Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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
Age Elected

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

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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Chris Cobb Posted: June 16, 2005 at 01:04 PM (#1408736)
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.

gadfly, thanks for the additional information on Coimbre, Vargas, and Perucho Cepeda. I'd be interested to here more about why you think Oms was better than all three.

It sounds like you rank them Oms, Cepeda, Vargas, Coimbre. Is that right?

I ask because I am not convinced that it is a waste of time to argue for the election of one or more players whose career was spent primarily in Latin America. Home Run Johnson was not Latin, but he was at least as forgotten and even less statistically documented than these players, and he was elected. He had the advantage of becoming eligible when there was les competition (now is very bad time for a marginal, underdocumented player to reach the ballot), but the competition is going to thin later.

Once we've made a first pass through the documented and better known Negro-League stars, they will provide a set of benchmarks to whom the Latin players can be directly compared, when the NeL stars were playing in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Mexico (and Venezuela, if some stats can be found). Those comparisons, together with the limited NeL stats for Oms, Vargas, and Coimbre, should be enough to make a sound case for where they rank.

So we might as well start building a bit more of a collective awareness of these guys now, with a more statistically grounded analysis to follow in an HoM decade or so.
   102. DavidFoss Posted: June 16, 2005 at 03:10 PM (#1408926)
Speaking of elderly gentlemen, although he isn't eligible yet, I met Lonny Frey's old teammate Eddie Joost last Sunday.

Wow, cool! Joost's stock has risen in recent years. He was a low-BA, high-OBP-with-power SABR-type of player well before his time. You could ask him about the post-war walk boom... was the strike zone smaller? Was there pressure to swing more, pressure to shorten his swing and cut down his K's? It looks like contemporaries didn't mind too much as he finished between 10th and 15th in MVP voting five times between 1947 and 1952.

Anyhow, talking to him sounds like fun. :-)
   103. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 16, 2005 at 04:20 PM (#1409065)
Wow, cool! Joost's stock has risen in recent years.

This is true, David. I would ask him how he views the better opinion of his skills by the sabermetric community of today than from his own era.
   104. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 16, 2005 at 04:21 PM (#1409066)
Does anyone know if Joost went to war? He's missing 1944 (age 28) and played only 35 games in 1945 (29), then he missed 1946 (30).

If we don't know exactly what happened, it might be helpful to know so we can fill in the puzzle.
   105. Chris Cobb Posted: June 16, 2005 at 04:44 PM (#1409111)
Does anyone know if Joost went to war?

He did not go to war, if James has the story right. From NBJHBA, p. 625:

"Joost had a good glove, but after the 1942 season the Reds had a chanc to include him in a trade for Eddie Miller, who had a great glove. Joost hit only .185 in Boston, and volunarily retired after the season, taking a war-time job in a meat-packing plant.

"In very early 1945 Joost got a draft notice, and took his physical. According to Joost in We Played the Game, 'The doctor told me that since the war was about to end and I had two children, he'd give me a six-month deferment. Otherwise I'd have gone to Germany for four years as part of the occupation force.' Joost played some with the Braves in 1945, but broke his wrist sliding into third base. He left the Braves and went home after that, and then, as a result of a misunderstanding, found himself suspended from the Braves and banned from baseball for jumping the team. He appealed to the commissioner's office, but the interim commissioner didn't seem to know what to do with the complaint. Joost wound up back in the minor leagues in 1946, playing shortstop for Burleigh Grimes at Rochester in the International League."

To summarize the rest of the story: after the year in Rochester, he got another chance with the A's, picked up on what Eddie Stanky was doing to revolutionize plate discipline to "recast himself as an Eddie Stanky clone," and then learned to hit for some power. This all culminated in his 1949 career year, with 35 win shares, and an unusual late peak from 1948-52 in his age 32-36 seasons.

Quite a story!
   106. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: June 16, 2005 at 04:49 PM (#1409120)
Looks like Joost spent '46 in the minors. has this:

» February 5, 1946: The Cardinals sell OF/1B Johnny Hopp to the Braves for a reported $40,000 and the transfer of infielder Eddie Joost to the Cardinals' Rochester farm team. Hopp will play well in Boston, while the veteran Joost will break in as a regular with the A's in 1947.
   107. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 16, 2005 at 05:29 PM (#1409215)
So this story raises some questions about Joost:
1) Does he get war credit for holding down a war job in 1944 and packing meat?
2) Does he get credit MLE for his 1946 at Rochester in recognition of administrative bungling?

He was a regular before and after these seasons, so it's not like the credit would add speculative years to the beginning or end of his career (ala Averill), more like a combo of Charley Jones and any of the war guys.
   108. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: June 16, 2005 at 05:55 PM (#1409295)
Here's something I thought some of the HoM gang might find interesting - new page: Unearned Run Adjuster. Compares a pitcher's percentage unearned runs each year to that of the teams he played for.

Rube Waddell is no longer King of the UER, and I'm surprised that the difference between him and the pack is nowhere near what I thought it would be. If you factor in the different amount of career IP for the different pitchers, he's pretty much in a dead-on tie for 2nd (worst) place with a pitcher elected to the HoM largely due to his terrific ERA/ERA+. Oops?

On the good end of the list, all hail Old Hoss Radbourn!
   109. karlmagnus Posted: June 16, 2005 at 06:52 PM (#1409451)
We were a little grudging in electing Old Hoss -- took us 8 elections -- and I've always thought that was wrong. He was SO dominant at his best that he would surely have been a top star in any era, with modern medicine and increasingly professional training enabling him to preserve his arm much longer than he did. Today he'd probably be Clemons, in the 1960s Gibson, in the 1910s Old Pete (a similar personality, from what one gathers.) Should not be forgotten as one of the top 5-6 pitchers all-time.
   110. Chris Cobb Posted: June 16, 2005 at 06:54 PM (#1409456)
On Joost:

I'd say no compensatory credit for 1944: it looks like he left baseball because he was bad.

I'd give 1946 MLE credit if he played well enough to earn it.
   111. Gary A Posted: June 17, 2005 at 12:28 AM (#1410424)
From Gadfly:
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.

From what I know I'd agree. I definitely think Oms and Cepeda deserve a look; Oms's Cuban League stats are up there with Torriente, Charleston, and Wilson in the 1920s. There's also the intriguing question of his age: according to the birthdate I have, he was supposedly already 27 in 1922 when his Cuban League career started, and in Cuba he played till his mid or late 40s. (I could be off a year or two on these numbers; I'm going from memory, as most of my books are still packed away from the move.) I know he played in the U.S. for the eastern Cuban Stars in 1921.

There was an Oms thread at some point, but I don't know where it is exactly (it's listed among the Negro League threads).
   112. Gary A Posted: June 17, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1410429)
Here it is:

Alejandro Oms
   113. Brent Posted: June 17, 2005 at 03:43 AM (#1410794)
Sunnyday2 wrote (# 60):

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.

Peering into my crystal ball, I wouldn't buy burial plots for the 1953 backlog quite yet. For example, during 1966-68 we're scheduled to elect 6, and only one of the newly eligible candidates during those years is a sure thing (Ted Williams). Richie Ashburn is probably the second strongest new arrival and it's not obvious to me that he will be ranked ahead of our current backlog, so we'll probably draw at least four from the current (or future) backlog.

Throughout the next 50 years there occasionally will be backlog years--some of these elections will be filled from the pre-1953 backlog and others from the post-1953 backlog. I strongly suspect that Jennings, Beckley, Griffith, and several other backlog candidates will eventually be elected, though perhaps while appearing on less than a majority of the ballots.
   114. Chris Cobb Posted: June 17, 2005 at 04:00 AM (#1410801)
To add to Brent's thoughts:

I've been doing some long term projections. Between now the time we catch up to the present in 2007, we'll be electing 120 more HoMers to join the 101 now enshrined. Of those 120 spots, about 80 will be taken by players we are almost certain to elect: that includes players near the top of the current backlog and players not yet eligible. That leaves 40 spots, about 1/3 of the remaining total, to go to players who are not definite HoMers, including the middle reaches of the current backlog. I see no ready way to predict whom the electorate will choose for those spots. I think it likely that 2/3 at least will go to modern players, but I think the Clark Griffiths and Jake Beckleys will have a shot, and a resurrection or two might be possible in the longer run. I doubt we'll dip into this tier more than a time or two until we start electing 3 players regularly around 1990, but then, who knows?
   115. sunnyday2 Posted: June 17, 2005 at 12:11 PM (#1411033)
Chris, if I'm reading you right, your projections echo mine. I said 12-15 of today's backlog. You said 40 backloggers total but 2/3 of them being "modern," which I take to mean players who ae not eligible today. The remaining 1/3 would be about 13.3. That may or may not get us down to the Griffiths and Beckleys.
   116. Chris Cobb Posted: June 17, 2005 at 02:19 PM (#1411161)
To clarify:

120 election slots, 1954-2007

80 players who, in my view we will definitely elect
Of that group, 10 are the presumptive top-10 finishers on the 1954 ballot: Vaughn, Wells, Suttles, Beckwith, Herman, Ruffing, Hack, Averill, Rixey, Ferrell

40 selections remain whose outcomes I think cannot be predicted with so much certainty.

For those slots, I see a group of roughly 90 players who will be in the running for them. Of that group of 90, 30 are in the current backlog. I think it likely, therefore, that about 1/4 to 1/3 of those 40 slots will come from players in the current backlog who place below #10, where Ferrell will probably finish this election. That means the players ranked 11-20 have a quite decent chance at election and a handful of players currently ranked below 20 might also be elected.

How the electorate handles comparisons between eras will, of course, greatly influence the percentage of the backlog that gets elected. I expect _lively_ discussion on that subject beginning around 1965 and recurring thereafter. I am also curious to see if the electorate responds differently to players that most voters have actually seen in action. We might be harder or easier on borderline players who played after 1970. (I know some voters witnessed baseball in the 1960s, but I think we'll get to half the electorate having memories of players sometime during the 1970s.)
   117. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 17, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1411329)
Chris, I agree with you about needing lively discussion of cross-era comparison. This same point was raised in this thread a little bit ago (IIRC) when someone noted that the kind of dominance shown by pre-integration (and particularly pre-Ruthian) players over their league will be more difficult to find once the talent pool widens to include dark-skinned players and other foreign nationals.

To use a contemporary example, would Manny Ramirez have had just one 30+ WS seson if he'd played during Medwick, Cravath, or Duffy's eras?
   118. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 17, 2005 at 03:42 PM (#1411338)
once the talent pool widens to include dark-skinned players and other foreign nationals.

As someone is probably pointing out right now, African Americans are not foreign nationals. Here's how that phrase was meant to read:

...once the talent pool widens to include African-Americans as well as dark-skinned Latino players and other foreign nationals.
   119. Gadfly Posted: June 17, 2005 at 04:31 PM (#1411458)
101. Chris Cobb and 111. Gary A-

As for ranking the four players, I would put them like this:

Peak: Oms, Cepeda, Vargas, Coimbre
Career: Vargas, Oms, Cepeda, Coimbre

I'll try to get around to doing a breakdown on Oms (and the other three) on his thread this weekend. Oms originally came to the States in 1917, playing for Pompez. If I remember right, he didn't return until 1922, but McMillan lists him playing one game in 1921 and hitting 3 HRs in that game. That's incorrect, his 3 HR game was in 1922 against Ed Rile.

At the very worst, Oms was a comp for Zack Wheat in the 1920s. I think he was actually a lot better than that, maybe something like 90 to 95% of Stan Musial. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Off the Subject-

Grant (Home Run) Johnson, who is one of my favorite players, was elected before I started participating here, but, I must say, his election is certainly a kudo for the group. In my opinion, Johnson was quite comparable to his contemporaries: Nap Lajoie and Honus Wagner.

That he was elected with the scant evidence available cannot be anything but commended.
   120. Thane of Bagarth Posted: June 17, 2005 at 05:09 PM (#1411557)
Can anyone shed some light on Ted Strong? Bill James ranks him as the #3 NeL RF, ahead of Oms (#5).

He seems like the type of guy who might benefit from some war credit, having missed his age 26, 27, and 28 seasons.

His Baseball Library entry says "he played several years in the Texas League" though Riley only lists him in the minors for 1950.

The full BL entry:
An outstanding all-around athlete, Strong played baseball in the Negro Leagues and basketball for the Harlem Globetrotters. He appeared in five East-West all-star games at three different positions - first base, outfield, and shortstop. The switch-hitter helped the Kansas City Monarchs to four consecutive pennants (1939-42). After Jackie Robinson broke the color line, Strong played several seasons in the Texas League. On the basketball court, his unusually large hands made it easy for him to palm the ball and, consequently, play "pitcher" in the Globetrotters' baseball routines.
   121. David C. Jones Posted: June 17, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1411709)
I just did the research, and it turns out Mickey Welch never died. Everybody just assumed he did, but in fact, he's still around. He lives in a nursing home in Mexico.

I just spoke with him on the phone actually. Let me tell you, Mickey Welch is one old and cranky son of a #####. You want to talk about griping about the modern game, this guy is still pissed off about the 60'6" pitching distance.

Anyway, he's looking forward to his 146th birthday, which is upcoming on July 4th.

The July 30, 1941 death date was just something he told his granddaughter to tell Lee Allen when he came around asking about Mickey some time ago. Of course, his granddaughter is now long since dead. Mickey's only real family is the bottle of Scotch he keeps by his bedside. He told me, "Drinking Scotch and frequenting prostitutes have been trying to kill me for the last 130 years. But they haven't, so I ain't stoppin'." He keeps a gun by his pillow to ward off any nurses who might try to take his Scotch away from him. He does let them have sex with him, however.
   122. sunnyday2 Posted: June 17, 2005 at 06:31 PM (#1411750)
Chris, your total ob "backloggers we're likely to elect" (BWLE) is 10 + 13 = 23.

Mine was 12-15.

I didn't have Hack, Herman and Ruffing in my backlog, however, as I first posted my number before the 1953 election was complete. I also don't include Vaughan as backlot and in fact he will never be in the backlog. So that's four out of a difference of 8-11.

So we differ I think by 4-7, and yes, it has everything to do with timelining. I'm not so optimistic that we won't elect Manny Ramirez et al, though one could hope.
   123. DanG Posted: June 17, 2005 at 07:26 PM (#1411919)
Judging by a seat-of-the-pants analysis, this looks like the eventual gray area, #14 to #23 in the 1953 voting:

14-12.Clark Griffith-17.9%
15-14.George Van Haltren-17.2%
16-11.Cool Papa Bell-16.7%
17-15.TJake Beckley-16.5%
18-13.George Sisler-15.9%
19-19.Mickey Welch-13.7%
20-15.TJoe Sewell-13.5%
21-17.Hugh Duffy-11.7%
22-20.Pete Browning-11.2%
23-18.Cannonball Dick Redding-11.0%

Anyone below Sisler has their chances on life support. Anyone below Redding is dead.
   124. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: June 17, 2005 at 08:08 PM (#1412022)
Well, I've figured out a Median Opponent Winning Percentage for almost 70 pitchers, including all currently inducted in the HoM and everyone that I know is still getting votes.

Any requests for anyone else to be MOWPed? Anyone you'd like to see or think I should've done already but missed? I'm open to suggestions.
   125. Gadfly Posted: June 17, 2005 at 10:11 PM (#1412344)
20. Thane of Bagarth (Tolkein fan?)-

Ted Strong was born in 1914 (not 1916 or 1917 as usually reported). He was born in South Bend, Indiana, but was evidently raised in Chicago. My notes aren't here but I'm pretty sure he attended college.

In 1936, he broke into the Negro Leagues with his home town team, the Chicago American Giants. From 1937 to 1942, he was a top flight Negro League outfielder, missing from 1943 to 1945 while serving in the military.

Strong was a switch-hitter and right-handed thrower who stood 6 foot 3 and weighed from 205 to 215 in his prime [Riley lists him as 6 foot 6 inches, but this is just wrong].

In 1940 and 1941, at the ages of 26-27, Strong played in the Mexican League and his statistics there give a pretty good indication of his pre-war talents:

90 353 76 117 16 18 13 71 .331 .589 8 36 46

Strong had power and speed, hit for a high average, walked a fair amount though he also struck out some. He was a helluva player.

If I had to comp him with a Major League player, I guess I would comp him with Jeff Heath without giving it any real thought.

In 1946, the 32-year-old Strong came back from the War and was credited with leading the Negro American League with 7 or 9 HRs (sources differ) and also 45 RBIs while hitting .287.

The odd thing about this is that Strong's teammate, Willard Brown is credited with leading the league with 28 2Bs and hitting 5 HR while batting .348 (just behind the batting champion, Buck O'Neil, who hit .350).

I am pretty firmly convinced that Willard Brown hit 15 HRs in 1946 and that the final batting stats that were released dropped the 1 and just credited him with 5 HRs. In my opinion, Brown was the true 1946 NAL HR Champion.

In any event, Strong faded badly after that. 1946 was his last season as a truly effective baseball player.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Strong played for different NAL teams and in the ManDak League and barnstorming circuit up North of Chicago. He never played in the Texas League, that's just a mistake by Riley from Othello Renfroe.

[Renfroe stated that Strong ended his career getting fat and playing in the Texas League. The second part is wrong and, since Strong doesn't seem to have been that out of shape in the late 40s and early 50s, the first part is probably wrong too.

In my opinion, Strong diminished his baseball skills through hard living, not weight gain.]

If I remember correctly, his last year playing baseball was 1952.

Of course, the other half of this story is that Ted Strong was a very good basketball player and spent virtually his entire baseball career also playing winters for the Chicago-based Harlem Globetrotters.

He was on the Globetrotter teams that beat the NBA Champion Minneapolis Lakers led by George Mikan in the late 1940s. In the early 1950s, he was even in the Globetrotters' movie.

Strong died in Chicago in 1971 (not 1951 as reported by Riley).

He's a really interesting player, but even with war credit, he really only has a ten-year run of excellence (1937-1946). I don't see that he has more to offer than, say, Hack Wilson, Wally Berger, or even Indian Bob Johnson.

On the other hand (and on the subject of giving war credit), his teammate, Willard Brown was a much greater player and surely deserves to be in the Hall of Merit.
   126. sunnyday2 Posted: June 17, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1412355)
Gad, I hope you'll be here when Willard Brown gets his own thread and we need some good info in order to give him a fair hearing!
   127. karlmagnus Posted: June 17, 2005 at 10:47 PM (#1412414)
Manny Ramirez is a MUST and so are Nomar, Damon and Wakefield. Fortunately they won't be due until at least 2015 :-))
   128. sunnyday2 Posted: June 17, 2005 at 10:52 PM (#1412424)
And don't forget Todd Walker!
   129. Gary A Posted: June 18, 2005 at 12:19 AM (#1412803)
Gadfly #119:
Oms originally came to the States in 1917, playing for Pompez. If I remember right, he didn't return until 1922, but McMillan lists him playing one game in 1921 and hitting 3 HRs in that game. That's incorrect, his 3 HR game was in 1922 against Ed Rile.

Oms definitely played in the U.S. in 1921. I have him in two games against the Brooklyn Royal Giants, hitting 4 for 9, the 4 hits coming in one game for which the box score has no extra base hits. He scored 2 runs, so couldn't have had 3 home runs. I also have Oms in 8 games vs. the Tesreau Bears, a very good white semipro team featuring Jeff Tesreau himself, Larry Doyle, Manuel Cueto, other former major leaguers, and several stalwarts of the NY semipro scene. The Bears were something like 21-16 against NeL teams in 1921.

Altogether in the ten games I have Oms hit .432/.457/.761 (and that's without the extra base hits for that 4-hit game). On August 28, Oms hit for the cycle against the Bears, going 5 for 5. He played left field in the eight games against the Bears, center field in the two against Brooklyn, and batted third in every game.
   130. Gadfly Posted: June 19, 2005 at 05:34 PM (#1415719)
129- Gary A

You are, of course, correct. Oms played for Pompez' Cuban Stars in 1921. I should have checked the Negro Leagues Book rosters first. His 3 HR game was on July 23, 1922, according to Holway's Complete Negro League book.

I was aware of how good the Tesreau Bears were right after the war, but the 21-16 figure is fascinating. If you don't mind me asking and have the info, how many boxscores do you have from these 37 games and how many were started by Tesreau?

I'm going to copy all the Oms stuff here and move it to his thread when I get a chance. Then I'll post some more info on Alejandro and maybe an analysis of his stats can be done by Chris Cobb and company.
   131. Gary A Posted: June 19, 2005 at 09:28 PM (#1416200)
(Apologies in advance for this detour from the ballot discussion.)

Gadfly, I have box scores for 34 of 38 games (their actual record was 21-16-1; 18-15-1 in the games with boxes). Of those 34 games, Tesreau started 9:


By comparison, here's Cyclone Joe Williams's record for the Lincoln Gts against the Tesreau Bears in 1921:


This was in a very high-scoring environment, with most of the games played in Dyckman Oval (and a handful in the Catholic Protectory Grounds). In those 34 games between the Bears and Negro League teams, the two teams averaged 12.59 runs a game (6.29 per individual team).

The NeL teams the Bears played (that I know of so far):
Lincoln Giants
Cuban Stars (E)
Brooklyn Royal Giants
Bacharach Giants
Chicago American Giants

Almost all of these box scores come from the Chicago Defender, which covered the Bears extensively (the paper was really more interested in the Bears than in the NY-area black teams). I'm still looking for another good source for New York box scores for that year--the Age didn't carry box scores, the Amsterdam News isn't archived before 1923, and the easily available NY papers (Times, World, Herald Tribune) didn't bother to cover NeL and semipro baseball.
   132. TomH Posted: June 20, 2005 at 12:45 PM (#1416975)
thinking out loud.......

Whenever I get ready to submit a ballot, I ask "am I sure I want these two guys at the top?". There's at times a moment of hesitation if the two are similar, which will happen this year, as I have two shortstops in the elect-me spots. Is this a legit cause for concern? I answer "No" -unlike overall rankings, our biweekly ballots are mere reflections of a given moment, subject to who we've already elected before, and some days we'll have mostly pitchers left, or outfielders, or players from 1920, or whatever.

It's possible in 1955 that I will have NeLers in the top 3 spots. So be it. Maybe by 1957 my ballot will look thin in dark-skinned players (because we'll have just elected the best ones). So be it again. So, I have just convinced myself that listing Vaughan and Wells 1-2 causes not the least bit of a problem; I can sleep well with them.

Thought you all would like to know.... :)
   133. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 20, 2005 at 10:59 PM (#1418347)
I wanted to broach this somewhere so hopefully people are still checking this thread?

I am having trouble with war credit/deductions for WWII era pitchers. This is an issue of some relevance because of Bucky Walters, who right now #14 on my ballot were I to submit it today.

I agree with thsoe that say, "Pitchers tend to get hurt if overworked, in some way going to war may have helped the careers of thsoe like bob Feller and Warren Spahn who were still young when the war hit." {Though, if we did a full study we may find out that pitcher's of this era had the same number of arm injuries either way, negating this point.}

So if I am giving less credit to pitchers for WWII should I give less in the way of deductions? Should I give any deductions (this question is for those of you who believe in war credit of course)? If I dont' give some war credit without deductions I am overrating pitcher's of that era. If I dont' give credit AND give deductions for the level of play I om underrating them.

So hwo about Walters? He peak actually came a few years prior with the exception of one war year (I don't ahve my numbers in front of me so I dont' know which one). Should he get deductiosn for pitching to a much thinner talent pool or since I dont' plan to give much credit to younger pitchers of this era (older pitchers may be a different story) should I also deduct from those that stayed? Is that fair to this era?

What do you guys plan to do with these pitcher's?
   134. sunnyday2 Posted: June 21, 2005 at 12:12 AM (#1418643)

I can't tell you what you should do, but I'll tell you what seems logical to me. This is for players who played 43-44-45 against what I take to be a highly diluted talent pool.

For career value, I just discount 43-44-45 by 10 percent each and add it up. Obviously you could substitute any percentage discount you want, but I don't see how you can award full value.

For peak or prime value, I simply consider 43-44-45 as part of peak or prime with the 10 percent discount. If WS is your uber-stat of choice, e.g.

Walters WS 1936-1945 (10 years ERA eligible)

Actual 14-14-12-38-32-27-20-15-32-16 (+ the rest) = 258
Adjust 14-14-12-38-32-27-20-13.5-29-14.5 (+) = 252

Peak 3 consecutive--not affected
Peak 5 consecutive--drops by 1.5
Peak any 3--drops by 3
Peak any 5--drops by 3

I include any and consecutive 3 and 5 because I use the reverse of James' any 3 and 5 consecutive (I use 3 consecutive and any 5).

Not much of an adjustment, but I think any further discounts and credits for pitchers versus position players just injects more speculation into the equation.

It is more complicated dealing with the pitchers who did NOT play in 43-44-45 especially in terms of peak/prime.

Bottom line for me as a peak/prime voter, if the only peak/prime a pitcher has is 43-44-45 he is in deep trouble with me, but a Walters or Newhouser who also was dominant in some other year will get a hearing and not get a discount that is a deal-breaker.
   135. DanG Posted: June 21, 2005 at 05:23 PM (#1420238)
You don't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. With that in mind, here's a little retrospective.

HoM Elections: A Look Back 25/50 Years

1929 Election
In our 32nd election we were deep into the backlog. Elected were Bobby Wallace (10th year) and Sam Thompson (28th year), with 61.0% and 54.6% support, respectively. Thompson made up a 75-point gap on Sheckard, edging past him by 13 points. Five other eventual HoMers were on the ballot (Sheckard, Caruthers, Pearce, Pike and R. Foster). Foster moved up three spots in the pecking order for the second straight year, breaking into the top ten for the first time. The top still-unelected players were Beckley (38.9%), Van Haltren (38.7%), Griffith (33.1%), Ryan (31.3%) and Bresnahan (28.8%). Spot Poles was the only new candidate who got much support, 14.0% for 23rd place. Bill Monroe was the only other Negro leaguer among the top 35, with 18.8% support. A total of 48 ballots were cast with 53 receiving votes.

1904 Election
In our seventh election, the backlog of 70’s-80’s stars took a back seat to newer candidates Jack Glasscock (4th year) and Amos Rusie (1st year). Glasscock, the bridesmaid each of his first three years, gained 82.4% support. Rusie rode his newbie boost to 69.8% support, edging out Radbourn by 34 points. Mike Griffin was the only other new candidate who did well, with 16.5% support for 15th place. 13 other eventual HoMers populated the ballot. The top still-unelected players were Browning (29.7%), Griffin, Williamson (12.2%), Welch (10.4%) and McCormick (9.9%). Negro leaguer George Stovey saw his support drop to zero in his 3rd year eligible. A total of 43 ballots were cast with 32 receiving votes.
   136. sunnyday2 Posted: June 21, 2005 at 06:46 PM (#1420495)
Browning & Williamsono may not have been elected to the HoM (yet or, probably, ever) but as I understand it they went on to make millions in tobacco. Welch became one of the most famous CEOs ever. Everybody knows Bill Monroe went on to found a strain of country music that is still popular today. And didn't Poles invent that thing that those girls dance around? So I don't feel too sorry for these guys.

Hard to believe that Rusie finished second to Glasscock, however. We really are a career-oriented group.
   137. OCF Posted: June 22, 2005 at 12:49 AM (#1421684)
Re #135: 1904 happens to be the year I joined the group and cast my first ballot. I see that 11 of the 15 that I voted for, including my top 9, have been elected. The four who have not been elected were Welch (10), Griffin (11), Browning (13) and Williamson (15).

I had Glasscock #1 and Rusie #5 on that ballot. At the time I was concerned that Rusie was being given an unfair advantage because he was eligible for election at such a young age - that this would prevent him from being considered in the context of his true contemporaries. But, having said that, and having looked at his contemporaries, does Rusie belong in the HoM? Yes.

I hadn't invented consensus scores yet in 1904, but I probably would have been in the upper third that year. In contrast, 1929 was my lowest consensus score ever, both in absolute terms and compared to average: -11 in a year with a -0.5 average. Only two of the people I had on my ballot have been elected: Sheckard (1) and Wallace (3). We have also elected 5 candidates who were eligible in 1929 and not on my 15-man ballot: Thompson (19), R. Foster (21), Caruthers (23), Pearce (25) and Pike (not listed). The people I voted for in 1929 who have not been elected: Doyle (2), Waddell (4), Welch (5), Ryan (6), Duffy (7), Van Haltren (8), Bresnahan (9), Cravath (10), Willis (11), Evers (12), Chance (13), Veach (14) and Tinker (15). I have since changed the relative order of these candidates several times.
   138. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 22, 2005 at 01:58 PM (#1422582)
In the spirit of retrospection that seems to be washing over this discussion thread: It's my silver anniversary as a voter this year! I'd like to thank all the little people who made this happen....

My first ballot was:

Caruthers (elected)
Sheckard (elected)
Pearce (elected)
Browning (dropped off my ballot after reconsideration)
Childs (pushed down by newbies)
Jennings (pushed down by newbies)
Van Haltren (still at mid-ballot)
Griffith (pushed down by newbies and reconsideration)
Jones, C (pushed down by newbies and reconsideration)
Ryan, j (pushed down by newbies)
Duffy (rose after reconsideration)
Chance (pushed down after reconsideration)
Cravath (pushed upward by reconsideration)
Welch (never voted for him again IIRC)
Mullane (ditto)

Ten years later I'd redesigned my system completely, incorporating more career than I had before:

Rogan (elected)
van haltren (pushed down to mid ballot by further reconsideration)
Duffy (still near top of ballot)
Poles (pushed down by susbsequent reconsideration)
Mendez (still in this general region of ballot)
rixey (pushed down by newbies and reconsideration)
burns (bumped a couple spots down)
Roush (pushed well down ballot by newbies and reconsideration)
jennings (still lingering between 15-20)
Leach (pushed down by reconsideration and newbies)
cooper, w (pushed down by reconsideration and newbies)
Childs (pushed down by newbies)
beckwith (number three on current ballot thanks to reconsideration)
Monroe (pushed down by newbies)
Willis (pushed down by reconsideration and newbies)

As another decade passed, I continued to tinker, still looking for a good balance between pitching and hitting, and trying to figure out exactly why it was that I loved CFs so much...blame it on WS!

P Waner (elected)
Cronin (elected)
Suttles (second on my current ballot)
beckwith (third on my current ballot
Duffy (still like him)
DiHigo (will likely go pHOM in 1956)
cravath (from off the ballot to number 6 after major reconsideration)
van haltren (still chuggin')
burns (has dropped a slot or two)
Mendez (has risen a slot or two)
Poles (has dropped a slot or two)
Averill (off my current ballot thanks to the clump of long-career pitchers)
Roush (ditto)
Ferrell (has risen several slots)
-Lyons (likely to go pHOM in the late sixties or early seventies)
rixey (hovering around the 15 slot)

IIRC, my consensus scores have rarely appeared in the top or bottom five, so I'm somewhere comfortably in the middle no matter how many zany tweaks I make to my voting alchemy, er, voting system.
   139. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2005 at 03:38 PM (#1422765)
Howie's first ballot
1. Paul Hines elected
2. Deacon White elected
3. George Gore elected
4. Ross Barnes elected
5. Joe Start elected
6. George Wright elected
7. Ezra Sutton elected
8. Ned Williamson NOT elected, bailed out after 10-15 years
9. Hardy Richardson elected
10. Old Hoss Radbourn elected
11. Pud Galvin elected
12. Charley Jones NOT elected, dumped him soon thereafter
13. Lip Pike elected
14. Albert Spalding elected
15. Mickey Welch NOT elected, I still vote for him
   140. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 22, 2005 at 04:35 PM (#1422896)
My first ballot:

1) Deacon White elected
2) Al Spalding elected
3) Ezra Sutton elected
4) George Wright elected
5) Paul Hines elected
6) Hardy Richardson elected
7) George Gore elected
8) Joe Start elected
9) Ross Barnes elected
10) Cal McVey elected
11) Fred Dunlap NOT elected, I believe I gave up on him in the aughts
12) Ed Williamson NOT elected, I believe I gave up on him in the aughts
13) Tom York NOT elected, gave up on him fairly recently, he still should have been on more ballots at that point
14) Pud Galvin elected, should have been higher
15) John Clapp NOT elected, I believe this was his only time on my ballot

Dickey Pearce should have been on the ballot, as well as Lip Pike and Old Hoss Radbourn.
   141. DavidFoss Posted: June 22, 2005 at 04:58 PM (#1422953)
First ballot...

1. Honus Wagner -- elected (and a giveaway for what year this is)
2. Sam Crawford -- elected
3. Eddie Plank -- elected
4. Mordecai Brown -- elected
5. Lip Pike -- elected
6. Grant Johnson -- elected
7. Frank Grant -- elected
8. Sam Thompson -- elected
9. Joe McGinnity -- elected
10. John McGraw -- Just recently slipped off my ballot, but would love for his candidacy to rally.
11. Dickey Pearce -- elected
12. Bobby Wallace -- elected
13. Jimmy Sheckard -- elected
14. Hughie Jennings -- Still high on the ballot
15. Roger Bresnahan -- Fell off when the younger crop of catchers showed up, unlikely to return.

As a new voter, I was influenced quite a bit by the consensus. I think I had Wallace a bit too high, maybe Sheckard, too. McGinnity and Thompson have taken a beating in retrospect -- especially when compared to 1930's players -- but the fact remains that they were great candidates in the 1920s. Our system required a set number of inductees eligible before 1930 and Thompson/McGinnity were great high-peak candidates from that era.
   142. sunnyday2 Posted: June 22, 2005 at 06:22 PM (#1423270)
My first ballot was indeed back in 1898.

1. Deacon White--elected 1898
2. Paul Hines--elected 1898
3. Al Spalding--elected 1906
4. Ross Barnes--elected 1898

5. Cal McVey--elected 1914
6. Lip Pike--elected 1941
7. George Gore--elected 1898
8. George Wright--elected 1901--should have been ranked #1, I was not yet fully committed to a peak/prime perspective, Al Spalding to the contrary notwithstanding. 20 voters correctly rated him higher than I did.

9. Hardy Richardson--elected 1905
10. Hoss Radbourn--elected 1905
11. Ed Williamson--NOT elected, still #15 on my 1954 ballot
12. Charley Jones--NOT elected, was on my ballot as recently as 1945, still hanging around #25

13. Ezra Sutton--elected 1908, still not PHoM however
14. Fred Dunlap--NOT elected, last on my ballot 1931, now around #50, not PHoM
15. Joe Start--elected 1912, too low here

Others eligible that first election whom I later voted for:

• Jim McCormick--still around #25
• Jim Whitney--now around #110
• Tommy Bond--way too low here, now #6, PHoM
• Harry Wright--PHoM but no longer in top 110
• Jim Creighton--the pitcher Candy Cumming is reputed to be
• Dickey Pearce--elected 1931, too low here, PHoM

If I had this particular ballot to do over, here's how it should have looked based on my settling later on a fairly heavy peak/prime emphasis.

1. G. Wright
2. Spalding
3. Barnes
4. Radbourn
5. Bond
6. Start
7. Pike
8. McVey
9. Creighton
10. Whitney
11. Hines
12. Williamson
13. Gore
14. C. Jones
15. Pearce

   143. Sean Gilman Posted: June 23, 2005 at 01:03 AM (#1424512)
My first ballot, all but Williamson and McCormick have been elected:


1. Paul Hines
2. Deacon White
3. George Gore
4. Ezra Sutton
5. Ross Barnes
6. Hardy Richardson
7. Joe Start
8. Cal McVey
9. (N)ed Williamson
10.Charley Radbourn
11.George Wright
12.Al Spalding
13.Lip Pike
14.Pud Galvin
15.Jim McCormick
   144. Sean Gilman Posted: June 23, 2005 at 01:10 AM (#1424548)
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.

Allow me to join those who do not agree with you. Even to a degree.

A pennant is a pennant.
   145. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 25, 2005 at 04:20 AM (#1429802)
Well, technically 1898 was my first, but that was a real rush job, so I'll go with the first that I feel comfortable taking responsibility for:

1. Jim O'Rourke
2. Tim Keefe
3. Old Hoss Radbourn
4. King Kelly
5. Ezra Sutton
6. George Wright
7. Pete Browning - not elected
8. Harry Stovey
9. Joe Start
10. Hardy Richardson
11. Al Spalding
12. Freedom Bob Caruthers
13. Ned Williamson - not elected
14. Lip Pike
15. Charlie Bennett
   146. Howie Menckel Posted: June 25, 2005 at 02:40 PM (#1429962)
We're just about done with HOMers thru 1919, so I figured I'd list the guys with at least 100+ votes in the last election who would 'add' to a particular year. Guys on at least 15 ballots last year listed in CAPS.

(FYI, the only pre-1880 candidates who got any votes last year were Charley Jones and Tommy Bond).

HOMers by year
1856 - 1
1857 - 1
1858 - 1
1859 - 1
1860 - 2
1861 - 2
1862 - 2
1863 - 2
1864 - 3
1865 - 2
1866 - 4
1867 - 4
1868 - 6
1869 - 8
1870 - 9
1871 - 10
1872 - 12
1873 - 12
1874 - 12
1875 - 12 (1)
1876 - 12*
1877 - 11* (1)
1878 - 11 (1)
1879 - 16
1880 - 17** (3) Welch
1881 - 20 (2) Welch
1882 - 21 (1) Welch Browning
1883 - 20 Welch Browning
1884 - 22* Welch Browning
1885 - 23 Welch Browning
1886 - 24* Welch Browning
1887 - 23* (1) VAN HALTREN Welch Browning
1888 - 25***** VAN HALTREN BECKLEY Welch Duffy Browning
1889 - 25** VAN HALTREN BECKLEY Welch Duffy Browning
1890 - 29 VAN HALTREN BECKLEY Welch Duffy Browning Childs
1891 - 30**** JENNINGS GRIFFITH VAN HALTREN BECKLEY Welch Duffy Browning Childs
1892 - 29****** JENNINGS VAN HALTREN BECKLEY Duffy Browning Childs
1893 - 26**** JENNINGS VAN HALTREN BECKLEY Duffy Childs
1904 - 24** (2) GRIFFITH BECKLEY Duffy Leach
1905 - 25*** (1) GRIFFITH BECKLEY Duffy Leach
1906 - 24** (3) GRIFFITH BECKLEY Leach
1907 - 25** (1) BECKLEY Leach
1908 - 26** (3) Leach
1909 - 26**** (2) Leach
1910 - 28*** (2) Leach
1911 - 27* (1) Redding Leach
1912 - 25** (1) RIXEY Redding Leach
1913 - 27** (1) RIXEY Redding Leach
1914 - 26** (3) RIXEY Redding Roush Leach
1915 - 26*** (4) RIXEY SISLER Redding Roush Leach
1916 - 31**** (1) RIXEY SISLER Redding Roush
1917 - 26*** (4) RIXEY SISLER Redding Roush Grimes
1918 - 22*** (2) SISLER Redding Roush Leach Grimes
1919 - 25***** RIXEY SISLER Redding Roush Grimes

NOTES: 22**** (2) would mean that there were 22 HOMers in at least 10 G that year, and each asterisk (in that case 4) indicates a player in that group that was a 'non-regular' (fewer than half the games as a batter or 1 IP per G as a pitcher). The (2) indicates two HOMers made only a token appearance that year. I didn't list token appearances by current candidates, nor indicate fulltime or parttime.
   147. Howie Menckel Posted: June 25, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1429969)
Notice the rank of the guys on the list:
Rixey 10
Jennings 12
Griffith 14
Van Haltren 15
17-19: Beckley, Sisler, Welch
21-27: Duffy, Browning, Redding, Roush, Childs, Leach, Grimes

Basically, Ferrell (who just misses the top 10) and Sewell (who just misses this list with a 1920 start) are the only white 1920s/1930s holdovers getting only middlin' support (you could put Grimes there, but he's at the very bottom of this list).
But the 1880s/1890s white guys refuse to 'go away,' lol.
   148. Howie Menckel Posted: June 25, 2005 at 03:10 PM (#1429976)
Last one:
Since virtually everyone who played in the 1920s is also now eligible, this might be relevant as well (top candidates to 'add' to list aren't listed, though):

1920 - 22*
1921 - 23
1922 - 26****
1923 - 29**** (2)
1924 - 32***
1925 - 34**** (1)
1926 - 37**** (1)
1927 - 36**** (1)
1928 - 33*******
1929 - 31*** (1)
   149. Jeff M Posted: June 25, 2005 at 04:46 PM (#1430039)
Since they did not get their own threads, can someone please post the MacMillan career totals (or Holway career totals) for both Ted Strong and Joe Greene?

Thank you.
   150. Howie Menckel Posted: June 25, 2005 at 09:08 PM (#1430580)
Well, THAT was depressing.
Wife off on a business trip, so I'll finally be able to compile my all-time votes list - I thought.
Cruised thru 1898-02, at which point the 'site improvement' had corrupted the files. I thought it was only a couple of years, figured I could ask someone for my votes off their charts or something, but it's corrupted at least through 1918.
Anyone know when it stopped eating our messages, and other solutions to this dilemma?
   151. Tiboreau Posted: June 25, 2005 at 10:23 PM (#1430790)
Howie, have you tried the Internet Archive?
   152. Howie Menckel Posted: June 26, 2005 at 12:49 PM (#1431380)
Free beer for Tiboreau!
What's your preference, and draft or bottle?
   153. sunnyday2 Posted: June 26, 2005 at 07:32 PM (#1432029)
I asserted earlier that if Buck Leonard is the best available hitter in 1955 it is by a slight margin. I started with a list of 40 eligible 20C hitters and here to the best of my knowledge are some top 10 eligible 20 C hitters for 1955.

(I reduced WWII OPS+ numbers by 10 percent.)

Career OPS+

1. Cravath 149
2. Leonard and H. Wilson 145
4. Bob Johnson 139
5. Beckwith and Suttles 137
7. Chance and Klein 135
9. Medwick 133
10. Veach 127

Peak (1-year) OPS+ (NOTE: I used 1 year because, frankly, players with 1 great year usually had 3-5. 1 year is presented here as a surrogate for a short peak period.)

1. Suttles 219
2. Medwick and Sisler 179
4. Leonard 178
5. H. Wilson 177
6. Cravath 170
7. Klein 168
8. Roush 162
9. Veach 160
10. Chance and Bob Johnson 157

Years OPS+ ? 150

1. Leonard, Sisler and H. Wilson 5
4. Chance, Cravath and Suttles 4
7. Klein 3
8. Doyle, Bob johnson, Medwick, Veach 2


1. Suttles
2. Beckley
3. S. Rice
4. Sisler
5. Leonard
6. Hack
7. Burns
8. Medwick
9. Beckwith
10. B. Johnson

Based only on OPS+ and on a 10-9-8....-3-2-1 scoring, I came up with the followin. I added PA because 2 of the 3 OPS measures are more peak oriented. I did not have seasonal OPS data for Beckwith which is why I ranked on points per measure (Beckwith rated on 2 measures). (* = a player who scored only on 1 of the 4 measures.)

1. Suttles 7.9
2. Leonard 7.6
3. Sisler 7
4. H. Wilson 5.9
5. Cravath 5.2
6. Beckwith and Medwick 3.75
8. Bob Johnson 2.6
9. Chance 2.5
10. Beckley 2.25*

11., Klein and Rice* 2
13. Hack 1.25*
14. Veach 1.12
15. Burns 1*
16. Roush 0.75*
17. Doyle 0.38*

The big surprise to me is Sisler who scores low on career OPS+ but scores highly for his peak and career length. H. Wilson is of course not a surprise but might want to be adjusted. Sisler's peak is higher than Wilson's and his PAs almsot 67% greater.

Klein and Medwick are surprising to me on the other end. Both are low for career OPS+. Medwick's extended peak is a little low and Klein's PAs quite low.

At the top, Leonard beats Suttles both on career and extended peak OPS+ while Suttles leads for the shorter/higher peak and for careeer length. Meanwhile Sisler beats Suttles for extended peak. Frankly, Suttles' extended peak is not all that high, trailing Leonard, Sisler, Hack Wilson and a bunch of players not (or not yet) eligible and/or 19C : Mize, Stovey, C. Jones and C. Keller. For this particular consideration set, his extended peak comes out pretty good (i.e. 5th) but a fur piece behind the leaders.

As a result, I would rate this particular cluster of players, and they would all be approximately top 20ish (maybe 23-24?):

1. Leonard
2. Sisler
3. Suttles
4. Medwick drops down
5. Beckwith
6. Roush including defensive value
7. Doyle including defensive value
8. Cravath
9. Klein drops down
10. Hack including defensive value

They also ran:

Bob Johnson--peak too low
Hack Wilson--career too short
Chance--career too short
Beckley, Sam Rice--no peak
Veach and Burns--call 'em Messrs. In Between
   154. Sean Gilman Posted: June 26, 2005 at 09:39 PM (#1432365)
Curious to see how Pete Browning fits in the above scheme?

Career OPS+
1. Browning 162
2. Cravath 149

Peak OPS+
1. Browning 222
2. Suttles 219

Peak OPS+ (20% penalty for 1882)
1. Suttles 219
2. Medwick and Sisler 179
3. Browning and Leonard 178

Years OPS+ >150

1. Browning 9
2. Leonard, Sisler, and Wilson 5


Not in the top ten. About the same as Chuck Klein, prorated.
   155. Howie Menckel Posted: June 26, 2005 at 09:49 PM (#1432383)
Couldn't find my 1913, 1919, or 1921 ballot even via the archive, but figured out the 1913 one from a rare later ballot where I listed my previous votes.
Hoping I did the same sometime later in the 1920s, but no more time to move ahead on that just yet.
   156. sunnyday2 Posted: June 27, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1432592)
I also looked at WS though for a smaller group of "hitters."


1. Leonard 373
2. Suttles 353
3. Beckwith 318
4. Medwick 312
5. Sisler 292
6. Klein 238 (and Cravath 202+)

1-Year Peak

1. Suttles 44
2. Medwick 40
3. Chance and Cravath 35
5. Beckwith 33.5
6. Leonard and Sisler 33

3-Year Peak

1. Medwick 109
2. Suttles 103
3. Leonard 98
4. Chance 95
5. Beckwith and Cravath 92

5-Year Peak

1. Leonard 160
2. Medwick 157
3. Cravath 144
4. Chance 143
5. Klein 140
6. Beckwith 138

Add them all together on a 6-5-4-3-2-1 basis:

1. Medwick 19
2. Leonard 16.5
3. Suttles 16
4. Chance and Cravath 9.5
6. Beckwith 8.5
7. Klein and Sisler 2.5

So perhaps I spoke too soon about Medwick dropping down. Across the two measures--OPS+ and WS--he is right there with Leonard and Suttles, close enough that it could just be the margin of error in the NeL MLEs.

The second cluster is Beckwith, Chance and Cravath--Chance being a big surprise to me, I've never supported him.

There's no third cluster but Sisler is next.

Klein fares poorly on these two measures, but of course that means compared to the above. Compared to everybody else he's OK.
   157. TomH Posted: June 27, 2005 at 11:04 AM (#1433856)
--Chance being a big surprise to me, I've never supported him.
Frank will look good on the OPS+ measure, too, since they are not playing-time weighted - his career OPS+ is 135, he had 4 consecutive years over 150, and that doesn't even take into account that he led his league in steals in that period, which was a bigger factor when the league slugging was .333. The Peerless Leader might be back on my ballot by the early 1960s.
   158. sunnyday2 Posted: June 27, 2005 at 07:44 PM (#1434722)
Looking at this cluster another way, here are the CAREER measures.

1. Leonard 145 OPS+ 8,669 PA 373 WS (2nd 3rd, 1st)
2. Suttles 137 10,163 353 (3, 1, 2)
3. Beckwith 135 8,010 318 (5, 5, 3)
4. Medwick 133 8,072 312 (7, 4, 4)
5. Sisler 124 8,739 292 (8, 2, 5)
6. Klein 135 7,087 238 (5, 6, 6)
7. Cravath 149 4,512 202 (1, 8, 8 unless you're into MLE for MiL seasons)
8. Chance 135 4,855 237 (5, 7, 7)


1. Leonard Best OPS+ 178-76-71-67-62 WS (3-5) 98-160
2. Medwick 179-57-49-40 WS 109-157
3. Cravath 170-69-57-51 WS 92-144
4. Suttles 219-186-58-55 WS 103-127
5. Chance 157-56-55-50 WS 95-143
6. Sisler 179-69-63-59-53 WS 91-135
7. Beckwith WS 92-138
8. Klein 168-58-55-49 WS 89-140
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics


Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats





Page rendered in 0.8912 seconds
49 querie(s) executed