player by a large margin (>2 WS/yr)! Lots and lots of positive intangibles. Still not quite enough with such a brief career.
Dizzy Dean ...Great pitcher for a while. Not as good as Ferrell.
Mickey Welch ...Rixey clone.
Wally Schang …hangin close by

Gavy Cravath: not sure what to do with him yet. But I don't have Bronwing or Hack Wilson on my ballot either.
   26. yest Posted: April 26, 2005 at 04:39 PM (#1289267)
1950 ballot
Waner and Cronin make my pHoM this year

1. George Sisler finished 4 in the NL in batting average in 1928 (made my personal HoM in 1936)
2. Paul Waner 3152 hits (makes my personal HoM this year)
3. Cool Papa Bell the lack over support for Bell is mind boggling to me he was almost universally considered one of the top 5 Negroe Leaguers ever the stats that we have for him are amazing he played good for almost 25 years he was one of the smartest players in Negro Leagues (made my personal HoM in 1948)
4. Joe Cronin A SHORTSTOP (makes my personal HoM this year)
5. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
6. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
7. Joe Sewell love the strikeouts (made my personal HoM in 1939)
8. Biz Mackey another Cooperstown mistake (made my personal HoM in 1949)
9. Chuck Klein 4 hr titles
10. Sam Rice if he got 13 more hits would he make the HoM? (made my personal HoM in 1940)
11. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
12. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
13. Rube Waddell most Ks/9IP 7 times in a row tying with Vance for the record led in it 1 more time (made my personal HoM in 1917)
14. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles (made my personal HoM in 1940)
15. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
16. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
17. Clark Griffith 54th in wins (made my personal HoM in 1912)
18. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg.
19. Edd Roush323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)
20. Moose Suttles with I had some antidotal information on him especially quotes
21.Martin Dihigo nothing to say
22. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
23. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
24. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)
25. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie (made my personal HoM in 1939)
26. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
27. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
28. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
29. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
30. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits
31. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits
32. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)
33. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)

explanation for players not on my ballot
Hugh Jennings not enough career
Eppa Rixey I don’t find anything special in most of the 20’s pitchers
John Beckwith I’m not enough confident enough in his case to put him higher then he is
Wes Ferrell to high a ERA
Earl Averill is at 35
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2005 at 05:13 PM (#1289382)
Wow, this is the first tie vote for 15th in how many years now???? 30, 40? At least 21 since that's how many elections I've been in and I've not seen one yet.

I was hoping we would never see any more of them, personally. I'm also having problems now with Evan's ballot counter because of it.
   28. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1289396)
4. Joe Cronin A SHORTSTOP

...and you have him high on your ballot, to boot! :-)
   29. Carl G Posted: April 26, 2005 at 05:41 PM (#1289465)
If its causing problems, give my #15 slot to Bresnahan.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2005 at 06:11 PM (#1289537)
If its causing problems, give my #15 slot to Bresnahan.

Only if you don't mind, Carl.
   31. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 26, 2005 at 08:20 PM (#1289859)
1. Kelly wasn't comparing Beckley to Tenney as a candidate. He was only saying that Tenney was roughly as godo as Beckley DURING THAT PERIOD

2. I guess being better than an aging lot of 1B makes one HOM material. Who knew? In all seriousness though, Kelly posted where Beckley finished in EVERY YEAR not just 1895 to 1902. He jsut focused a bit on those years.

3. I wouldn't call what Beckley as dominant. Dominant would mean that he was routinely the best. That doesn't describe Beckley. Or at lesat that doesn't describe Beckley via the stats published above.
   32. karlmagnus Posted: April 26, 2005 at 09:11 PM (#1289993)
Beckley wasn't dominant except in a few years, such as 1888, 1890, 1899, 1902 and 1904. His peak is unimpressive, but if it had been 5 consecutive years instead of 5 of 16 you wouldn't have had a problem saying he was overall the best 1B during that period.
   33. Michael Bass Posted: April 26, 2005 at 09:25 PM (#1290019)
Umm...no. I don't consider consecutive peak at all in my system. People say he doesn't have a peak because he has no peak, period. Hell, if I'm reading the post in the Beckley thread right, WARP doesn't ever have him as one of the 32 best players in baseball. That feels extreme to me, but I'd be pretty comfortable saying he was never one of the 20 best players in baseball. I don't care if a player had 30 decent years, if he didn't spend any time among baseball's 20 best, he's not a HOMer or close to it in my book.
   34. karlmagnus Posted: April 26, 2005 at 09:30 PM (#1290028)
WARP doesn't do 1890s 1B fielding right; there's no way Beckley wasn't one of the 20 best in baseball in 1890 or 1904 -- look at his actual figures, as distinct from the sabermetric fictions. I agree he was no more than above average for most of his career, but he did have a few really good years, they were just widely spread.
   35. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 26, 2005 at 09:32 PM (#1290036)
Before moving over to the Beckley thread I would like to say that I give no credit for a consecutive peak either.
   36. DavidFoss Posted: April 27, 2005 at 02:08 AM (#1291348)
Last year saw the Yankees patch together a championship, defeating the Dodgers for the 3rd time in 9 years. A rebirth is also occurring in Philadelphia as the usually abysmal A's and Phillies each climbed to 81-73 records last year. Who will win the hearts of Philly? Ageless Connie Mack and his historic A's or those Whiz Kid Phillies?

New Eligibles dominate the top 3 this year:

1950 Ballot

1. Paul Waner (ne) Mr. Roboto of the outfield. An OBP-friendly 129-157 OPS+ for his first 12 years in the league and a 'B' fielder. Not inner circle numbers, but better all comers this year.
2. Joe Cronin (ne) One of the best eligible SS's to date and first eligible of the great crop of 30s-40s stars. Benched himself when it was clear that he could still hit.
3. Martin Dihigo (ne) In MLB, he could have been a solid middle of the rotation starter or a fine OF with great peak potenital. In the Negro Leagues, he was both. Giving him credit for both halves of his career, not going to speculate what might have happened with him in MLB, translating his actual perfomance to MLB levels. A conservative placement way up at #3.
4. John Beckwith (12-8-6-4-5-6-5) A bit of a boost this year because he compares well to Cronin, in my opinion. Kept him below Cronin after seeing most of the biggest Beckwith supporters doing the same.
5. Hughie Jennings (14-12-14-14-13-11-9-7-6-7-8-13-11-11-9-6-4-4-4-2-5-4-2-3-4-3) -- Basically the best player in baseball for five years running, with great durability in his peak years. Not much outside that peak, though, or he would have been inducted long ago.
6. Clark Griffith (15-12-10-8-7-9-10-14-nr-14-14-13-8-4-7-5-3-4-5-4) -- The plethora of borderline 20's candidates is making me think we may have forgotten about Clark. Solid numbers in an underrepresented era.
7. Larry Doyle (14-11-9-8-6-7-10-8-8-6-4-2-3-3-1-4-7-6-7-8-6) -- I think the electorate is underrating him. Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak, in fairly short career. Fielding was mediocre, but not as horrific as WARP suggests.
8. Cupid Childs (15-12-10-9-8-9-14-12-12-10-8-6-6-5-3-6-8-7-8-9-7) -- Very comparable to Doyle. OPS+ is OBP heavy. Fielding was good, but not A-level.
9. Mule Suttles (ne-6-7-8) -- I think Beckwith was a bit better. He certainly did have the 'big year', though.
10. Dick Redding (ne-12-10-8-9-10-7-12-12-10-9-10-9) -- 2nd best fastball of the 10's according to Neyer/James.
11. Wes Ferrell (ne-13-11-10-11-10) -- Tossing in some love for one of the last of the great hitting pitchers. Very nice peak, but not much else. If his arm would have held out a couple of more years, he'd have a much easier case. That could be said of quite a few pitchers, though.
12. Joe Sewell (ne-12-14-15-14-14-15-12-11-12) His RCAA numbers are good and earn him a place on the ballot. His RCAP numbers are a bit inflated due to his being 10 years older than Cronin/Vaughn/Appling.
13. Biz Mackey (ne) -- Wasn't the hitter I had previously thought, but I have a soft sport for catchers. Could move up or down.
14. Earl Averill (ne-12-13-13) -- Hard guy to judge. Solid ten year prime, but not much else. The best white CF between Cobb/Speaker & Dimaggio, but I don't feel he has the dominance that a short-career outfielder should. Credit for an extra PCL season helps. He's making the ballot which is a credit to him as I tend to be tough on non-shoo-in outfielders
15. John McGraw (10-10-11-10-9-8-6-5-4-4-5-12-10-10-8-7-5-5-7-6-10-11-9-14-15-15) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. In fact, his OBP is 3rd all time. Playing time issues keepin him out of the HOM so far...

Omissions --
Rixey -- Not impressive enough of a peak.
Sisler -- Been on my ballot before. Squeezed off by newer candidates.
   37. Ardo Posted: April 27, 2005 at 03:42 AM (#1291625)
1950 ballot:

1. (new) Paul Waner. 3000+ hits and exceptional gap power usually gets the job done at home plate.

2. (new) Martin DiHigo. I see him as a 20% better pitcher and hitter than George Van Haltren; on this tightly bunched ballot, that vaults him here.

3. (new) Joe Cronin. The raw numbers don't match, but in historical terms I see him as a Jeff Kent-type player with better defense.

4. (6-5-5-3) Earl Averill. He played centerfield at a high offensive and defensive level for eleven years in a strong AL. A mild boost for his final PCL year.

5. (3-4-4-4) John Beckwith. Where I would put Dick Allen, who I see as roughly comparable to Beckwith for both his offensive production and his hot temper.

6. (7-6-6-5) Clark Griffith. He adjusted well to the post-1894 distance. His career record is superior to contemporary HoM inductee Joe McGinnity.

7. (8-8-8-6) Dick Lundy. His career value is a full step above the MLB shortstop glut. Lundy combined exceptional power, speed, and defense, much like Barry Larkin.

8. (4-7-7-7) Edd Roush. His offense in context (five top 5's in OPS+) and his superior defense rank him highly. A weak league keeps him out of the top tier of candidates.

9. (9-9-10-10) Eppa Rixey. His peak in the mid-1920s has real value, as does his large number of above-average innings pitched in his other seasons.

10. (10-11-11-9) Joe Sewell. His offensive value places him slightly above other MLB infield candidates (Childs, Doyle, Lazzeri, Jennings, Bancroft, Maranville, and Traynor).

11. (11-x-13-12) George Sisler. He is the most difficult player for me to place. One peak year short of a top-200 career. A mild pitching bonus ranks him here.

12. (5-12-x-11) Mule Suttles. He's also hard to place, but his credentials are stronger than Chuck Klein's, and Klein comes close to making my ballot. Welcome back, Mule!

13. (15-13-15-14) Jake Beckley. I compared Beckley to another peakless/long career type, Harold Baines:

Beckley 2930 hits, 125 OPS+
Baines 2866 hits, 120 OPS+

Baines belongs in the Hall of Very Good; Beckley, with added defensive credit at 1B, has a borderline HoM case.

14. (new-12-13) Cool Papa Bell. He records a high runs/game ratio several times, indicating his ability to earn extra bases with SBs and on hits. Better, IMO, than Max Carey.

15. (12-10-8-8) Jose Mendez. A fine pitcher, but how much better was he than Dolf Luque? I've been ranking him too highly, even though I feel he belongs in the HoM someday.

16-25: Ferrell, Duffy, Leach, Mackey, Van Haltren, Bridges, Jennings, Redding, Schang, Childs.
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:46 AM (#1291981)
1950
   39. sunnyday2 Posted: April 27, 2005 at 12:10 PM (#1291995)
Jeez! I've had lots of times when I hit submit and nothing happened. This is the first time a post happened without hitting submit!

Anyway--1950--first ballot and first ML season of my young life (b. 12-12-49).

1. Paul Waner (new, PHoM 1950). I remember as a kid reading that the old-timers preferred Waner to Ott. That is just prejudice. Not an inner circle guy, not one of the top 100. But an obvious HoMer nevertheless and in fact 400+ WS gets him the top of the ballot this year.

2. Martin Dihigo (new, PHoM 1950). To be honest, as a ML Dihigo may well be no more than Indian Bob Johnson. But he played in the Ne, Mx and VLs, and there he is clearly a top 10er. 75 percent of Mule Suttles plus 75 percent of Joe Williams gets him here.

3. Joe Cronin (new, PHoM 1951). An obvious HoMer, just not this year--er, well, not a PHoMer this year. Overrated in the way that all of the '30s guys is overrated, and that is exacerbated by his ability to move into management. Still...

4. Hughie Jennings (2 last year-2-4, PHoM 1927). Met the pope...twice.

5. George Sisler (3-5-6, PHoM 1938). Odd career shape proves confusing.

6. Dobie Moore (4-3-5, PHoM 1942). Nobody had a better 6.5 year run in the NeLs (so far). Plus the Wreckers.

7. Mule Suttles (8-6-9). A HoMer and a PHoMer someday soon.

8. Rube Waddell (5-7-7, PHoM 1932). Best prime ERA+ on the board.

9. Tommy Bond (11-8-8, PHoM 1929). This is after giving half his WS to his fielders.

(9A. Teddy Lyons is the next HoM/not PHoM to get PHoM consideration. 1955, maybe?)

10. Dick Lundy (7-10-15). Probably not really a 122 OPS+ hitter, but better on pretty much every dimension than Joe Sewell.

11. Edd Roush (6-9-10). Best of the CF glut.

12. Chuck Klein (10-new). As the formerly popular Bill James once said, "there's just too much."

13. Ed Williamson (14-12-12, PHoM 1924). Did it all.

14. Addie Joss (13-x-13). Second highest prime ERA+ available.

15. Cool Papa Bell (15-15-new). Still trying to get a handle on him.

Drops out: Larry Doyle (12-11-11). Roughly interchangable with Childs and Monroe.

Close 16-20. Doyle, Beckwith, Averill, Gomez, Browning.
21-25. Dean, Sewell, Cicotte, C. Jones, Traynor.
Also PHoM/not HoM: Childs, H. Wright.

Required: Griffith is #27, Rixey and Ferrell in the 30s.
   40. sunnyday2 Posted: April 27, 2005 at 12:12 PM (#1291999)
Oh, and Biz Mackey is around #30.
   41. SWW Posted: April 27, 2005 at 02:19 PM (#1292139)
I believe more people pick the pope than select the members of this hall. Kind of makes you feel important... in an abstract, binary sort of way.

1950 Ballot
1)Paul Glee Waner – “Big Poison”
A last, a Waner you can vote for without hesitation. Outstanding career numbers, with ten Top 10 WS seasons, and two NL WS MVP seasons. I’m impressed.
2)Joseph Edward Cronin
Consistently the best shortstop of his day. Six Top 10 WS finishes.
3)Martin Magdaleno Dihigo Dihigo Llanos
By all contemporary accounts, an extraordinary player. His use in the Negro Leagues and Cuba was as a utility player, which makes a direct comparison with the majors very difficult. I’m going to give him credit for the unusual nature of his career, and consider him to be highly meritorious.
4)George Suttles – “Mule”
I promised to factor in a comparison between Suttles and Sisler. Mule came out ahead. Durability and longer prime give him the edge.
5)George Harold Sisler – “Gorgeous George”
I can’t bring myself to punish him for the strange shape of his career. His highs are exceptional, and his lows are not so low as to be invisible, like Jennings or Hack Wilson.
6)Burleigh Arland Grimes – “Ol’ Stubblebeard”
I notice I’m all alone up here now. Sigh. I still find his overall career is better than his closest competitors. So here he will stay.
7)James Thomas Bell – “Cool Papa”
I continue to suspect that my placement for Bell is low. As someone who gives much credence to career, the projected Win Shares impress me. Even the adjusted Win Shares projections impress me. I find him well ahead of the glut.
8)Edgar Charles Rice – “Sam”
Since he debuted on my ballot, his fortune has been tied to that of Beckley, owing to their similar WS primes and career. Given their different positions and eras, I should probably rethink this approach.
9)Jacob Peter Beckley – “Eagle Eye”
Kelly from SD’s analysis of Beckley’s performance vs. his contemporaries is devastating, even to someone like me who places a lot of value in a lengthy, Win Share-rich career. I am not prepared to move him or Rice yet, but the matter does deserve further consideration.
10)Joseph Wheeler Sewell
Consistently the top shortstop in the AL, with five Top 10 finishes in Win Shares. And I’ll be rhyming his named with “jewel” until someone decides to correct me. I’m betting Cronin’s appearance will depress his vote totals this year. If I’m right, it will mean we fall prey to the same habits as our Cooperstown counterparts.
11)Eppa Rixey – “Jephtha”
I continue to gain respect for Rixey’s career. Since I tend toward career stats, I figure my vote ought to reflect that.
12)Raleigh Mackey – “Biz”
As is so often the case, I am ranking him cautiously low in this first year of eligibility. Although his projected numbers are not as gaudy as was anticipated, he still strikes me as the best catcher on the ballot, and a very good one at that. I’m giving a lot of credence to peer and expert rankings here, so your mileage may vary.
13)Howard Earl Averill
14)Edd J Roush
Quite similar, which may be why they’re right next to each other in Bill James’ ranking of right fielders. I’m giving Averill a slight edge for a tiny-bit-better prime.
15)Hugh Duffy
In the ever-changing world of evaluating the numbers, I’m no longer convinced that such his peak should earn him placement over the more career-oriented Averill and Duffy.

Other Top 10 Finishers
John Beckwith
I don’t usually rank the players off the ballot, but I’ll say Beckwith is 16th. He’s been hanging on the tail end of my ballot for a few years now, and he just got pushed off by a very strong class of new eligibles. I feel certain he’ll be back.
Wesley Cheek Ferrell
Love his peaks. Hate the shortness of his career. I like him more as a candidate than Dizzy Dean, who has outstanding peak. I like Grimes and Rixey, so I guess that tells you where I stand on Wes.
Clark Calvin Griffith
My last re-evaluation of pitchers did put him in a better light, but not much. I actually moved Vic Willis up ahead of him. Still not there.
   42. andrew siegel Posted: April 27, 2005 at 02:31 PM (#1292168)
(1) Waner (new)--Comparing him to guys like Leach, Van Haltren, and Roush on season-length adjusted WARP shows both how tightly grouped the ballot is and how good Waner was. Even using a metric that favors fielding over hitting, he is about three-quarters of a win per season better than Leach for each of the seven best seasons of their careers, about one and a half wins per season better for each of seasons eight through twelve, and essentially even (though slightly ahead on balance) for seasons thirteen through twenty. Waner doesn't dwarf those guys but slowly and surely builds a much better resume. On this ballot, he doesn't stand in a category above the others, but he is certainly First Among Equals. (PHOM this year.)

(2) Cronin (new)-- Jennings was undoubtedly better over their top 5 seasons but Cronin's seasons 6-10 more than make up for the peak deficit. (PHOM this year.)

(3) Jennings (2nd)--In his time and place as valuable as all but a dozen guys who have ever played the game. (PHOM)

(4) Suttles (4th)--I think I have been slightly over-relying on Chris's numbers. Making tweaks here and there I project him at about 480 Home Runs with a .310 or so batting average and 50 or so walks per season. Plus he played every day and provided lots of leadership. He's around 125 all-time. (PHOM)

(5) Dihigo (new)-- A tough call but this is where I think he fits; was uniquely valuable in the context in which he played but that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

(Ted Lyons)

(6) Averill (5th)--My prime voting criteria is a player's top 8-10 seasons--once he gets PCL credit, Averill aces that exam.

(7) Beckwith (8th)--Every Negro League star whose offensive numbers come in multiple standard deviations below his makes it harder to hold him back. I still have a bit of skepiticism. (PHOM)

(8) Ferrell (7th)--As you can see with Jennings and Dihigo, I like uniquely valuable players.

(9) Duffy (3rd)--I've been convinced by the 1890s OPS numbers that win shares overrates CF's from that decade. Properly discounting his fielding credit, he wasn't really the best player in the game in the early 1890s--and that was his biggest chit. Still think he has enough on his resume for election, though. (PHOM)

(10) Van Haltren (9th)--Subject him to every conceivable discount and he still shows with more season-length adjusted WS above replacement than just about anyone else. (PHOM)

(11) Mackey (10th)--Upper boundary is I-Rod but lower boundary might be someone like Jim Sunberg. Wish I had a better grasp on why I think Chris's numbers are tracking low.

(12) Childs (11th)--Those of you who think OF's were overrated in the 1890s, should take another look at Cupid. (PHOM)

(13) Rixey (12th)--Closer to Lyons (who would be 6th on my ballot) than Faber (who would be around 35th).

(14) Grimes (13th)--I like his peak seasons better than Rixey's and his career value is only marginally lower.

(15) Lundy (off/17th)-- I listened to arguments from the proponents of about a dozen guys for this spot and fell for Lundy more than the others. There are very few SS's who hit and fielded as well as him with his career length. At worst, he's Dave Bancroft with a substantially longer career.

Rest of my top 50:
(16) Dobie Moore (14th)
(17) Charley Jones (15th)
(18) Edd Roush
(19) George Sisler--Not enough peak for a peak only candidate.
(Bill Terry)
(20) Joe Sewell
(21) Frank Chance
(22) Vic Willis
(23) Roger Bresnahan
(24) Tommy Leach
(25) Jimmy Ryan
(26) Wally Schang
(27) Cool Papa Bell
(Max Carey)
(28) Dick Redding
(29) Larry Doyle
(30) Wally Berger
(31) Bill Monroe
(32) Jake Beckley
(33) Clark Griffith--Not enough innings for his time and place.
(34) Wilbur Cooper
(Red Faber)
(35) Bobby Veach
(36) John McGraw
(37) Kiki Cuyler
(38) Dizzy Dean
(39) Jose Mendez
(40) Mickey Welch
(41) (N)ed Williamson
(42) Mike Griffin
(43) Pete Browning
(44) Dave Bancroft
(45) Fielder Jones
(46) Gavvy Cravath
(47) Fred Dunlap
(48) Fielder Jones
(49) Hack Wilson
(50) Eddie Cicotte

George Scales is in the next ten or fifteen.

(Rube Foster and Dickey Pearce would not be in the top 50.)

Note: Unlike others, my PHOM listings are reworked every year so as to reflect who would be in my PHOM if I had had my current rankings from the beginnning of the project.
   43. Carl G Posted: April 27, 2005 at 02:41 PM (#1292198)
'Note: Unlike others, my PHOM listings are reworked every year so as to reflect who would be in my PHOM if I had had my current rankings from the beginnning of the project.'

Sounds like alot of work!
   44. Daryn Posted: April 27, 2005 at 06:56 PM (#1293050)
Michael,

Re Beckley,

You could make a strong argument that Rafael Palmeiro was never one of the top 20 players in baseball. He's a shoo-in to my HoM.
   45. Daryn Posted: April 27, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1293072)
Looking at 1999, it might be hard to make that argument strongly...
   46. Carl G Posted: April 27, 2005 at 07:27 PM (#1293163)
'You could make a strong argument that Rafael Palmeiro was never one of the top 20 players in baseball. He's a shoo-in to my HoM'

Yeah, but there's approx twice as many big-leaguers now. Can you make the argument that Palmeiro was never in the top 40? In the 1890s, the top 20 should have an average of a little more or a little less than 2 players per TEAM depending on if its an 8 or 12 team season. Its a big deal for someone whose receiving consideration for enshrinement to have never been in that category.
   47. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 07:40 PM (#1293221)
Its a big deal for someone whose receiving consideration for enshrinement to have never been in that category.

Beckley appears to make the top twenty in 1900, IMO.
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 07:44 PM (#1293246)
BTW, if anyone has forgotten, Beckley's case rests almost solely on career. :-) If you rely heavily on peak, you're obviously are not going to like Beckley, but peak arguments are going to fall flat with the more career-oriented voters. Nothing is going to change that.
   49. Carl G Posted: April 27, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1293267)
Only 8 teams in 1900. Top 20 that year just means you were one of the best 2 or 3 players on your own team.
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 07:53 PM (#1293297)
Only 8 teams in 1900. Top 20 that year just means you were one of the best 2 or 3 players on your own team.

I don't understand this argument, Carl. If the majors had two leagues instead in 1900 (and over a hundred more inferior players), then Beckley would have been all right in this regard?
   51. Carl G Posted: April 27, 2005 at 08:02 PM (#1293337)
Good point. I got a little carried away with my original point that Top 20 means alot more in today's(Palmeiro's) population than it did for Beckley.
   52. Daryn Posted: April 27, 2005 at 09:47 PM (#1293797)
I think Carl's point has some merit. It is the same point that is keeping Welch out of the Hall of Merit. Sure it is great to be the 5th best pitcher in the majors, but not so great if there are only 8 pitchers in the majors (to use numbers that exaggerate the point). I have Welch and Beckley high on my ballot, so I guess I agree with John in 50, but I can see the other side of the argument.
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 10:05 PM (#1293845)
Sure it is great to be the 5th best pitcher in the majors, but not so great if there are only 8 pitchers in the majors

I used to believe that myself when it came to pitchers, Daryn, but the fifth best pitcher of the 1880's is really no different (theoretically)than being the fifth best hurler of the 1990's (unless you timeline them into oblivion, of course :-)
   54. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 27, 2005 at 10:33 PM (#1293916)
"I used to believe that myself when it came to pitchers, Daryn, but the fifth best pitcher of the 1880's is really no different (theoretically)than being the fifth best hurler of the 1990's (unless you timeline them into oblivion, of course :-) "

How is this? Today we have blacks, latinos, and asians in the big leagues, not to mention a country awith over two times as many whites people in it and better scouting. Being the fifth best pitcher in the 1880's is nothing liek being the fifth best pitcher of the 1990's. PLUS there were only 8 teams instead of 30. Being fifth best means that you could have been the bestpitcher on a below average team, being fifth today means that you could be the best pitcher on a World Series contender (everything else being equal).

If there is a popular player I like less than beckly it is Mickey Welch! ;-)
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 10:54 PM (#1293941)
Being the fifth best pitcher in the 1880's is nothing liek being the fifth best pitcher of the 1990's.

No, you're wrong (and Dickey Pearce was just as good as A-Rod!) :-)

Mark, that wasn't my point. It was an "all other things equal" statement.

Though Welch possibly could have been the fifth best pitcher of the 1990's if he had been born in the 1960's instead of the the 1850's. :-)
   56. sunnyday2 Posted: April 27, 2005 at 10:58 PM (#1293945)
Well, with all due respect, schmeag, you are not only wrong, you are unconstitutional. I mean, if this project was about who could step off the time machine and pitch in the 1990s, we would just have started in 2003 and picked the best 230 players in history. We would not have started in 1898, and some of us would never have voted for a single 19th century player whose name didn't begin with A-B-C-1-2-3-do-re-mi.

But that is not this project, that's a different project. This project has a constitution that says something about "respect for all eras."

One way to respect the 1880s is to not say that there were 8 teams and 8 pitchers. There were 16 teams with more like 2 primary pitchers per, for a total of 32.

Not to mention. If I'm a GM and I want to win a pennant (and then a post-season playoff against the hated Browns or whomever) and I'm looking around at who's available and I'm looking at my payroll, and if I can get the 5th best pitcher in the MLs on my team, I figure I've got a shot at it. Sure, I could be below average with him, too, it took a team then just like it does now. But if I have a "team" and the 5th best pitcher, I've got a shot.

A lot more so than Theo Epstein has got just because he picked up one 5th best pitcher.

IOW Mickey Welch (or whomever, I am not a particular fan of Mickey Welch though if there's a pitcher candidate I hate more than Jake Beckley--just kidding, karl--it's Wes Ferrell [not kidding]) played real baseball for a real pennant and had actual value. The fact is that his team depended on him more than a modern team depends on its best pitcher.

Skills, schmills, he had value. Could he step off the time machine and pitch in the 1990s? What has that got to do with it?

End of homily.
   57. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 10:58 PM (#1293946)
Being fifth best means that you could have been the bestpitcher on a below average team, being fifth today means that you could be the best pitcher on a World Series contender (everything else being equal).

But that's just a byproduct of the two different styles of the game, agreed?
   58. jimd Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:04 PM (#1293955)
but the fifth best pitcher of the 1880's is really no different (theoretically)than being the fifth best hurler of the 1990's

Disagreeing here. This is where usage arguments come into play. Teams did get by with two man staffs during the early years of Welch's career. Usage patterns of today indicate that teams require ten regular pitchers, 5 starters, and 5 relievers. 5th best pitcher of 1881 is equivalent to maybe 12th best starter or 25th best pitcher today (Pavano/Gagne using BP's 2004 numbers from last fall). The position has changed radically over time.
   59. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:16 PM (#1293968)
Jim, name the five best pitchers of the 1990's (Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, R. Johnson and K. Brown). You don't think they would have probably been the best five pitchers of the 1880's (all other things equal)?
   60. jimd Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:25 PM (#1293989)
That's about as relevant a question as whether Mark McGwire could play 1st-base during the deadball era, or Pedro could pitch effectively under Spalding's rules.
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:36 PM (#1294013)
That's about as relevant a question as whether Mark McGwire could play 1st-base during the deadball era, or Pedro could pitch effectively under Spalding's rules.

I agree, but I wasn't the one who started comparing pitchers from different eras based on different levels of pitcher usage, either. :-)

BTW, I have Welch at #13. I'm not really his biggest fan, either.
   62. jimd Posted: April 27, 2005 at 11:50 PM (#1294055)
You have to start somewhere. And I don't buy at all that being the 5th best pitcher of the 1880's is equivalent to the 5th best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not close to being similar to the claim of the 5th best SS of the 1880's being equivalent to the 5th best SS of the 1990's. SS requirements and demands have changed much less than pitching.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:01 AM (#1294099)
And I don't buy at all that being the 5th best pitcher of the 1880's is equivalent to the 5th best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not close to being similar to the claim of the 5th best SS of the 1880's being equivalent to the 5th best SS of the 1990's. SS requirements and demands have changed much less than pitching.

You're taking my comments the wrong way, Jim. I'm not throwing Welch in a time machine and saying that he would be the fifth best pitcher in the 1990's. All I'm saying, for HoM purposes (since I don't timeline except for standard deviation purposes), the fifth best pitcher of the 1880's deserves more support than he has received recently. That doesn't mean that he should be a HoMer, though.
   64. jimd Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:08 AM (#1294128)
I agree, but I wasn't the one who started comparing pitchers from different eras based on different levels of pitcher usage, either.

It just dawned on me what I think you are getting at. (A little thick today.) But that's a "skills" issue, whereas I brought up a "value" issue.

The 5th best pitcher of the 1880's, even better, the 1870's, is worth much less than the 5th best pitcher of the 1990's. That's because an 1870's All-Star team (with a representative roster) has room for only one starting pitcher, and such a team in the 1990's requires 10 pitchers (to be representative, that is, to be capable of playing a full schedule). A 30 team 1875 NA requires only 30 pitchers, whereas a 30 team 1999 MLB requires a minimum of 300 pitchers.
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:18 AM (#1294165)
The 5th best pitcher of the 1880's, even better, the 1870's, is worth much less than the 5th best pitcher of the 1990's.

Since I have supported only one pitcher from the seventies (Spalding), I would have to agree with you in spirit, Jim.
   66. OCF Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:38 AM (#1294254)
What this thread needs is a few more ballots. (20 so far.)
   67. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:43 AM (#1294266)
I don't think I am being unconstitutional. I didnt' say there was only one pitcher per team and I was only counting the NL in which Welch played. That last bit was unfair to Welch and I apologize to him and his family. And obviously to everyone who wants good debate here.

I said nothing about whether or not Welch could step off a time machine and pitch in the 1990's, just that being the 5th best pitcher of the 1880's does not have the same value as being the 5th best pitcher of the 1990's.

As for respect for all eras, couldn't that also be interpreted as respect for all players in all eras? Are we to elect the x amount of players in every single era? Aren't there at least twice as many players and ten times as many pitchers playing today as there were in the 1880's? So wouldn't it then be tougher (and therefore more valuable and therefore more merit) to be the 5th best pitcher of an era in which there is about ten times the amount of pitchers? (16 times 2 equals 32, 30 times 11 equals 330. Maybe 30 times 5 or 150 would be better. Five times as many pitchers then?)

My problem with Welch is that the things reccomending him are his 300 wins and high per season IP totals. But those numbers are purely a function of his era and aren't terribly special within that era. It isnt' about if he had been good in the 1920's, the 1950's, or the 1960's (he most likely would have) but that he wasn't that good in his era and that era masks this 'fact'.

Welch isn't even on my board, he is probably around #70, 25 spots or so behind Beckley.
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:57 AM (#1294313)
As for respect for all eras, couldn't that also be interpreted as respect for all players in all eras?

Not by me. There are more great players per decade as we get closer to our time.
   69. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 28, 2005 at 01:27 AM (#1294388)
That is what I meant John, that we should show respect to later players by recognizing that they play in a more competitive environment than do their counterparts of a century ago.

Or am I missing something?
   70. David C. Jones Posted: April 28, 2005 at 01:33 AM (#1294398)
I'm just wondering when the black man is going to start getting some respect around here. The reason my ballot is so heavily populated with Negro Leaguers is because many voters still seem unimpressed, for whatever reason, by Beckwith, Suttles and now apparently Dihigo (we'll see how the final results look on that one.)

By the way, the first sentence in the above paragraph is a joke, in case that isn't apparent.
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 01:38 AM (#1294415)
That is what I meant John, that we should show respect to later players by recognizing that they play in a more competitive environment than do their counterparts of a century ago.

But not to the point that we timeline the Nineteenth Century guys that there would only be a handful of them in the HoM. I think that's exactly what would have happened if Joe had not set up the HoM the way that he did.

Again, I have Welch low, so I'm not really advocating his candidacy. His stats definitely overrate him, IMO.
   72. Sean Gilman Posted: April 28, 2005 at 01:43 AM (#1294428)
1950

1. Paul Waner (-)--He’s good.

2. Joe Cronin (-)--Him too. The uncertainty around Dihigo creates a pretty clear top two this year.

3. Martin Dihigo (-)--Toughest player to rank in quite awhile. I think it’s clear he’s a HOMer, but not clear that he’s better than Cronin or Waner.

4. Pete Browning (2)--If he played in the PCL in the 00s or the Negro Leagues in the 30s, would he be a HOMer by now? Same as with Suttles and Beckwith, the league translations inordinately underrate his peak. Besides, it isn’t like the AA wasn’t a major league. I’d love to see our fabulous translators take another look at the AA. (1927)

5. Mule Suttles (3)--Trails Browning and Jones on peak, but more career value than either of them. (1949)

6. John Beckwith (4)--Another high peak, non-conventional major league player.

7. Charley Jones (5)--Jones, Shoeless Joe Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me. (1929)

8. Hughie Jennings (6)--Like Sam Thompson, only a slightly better peak and he was a shortstop instead of a right-fielder. (1932)

9. Cupid Childs (7)--Where has the love for Cupid gone? (1938)

10. Tommy Leach (8)--May be the most underrated candidate out there. (1942)

11. Clark Griffith (9)--About as close to Coveleski as can be. (1942)

12. Larry Doyle (10)--Another underrated infielder. . .(1945)

13. George Sisler (11)--Comparison with Terry convinces me I was underrating him. New PA numbers inspires a bump for him and Bell above Sewell and Williamson.

14. Cool Papa Bell (12)--Long career, moderate peak. I might be overrating him--he may belong below Rixey or Maranville, but I’m fairly confident he was better than them.

15. Joe Sewell (13)--Was in danger of either being elected or becoming underrated. He became underrated.

16. Ed Williamson (14)
17. Carl Mays (15)
18. Wes Ferrell (16)
19. Jose Mendez (17)
20. Dave Bancroft (18)
21. Roger Bresnahan (19)
22. Eppa Rixey (21)
23. Dick Redding (22)
24. Hugh Duffy (23)
25. George Van Haltren (24)
   73. Jeff M Posted: April 28, 2005 at 04:39 AM (#1294700)
Voting relatively early again.

1950 Ballot

1. Waner, Paul – Those 62 doubles in 1932 are pretty interesting, since Waner ended up with only 82 RBI and 107 Runs. Of the six seasons of 60+ doubles in MLB history, Waner is the only one who had fewer than 100 RBI. There have been 20 MLB seasons of 55 doubles or more and only five had fewer than 100 RBI. The lowest ratio of RBI to doubles (for men with 55 or more doubles) is Biggio’s 1999 season (1.304), but Waner’s 1932 is close behind at 1.32. I also looked at the ratio of total production (RBI + Runs) to doubles for seasons with 55 or more doubles. The lowest ratio is Earl Webb’s 1931 season at 2.97, but Waner’s 1932 is close at 3.05. (None of this compares to Mark Grudzielanek’s 1997 with 54 doubles but only 51 RBI and 76 Runs!).

2. Dihigo, Martin – Riley describes him as “the most versatile man ever to play the game of baseball.” That alone would not be enough, except for this: “Whether playing the outfield, the infield or pitching, he was awesome. The gifted Cuban was literally a star at every position he played.” It’s the most glowing language I’ve seen in Riley’s substantial work. I’m not sure we can say those about any other multi-position player save Babe Ruth (and some would argue, Caruthers).

3. Cronin, Joe – I was skeptical about Cronin, because his normalized traditional rate and counting stats are not particularly impressive. But he is similar to a number of HOF and HOM shortstops, has lots of grey ink for a SS, was a good fielder and a frequent all-star and is pushing 350 adjWS. He’s a HoMer.

4. Mackey, Biz – Significant revision of my NeL methods moved him about where the anecdotal evidence would have him, despite skepticism from the electorate. Awfully good hitting catcher.

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

6. Monroe, Bill -- He certainly appears every bit as good as Grant, but competition was stiffening in his era, so he deserves more credit than Grant, IMO. I don’t see him getting elected now that Grant is in, but I would have preferred Monroe. I also see him better than the other NeL middle infielders that are eligible. I’ve got them ranked: Monroe [moderate gap] Beckwith [small gap] Lundy [moderate gap] Moore [big gap] Scales [small gap] DeMoss [small gap] Allen.

7. Suttles, Mule -- Originally I was afraid I had him too high based on long-ball feats, but on re-evaluation, I’ve had him about right. I flip-flopped he and Monroe, but otherwise, his ranking is unchanged. I rate him lower than an average defensive player. Riley basically says he caught everything he could reach, but implies strongly that he could not reach very much. In any event, he was probably a better hitter than Sisler, so I’ll put him a little ahead.

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

9. Beckwith, John – Reevaluation of NeL players dropped him a few slots. I’ve now got him at roughly 300 WS, which given his position at 3B/SS is still a good number. Would have won a couple of MVPs, and you can only say that about so many third basemen and shortstops.

10. Waddell, Rube – Waddell still lives here. RSI shed some light on why his win totals aren’t what they could be.

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

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

13. McGraw, John – The guy’s OBP was .466! I would prefer a longer career, but among the backlog, I think he deserves some recognition.

14. Ferrell, Wes – Wish he had pitched longer, but was a peak performer and could swing the bat.

15. Lundy, Dick – Dropped a fair amount with my NeL re-evaluations. I had him in the top 5 a few times. Hard to tell where he belongs, but he was a great defensive shortstop and better than average hitter for a long time.

Required Disclosures:

Griffith, Clark -- An excellent win pct on some bad teams. I boost his win totals and win pct by approximately 1/2 of his WAT. Has a nice career Linear Weights total also. He’s #17 in my system and drops off the ballot for the first time.

Rixey, Eppa – He’s #23 in my system, behind Bobby Veach (but really just behind Max Carey) and ahead of Larry Doyle, Tommy Leach and Joe Sewell (but really just ahead of Goose Goslin). I need more brilliance than he provided.

Averill, Earl – Another player whose numbers are inflated by the high run environment in which he played, and when corrected, look just very good. He’s #43 in my system, behind Jimmy Ryan and ahead of Kiki Cuyler.
   74. Al Peterson Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:42 PM (#1294961)
1950 ballot. New talent to throw some love at. My system throws in the major metrics(WS, WARP), sprinkles in some subjective material, is allowed to simmer for two hours, and served.

1. Martin Dihigo (-). Made the 1952 Pittsburgh Courier all-time 1st team for NeL despite playing fewer seasons stateside. HOFer in three countries. His versatility had great value in helping his teams win and create a lineup everyday. That versatility is also his curse – people generally like to place items in distinct groups and he defies that in baseball terms.

2. Paul Waner (-). Maybe he should share some of his excess value with brother Lloyd to try and get the combo in the HOM. Nah, just let Big Poison through the doors.

3. Joe Cronin (-). I see sizable gaps develop above and below him. SS worthy of election but not take-my-breath-away great.

4. Edd Roush (2). From Baseballlibrary.com: “June 8, 1920: The Reds' Edd Roush falls asleep in CF during a long argument in the IF. Heinie Groh goes out to wake him, but the ump ejects Roush for delaying the game.” When we wasn’t sleeping he was hitting .300 and playing some pretty good CF.

5. Hugh Duffy (4). Number of runs scored 1889-1894: 144, 161, 134, 125, 147, 160. Second most hits in the 1890’s to Ed Delahanty.

6. Clark Griffith (5). Another fine control pitcher, his ballot position helped by being one of the better pitchers during the 1890s.

7. Tommy Leach (6). Second all-time in inside-the-park home runs to Sam Crawford.

8. Earl Averill (7). Highly productive for a centerfielder, he started ML career late after playing semi-pro in Washington state and three years in the PCL.


9. Dick Redding (9). Pitched a good long time in both the Negro and Cuban leagues and did it fairly well. CANNONBALL!!!

10. Jimmy Ryan (8). His record of 73 home runs by a centerfielder stood til the 1920s.

11. John Beckwith (10). Others have provided the argument for him in a more detailed fashion. I’m sold enough to place him here.

12. Rube Waddell (11). Won six straight strikeout titles, top 10 in Ks per 9 innings 10 straight years - dominance you don't get everyday. In addition to major league service, he competed in PCL, AA, Western League throughout his career, having success but seemingly frustrating managers. One of the first AL superstars - his pitching was guaranteed to bring in a large crowd and help support the fledgling league.

13. Biz Markey (12). I’m sticking with the assumption of the NeL being strong at the catching position and Raleigh Biz being among the best.

14. Tony Mullane (13). His constant run-ins with the reserve clause cost him playing time and that magic 300 win total.

15. Hughie Jennings (14). A peak to be proud of, especially for a SS. A rough style of play in during his heyday means careers were shorter.


Why not me?

16-20:McGraw, Rixey, Mike Griffin, Cool Papa Bell, Cuyler
21-25:Poles, Van Haltren, Willis, Joe Sewell, Suttles
26-30:Pete Browning, Childs, Mendez, Cicotte, Fielder Jones
31-35:Bridges, Sisler, Roy Thomas, Veach, Chance
36-40:Lundy, Burger, Grimes, Carl Mays, Dobie Moore
41-45:Dunlap, Hooper, Shocker, George Burns, Lefty Gomez
46-50:Beckley, Ben Taylor, Wes Ferrell, Charley Jones, Lazzeri

New folks:

The three notables on top say I like this incoming class. George Scales isn’t bad – just this HOM eligible bus is getting full and I can’t fit y’all on.

Top 10 Returnees off-ballot:

Rixey falls in at #17, waiting for backlog years. Suttles, once adjusted for park and position, comes up a little short. Sisler packed a whallop for awhile but not long enough. Ferrell gets hitting bonuses but not too much. He’s not Caruthers since he didn’t play the field in his off days. Cool Papa has the nickname, makes my top 20.
   75. TomH Posted: April 28, 2005 at 12:47 PM (#1294967)
from my 'this day in sports' calendar:

April 28, 1906 - player/manager Frank Chance executes a bottom-of-9th walk-off steal of home to break up a 0-0 game. Chance led the league in runs scored that year as the Cubbies went 116-36.
   76. Howie Menckel Posted: April 28, 2005 at 02:11 PM (#1295087)
1950 ballot, our 53rd.
My last one in New York, next ballot will be submitted with a Jersey accent.

1. PAUL WANER - His LOWEST OPS+ in his first 12 seasons was 129, all in years with more than 600 PA! Was only league average for his last 7-8 years, but his place already was assured. Top 10 in OBP 13 times. Ask your friends to name the Yankees who are in the Hall of Fame (or Hall of Merit!), and none of 'em will ever think of Waner (1 for 7 in 10 games, 1944-45).
2. MARTIN DIHIGO - His nomination makes some squeamish, in the sense that we can't hammer down numbers or even rock-solid MLEs, IMO. But too many contemporaries were too dazzled by his performances to leave him any lower. At a certain point, we have to put some faith in countless eyewitnesses to do this project. Arguably could be a No. 1, but Waner's body of work a little too good.

3. JOE CRONIN - I note the similarities to Doyle's hitting career in the Cronin thread. That's OK, because I think Doyle is underrated as a candidate, and that there is a big gap between a terrible fielder and a good one. Nine VERY solid years and several other useful ones at a difficult position. Overrated generally, but still a HOM (not quite this year, in my eyes).
4. MULE SUTTLES - No wavering from me on the Mule. I do significantly discount for his extremely favorable parks; not as convinced on the 'pitcher's park' data; I don't particularly discount for his defense; but I do factor in the likelihood of his OBP not being dazzling. That's 3 discounts out of 4 options, basically, yet I still see him as fourth-best on this ballot.
5. EPPA RIXEY - Climbs another spot this year as I sense that WWW I credit for him is significant to this 'career-minded' case. If only he had one huge year. Pretty baffled that Faber got in immediately, while Rixey sits on the fence.
6. CLARK GRIFFITH - Flops with Rixey. 1890s are underrepresented. It's remarkable how much better Griffith's W-L was than the teams he pitched for.
7. JOHN BECKWITH - Stays ahead of Childs and Sisler for another year on this ballot. I keep digesting his thread notes and relenting slightly each year, but I'm still not all the way sold on him. A great player for a time and glad to see him get some deserved props, though.
8. GEORGE SISLER - I never realized before this project the extent of the 'two Sislers' career. But he also matches some HOMer's peaks while providing a significant added portion of a career. Not clear on some of the anti-Sisler sentiment; overrated by the average fan, but a great half-career in particular.
9. JAKE BECKLEY - Maintains the upward movement he got on last year's ballot. Top 10 in RBIs TWELVE times. How many HOMers did that? Not his fault that the ABCs clogged his position.
10. CUPID CHILDS - Climbs ahead of Jennings this year. The majors' best 2B, or nearly so, for most of his career is something that we just don't see on these ballots.
11. HUGHIE JENNINGS - Starting to slide on my ballot. One solid season short of an "elect me" slot on my ballot. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies almost nothing else - and even plays so many games at 1B rather than SS.
12. WES FERRELL - 117 ERA+ not dazzling, but it's misleading with the late-career bad IP. Significant hitting bonus, too. Kind of a weird player, too bad he didn't play some OF on his off-days.
13. COOL PAPA BELL - We're wise to realize the results don't match the rep, but great fielder-long career-decent hitter is quite valuable. A Max Carey?
14. MICKEY WELCH - If you look at the amount of lopsided scores AND compare them to the fewer and less lopsided losses by Keefe in yest's post in the old Welch thread, the 'pitching in a pinch' circumstancial evidence is there. Went 61-34 vs HOMer pitching opponents.
15. PETE BROWNING - Spectacularly good hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time. Have newer voters taken a sufficient look at him?


JUST MISSED/NEW/TOP 10 RETURNEES
EARL AVERILL - I think you need a 'major' amount of 'minors' credit to get him to the top 10. We'll see 30 guys like this before we're done, and none of 'em belong in the HOM. Is it 'Ah-verill,' or "AY-verill,' by the way?
EDD ROUSH - I have a problem with the games he missed in a lot of years, but his D and high level of play combined with career length gives Roush strong consdideration. Waiting for a weak year.
BIZ MACKEY - I see more Freehan or R Ferrell than anything else so far, and not sure he contributed as much as the countless other Negro League candidates we're mulling. Not ruled out yet.
DICK LUNDY - He really does present a problem for Sewell, doesn't he? I think Sewell needed to be a slightly better fielder and Lundy needs a tiny bit more evidence.
JOE SEWELL - Slugged exactly the league average in his career, split between SS and 3B. That's good, but not real exciting. We've already elected a lot of SSs, let's see if he measures up to a new crop of them.
GEORGE VAN HALTREN - Seems very similar to Beckley, only he's an OF and not a 1B. Pitching helps, not quite enough.
TOMMY LEACH - Browning grabbed his slot this year. The half-career at 3B and his overall defensive skills don't get enough credit; we may have to be careful in general not to underrate the 'hybrids.'
   77. Daryn Posted: April 28, 2005 at 02:43 PM (#1295134)
DCJ,

Fight the power. It looks like Dihigo, Suttles and Beckwith will all make our Hall. Bell and Mackey have pretty good chances too. Just keep on voting and your patience will be rewarded (though I have to say I am not a fan of Beckwith's).
   78. Rick A. Posted: April 28, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1295222)
PHOM
Paul Waner
Joe Cronin

1950 Ballot
1.Paul Waner – Elected PHOM in 1950
2.Charley Jones – Truly great hitter who missed 2 years in his prime. Elected PHOM in 1926.
3.Pete Browning – 61% of value is prime, 89% of value is above average. Elected PHOM in 1929
4.Joe Cronin – Solid HOMer. Elected PHOM in 1950.
5.Biz Mackey – Took another look at Mackey and realized that we’re underrating him. Yes, he wasn’t as great a hitter as we thought. Yes, he has a kind of Sisleresque career shape. However, he has a ton of career value, very good prime value and was an A+ defensive catcher. That adds up to a HOMer to me.
6.Martin Dihigo – Very tough to place him. Unique player. Combination of hitting and pitching puts him here.
7.Cupid Childs – Good hitter. Not as good defensively as McPhee. 84% of career above average. Elected PHOM in 1938
8.Hughie Jennings – 77% of value is prime alone. Unfortunately, that’s all he’s got. Still that’s enough to get him this high. Re-evaluated 1890’s infielders since they seemed to get beat up during their playing days. Elected PHOM in 1938
9.John Beckwith – Very good hitter. New info on him moves him high on my ballot. Elected PHOM.in 1945.
10.Burleigh Grimes – Jumps up when I give a big years bonus. Higher peak than Rixey.
11.Eppa Rixey – Like his consistent above-averageness over Faber’s brief peak. Elected PHOM in 1940
12.Vic Willis – Very good pitcher. Moves up when compared to Faber and Rixey. Elected PHOM in 1942
13.Bill Monroe – Very good second baseman, but I can’t seem to rate him over Childs. Re-evaluation moves him up. Becoming more and more convinced about him.
14.Dobie Moore – Impressive peak. Giving him more credit for army years. 10+ year prime at important position.
15.Wes Ferrell – At first glance, I had him off my ballot. Career is very short, but it is almost all peak. Close, but not as good as Vance.

Required Disclosures
Mule Suttles Found an error in my methodology which moves Suttles off my ballot. Just misses the top 15.
Earl Averill Another one I wish I could find room for on the ballot. Will probably make it on in future years.
Clark Griffith As stated before, doesn't rank well in my system.
George Sisler In the mid-20's right now.

New Candidates
George Scales Joins the growing list of players I'd like to evaluate, but haven't had the time to yet. Other players include Warneke, Larry French, Fred Fitzsimmons, Charlie Root, Newt Allen, Andy Cooper, Nip Winters. (sigh) Hopefully by next week.

Off the ballot
16-20 Mendez, Suttles, Duffy, Redding, Roush
21-25 Averill, Schang, Bell, Leach, Dean
26-30 Bresnahan, Sisler, Cooper, McGraw, Williamson
31-35 Waddell, Mays, Poles, Lundy, Taylor
36-40 Griffith, Tiernan, Dunlap, Van Haltren, Doyle
41-45 Sewell, Traynor, Chance, Burns, McCormick
46-50 Bancroft, Griffin, F. Jones, Wilson, Bond
   79. Mike Webber Posted: April 28, 2005 at 04:01 PM (#1295296)
I am mostly using Win Shares with a bonus for peak seasons. Discounting pre-1893 pitching accomplishments, and trying to balance the positions so that catcher occasionally makes the HOM.

1)PAUL WANER – I used to work with Glenn Wright’s son, Waner’s Pirate teammate. Glenn had passed away about 10 years earlier, and I asked him if his father ever talked about how much drinking there was in 1930’s baseball. He said his dad threw out the standard line, “I’ve spilled more than most men have drank,” but he went on to say that the teams would rent a hotel room on the road for the season, and hired a person to brew bathtub gin in the room so that when they rolled into a town the booze would be ready.
2)JOE CRONIN – A few MVP type seasons, long career, tough defensive position, he pretty much has everything you want in a HOM inductee.
3)MULE SUTTLES – I think he would have been at least even with Greenberg.
4)COOL PAPA BELL – I’m a little higher that most on Papa, I would think his worst case scenario is Richie Ashburn or Max Carey, but more likely Billy Hamilton.
5)MARTIN DIHIGO – Director of sports in Cuba for Castro in the 1950’s.
6)EDD ROUSH – I put him ahead of Averill due to his slightly longer MLB career, and slightly higher peak.
7)CARL MAYS – He appears to be the best combination of peak and career length among the available pitchers.
8)EARL AVERILL
9)WALLY BERGER – These three centerfielders are essentially a group, and in the end I decided to rank them by career win shares. Berger probably has the best peak, and who knows what Averill losses credit for in the PCL.
10)ROGER BRESNAHAN – I think that the argument for him about being the best catcher in the period has considerable merit. Between Ewing and Hartnett he is the best.
   80. Mike Webber Posted: April 28, 2005 at 04:03 PM (#1295300)
1)TOMMY LEACH – That long career and solid peak, like Jerry Hairston Jr was complaining about last week, his versatility hurts him.
2)WALLY SCHANG – 2nd best catcher between 1900 and 1925.
3)WES FERRELL – Peak gets him on the list.
4)HUGHIE JENNINGS - His peak probably puts your team over the hump for the flag, trumps the problems of short career
5)DIZZY DEAN – Same arguments for Hughie apply to Diz.

16-30 Traynor, Warneke, H. Wilson, Lazzeri, Waddell, Doyle, Duffy, W. Cooper, Redding, Mendez, Moore, Grimes, Sewell, Sisler, Myer.


Disclosures – Beckwith – Not convinced he is Dick Allen, am convinced he is at least Bill Madlock and probably Edgar Martinez.

Mackey – still in the process of where to rank him, currently comfortable he is behind Schang so not in top 15.

Griffith and Rixey, in the 35 to 40 range.
   81. Daryn Posted: April 28, 2005 at 04:22 PM (#1295361)
Like this?

11)TOMMY LEACH – That long career and solid peak, like Jerry Hairston Jr was complaining about last week, his versatility hurts him.
12)WALLY SCHANG – 2nd best catcher between 1900 and 1925.
13)WES FERRELL – Peak gets him on the list.
14)HUGHIE JENNINGS - His peak probably puts your team over the hump for the flag, trumps the problems of short career
15)DIZZY DEAN – Same arguments for Hughie apply to Diz.
   82. Mike Webber Posted: April 28, 2005 at 04:30 PM (#1295389)
Uh, yeah, cut and paste gone bad I guess.
D'oh!
   83. Evan Posted: April 28, 2005 at 06:15 PM (#1295648)
John-

What's the problem with recording a tie?

Leave 15 blank, and put the tied players in the 15t slots.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 07:05 PM (#1295792)
What's the problem with recording a tie?

Leave 15 blank, and put the tied players in the 15t slots.


That's what I did, Evan, but I'm getting a message screen asking me if I want to debug. It processes all of the rankings up to that point, but won't go any further.
   85. Brad G Posted: April 28, 2005 at 07:37 PM (#1295877)
I apologize for the rushed comments-

1950 Ballot:

1.Mule Suttles- One of the all time greats. Went into my PHoM three years ago.

2.Paul Waner- Could be #1. Crazy career numbers.

3.Martin Dihigo- Best supporting evidence comes from subjective sources.

4.Hugh Duffy- Career Win Shares = 295, Win Share 5-year Peak = 144 (!), Career WARP3 = 81, Career Runs Created = 1229, Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 147. A+ Centerfielder with 5 WS Gold Gloves, according to James, who ranks him #20 center fielder of all time. I’ve had him gracing my Hall since 1908.

5.George Sisler- Monster Career stats: Runs Created = 1477, Black Ink = 29, Gray Ink = 198. Pretty good pitcher, as well. Went into my HoM in 1938.

6.Joe Cronin- Conservative estimate. Can only go up.

7.Chuck Klein- Career Runs Created = 1364, OPS+ = 137, and more Black Ink (60) than any other eligible player.

8.Wes Ferrell- Over 30 Win Shares/season.

9.Cool Papa Bell- Still trying to connect his numbers to the subjective accounts on him.

10.Earl Averil- Consistent if not exactly mind-blowing career. Averaged over 27 Win Shares per 162 games.

11.Burleigh Grimes- Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 213, Career Win Shares = 286, excellent WARP scores.

12.Edd Roush- Looks great across the board: Career Win Shares = 314, WARP1 = 111.4, WARP3 = 82.3. Win Shares A- Defender.

13.Rube Waddell- Career Win Shares = 240; WS3 = 100, WS5 = 145, over 30 WS/season, Black Ink = 36, Gray Ink = 158.

14.Eppa Rixey- Very good career, piled up some good Ink scores.

15.George Van Haltren- Career WS = 344, WARP1 = 121, Career Runs Created = 1286.

16.Clark Griffith- Moves back up to #5 in my eligible pitcher rankings.

17.John Beckwith- A constant struggle with his placement.

18.Jimmy Ryan- Career WS = 316, Career WARP1 = 119, Career WARP3 = 84.5, Career Runs Created = 1338, B+ WS Defender. Awesome career.

19.Jake Beckley- Career WS = 318, Career WARP1 = 116. Career Runs Created = 1461, which exceeds Dan Brouthers’ 1445. Just too many ahead of him right now.

20.Tommy Leach- Career Win Shares = 329, WARP1 = 113.7, WARP3 = 74.8.

Biz Mackey?- Currently, the best catcher on my list still ranks around #23.

Thanks!
   86. Kelly in SD Posted: April 28, 2005 at 07:47 PM (#1295904)
Voting for Welch:

Wins are not the only reason people vote for him. I have broken down the following HoMer and HoM candidates' careers game-by-game: Clarkson, Radbourn, Keefe, Galvin, Rusie, McGinnity, Griffith, Faber, Brown, Shocker, Willis, Walsh, Waddell, McCormick, Coveleski, Joss, and most of Rixey (before I had too much homework). Still need to do Young, Matty, Alex, the Big Train, Lefty, Dazzy, Lyons, and Kid. Maybe after the Bar in July.
Anyway, there is no pitcher who dominated other HoMers to the degree Welch did. He finished his career 62-38 against HoMers. The number of decisions is definitely because of pitching era. His dominance is not.

Other pitchers:
Brown: 19-13
Clarkson: 33-30
Coveleski: 14-13
Faber: 9-20
Galvin: 42-52
Griffith: 12-19
Joss: 18-16
Keefe: 42-40
McCormick: 42-47
McGinnity: 8-13
Radbourn: 41-39
Rixey (incomplete, based on 1912-15, 1917-25): 5-9
Rusie: 19-26
Shocker: 14-13
Waddell: 15-15
Walsh: 14-7
Willis: 13-19

Walsh and Brown are the only 2 pitchers close to Welch and they both had reputations as big game pitchers.
And no, Welch was not beating them when his team was better than theirs. He has a winning record against the others whether their was better than his or worse.

Also, while Welch's ERA+ was 113, he also played with worse defenses behind him than Caruthers, Keefe, Radbourn, and Clarkson.

So, you have a pitcher getting generally worse offensive and defensive support than the others, yet when he pitches against them (in 100 starts) he beats them 62% of the time. The other pitchers are .500 pitchers against one another. 100 starts is not sample size.

That is why people vote for Welch.
   87. David C. Jones Posted: April 28, 2005 at 10:15 PM (#1296254)
DCJ,

Fight the power. It looks like Dihigo, Suttles and Beckwith will all make our Hall. Bell and Mackey have pretty good chances too. Just keep on voting and your patience will be rewarded (though I have to say I am not a fan of Beckwith's).


Yeah, I'm just a little frustrated that Dihigo seems to be losing out to Cronin. I really understand the thought process that many people use with Negro Leaguers, and I can empathize with it. There's so much we don't know about them that the instinct is to be conservative and to go with the guys you know better first. But in practice what this means is that white players get inducted before Negro Leaguers. I have little doubt that, if Joe Cronin were black, he would not be getting as many votes as he is getting. And I think he's perfectly deserving of induction. But if all we had for a player like him was a sketchy statistical resume and some anecdotal evidence, he'd be much further down on most lists. I just wish more people would give players like Dihigo the benefit of the doubt. The "known unknowns" cut both ways--these players could be better or worse than the meager statistical evidence indicates.
   88. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 11:25 PM (#1296421)
But in practice what this means is that white players get inducted before Negro Leaguers.

But the Negro Leaguers have the same problem that some of the transitional stars from the 1860's and 1870's had. When there are problems with the statistical records, caution is needed. I wish it weren't the case, but the problem was created before any of us were born (even karlmagnus! :-)

I have little doubt that, if Joe Cronin were black, he would not be getting as many votes as he is getting.

If we were analyzing Cronin using MLEs instead of major league stats, I have no doubt he would be in the same boat as Dihigo.
   89. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 28, 2005 at 11:28 PM (#1296434)
BTW, I have Beckwith before Cronin in second place. I wish he had his plaque a long time ago. :-(
   90. Howie Menckel Posted: April 28, 2005 at 11:42 PM (#1296471)
David,
Almost sounds like you're advocating favoring black players over white players.
Why don't we just do neither?
I have Dihigo ahead of Cronin, and Suttles 4th, but I'm not quite as fond of Beckwith as some, not crazy about Mackey, but did vote for Cool Papa, etc.
   91. David C. Jones Posted: April 29, 2005 at 12:04 AM (#1296552)
I'm not advocating black players over white players. But to me there are just a few troubling trends in this thread. So far the two people who have responded (John and Howie), both had Dihigo ahead of Cronin. They are in the minority. By my count thus far, Dihigo has four votes for first place, five for second, six for third, one for fourth, two for fifth, three for sixth, two for seventh and one for ninth. He is missing on three ballots. I challenge anyone to read up on Dihigo, read his entry in Riley, and conclude that he is not one of the top 15 eligible players. That's completely absurd. It reminds me of the MVP votes where Ted Williams wasn't even listed on a couple ballots. Cronin, meanwhile, has 11 for second, 11 for third, three for fourth, one for sixth, and one for ninth. He has appeared on every ballot. I've just read so many comments in this thread where somebody says about Dihigo "He sounds like an amazing player. Could easily be higher" and they have him third, or sixth, or whatever. I just don't think voters are giving enough benefit of the doubt when it comes to these NeL guys. I can understand putting in guys like Grove, Hubbell, etc. ahead of any of the current NeL candidates, but when Ted Lyons gets in before Suttles and Beckwith, or when Cronin goes in before Dihigo, that bothers me. I also see that it is a pattern with past elections too, from before the time I was here. Whenever its a tossup between a white player and a black player, the white guy goes in first.

It also bothers me that some NeL players get tagged with the "anti-Beckwith" label, i.e. somebody with a great reputation whose stats don't measure up. I'd be fine with the label if at least Beckwith had been elected, but he still hasn't.
   92. David C. Jones Posted: April 29, 2005 at 12:09 AM (#1296569)
The other thing that concerns me is a few comments which indicate that the writer has a list of Negro Leaguers that is separate from the white major leaguers. I have such a list, too, but sometimes I get the impression that a writer is using some sort of a quota on their ballot, to make sure they don't put too many NeLers on at any one time; in other words, that in order for a black player to get on the ballot, not only does he have to demonstrate that he's one of the best 15 players, he also has to be one of the best five, or whatever the number is, black players. I hope that isn't the case.
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 29, 2005 at 12:29 AM (#1296648)
So far the two people who have responded (John and Howie), both had Dihigo ahead of Cronin.

Just to be clear, I have Dihigo behind Cronin, but Beckwith ahead of the AL President.

I do believe, in my gut, that I am shortchanging him, though, and mentioned as much on my ballot. His career was so weird (like John Ward's) that I need a little more time to get a handle on him.

As for quotas, I'm against them anyway you slice them. I take the newest NeL candidate and try to assess where he belongs with the others. I have also never used a separate list for them.

It also bothers me that some NeL players get tagged with the "anti-Beckwith" label, i.e. somebody with a great reputation whose stats don't measure up. I'd be fine with the label if at least Beckwith had been elected, but he still hasn't.

Unfortunately...

"He sounds like an amazing player. Could easily be higher" and they have him third, or sixth, or whatever.

We used to have the same comments with Pearce, McVey, Pike, etc. When the stats are somewhat sketchy, people will pause before making a commitment to vote for a particular player. Anecdotes alone won't cut it by themselves.
   94. David C. Jones Posted: April 29, 2005 at 01:19 AM (#1296800)
Yeah, in the grand scheme of things this isn't that important. I know everyone is trying to do the best they can in evaluating these candidates, and I'm sure Beckwith, Suttles and Dihigo will all get elected at some point pretty soon. I'm just grousing, is all.
   95. Daryn Posted: April 29, 2005 at 01:22 AM (#1296809)
Whenever its a tossup between a white player and a black player, the white guy goes in first.

As John has alluded to, perhaps it is better to say that whenever it's a tossup between a documented player and an undocumented or underdocumented player, the documented player goes in first. I would hope and expect that when we get to the 1960s and beyond the electorate will be color blind.
   96. Howie Menckel Posted: April 29, 2005 at 02:18 AM (#1296996)
Grouse away, David, that's not a problem.
Might be best not to be so specific with vote counts, though, as there's an unwritten rule about not trying to lay out 'where things stand' for upcoming voters.

But I tend to get in trouble when I point things like that out, so I'm being as gentle as possible!
   97. David C. Jones Posted: April 29, 2005 at 02:26 AM (#1297008)
I think the comparison with the 1860s and 1870s only goes so far. Baseball in those decades was mostly undeveloped, and mostly confined to a small area of the country, and played under rules very, very different from the 20th century game. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons for being hesitant on early ballplayers that have nothing to do with the level of documentation.
   98. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 29, 2005 at 03:02 AM (#1297061)
Well, I only started voting in 1935 so I wasn't around when we were electing Dickey Pearce, Al Spalding, etc. But the 1860's and 70's players were being judged against the players form the relatively well-documented 1880's and 1890's (we started voting in 1898 and a lot of the 1860's guys din't get elected until way later), so the situation may be analogous.

The problem I keep running into with Dihigo is that it is highly unlikely that he would have been both a Pitcher and an OFer in MLB. That isn't fair to Dihigo, though. He played in his time and place and was great in doing so. At the same time how can you directly compare him to Vaughn, Gehrig, etc. in 35 and 36 and say he was better when they had no opportunities to be two way players? Is it fair to them? Could there even have been a good but not great OFers (or for that matters SS's?) who could also have been very good pitchers? I don't know so I am hedging my best a tad. I wasnt' around for Caruthers but he did do his act against the rest of his HOM competition making it an easier case.

However, I do believe that it is pretty obvious that Joe Cronin is a HOMer. In fact I don't really understand the slight backlash against him and I think he deserves to fly in first ballot. the only other player that I have close to him (besides Waner and saving that I am still mulling over Dihigo) is Jennings. And I have a mancrush on Ee-Yah.
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: April 29, 2005 at 03:03 AM (#1297064)
Well, David, I don't necessarily disagree.
But I think this group is being a helluva lot fairer to all Negro Leaguers than the HOF ever was, without pandering to political correctness, either.
I love that balance. These are outstanding players who don't need pity. Just judge them on their performance, and they'll do just fine, thank you. And the more skeptical in the group make their cases quite reasonably, too.
   100. David C. Jones Posted: April 29, 2005 at 03:26 AM (#1297083)
Well, David, I don't necessarily disagree.
But I think this group is being a helluva lot fairer to all Negro Leaguers than the HOF ever was, without pandering to political correctness, either.


The HOF is a pretty low standard in this regard. This is the organization that at one point, said it had elected all the deserving Negro Leaguers, and they hadn't yet put in Rube Foster. I think we all agree that we should be holding ourselves to the highest possible standard.

With regard to the comments in post #98, I'm not sure that I would put Dihigo ahead of Gehrig or Vaughan. Probably not. But neither of those fellows is being considered just now. I'm judging Dihigo against Waner and Cronin. All three belong. But the question is, who deserves the honor of going in first? Why is Cronin better than Dihigo? The question should not be, what would Cronin have done in the Negro Leagues, or what would Dihigo have done in the major leagues, but rather who added more value to his teams, and then once you have that figured out, adjust for quality of play and reach a conclusion.

FWIW, I see Cronin as probably the seventh best shortstop in history, behind Wagner, Lloyd, Wells, Ripken, Vaughan and A-Rod (that incredible peak...)
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
greenback calls it soccer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.5613 seconds
68 querie(s) executed