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, June 13, 2005

1954 Ballot Discussion

1954 (June 19)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

356 119.5 1932 Arky Vaughan-SS (1952)
312 94.5 1933 Joe Medwick-LF (1975)
251 87.1 1933 Bucky Walters-P (1991)
208 64.5 1933 Lonny Frey-2B (living)
214 56.3 1937 Rudy York-1B (1970)
202 57.2 1938 Frank McCormick-1B (1982)
165 52.5 1934 Thornton Lee-P (1997)
173 50.0 1936 George McQuinn-1B (1978)
152 49.2 1935 Terry Moore-CF (1995)
140 49.5 1934 Fritz Ostermueller-P (1957)
122 42.7 1936 Denny Galehouse-P (1998)

1954 (June 19)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

HF 32-48 Hilton Smith-P (1912) 6 - 1*
00% 37-48 Ted Strong-RF (1917) #3 rf - 0 - 0
00% 32-48 Joe Greene-C (1911) #8 c - 1 - 2*
00% 36-52 Neil Robinson-OF (1908) 0 - 5*
00% 40-52 Archie Ware-1B (1918)0 - 3*
00% 26-51 Pancho Coimbre-OF (1909) 0 - 2*
00% 36-48 Eugene Bremmer-P (1915) 0 - 2*

 

Players Passing Away in 1953
HoMers
Age Elected

84 1912 Jesse Burkett-LF
83 1911 Kid Nichols-P

Candidates
Age Eligible

88 1910 Patsy Donovan-RF
81 1916 Sam Leever-P
77 1917 Charlie Hemphill-CF
74 1921 Jim Delahanty-2b
68 1926 Buck Herzog-2b/3b/SS
65 1925 Jim Thorpe-LF/CF
65 1928 Clyde Milan-CF
64 1929 Fred Toney-P
64 1934 Ben Taylor-1B
63 1927 Lefty Tyler-P
55 1939 Sam “Dolly” Gray-P
55 1941 Larry Benton-P
36 1953 Jim Tabor-3B

Thanks to Dan and Chris for the lists!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2005 at 10:17 PM | 158 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: June 14, 2005 at 12:37 AM (#1402239)
81 1916 Sam Leever-P

Sam died happy knowing that a toddler Brit would one day do his darndest to get him elected into the HoM. :-)
   2. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 12:45 AM (#1402274)
As an aside, title needs the word "discussion" added to it.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2005 at 12:48 AM (#1402280)
As an aside, title needs the word "discussion" added to it.

Thanks, Michael. It appears that I'm sloppier than normal tonight.
   4. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:14 AM (#1402331)
Who currently holds the title of "Oldest Living HOM-er"?
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:31 AM (#1402377)
First of several tidbits:

Most HOMers on a team since 1901

TEAMS WITH SEVEN HALL OF MERIT MEN
1927 Philadelphia AL Wheat Cobb E Collins Cochrane Simmons Grove Foxx SECOND
1928 Philadelphia AL Cobb E Collins Speaker Cochrane Simmons Grove Foxx SECOND

TEAMS WITH FIVE HALL OF MERIT MEN
1931 Homestead Greys SJ Williams Charleston Foster Wilson Gibson
1936 Detroit Cochrane Goslin Simmons Gehringer Greenberg SECOND

TEAMS WITH FOUR HALL OF MERIT MEN
1901 Brooklyn NL Dahlen Keeler Kelley Sheckard THIRD
1910 Cleveland AL Young Flick Lajoie Jackson FIFTH
1910 Chicago Leland Giants HR Johnson Hill Foster Lloyd
1912-13 New York Lincoln Giants HR Johnson Santop Lloyd Williams
1925-26 Philadelphia AL Cochrane Grove Simmons Foxx SECOND/THIRD
1926 New York NL Groh Frisch Terry Ott FIFTH
1928 New York AL Ruth Gehrig Covaleski Dickey FIRST
1929-32 Philadelphia AL Cochrane Grove Simmons Foxx FIRST/FIRST/FIRST/SECOND
1934-35 and 1937 Detroit Cochrane Goslin Gehringer Greenberg FIRST/FIRST and SECOND
   6. David C. Jones Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:32 AM (#1402378)
Somebody needs to explain to me the high level of support Ruffing is receiving. Looking at the numbers, I just don't see it.

I mean, this guy pitched for several years for one of the best baseball teams of all time, and yet his winning percentage is only .548. He never had to face that great Yankee lineup of the mid to late 1930s, but his ERA+ is just 109. He never led the league in much--shutouts once, strikeouts once, wins once (and losses twice).

He was a pretty good hitter, for a pitcher, but it's nothing to get too excited about: career OPS+ of 81, which overrates his offense because his hitting was more weighted toward slugging than on-base percentage.

I just don't get it. Somebody explain it to me, please.
   7. David C. Jones Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:34 AM (#1402381)
And while we're on the subject, somebody explain Stan Hack to me. He looks like a solid enough ballplayer, but his numbers got a nice boost late in his career thanks to playing in the watered-down MLs of the WW II era. Why is he any better than, I don't know, George Scales?
   8. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:38 AM (#1402387)
Most HOM teammates since 1901, note the AL tinge
E Collins 13
Simmons 13
Speaker 11
Cochrane 10
Cobb 10
Grove 8
Foxx 8
Goslin 8
Wheat 8

Most HOM "seasons" since 1901, one credit per season played with HOMer (min 10 G)
E Collins 48
Cochrane 45
Grove 45
Foxx 45
Simmons 40
Cobb 37
Ott 30
Faber 29
Goslin 27
Terry 26
   9. David C. Jones Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:38 AM (#1402388)
And Billy Herman too, while we're at it. He's a nice player and all, but his OPS+ is only 112, with no tremendous peak. Many years he was downright ordinary. All three of these guys, Ruffing, Hack and Herman, look like marginal candidates to me, and I can't understand why they leapt ahead of the backlog in so many voters minds. Why are these guys better than George Sisler or Rube Waddell or Edd Roush or Dick Redding or Biz Mackey or Cool Papa Bell, to name just a few of the many deserving candidates who have apparently been pushed down the list?
   10. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:39 AM (#1402393)
He never had to face that great Yankee lineup of the mid to late 1930s, but his ERA+ is just 109.

I thought ERA+ already took out the fact that he didn't have to face his own teams line-up. Doesn't ERA+ use the PPF?
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:39 AM (#1402394)
Well, David C, this time I'm in your corner.
   12. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:40 AM (#1402397)
MOST YEARS AS HOM TEAMMATES
SEVENTEEN
Ott-Hubbell 1928-43

FIFTEEN
Wagner-Clarke 1897-1911
Grove-Foxx 1925-33; 1936-41

THIRTEEN
Foster-Hill 1904-16
Crawford-Cobb 1905-17

TWELVE
E Collins-Faber 1915-26
Gehrig-Ruth 1923-34

ELEVEN
Start-Pearce 1862-72
Young-Burkett 1891-00; 1905
Lajoie-Flick 1896-00; 1902-07; 1909-10
Ott-Terry 1926-36
Gehrig-Dickey 1928-38
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:49 AM (#1402416)
HOMers by year (10 G min) thru 1953
1856-59 - 1
1860-65 - 2 (3 1864)
1866-67 - 4
1868-71 - 6/8/9/10
1872-76 - 12
1877-78 - 11
1879-80 - 16/17
1881-84 - 20 to 22
1885-89 - 23 to 25
1890-92 - 29 to 30
1893 ---- 26
1894-03 - 20 to 22
1904-09 - 24 to 26
1910-15 - 26 to 28 (25 1912)
1916--- - 31
1917--- - 26
1918-22 - 22 to 26
1923--- - 29
1924-28 - 32/34/37/36/33
1929-32 - 29 to 31
1933-37 - 26 (and down 1 each year to 22)
then too recent to be worth listing
   14. Jeff M Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:55 AM (#1402428)
I just don't get it. Somebody explain it to me, please.

Couldn't agree more. Had some pitching park factors around .91 in some of those Yankee years. Chris' RSI shows he got 17 more wins than expected due to great run support, and 30 of those wins came from the Yanks (Boston cost him 13 wins in run support). BP shows he pitched in front of above-average defenses.

Red pitched in Boston for 7 years and was well on his way to being a below average pitcher...he mustered better than 12 WS only once in those 7 years. Next thing you know he is 15-5 with the Yankees with a worse than league average ERA (when you consider the .93 park factor).

He turned out to be a good major league pitcher of course, but he pitched for 21 years and only had more than 20 WS six times and more than 25 WS only once.
   15. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:00 AM (#1402436)
Doesn't ERA+ use the PPF?

Yes. Ruffing's 109 ERA+ takes his not having to face his Yankee teammates into account.

Responding to David C. Jones: I agree that the electorate overrated Herman, Hack, and Ruffing, though not by a huge amount. There's a little bit of shiny-new-toy syndrome about each of them, which we should attempt to rub off in this year's discussion.
   16. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:03 AM (#1402440)
I don't mean to pick on jimd, but if we've decided to stop enforcing the constitution with respect to "lost causes", it would be nice to know that; I know Marc has expressed interest in such a thing in the past, and I'm sure he'd like to know as well.
   17. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:10 AM (#1402450)
I don't see Ruffing either, he's off the bottom of my ballot in favor of Rixey, Lyons, Andy Cooper, and now Walters.

Hack was on my ballot, and his value didn't drop THAT much due to WW2. Using a blanket 10% discount on WW2 seasons can only cost him, at most like 10 win shares, though it does effect my peak and prime observations of him.

Herman is right around where I rank Monroe, a little better than the top of the glut (aka: Doyle and Childs) but not so much better that he's getting ahead of the shortstops (Jennings, Beckwith, Wells, Moore) or the 3B (Leach and Hack).
   18. karlmagnus Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:11 AM (#1402451)
Leever was a MUCH better pitcher than Ruffing :-)) There's no such thing as a LOST CAUSE!
   19. KJOK Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:15 AM (#1402465)
Ruffing? Yes, seems like he's not even better than Jack Quinn?!

Herman? Yes, can't see he's much better than Childs, Lazzeri, Doyle, etc.

Hack, however, I would disagree with. He was quite a bit above other 3Bman of his time, and has 370 Runs Created Above Position, which is better than Gabby Hartnett and Al Simmons. Even if you discount his 1945, he still looks extremely productive for a 3B man in his era.
   20. Jeff M Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:18 AM (#1402471)
And while we're on the subject, somebody explain Stan Hack to me....Why is he any better than, I don't know, George Scales?

Hack does not make my ballot, but I've got him considerably north of Scales. Apart from the fact that there is a lot of extrapolation to get Scales' numbers, Scales looks pretty average to me as potential HoMers go. I've got him at about .271/.331/.419 after applying a discount, and he was average in the field. I don't show him with a tremendous peak, and I've got him at about 275 career WS. He falls way short of my ballot...he's around #90.


I don't apply a discount to Hack's seasons, so that probably makes a small difference -- how do you quantify that discount, by the way? I've got Hack at about .302/.395/.398 normalized to the run scoring environment, with a pretty good WS peak and about 327 adjusted WS. Even if you lop off 5% of those WS, you've still got a very solid third baseman, considering that he was better than average in the field. He misses my ballot because although he played 16 seasons, he really only had 9 full seasons, so his adjusted/normalized totals do not impress me enough to get him a vote. He's around #25 on my ballot.

And Billy Herman too, while we're at it....Why are these guys better than George Sisler or Rube Waddell or Edd Roush ...

Don't know about his OPS, but his runs created are 25-33% better than the league (depending on the formula), which ain't too shabby for a pretty good fielding second sacker. He mustered 300+ WS and his peak looks solid if you compare it to second basemen in the HoF. His season-adjusted WARP1 numbers are also very good by any standard, and particularly for a middle infielder. I've got him #7, immediately behind Sisler and immediately ahead of Waddell and Roush...funny you should mention it. :) Can't claim I have them in the right order, but it certainly helps that he played 2b and the other guys are outfielders and pitchers.
   21. Jeff M Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:23 AM (#1402482)
Lonny Frey won't make any ballots (and rightly so), but what a nice little ballplayer that the average guy has never heard of. :)
   22. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:25 AM (#1402483)
As for Ruffing, I prefer to compare him to HOMer Ted Lyons

Nearly identical WARP1 and WARP3. Both are candidates for a small (not excessive) amount of war credit. Lyons has a little more peak, Ruffing to me has the superior prime.
   23. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:40 AM (#1402513)
I guess it goes without saying that Arky Vaughan is a first-ballot HoMer?
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:42 AM (#1402519)
I guess it goes without saying that Arky Vaughan is a first-ballot HoMer?

IMO, without a doubt, Chris.
   25. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:42 AM (#1402520)
Not that I'm not prepared for it from the usual suspects ( :) ), but it would take some serious acrobatics to be Vaughan anywhere other than the #1 slot on a ballot.
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:47 AM (#1402531)
The first prelim.

1. Vaughan--right you are, Michael Bass
2. Medwick--I don't expect many to follow suit, but he works for me
3. Jennings
4. Moore
5. Sisler
6. Suttles--but favorable comparison to Leonard could move him up
7. Bond
8. Wells
9. Waddell
10. Mendez or Herman or other NeL P

11. Herman
12. Roush
13. Williamson
14. Beckwith
15. Klein
   27. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:49 AM (#1402540)
Bah, sunnyday, if you'd just moved Medwick down some, you could have achieved the first 1-2-3 SS ballot in HOM history! (I assume). Maybe even move Wells up, make it 1-2-3-4!

Ah, you have me beat on top of the ballot SS, but I'm the one who has 5 SS crammed on his ballot, so I have a slight edge over you. ;)
   28. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 03:36 AM (#1402606)
Just a quick note on a couple of players who deserve a mention and more than passing scrutiny, though their careers will be difficult to reconstruct:

Francisco "Pancho" Coimbre. Widely regarded as the best Puerto Rican ballplayer before Clemente. He played only 4 seasons in the Negro Leagues 1940, 1941, 1943, and 1944, but he was a fixture in the Puerto Rican Winter League from its inception in 1938 through 1951, and his professional career in Latin America stretches back to the mid-1920s. Hit for very high average in his Negro-League seasons, with good doubles power and a bit of home-run pop. Statistics for his Puerto Rican career should be available somewhere.

Tetelo Vargas. Officially eligible since 1950, he hasn't yet received any attention. In 1954, he is still playing in the new summer league in his native Dominican, at the age of 47. Universally regarded as the best player of this era out of the Dominican. He played two stints in the NeL, 1927-31, 38-39, 41-44, all for Cuban teams. He began his career as an infielder (27-31 period) but was an outfielder by the late 1930s. He played in the Puerto Rican Winter League through most of the 1940s, so stats for those years could be found.

Anyone know more about these players, or about the Puerto Rico Winter League in which they starred?
   29. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 03:46 AM (#1402634)
Vaughan does not utterly blow me away at first glance; top 10 in MVP only twice, never once top 4 in total bases, etc.

best OPS+s as regular (total over 100):
Vaughan 90 49 48 46 40 40 34 32 26 19 13 00
G Sisler 81 70 61 57 54 40 32 10 10 06 01

Sisler best 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Yes, Vaughan lasted longer and a position bonus, too, but geesh, he's No. 1 this year and Sisler isn't even on most ballots?
   30. David C. Jones Posted: June 14, 2005 at 03:57 AM (#1402666)
Thanks for the correction on the PPF. Ruffing still leaves me underwhelmed. Hack and Herman I can understand a bit more, but I still don't see how they are better than some of the backlog.

Is it clear that Arky Vaughan was a better player than Willie Wells? I had Wells #1 on my ballot, and I think the electorate underrated him a bit. I can see taking Dickey and Greenberg over Wells, although I don't entirely agree, but on some of the ballots I thought Wells was really much too low.

To me, that's the key comparison for this year's ballot: Vaughan versus Wells. I think every voter, no matter how they vote, should figure out why one is better than the other. Of course we do that implicitly every time we make up a ballot, but in this particular election I'd like to see voters explicitly compare the two players and figure out who was better. I think BOTH Wells and Vaughan are clear HOMers. I'm not sure which one was better, though.
   31. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 03:59 AM (#1402672)
Some good fielders this year:

Arky Vaughan-SS B+
Joe Medwick-LF B-
Lonny Frey-2B A+
Rudy York-1B A-
Frank McCormick-1B A
George McQuinn-1B A-
Terry Moore-CF A+
   32. David C. Jones Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:01 AM (#1402674)
Yes, Vaughan lasted longer and a position bonus, too, but geesh, he's No. 1 this year and Sisler isn't even on most ballots?

I think the electorate also needs to seriously reconsider George Sisler. He's only at the bottom of my ballot right now, but if anything I'm worried that I have him too low, not too high.

Consider this: at his peak, meaning from around 1917 to 1922, how much better was Sisler than every other first baseman in baseball? Not just better in one area, but the whole package: hitting, fielding, baserunning...I think some voters have overreacted to his inflated reputation.
   33. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:06 AM (#1402684)
Win Shares -- Vaughn vs Sisler

AV-39-36-35-34-34-31-28-25-25-21-19-19-07-03
GS-33-29-29-27-25-24-22-19-16-15-13-11-11-10-08
   34. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:27 AM (#1402715)
David,
Doesn't season length play into Win Shares?
So Sisler is screwed because WW I happened?

FYI, I also don't trust any fielding numbers as much as hitting. I am comfortable with stats on hitting, then making informal adjustments for fielding. Seems silly to pretend both sets of stats are of equal worth.
   35. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:31 AM (#1402720)
Win Shares -- Vaughn vs Wells vs Beckwith
Top Ten:

AV-38.8-36.0-35.5-34.0-33.9-30.8-27.9-25.3-24.5-21.1
WW-28.8-28.4-27.9-26.6-26.4-24.7-22.4-22.1-21.9-21.1
JB-30.8-28.6-27.7-26.1-24.5-24.0-23.3-23.2-22.5-19.9

Second Ten:

AV-19.3-19.0-06.7-03.1
WW-20.4-20.0-18.6-18.1-17.5-17.1-12.9-09.5-08.7-03.4
JB-17.9-17.7-14.9-12.1-01.2-00.7-00.0

(Plus WW-0.7 in year 21)


Before I did this, I was planning on a 1.Vaughn/2.Beckwith/3.Wells ballot. This exercise is making me want to flip Beckwith and Wells. (Though career voters may favor Wells, here)

I would have thought that Beckwith's bat would carry him more. Are the estimates at Beckwith pg 3 post 42 the latest and greatest?
   36. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:45 AM (#1402744)
Doesn't season length play into Win Shares?
So Sisler is screwed because WW I happened?


Yup. Oversight on my part. The 24-22 => 27-28

AV-39-36-35-34-34-31-28-25-25-21-19-19-07-03
GS-33-29-29-28-27-27-25-19-16-15-13-11-11-10-08

As for the defense, sure, Vaughn has an 80.2-24.6 career advantage in FWS which makes up a large portion of their career difference. I'm just in the mood for posting tables of data tonight for some reason. :-) Take the data as contributions to the discussion and not necessarily definitive statements one way or the other.
   37. Kelly in SD Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:13 AM (#1402876)
Just posting quick and back to studying:

1. Vaughan
2. Wells
3. Welch
4. Jones, Charley
5. Medwick
6. Suttles
7. Duffy
8. Browning
9. Ferrell
10. Walters
11. Averill
12. Roush
13. Burns
14. Willis
15. Moore
16. Poles
17. Mackey
18. Beckwith
19. Mendez
20. Grimes
21. Van Haltren
22. Herman, Billy
23. Cooper
24. Leach
25. Jennings
26. Childs
27. Dean
28. Sisler

Ruffing: I do not understand the excitement.
Hack: probably underrating his dominance over other 3b of his time. But, he is still nowhere near my top 15. Peak is not high enough, prime is not high enough.
   38. TomH Posted: June 14, 2005 at 11:42 AM (#1402996)
Seems to me that the newbie arguments (Herman, Hack, Ruffing) have much to do with the timeline (WARP1 convert to WARP2, if you will) effect. Was the avg MLBer better in 1940 than 1930? How much? With the end of the depression, and farm systems more organized (at least with a few clubs), it's certainly possible that BP's adjustments are reasonable. Others may disagree - if you look at their EqA (raw and adjusted), batters lose about .010 in avg around 1930, but very little by 1942, and they gain a few pts after WWII and integration.

54 Scatterbox Prelim

*** “clearly in” “borderline” “HoVGood”
-C --------------Mackey Schang/Bresnahan
SS Vaughan!/Wells! -Sewell ----Jennings
2B ---Herman -------Childs -Monroe/Doyle
3B ----Hack ----McGraw --Traynor
UTIL --------------Beckwith Leach
1B Greenberg -------------------Sisler/
1B --Suttles ----------------Chance/Beckley
OF ---------VanHaltren --B Johnson
OF ------------CP Bell, Averill -Medwick
-P -Griffith -Walters-----Rixey –--Mendez
-P ------Ruffing --------------Dean/Welch
-P ------Ferrell -----------------Waddell
   39. TomH Posted: June 14, 2005 at 11:46 AM (#1403002)
anybody have WAT for Red Ruffing?
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 11:59 AM (#1403011)
HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct)

C (7.11) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 98, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (10.38) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10

2B (8.55) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (5.49) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Ott 10

SS (9.44) - Pearce 96, Glasscock 94, Cronin 92, HWright 89, Dahlen 88, Wallace 77, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15

OF (30.70) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, Simmons, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10

SP (24.35) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

INF: 40.87
OF: 30.70
P: 24.35

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

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.
   41. TomH Posted: June 14, 2005 at 12:24 PM (#1403034)
doesn't LFer Medwick look an awful lot like LFer Indian Bob Johnson?!?
....WS career rate WARP3 .G OPS+
medwick 312 ..25.5 .83 1984 134
johnson 290 ..25.0 .96 1863 138
anybody see a big diff on their ballots between these two? It's the closest pairing I've come across since the 1890s CFers.
   42. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 12:45 PM (#1403047)
Before I did this, I was planning on a 1.Vaughn/2.Beckwith/3.Wells ballot. This exercise is making me want to flip Beckwith and Wells. (Though career voters may favor Wells, here)

I would have thought that Beckwith's bat would carry him more. Are the estimates at Beckwith pg 3 post 42 the latest and greatest?


The post 3-42 win share estimates are the latest I have done for Beckwith. They are not, however, based on the most up-to-date MLEs for Beckwith, including OPS+, which appear in posts 3-81, -82, and -83. This OPS+ data is "state-of-the-art," fully compatible with that for all later NeL candidates.

I don't think that win share totals based on these OPS+ projections would differ significantly from the previous ones: that assumption (plus limited time) has led to my not updating Beckwith's batting win shares.

Beckwith's seasonal win-share totals are hurt in comparison to Wells by the fact that he appears to have been out of the lineup quite a bit, where Wells was notably durable during his prime. Also, Wells was the better fielder, which at shortstop/3B might mean 2-3 win shares difference per season.

FWIW, I have Wells slightly ahead of Beckwith (they're at 2 & 3 on my evolving prelim), though Wells' career value is decisive for me. Were I a pure peak/prime voter, I would probably favor Beckwith.
   43. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 12:47 PM (#1403049)
Years where there are no HOMer regulars at a position (1876-1939):

C - 1880; 1893-09; 1918-19
1B - 1899; 1902-03; 1905-10; 1912-17; 1921-22
2B - 1878; 1880-81; 1905
3B - 1889; 1906; 1929
SS - 1923-26; 1928

Longest gap is C, 1893-1909.
1B 'missing' each year from 1902-22, except for 1904, 1911, 1918-20.
   44. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 14, 2005 at 12:49 PM (#1403050)
And doesn't Medwick look a lot like Geo Burns? And Gavy Cravath? I think he's a pinch better thanks to having the one really big year, but after that, he's a near duplicate of the other two (note: I'm working on WS adj to 162, with 10% WW2 discount for Medwick's war years, and with MiL credit for Cravath).
   45. Rusty Priske Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:03 PM (#1403061)
Prelim

PHoM: Vaughan, Dickey

1. Willie Wells
2. Arky Vaughan
3. Red Ruffing
4. Mule Suttles
5. Stan Hack
6. George Van Haltren
7. John Beckwith
8. Mickey Welch
9. Jake Beckley
10. Eppa Rixey
11. Billy Herman
12. Tommy Leach
13. Cool Papa Bell
14. Biz Mackey
15. Edd Roush

16-20. Medwick, Rice, Sisler, Duffy, Moore
21-25. Averill, Mullane, Powell, Ryan, White
26-30. H. Smith, Streeter, Monroe, J. McCormick, Gleason
   46. Trevor P. Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:34 PM (#1403103)
"doesn't LFer Medwick look an awful lot like LFer Indian Bob Johnson?!?"

I came in here to make that exact comment.

Medwick's career SLG was .505; his OBP was .362. League averages for his career were .393 and .343, respectively. So Medwick hit 112 points above the league SLG, but was only a paltry 19 points above the league OBP.

Johnson, on the other hand, had career SLG and OBP totals of .506 and .393. League figures were .401 and .351, meaning Indian Bob was 105 points above the league SLG and 42 points above the league OBP.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that Johnson not only has a slight lead in career OPS+ (138 to 134) over Medwick, but that his OPS+ is weighted a bit more (though it's close) to the all-important OBP side of that equation, making the career gulf between the two a little larger.

Peak voters might prefer Medwick, I guess. But I'm going to have Medwick at least within 5 slots of Johnson - meaning he'll be off the end of my ballot. Unless I'm missing something.
   47. andrew siegel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 01:59 PM (#1403153)
A year where the fact that I care about peak and prime makes some real difference in my rankings.

PHOM: Vaughan, Greenberg. [Next 10 in line: Lyons, Ruffing, Averill, Medwick, Ferrell, Sam Thompson, Herman, Rixey, Grimes, Mackey.]

(1) Vaughan (new)--Don't think it is particularly close. He's in my all-time top 50, probably my all-time top 40. He was a good SS with an amazing bat. On peak, he's behind Wagner and essentially in a flat-footed tie with ARod and Lloyd (only other candidates for the discussion are Jennings and Moore).

[Hank Greenberg]

(2) Beckwith (2nd) (PHOM)
(3) Wells (3rd)(PHOM this year)
(4) Suttles (5th) (PHOM)
(5) Jennings (6th) (PHOM)

[Ted Lyons]

(6) Ruffing (8th)-- I am relying primarily on the WARP numbers for him. Those numbers show him as slightly below Lyons but substantially ahead of the other long-career pitchers. They also suggest that he was actually a very good pitcher with the Red Sox, hidden by a horrible team. I find that more plausible than the bob Shawkey hocus-pocus.
(7) Van Haltren (7th) (PHOM)
(8) Averill (9th)
(9) Duffy (11th) (PHOM)-- Too close to the two above him to put a player between them.
(10) Medwick (new)-- See Medwick thread. His superstar peak separates him from Indian Bob.
(11) Moore (10th) (PHOM)-- Drops a notch based on my decision to put the OF's together.
(12) Ferrell (13th)-- Favorable comparison to Walters ticks him up one slot.
(13) Childs (12th) (PHOM)-- Like him slightly better than Herman.

[Sam Thompson]

(14) Herman (14th)-- Very similar to Sewell and Hack.
(15) Rixey (15th)-- Hope he gets in some day.

The next 20 are Grimes, Mackey, Jones, Roush, Sewell, Hack, Redding, [Bill Terry] Chance, Sisler, Bell, Bob Johnson (up), [Max Carey] Bresnahan, Schang, Walters (new), Monroe, Welch, Leach, Doyle, McGraw.
   48. Howie Menckel Posted: June 14, 2005 at 02:43 PM (#1403221)
For those in the NY/NJ area, this runs June 16 to August 11 at the Morris Museum in Morristown, NJ (this from the website):

"The National Pastime in Black and White: The Negro Baseball Leagues, 1867-1955" tells the fascinating story of the Negro leagues. The exhibition's 60 photographs and 15 to 20 rare artifacts acquaint visitors with great athletes who were good enough--but not white enough--to play in the major leagues. These athletes didn't wait for the door to "organized" baseball to open; they formed their own teams and leagues and played the game with as much skill and enthusiasm as their white counterparts."

Website: http://www.morrismuseum.org/
Phone: (973) 971-3700
   49. Al Peterson Posted: June 14, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1403324)
One comparison of Joe Medwick vs. Bob Johnson on peak:

Top 10 OPS+

Joe Medwick - 7 (1,4,5,6,7,8,10)
Bob Johnson - 10 (1,5,5,7,8,8,8,9,9,10)

As for Win Shares, Medwick does outdo Indian Bob. Then again Ducky was on much better teams. Check out 1933-45 the finish in the 8-team leagues on the teams they played for.
Place JM BJ
1-2 7 1
3-6 5 3
7-8 1 9

If there is a slight under representation on Win Shares based on teams doing poorly then Johnson suffered more than most players. Medwick obviously didn't.

From 1933-45 JM's teams outperformed Pythag to the tune of +6, BJ's came in -15.

So we've got Medwick who played on good teams in excellent hitter parks, hitting for high average with few walks. Johnson played on crap teams in pitchers parks, hitting for lower average with more walks. Hence the perception that Ducky is better during his day when BA was king.
   50. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2005 at 03:56 PM (#1403386)
And Billy Herman too, while we're at it. He's a nice player and all, but his OPS+ is only 112, with no tremendous peak. Many years he was downright ordinary.

I struggled with this one for a while. The position is migrating in the defensive spectrum.

I've been a fan of Doyle and Childs for many years and I recognized that Herman had comparable value... though it weighted much more towards defense than the above two. Win Shares likes Herman in terms of raw defensive value, yet only gives him a B+ grade. An A/A+ grade there would make him comparable to a Frankie Frisch without the baserunning. I eventually slotted him just above Doyle/Childs but I'm open to suggestion.

Thinking out loud some more. I'm seeing Nellie Fox on the horizon and I could be jumping the gun as far as where the defensive spectrum for 2B should be at this point.
   51. Daryn Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:08 PM (#1403418)
In the 1920s I was at the top of this group with highest Consensus Score. Last year I finished second last, just ahead of (gasp) karlmagnus. I’m not sure what that means.

1. Arky Vaughn – has a lot of similarities to Joe Medwick with the bat (I have Medwick at 18, ahead of the outfield glut), but he did it at shortstop. Peer pressure is keeping me from taking a hard look at whether he is actually better than Welch and Beckley. He just barely tops them at a cursory review.

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

4. Eppa Rixey – see Grimes comment.

5. Red Ruffing – fits nicely in between Rixey and Grimes – definitely better than Grimes, perhaps better than Rixey.

6. Burleigh Grimes – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between Rixey and Grimes. 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.

7. 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.

8. Biz Mackey – I vote career over peak, so I like Mackey the best of the eligible catchers. It is close though, and Mackey is not that much ahead of Schang (who I have in the low 20s).

9. 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.

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

12. Cool Papa Bell – I have decided to move Bell up from the outfield glut to here, ahead of Suttles and Beckwith. As flawed as they may be, I have chosen to rely, in part, on the 1952 Courier poll and more importantly the 1999 SABR poll. I know the former has its flaws but it doesn’t appear to canonize Bell (he is a 2nd team all-star there). I know the SABR poll takes into account non-playing influence, but it has Bell ahead of Charleston and Gibson, among others, and that must mean something (particularly when it accords with all the anecdotal evidence and a possible Cobb MLE of over 4000 hits).

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. Willie Wells – I’m having trouble putting full reliance on the MLEs. I wish I had a better way of determining where the NeLers ranked. No matter how you look at it, I don’t see how to justify a top of the ballot placement, particularly if Scales is nowhere near your ballot. Only Matt saves me from ranking an electee lowest two years in a row (I had Greenberg at 9).

15. Rube Waddell -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+ and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown).

16. 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.

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

18. Joe Medwick – 10 time all-star, great 1935-1938 peak. Edges ahead of the outfield glut.

19. Pete Browning – Joe Jackson’s most similar player, and they are pretty close – I have him as about 4/5ths of Jackson, who was 2nd on my ballot when elected.

20. Billy Herman – close to Sewell, the all-star games are impressive. This is the beginning of my defensive infield positions glut – Herman, Sewell, Leach, Hack, Traynor and Monroe are all pretty close to me.
   52. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 04:23 PM (#1403473)
Last year I finished second last, just ahead of (gasp) karlmagnus. I’m not sure what that means.

Systematically overrating long-career, low peak pitchers (and long-career, low peak players in general) and underrating middle infielders?

Welch, Rixey, Ruffing, and Grimes in the top 6 would send any consensus score down a good bit. Taking Mackey and Bell over Wells, Beckwith, and Herman would send it down further. Having Sam Rice on the ballot at all continues the trend.

I'm not saying the consensus knows better, but it's not all that hard to see the basis of your disagreement with the consensus.
   53. Daryn Posted: June 14, 2005 at 05:23 PM (#1403655)
Fair enough -- but I haven't changed. I have always "overrated" the long peakless careers and pitchers in general, but when OCF began doing consensus scores I was at the top of the consensus list (along with you Chris, actually). Either the electorate has drifted away from my kind of candidates or my kind of candidates are showing up more on the eligibles list. I think it is the latter, but I'm not usre it is that simple.

I'm considering altering my system so that my votes don't become irrelevant, but since I believe in my syste (and fundamentally disagree with the group's overemphasis -- in my view -- on peak and overgenerous positional allowances for throwing infielders who play in fair territory) I think I'll stay the course even if I end up with 10 lost causes on the ballot 40 years from now.

That said, falling below yest was an eyeopener (no offence, yest).
   54. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 05:51 PM (#1403743)
Either the electorate has drifted away from my kind of candidates or my kind of candidates are showing up more on the eligibles list.

I would guess, actually, that it's an artifact of the deepening candidate pool as we elect a long series of clear, first-ballot HoMers while the backlog deepens behind that dam. There are more candidates of every type now, so voters whose systems favor one type of player strongly over other types will fill more of the backlog part of their ballots with players of that type.

It may also be that more long career players are arriving lately than high peak players, as peaks are generally declining as quality of competition rises. I've been meaning to do a systematic study of changes in peak and career values by decade to see what the trends really are, but haven't had a chance to do so with MLEs taking most of my available HoM time.
   55. Jim Sp Posted: June 14, 2005 at 05:51 PM (#1403744)
1954 prelim, I reevaluated based on MLEs and the Negro Leaguers moved up. I think everyone on my ballot belongs in the HoM, it's a strong ballot this year. Actually I could go 20 deep and advocate all 20.

Is Hilton Smith a HoF mistake? He’s currently not on my ballot based on the info in the Hilton Smith thread.

Bucky Walters is HoVG worthy. Around #70, with Wilbur Cooper and Dolf Luque.

Beckley, Rixey, Waddell, Cravath, Monroe, Bresnahan, Griffith, Joss, Jose Mendez, and Welch are in my PHoM but off my ballot.

1)Vaughan--Very underrated.
2)Wells--Well qualified, could have gone in right away in a different year.
3)Beckwith-- A great hitter, 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. He made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
4)Suttles--
5)Mackey--#2 on my 1949 prelim, but more data on his hitting has dropped him to here.
6)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.
7)Cool Papa Bell--If Max Carey is in, Cool Papa should be too.
8)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.
9)Lombardi--Well, there goes my consensus score. A long career as a catcher with a big bat. I see 15 obvious catching electees: Gibson, Bench, Fisk, Carter, Hartnett, Dickey, Piazza, Berra, Simmons, Ewing, Cochrane, Campanella, Parrish, Rodriguez, Santop. I’m an advocate for what I see as the next tier: Freehan, Munson, and Porter will get strong consideration on my ballot too. You can’t have a baseball team without a catcher. Almost 2000 games caught including PCL.
10)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.
11)Medwick--
12)Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. Usually I'm a WS guy but this time I think Warp has it right.
13)Billy Herman-- I’m still perplexed trying to figure out his career relative to the defensive spectrum shift at 2B. He looks good compared to modern 2B, not so great compared to early lively ball 2B. Gets two years war credit, that helps too.
14)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.
15)Stan Hack--His time will come, I think. I like him better than Groh, who I voted for.

Ruffing#30, he’s HoVG but I don’t like him as much as the consensus.
Rixey--#17
Ferrell—one of the top 100 pitchers of all time, but not on my ballot currently.
Hughie Jennings—impressive peak, not enough career.
   56. TomH Posted: June 14, 2005 at 05:52 PM (#1403748)
Daryn, some of your change to less consensus might be the extra timeline edge many voters give to recent players (Herman and Hack) that maybe you give less of.
   57. OCF Posted: June 14, 2005 at 05:55 PM (#1403763)
Sometimes a mostly high-consensus voter (which Daryn is) falls out of phase with the electorate. It happened to me, reaching its worst in 1929-30-31. There are two possible reasons for this - both are normally present but we can see which side is more important.

1. Holding in low regard candidates which the electorate as a whole thinks highly of. For Daryn now: Wells, Suttles, Beckwith, and (for 1953), Greenberg. For me in 29/30/31: Thompson, Caruthers, Pierce.

2. Championing the causes of candidates well down on the overall tally. For Daryn now: Welch, Beckley, Grimes. For me in 29/30/31: Van Haltren, Doyle, Duffy, Ryan, Waddell.

If the main cause is #1 (which it really was for me, and may well be for Dayrn), then it goes away: once Thompson, Caruthers, and Pierce were elected, my disagreement with that ceased to be an issue and my consensus scores recovered, especially as I slotted in new candidates ahead of my own backloggers (and ultimately abandoned the causes of Waddell and Ryan). That may very well be what happens to Daryn as we elect Wells, Suttles, and Beckwith.

Hanging on to overall low-rated candidates and not slotting newbies ahead of them - that will keep your consensus score permanently low.

Note that yest did like both Dickey and Greenberg this time.
   58. TomH Posted: June 14, 2005 at 05:58 PM (#1403777)
A tale of three infielders.
It was the best of second sackers, it was the best of hot corner men, it was the best of shortstops (except for Wells and Vaughan).
OK, end of dumb spoofing, on to a comparison of Hack, Herman, and Sewell.

Here is a comparison of their career totals, except that I dismissed any poor seasons at the beginning or end of careers that don’t help a player’s case:

Pos .player OWP ..PA ..G WS defgrade FRAA ….notes
2B Herman 565 8395 1907 …...B+ …..+68 ..missed 1944-45 for WW2
SS Sewell.. 549 7976 1903 …….A- …..+88 ..a dozen years earlier
3B Hack…. 642 8394 1790 …….B- …..-20 ..played during 1943-45

Herman and Sewell have similar career lengths, although war credit would boost Billy. Herman was a slightly better stick Sewell played the more impt position (except he played 3B at the end), and played it a bit better. They look comparable.

Hack is a bit of a different animal; great lead-off man, but nowhere near the defensive value. If anything Hack looks like half Mugsy McGraw, half Heine Groh – not as extremely good a hitter as McGraw, but played a lot more.

Hack had a longer career than Sewell; but only if you strictly use plate appearances. He played fewer games, and his career might have been artificially lengthened by WWII. Hack averaged 4.69 PA/g in his career, versus 4.19 for Sewell. This is obviously due to using Hack as a leadoff man. Now, he does deserve more credit for accumulating those PA (that is what a leadoff man does), but since he often batted with no runners on, we ought to discount that extra value somewhat; and this is something that neither OWP or WS or WARP apparently does; for example, I really can’t see how Herman has 21 more career WS than Sewell, given similar lengths, similar bats, but one played SS and was defensively a bit better – can you?

In the end, Hack was worth about 1 rc/g better than Sewell by ‘rate’ hitting, or about 14 runs a year with the bat. Sewell’s defensive advantage would seem to be about that much.

If I line up their WARP3 scores (no decimal point used) from best to worst, they are eerily similar:

Hack.. 100 91 85 80 80 68 67 56 50 50 47 43 rest of career = 78
Sewell ..98 96 87 86 86 84 65 55 54 48 45 41 rest of career = 23
Caveats:
1 Many voters feel WARP overrates SS.
2 Hack’s best year was 1945, and many think WARP’s discount is too small.

So, these three guys look pretty interchangeable. I can see voters who give full war credit and are more oriented toward career value would have Herman clearly ahead. I can see voters focusing on peak/prime, hitting, value of OBP, and our HoM shortage of 3Bmen voting for Hack. But Sewell fits right with them.

Sewell’s lack of HoM voting, it seems to me, is that he is a candidate selling what most HoM voters aren’t buying; an extended very good prime without a true peak. He doesn’t have the career length to rack up 300+ WS, but also doesn’t have the 30+ WS seasons to satisfy our peak voters. I suspect some of Sewell’s lost luster in recent ballots has more to do with the big names that have pushed everyone down some, but Sewell used to get a lot of mention at slots 10-15, and now he’s off, while the Beckley and Jennings supporters haven’t bumped their guys down as far.

In fact, here’s another analogy: Indian Bob Johnson versus Jake Beckley versus Hughie Jennings. If only these three were eligible and all of us submitted ballots ranking them, I suspect Johnson would finish 2nd on most tallies, while Hughie and Jake would split the 1sts and 3rds. And right now, on our macro ballots, Hughie and Jake have their supporters listing them in the top 15, while Johnson sits at between 20 and 35 on most ballots, garnering very few points. Maybe Indian Bob’s candidacy will creep back up again as our backlog is moved.

This function of voting amuses me greatly, because this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what happened when we SABRites ran our ‘Survivor’ {http://survivor.dmlco.com/} exercise a few years back Because we were kicking people off instead of allowing them on, the strictly ‘career’ voters were busy booting Sandy Koufax, the ‘mostly peak’ voters were knocking out Nolan Ryan, while those players who had a decent mix of both like Al Kaline survived atypically longer.

However, I do note that some HoM honorees who are thought of in general as our ‘weaker’ selections (Terry, Faber) are actually those who are a mix of peak/prime/career – maybe in weaker election years, these guys really do bubble up toward the top.

Lesson learned: No voting scheme is perfect, but in the end what the founders here set up seems pretty good. Nice job, guys.
   59. David C. Jones Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:01 PM (#1403788)
14. Willie Wells – I’m having trouble putting full reliance on the MLEs. I wish I had a better way of determining where the NeLers ranked. No matter how you look at it, I don’t see how to justify a top of the ballot placement, particularly if Scales is nowhere near your ballot. Only Matt saves me from ranking an electee lowest two years in a row (I had Greenberg at 9).

Actually, Daryn, I'd be interested in seeing a detailed argument for why Wells is this low. Particularly lower than Sam Rice? How? Make the argument that Sam Rice was a better ballplayer than Willie Wells.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1403814)
Tom,

My thoughts on the backlog are on the 1953 results page, but it boils down to this: The backlog beyond #10 to 12 by and large is not coming back. They are dead. the only question is whether #8-12 will even survive or whether newer backloggers like, say, a Medwick or H. Smith, for example (though they may not be good examples or the right examples: guys like Doerr, Gordon and Boudreau would be other examples), will replace them.
   61. TomH Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1403858)
could be. unless a Dickey Pearce campaign gets rolling :)
   62. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:19 PM (#1403868)
My thoughts on the backlog are on the 1953 results page, but it boils down to this: The backlog beyond #10 to 12 by and large is not coming back. They are dead.

Have you looked beyond 1980? I don't have a clear idea at all of what will happen after about 1975, but if you have done projections on that era I'd be interested in hearing about them. We also have no way of knowing, surely, what will happen to the backlog after we reach the present.
   63. OCF Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1403930)
...unless a Dickey Pearce campaign gets rolling :)

Aagh! That's what I get for hitting submit before proofreading. I do know how to spell his name, really.
   64. jimd Posted: June 14, 2005 at 06:54 PM (#1403974)
Who currently holds the title of "Oldest Living HOM-er"?

From the 1947 thread:

With the passing of Jack Glasscock, Cy Young is now the oldest "living" HOMer (as of 1947). Cy will be 80 on March 29, 1947.
   65. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1403993)
Bucky Walters. As mentioned in his thread, he's a better pitcher than his numbers at b-ref make him out to be. Ballot worthy? That's your call to make.

Thornton Lee. Not ballot worthy, but still really good. Anyone have any idea why the hell he got a first place MVP vote in 1941?
   66. Daryn Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:06 PM (#1404011)
David C. Jones,

Good question. First let me get my oversensitivity out of the way. I have always been a strong supporter of NeL candidates and have 5 on my current ballot with Beckwith at #16.

Wells, to me is slightly behind Rice in hitting. Given the defensive adjustment, he should be ahead, and I will correct that on my next ballot. He was probably behind because the stuff I have read about him do not quite match up with Cobb's translations. Those books/articles/websites liked Moore at least as well or better, and I think the electorate is pretty close in its evaluation of Moore.

I went up the list to Sisler who I have in a false dead heat with Rice. Sisler, has a serious advantage over Wells in BA (.046) and slugging (.043) and beats him by 10 points in OPS+. Even with the defence, I like Sisler better. You'll note I accept Cobb's translations as fact for career totals. I find it more difficult to rely on year by year distinctions. That being said, most of my decisions for all candidates are career based.

Mackey and Bresnahan beat Wells due to a severe catcher bonus. The next hitter is Beckley, whom I like quite a lot. Most people will agree that my top hitter, Arky, is better than Wells.

So that is my thought process. Now the backlog is deeper, I may have to drop Rice a bit further than one spot.
   67. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:10 PM (#1404021)
Chris' RSI shows he got 17 more wins than expected due to great run support.

Yea, but RSI ignores the pitcher's own hitting ability. How much do you adjust his bat for? I dunno, but I'll guesstimate 4-6 for Ruffing. He still gained wins due to his run support, but not 17 wins.

The most interesting thing I found out about Ruffing has nothing to do with the stats: he pitched well in '46 until a line-drive comebacker hit him and broke his kneecap (!!) He still managed to comeback and pitch (though far less effectively) in 1947.
   68. Daryn Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:21 PM (#1404058)
Happy Birthday Chris J.'s Website!
   69. jimd Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:27 PM (#1404078)
Was the avg MLBer better in 1940 than 1930?

That certainly is what BP's WARP-2 translation implies.

My guess is that there was a combination of reasons:
1) Deeper talent pool. Baseball had been getting more "respectable" decade-by-decade, attracting more players from middle-class and college backgrounds (e.g. Mathewson, Collins, Gehrig). Combine that with overall population growth and the Great Depression, which gave poor young players that extra economic incentive that comes from having few job alternatives.

2) Farm teams. The growth of farm systems made the major-league procurement process much more efficient. Under the old system MLB usually got the stars (eventually) but the boundaries were much more ragged, with many minor league stars being quite capable of starting in the majors, improving on some of the major league starters on the really bad teams, and on the bench players.

As teams got better at getting the best talent onto the major league teams and their benches, the overall quality went up considerably and the contrast between the stars and the other guys went down considerably.
   70. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:32 PM (#1404097)
Was the *average* player in 1940 more valuable than the *average* player in 1930? Did he have more *merit*?
   71. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:36 PM (#1404108)
As an aside, I believe there is a large school of thought that MLB was a lot better in 1940 than 1930. This has a variety of reasons, some of which jimd mentions above. I'll throw out another potential one...

The late 30s is about when kids who grew up drawn to the game by Babe Ruth start hitting the majors. This is all anecdotal of course, and may be full of crap, but if one believes the historical truism that Ruth massively increased the popularity of baseball, the late 30s should be when we expect that increase in interest to start showing up on the field en masse.
   72. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:42 PM (#1404118)

Was the *average* player in 1940 more valuable than the *average* player in 1930? Did he have more *merit*?


To make my view on this plain: Yes. When the league gets tougher, the players become more meritorious. This involves some timelining (though less than you'd think), but more often it has to do with factors not directly related to the simple passage of time (rising popularity of the game, new available pools of talent, etc.)

And if we're honest with each other, everyone agrees with me at least to a degree. Or else there should be exactly as many inductees from the 1870s (and even the 1860s) as there are from the 1930s.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1404123)
>And if we're honest with each other, everyone agrees with me at least to a degree. Or else there should be exactly as many inductees from the 1870s (and even the 1860s) as there are from the 1930s.

Michael, I agree with you. On your second sentence, not the first, however. There should be as many inductees from the 1870s as the 1930s. Not *exactly* as many, however. The total value in the league of course distributes itself to individual players in a somewhat random fashion, and we're here to elect the best players. The #15 player in the 1930s might be better than the #13 and #14 player of the 1870s, or vice versa.
   74. Michael Bass Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:55 PM (#1404142)
Yeah, I misstated that, I meant that if there were not some degree of timelining/league quality/etc. thing going on, there would be no wide disparity between 1870s/1860s and 1930s. "Exact" was a silly exaggeration on my part.
   75. Gadfly Posted: June 14, 2005 at 07:56 PM (#1404147)
28. Chris Cobb-

Puerto Rican Winter League [PRWL] career records:

Francisco (Pancho) Coimbre, born 1909
PRWL 1938-39 to 1950-51
AB R H 2B 3B HR BA SA
1915 370 646 135 17 24 .337 .463

Coimbre was a contact hitter, notoriously dificult to strike out. In the 1948-49 season, Coimbre walked 58 times and struck out just once in 239 ABs. That being said, it is also obvious that, in that season, the 39-40 year old Coimbre was working the count to make up for his age.

The available career PRWL BB-SO data for Coimbre is: 187 BB and 19 SO in 1043 ABs (129-18 in 804 disregarding 48-49).

Coimbre also played one season (1945) in the Mexican League:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA SA SB BB SO
89 356 55 123 26 6 5 .346 .494 10 31 8

Coimbre was a short squat outfielder (about 5 foot 8, 190-200 pounds) with good speed who would probably comp pretty well with Tony Gwynn. He started his Pro baseball career in 1929 and played until 1951.

In the first few seasons, he was a pitcher before his bat forced him into everyday play. In the 1930s, rather than play in the States during the summer, he played at home and in Venezuela.

He was probably the second greatest Puerto Rican player of his day after:

Pedro (Perucho) Cepeda [Orlando's Daddy], born 1905
PRWL 1938-39 to 1947-48, and 49-50
AB R H 2B 3B HR BA SA
1589 240 516 60 31 14 .325 .428

Perucho started his pro baseball career in 1928 and played in Venezuela in the 1930s and was on the famous 1937 Ciudad Trujillo team with the cream of the Negro League. Reportedly he wouldn't play in the States because of 1) racial discrimination or 2) his wife and mistress and both families were in PR.

Although Cepeda's statistics are not as good as Coimbre's stats, this comes with a caveat. Cepeda was by far the best hitter in the PRWL from 1938 to 1942 (713 AB .411 BA .571 SA) except for Josh Gibson. In 1942, the 36-year-old Cepeda got a full-time job with the San Juan Sanitation department and was obviously not concentrating fully on his baseball career from that point on.

After a decent year in 1942-43, Cepeda wasn't that great a player for the rest of his career with BA of .283 (42-43), .245, .259, .265, .261, and .267 at age 44.

Cepeda was a SS in his prime who also played some 3B and RF (i.e he had a great arm), and, at the end of his career was a 1B. He stood 5 feet 11 inches, weighed 190 in his prime and 200 at the end of his career. He did not walk or strike out much. If I had to comp him with a modern player it would be Nomar, possibly Jeter.

For some Puerto Rican reference for these two guys, Roberto Clemente's PRWL career stats are .324 BA and .457 SA and Orlando Cepeda stats are .323 BA and .544.

All though some sources credit Pedro with more power than his kid, I don't think that's true. I think Pedro would have had 20-25 HR power with a .350-.375 BA in the Majors at his peak (Gehringer with a little more speed and power but less walks).

But, of course, neither Cepeda the elder nor Coimbre played in the PRWL during their prime. This is particularily acute with Perucho who was 33 in the first season of the PRWL.

And then, of course, there is Juan Esteban (Tetelo) Vargas. Vargas was born in the Dominican Republic in 1906. He began his pro baseball career in 1923 and was soon playing shortstop in the Negro Leagues (hitting .380 or so in 1929).

Like a lot of Latin Stars, he played in Venezuela in the 1930s, but also the New York Cubans (1935-36) and Ciudad Trujillo (1937).

By the 1930s, Vargas was mostly playing CF. In his prime, Vargas stood 5 feet 11 inches and weighed about 165-170 pounds. He had outstanding speed (in his first 3 PRWL season, Vargas stole 68 bases in 551 ABs). Vargas has a lot of similarities with Cool Papa Bell, though he seems to have been an even better hitter by a slight margin.

Tetelo began playing in the PRWL in its first season (1938-39) for the Guayama Warlocks. He would play in the PRWL until the 1954-55 season. Vargas loved Puerto Rico and settled there, eventually dying in Guayama in 1971.

Juan Esteban (Tetelo) Vargas, born 1906
PRWL 1938-39 to 41-42, 43-44 to 54-55
AB R H 2B 3B HR BA SA
2821 606 906 119 56 23 .321 .428

There is one cavaet to Vargas' career and that is that some 2B-3B-HR info is missing from the war years. His actual career SA is probably about .435-.440.

Of course, Vargas played on well into his 40s, being 48 years old in his last season and this reduces his career BA-SA quite a bit.

If I had to rate these three, I think Cepeda was the best hitter and player in his prime, followed by Vargas and then Coimbre. Vargas, who played forever (1923-1954), would obviously be given the laurels for the career.

All three of these guys are talented enough for the Hall of Fame or Hall of Merit; but are triple cursed, being Black, Latin, and forgotten. And, in any event, Alejandro Oms was probably better than all three.
   76. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2005 at 08:15 PM (#1404182)
Just a bit of notice that this was a pretty good year for 1B. Not that I know a thing about Archie Ware, and not to get all gushy about George McQuinn. But there's two.

And you've still got two VG ballplayers in Rudy York and Frank McCormick, players with two very different profiles and strengths and accomplishments, but two VG ballplayers.

York of course came up in 1934 as a catcher and played semi-regularly at catcher for 3 seasons (1935-37), while splitting time at 3B in 1937. After that he was a regular 1B for 8 years (through 1947)but aside from the war year of 1943 never hit nearly as well again as he had in those 3 years at catcher along with his very first year at 1B (age 24-27, when he hit 30 HR 3 out of 4 years). His final numbers were .275/.362/.483/121.

McCormick was always a 1B, but never a classic slugging 1B. He came up in 1934, too, but then went back down for 2 full years and played just 24 games in 1937. He became a regular in 1938 at age 27, when York who was 2 years younger was already into his decline. He had 2 VG years but then declined, bouncing back (apparently) in 1944but against a war-weakened league. His final numbers are .299/.348/.434/118.

Hard to see how he is that close to York on OPS+, and of course they're pretty close on WS and WARP. In addition to hitting 2X as many HR, York also walked about 2X more than McCormick. They played about the same number of games (within a half a season's worth), and McCormick was the better fielder by A to A-. York was better than you might expect if your image of him is "just another lumbering slugger."

York also enjoyed considerable team success--AL pennants in 1940, 1945 and 1946 (the latter at Boston), but he was overshadowed by some pretty bright lights--Hank Greenberg and Ted Williams, to name two.

McCormick was part of a real renaissance in Cincy, where the Reds had really stunk it up through the 1930s, but zoomed from 8th to 4th to 1st in 1939 and repeated in 1940. Bucky Walters is of course the other big star from those teams, but the Reds also featured Lombardi, Lonny Frey, Billy Werber, Paul Derringer....

And McCormick's Reds beat York's Tigers in the 1940 WS though neither was much of a factor. McCormick .214 and no RBI, York .231 with a HR and 2 RBI. Derringer started game 1 in both series, and he and Walters went 4-1 in 1940. Bobo Newsom went 2-1, 1.38 for Detroit but Schoolboy Rowe went 0-2, 17.18 after going 16-3 in the regular season.

McCormick had hit .400 in the '39 WS but the Reds got swept by you know who. York hit .179 in '45 as Detroit won the WS over the "hapless Cubs" and .261 with 2 HR and 5 RBI in '46 as the (then) "hapless Red Sox" were beaten by the Cards.

Just a couple of guys worth noting on a Tuesday of week 1, since they won't be getting any notice next week.
   77. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 14, 2005 at 09:21 PM (#1404323)
I have to say that I am puzzled by the amount of support that Redding is recieveing, I have him firmly behind Rixey and Lyons (when he was eligible) on career and his peak is nearly non existent. I guess carere voters should like him but I would ike to know if guys voting for him are also voting for Eppa Rixey.

Vaughn v. George Sisler
There is a big difference bewteen 1B and SS when it comes to offense, plus a lot of Sisler's advantage in OPS+ is based on his slugging as he never walked much. According to WS and WARP Vaughn is way ahead of both peak and career. While I dont' take points away form Sisler (who will be around #20 or so) because of the shape of his career, I dont 'give him much credit for what he did after 1922 either.

Medwick vs. Johnson
I dont' have these two very close, Medwick will bein my top 10, probably my top 5, Johnson is haning around #40.

According to Win Shares, Medwick has 7 of the top 10 seasons betweent he two of them, including the top three.

Medwick...40,36,34........24,24,24,24
Johnson...........31,29,26...........

But Johnson is a WARP stud right? How do their ten best seaons match up in WARP?

Medwick...11.6,10.1,9.4...............8.2....7.6
Johnson................9.2,9.0,8.8,8.6...7.7,7.6

There are actually 11 seasons here, six are from Johnson, but the best three again are from Medwick. I am a peak voter and one that tends to favor WS over WARP. Could there really be any questions as to who someone like me would vote for?

Finally, before my prelim, I would like to say that Hack and Herman aren't terribly different in merit than Childs. But I am a supporter of Cupid Childs (PHOM 1939) those two have a number of slight advantages over him, including some time line adjsutment. However, they are all very close on my ballot.

early prelim

1. Vaughn - easily the best candidate, would have been #1 last year as well

2. Jennings
3. Suttles
4. Beckwith
5. Medwick - Better than Goose Goslin, who sailed in pretty easily

6. Wells
7. Hack
8. Ferrell
9. Herman
10.Childs
11. Duffy
12. Redding
13. Griffith
14. Walters - Has a peak roughly equivalent to Dean, but with a lot more career. His best years were actually pre-war. I don't know what to do with pitchers and war credit yet, but Walters is a guy who wouldnt' have ahd his career significantly oaltered either way.

15. Averill/Dean - Havent' decided yet
17. Moore - outside contender for my ballot
   78. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 14, 2005 at 09:24 PM (#1404328)
As for Wells v. Vaughn, Well's WS MLE's are not very impressive. He gest a slight bump (up from maybe #12 or so, because I think we are underrating the peaks of NeL players. Still, his peak and prime don't really compare with Arky's. I do now have the numbers is front of me to state a strong case right now, however.
   79. David C. Jones Posted: June 15, 2005 at 04:56 AM (#1405421)
Preliminary Ballot:

1. Arky Vaughan. I think he was better than Wells. In fact, Vaughan is sort of the prototypical HOM candidate that I love. A good, long extended peak of excellence before fading away a bit early.

2. Willie Wells. Very comfortable with my placement of him.

3. John Beckwith. A change. I'm moving Beckwith up one slot and Arlett down one slot. I decided I wasn't giving Beckwith enough credit for his defensive position.

4. Buzz Arlett

5. Mule Suttles

6. Pete Browning

7. Joe Medwick. I have a feeling the electorate is going to be too hard on him. He had three or four outstanding seasons, and a few more good ones. I like him slightly over Cravath.

8. Gavy Cravath

9. Jose Mendez

10. Edd Roush

11. Wes Ferrell

12. Rube Waddell

13. Dick Redding

14. Ben Taylor

15. George Sisler

I'm still working on Hilton Smith.
   80. KJOK Posted: June 15, 2005 at 05:02 AM (#1405429)
Was the *average* player in 1940 more valuable than the *average* player in 1930? Did he have more *merit*?

To make my view on this plain: Yes. When the league gets tougher, the players become more meritorious. This involves some timelining (though less than you'd think), but more often it has to do with factors not directly related to the simple passage of time (rising popularity of the game, new available pools of talent, etc.)

And if we're honest with each other, everyone agrees with me at least to a degree. Or else there should be exactly as many inductees from the 1870s (and even the 1860s) as there are from the 1930s.


I don't agree, even to a degree, and I'm hopeful there are other who don't agree.

I think there SHOULD be, relative to the number of team games played, around the same number of inductees from the 1870's as there are from the 1930's.
   81. Chris Cobb Posted: June 15, 2005 at 05:17 AM (#1405453)
I think there SHOULD be, relative to the number of team games played, around the same number of inductees from the 1870's as there are from the 1930's.

Agreed, if team games are replaced with team seasons, and the Negro Leagues are counted in some degree towards team-seasons for the 1930s (and 1920s and 1940s).
   82. David C. Jones Posted: June 15, 2005 at 05:57 AM (#1405490)
I think there SHOULD be, relative to the number of team games played, around the same number of inductees from the 1870's as there are from the 1930's.

I don't agree. I'm a mild timeliner. The game of the 1870s simply wasn't as competitive or developed as the game of the 1930s.
   83. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 15, 2005 at 08:39 AM (#1405554)
"208 64.5 1933 Lonny Frey-2B (living)"

Wholly crap! Is that a first?
   84. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 15, 2005 at 08:42 AM (#1405555)
No, a few others, most notably Cecil Travis and Billy Werber.
   85. sunnyday2 Posted: June 15, 2005 at 11:48 AM (#1405580)
David, has the game continued to develop since the 1930s? Was it more competitive and developed in the 1960s than in the 1930s? In the 1990s than the 1960s? I mean, maybe, maybe not.

But if the game has continued to develop, then follow the logic.

There should be more HoMers from the 1960s than the 1930s, and more from the 1990s than the 1960s. i.e. Fewer NeLers.

I'm not a timeliner, a pennant is a pennant, and the NeLers of the 1930s are just as meritorious as MLers of the 1990s. (And MLers of the 1870s just as meritorious as anybody in the 1930s.)
   86. sunnyday2 Posted: June 15, 2005 at 11:48 AM (#1405581)
Joe, nice Frank Barone impression.
   87. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 15, 2005 at 12:19 PM (#1405600)
I absolutely love (loved?) Everyone Loves Raymond. The Bobby Abreu of television shows . . . very underrated. Big fan of Frank's "Wholly Crap!" exclamations.

I'm still not sure if I favor Frank Barone or Marty Frasier as best old TV dad . . .
   88. TomH Posted: June 15, 2005 at 01:15 PM (#1405641)
** no HoM content in this post **

but since youse guys are my friends....

I'm going through Pittsburgh and Cleveland next month; hoping to catch the Pirates on Fri July 22 (7pm), and the Indians on Sat July 23 (3pm). Anyone familiar with getting tix for these two? Will there be decent (not deep in the OF and less than $30) seats if I walk up on game day? Any info, pleae repsond offline at Han60Man@aol.com -- thanks.
   89. DanG Posted: June 15, 2005 at 02:51 PM (#1405850)
Lonny Frey-2B (living)"

Wholly crap! Is that a first?


Our first living listed candidates were in 1948, Billy Werber and Eldon Auker. After that, in 1953 we had Al Lopez and Cecil Travis. Then, there is one in each of the next three years (Lonnie Frey, Buddy Lewis, Tommy Henrich), before they start becoming more common in 1957.
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: June 15, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1405937)
Still no living HoMers among this crowd.

Interesting that Cecil Travis and Buddy Lewis are among the living. Two teammates whose careers crashed at a very early age but whose lives have been apparently very long.

As of today:

Auker (who was 1 mo. and 12 days younger than my father who has been dead for 38.5 years now) is 94 (95 in September)

Frey is 94 (95 on August 23)

Henrich is 95 (as of last January)

Lewis is 88 (89 on August 10, last played 100 games at age 32)

Lopez is 96 (97 on August 20, whaddya bet he's got a couple plastic knees?)

Travis is just 91 (92 on August 8, last played 100 games at age 33)

Werber will be 97 next Monday (last played 100 games at age 33)

I guess if you want to live a long time, have an August birthday...and retire young.
   91. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1405984)
Interesting that Cecil Travis and Buddy Lewis are among the living. Two teammates whose careers crashed at a very early age but whose lives have been apparently very long.

Yup... they've made it to see baseball return to their city. Must be fun for them to see the Nationals in first place.
   92. David C. Jones Posted: June 15, 2005 at 03:44 PM (#1406006)
There should be more HoMers from the 1960s than the 1930s, and more from the 1990s than the 1960s. i.e. Fewer NeLers.

That's not a judgment I'm able to make right now, since there are no players from the 1960s on the ballot. All I do is try to rank the best players.
   93. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 15, 2005 at 07:20 PM (#1406829)
On the timelining issue, I tend to agree with both sides. One one hand I think that we need to make the 1870's and 80's as well-repersented as later decades. On the other hand, I really can't take Frank Dunlap, Tommy Bond, Ed Williams and others very seriously because they just don't compare very well to the players we are looking at now.

Tom, I got pretty godo seats last saeson at PNC park in Pittsburgh by walking up. Higher 1st level on the first base/RF line for either $24 or $27 dollars. And they were even on a bit of a win streak then as well. However, I have only done this once I as do live about 4 hours east of Pittsburgh and am much more likely to go to PHilly to watch a ballgame.
   94. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 16, 2005 at 01:47 AM (#1407803)
Our first living listed candidates were in 1948, Billy Werber and Eldon Auker. After that, in 1953 we had Al Lopez and Cecil Travis.

Let's not forget our only living 100+ candidate so far.
   95. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: June 16, 2005 at 03:02 AM (#1408136)
I think that we need to make the 1870's and 80's as well-repersented as later decades.

I think the '70s, particularly, are already very well represented, considering how few teams there were and the relatively small geographic base. There are, I think, 21 HoMers active in that decade at various career stages, with an average of ~12 in any given year. That strikes me as plenty. What's more, who's left to honor? Charley Jones? Ned Williamson? The inventor of the curveball? We're moving close to the average if we go much deeper, which is not the idea.
   96. sunnyday2 Posted: June 16, 2005 at 03:08 AM (#1408147)
John, I'm missing your reference. Who's our only living 100+ candidate so far?

As for the 1870s, I guess we're moving toward the average anytime we elect a backlogger, but I don't think Ed Williamson and Charley Jones represent anything too close to the average.
   97. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: June 16, 2005 at 03:18 AM (#1408183)
I didn't mean to portray those guys as average, but beyond them, well, I don't have anybody else from then on my list of "possibles". Other voters may will differ. :-)
   98. DavidFoss Posted: June 16, 2005 at 03:40 AM (#1408277)
John, I'm missing your reference. Who's our only living 100+ candidate so far?

I believe he means Double-Duty Radcliffe.
   99. ronw Posted: June 16, 2005 at 06:11 AM (#1408598)
Speaking of elderly gentlemen, although he isn't eligible yet, I met Lonny Frey's old teammate Eddie Joost last Sunday. He was sitting outside at a graduation here in Santa Rosa with a big 1940 World Series ring on his right pinky, so of course I did what most of you would do, I introduced myself as a huge baseball history fan, and then sat back and listened.

Joost is a man with many fascinating stories and a real connection to many of the teams and players we are now discussing. (For example, he played for Dressen, McKechnie, Stengel, Mack, and even Bobby Wallace, and of course had many connections to other great contemporaries and coaches.) I plan to take him to lunch sometime soon, to hear more, but I didn't want to seem like too much of a fanboy. Let me know if you have any particular questions for him.
   100. Howie Menckel Posted: June 16, 2005 at 12:37 PM (#1408723)
HOMers by year (10 G min, each asterisk indicated a non-regular in the mix, token appearances in parenttheses and not included in the total)
1870 - 9
1871 - 10
1872 - 12
1873 - 12
1874 - 12
1875 - 12 (1)
1876 - 12*
1877 - 11* (1)
1878 - 11 (1)
1879 - 16

1870 - White Barnes Wright Spalding Sutton Start McVey Pearce Pike
1871 - add Anson
1872 - add Hines, O'Rourke
1878 - add Kelly, Ward, Bennett
1879 - add Gore, Brouthers, Glasscock, Richardson, Galvin

I find 20 to play at all in the 1870s, FWIW
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
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(107 - 9:08pm, Dec 21)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(94 - 9:04pm, Dec 21)
Last: lieiam

Most Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(11 - 2:37pm, Dec 21)
Last: bjhanke

Herman Long
(10 - 7:54pm, Dec 20)
Last: The District Attorney

Most Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

Ben Taylor
(81 - 11:04am, Dec 15)
Last: DL from MN

New Eligibles Year by Year
(962 - 10:09am, Dec 15)
Last: Chris Fluit

Cristóbal Torriente
(82 - 11:34pm, Dec 14)
Last: Brent

Brian Giles
(59 - 4:08pm, Dec 14)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(38 - 12:16pm, Dec 13)
Last: lieiam

Larry Doby
(95 - 10:00pm, Dec 12)
Last: Howie Menckel

Pedro Martinez
(159 - 6:44am, Dec 11)
Last: bjhanke

Most Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(25 - 2:12pm, Dec 09)
Last: DL from MN

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Results
(7 - 9:24pm, Dec 05)
Last: Chris Fluit

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(29 - 4:20pm, Dec 05)
Last: DL from MN

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9417 seconds
43 querie(s) executed