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, September 19, 2005

1961 Ballot Discussion

1961 (October 3)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

265 78.8 1942 Vern Stephens-SS (1968)
242 73.1 1946 Ralph Kiner-LF (living)
199 63.0 1943 Sid Gordon-LF/3B (1975)
209 55.1 1939 Eddie Joost-SS (living)
176 60.6 1944 Ed Lopat-P (1992)
147 55.9 1942 Johnny Sain-P (living)
161 47.5 1947 Ferris Fain-1B (2001)
125 39.7 1942 Willard Marshall-RF (2000)
113 38.5 1947 Vic Raschi-P (1988)
104 35.3 1939 Hank Majeski-3B (1991)
108 33.5 1943 Peanuts Lowrey-LF/CF (1986)
107 31.1 1946 Eddie Waitkus-1B (1972)

1961 (October 3)—elect 1
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

00% 38-55 Pee Wee Butts-SS (1919) #6 ss – 0 – 1*

Players Passing Away in 1960
HoMers
Age Elected

87 1917 Fred Clarke-LF
86 1929 Bobby Wallace-SS

Candidates
Age Eligible

91 1913 Tommy Corcoran-SS
89 1905 Kid Carsey-P
80 1912 Noodles Hahn-P
79 1925 Terry Turner-SS/3b
78 1920 Howie Camnitz-P
76 1921 Russ Ford-P
72 1927 Bill Killefer-C
69 1932 Stuffy McInnis-1B
68 1935 Art Nehf-P
67 1932 Everett Scott-SS

Thanks to Dan and Chris!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2005 at 01:21 AM | 187 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: September 20, 2005 at 12:05 AM (#1628393)
hot topics
   2. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2005 at 12:08 AM (#1628404)
Isn't this the elect 1 year?
   3. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 20, 2005 at 12:09 AM (#1628406)
113 38.5 1947 Vic Raschi-P (1988)

No one's going to vote for him, or even come close, but here's my Vic Raschi page. Plenty of good info, as I try to figure out how the hell someone with his ERA+ got his W/L record. Short version - I think he's likely a little better than his ERA+, but still nowhere near as good as his W/L. I got a year-by-year thing on him as I had with Newhouser & Reynolds. Worth clicking on if you want more info, or if you want to just encourage me to keep doing that stuff.
   4. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 01:38 AM (#1628865)
Last year Allie Reynolds, now Eddie Lopat and Raschi. Ya gotta admit the Yankees in those days had the green thumb or magic touch or whatever with pitchers. 'Course it gets worse with Sturdevant and Kucks and guys like that.
   5. Chris Cobb Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:27 AM (#1629084)
Early 1961 Preliminary Ballot

My ballot remains top-heavy with pitchers, and will probably remain that way through the 1960s, until Ruffing, Ferrell, Rixey, and Griffith are all elected.

1. Clark Griffith – one more from the 1890s.
2. Eppa Rixey – top career value available, and much value above average.
3. Wes Ferrell—top peak available, now that Jennings is elected
4. Alejandro Oms – underrated, great player: Earl Averill with a longer career
5. Red Ruffing – near in value to Rixey
6. Biz Mackey – top candidate at an underrepresented position
7. Burleigh Grimes – uneven career, but some great years and a lot of innings
8. Earl Averill – top 10 year-prime available.
9. Willard Brown – hard to be certain about him.
10. Joe Gordon – top available infielder
11. Bobo Newsom – Grimes without the spitter
12. Edd Roush – His rates keep him up; his in-season pt keeps him down
13. Gavvy Cravath – Second best power hitter available; outranks the #1 power-hitter on career value.
14. George Sisler – Outstanding peak, lengthy but undistinguished rest of career.
15. Jose Mendez – Top remaining teens pitcher; back on my ballot for the first time since 1946.

The next 15

16. Dick Redding – Just behind Mendez.
17. Bobby Doerr – getting close to his first ballot appearance
18. Ralph Kiner – initial placement is just off ballot. Definitely the best power hitter eligible, but lack of defensive value and short career keep him off the ballot. I need to look at him more closely in relation to Cravath/Roush above and Arlett/VH/Medwick below. This is about the midpoint of his possible final ranking.
19. Buzz Arlett
20. Rube Waddell
21. George Van Haltren
22. Tommy Leach
23. Joe Medwick
24. Cool Papa Bell
25. Bill Byrd
26. Rabbit Maranville
27. Bucky Walters
28. Leroy Matlock
29. Larry Doyle
30. Spotswood Poles

Reflections.

I’m a bit concerned over the lack of 2b/3b/ss in my top 30. Although this group is not underrepresented in the HoM at present, they are very scarce in my rankings now. I’ll be reviewing the cases of the closer infielders to the top 30 – Elliott, Childs, Scales, Moore, Sewell, Lundy, Long, and Pesky to see if any of them should move up.

Catchers are a bit underrepresented in the HoM and in my top 30, but I’m ok with that, aside from the need to finish a thorough study of Quincy Trouppe.
   6. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:48 AM (#1629159)
Wow... doesn't feel like a backlog without Hughie! Everyone really climbed this week as my top two got inducted.

Griffith is also my new #1 (go 1890s!).

Surprisingly balanced ballot for me. Enough of my favorite infielders have been inducted that four outfielders are now in my top 15.

Comments welcome! Its been a while since I've ranked the whole depth chart. The lower slots are becoming increasingly important.

Depth Chart:

C -- Mackey-4, Bresnahan-13, Lombardi, Schang, Petway
1B -- Sisler-12, Chance, Beckley, BTaylor, Konetchy
2B -- Doyle-2, Childs-3, Gordon-10, Doerr, Lazzeri, Monroe, Dunlap, Myer
SS -- Sewell-15, Moore, VStephens, Lundy, Maranville, Bancroft
3B -- McGraw-5, Elliott, Leach, Traynor, JJohnson, Williamson
LF -- Kiner-8, CJones-11, BJohnson, Medwick, WBrown, Poles, Veach, Keller, Manush, Burns
CF -- Averill-14, Browning, Roush, CPBell, Oms, Van Haltren, Duffy, Berger, HWilson
RF -- Cravath-9, Cuyler, Klein, Ryan, Hooper, BHerman, SRice
P -- Griffith-1, Redding-6, Ferrell-7, Ruffing, Rixey, Welch, Waddell, Dean, Gomez, Joss, Walters, Harder, Bridges, Grimes
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 03:50 AM (#1629382)
My Prelim

With Jennings gone and a new analysis of the "moneyball" hitters, some changes are in order.

1. Dobie Moore (2-4-2, PHoM 1957)
2. Joe Medwick (3-5-3, PHoM 1954)
3. George Sisler (4-6-4. PHoM 1938)
4. Tommy Bond (5-7-5, PHoM 1929)
5. Pete Browning (12-13-13)

6. Ralph Kiner (new)
7. Rube Waddell (7-8-6, PHoM 1932)
8. Jose Mendez (8-9-7, PHoM 1957)
9. Addie Joss (9-10-11)
10. Ed Williamson (10-11-12, PHoM 1924)

11. Willard Brown (11-12-10)
12. Charley Jones (13-14-15, PHoM 1921)
13. Joe Gordon (14-15-x)
14. Dick Redding (15-x-x)
15. Earl Averill (24, 1st time on my ballot)

16. Vern Stephens (new)
17. Larry Doyle (17)
18. Pancho Coimbre (19)
19. Bobby Doerr (20)
20. Charlie Keller (49)

21. Quincy Trouppe (22)
22. Hugh Duffy (21)
23. Eppa Rixey (23)
24. Gavvy Cravath (18)
25. Mike Tiernan (83)

26. Eddie Cicotte (25)
27. Cupid Childs (26)
28. Bob Johnson (65)
29. Dizzy Dean (27)
30. Alejandro Oms (28)

Dropped out of top 30: Chuck Klein (16), Hilton Smith (30)

31-40. Monroe, H. Smith, Sewell, Griffith, Roush, McCormick, Bell, Byrd, Elliott, Bresnahan
41-50. H. Wilson, Traynor, Berger, Mullane, Gomez, A. Cooper, Lundy, Mackey, Ferrell, Ruffing
51-60. Bancroft, Dunlap, Welch, McGraw, Matlock, L. Day, Cuyler, W. Cooper, Winters, Estalella
   8. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 20, 2005 at 03:56 AM (#1629400)
I don't know where else to bring this up but...

Is Joe still coming to the NY area on the weekend of the 24th? And if so does anyone want to get together?

Second,

I found a way that WARP gives extra credit to players on good teams, or more accurately good offensive teams. Found is not the right word, because it has inevitably been thought of before, but I wanted to mention it.

Players who play on good offensive teams get more PA's, and therefore will accumulare more EQR, BRAA, WARP, etc. Is this adjusted for in WARP 2/3?
   9. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 20, 2005 at 04:52 AM (#1629521)
If there is a NY get-together this weekend, I should be able to make it. (I kind of wandered away from the discussion thread last "year" and missed the preliminary plans.)
   10. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 20, 2005 at 08:56 AM (#1629699)
Howie and I have discussed getting together, but the NY area has been expanded somewhat . . .

I have a fantasy hockey draft in CT Sunday, and will be visiting family in CT Saturday afternoon - so we are talking about possibly meeting at Foxwoods Saturday night, or somewhere closer to NY Sunday after my draft. The wild card is that we aren't sure how late the draft will go, so Saturday may be easier to coordinate. I think we will get together one way or another, but the details are sketchy . . . drop me an email if you have interest!
   11. TomH Posted: September 20, 2005 at 11:59 AM (#1629724)
jschmeagol, I don't think WARP adjusts for better lineups ensuring more PA for their players (Pete Rose hitting leadoff for Cinci- yes, it helped him get 200+ hits annually). Win Shares, of course, Does do this.
   12. Rusty Priske Posted: September 20, 2005 at 12:39 PM (#1629741)
Prelim.

PHoM: Billy Herman

No newcomers this year, and no one elected from my ballot last year COULD mean the same ballot again. Didn't happen. I am too mercurial for that. :)

1. Red Ruffing
2. Joe Medwick
3. George Van Haltren
4. Willard Brown
5. Jake Beckley
6. Eppa Rixey
7. Cool Papa Bell
8. Biz Mackey
9. Mickey Welch
10. George Sisler
11. Tommy Leach
12. Dobie Moore
13. Hugh Duffy
14. Edd Roush
15. Earl Averill

16-20. Rice, Griffith, Childs, Powell, Monroe
21-25. Sewell, Trouppe, Doerr, Ryan, H. Smith
26-30. Streeter, White, Mullane, Strong, Gleason
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 01:10 PM (#1629763)
So far I am really shocked at the lack of support for Ralph Kiner, what with most of us being of the moneyball generation. Kiner was basically a moneyball player, a Jim Thome, or dare I say a Barry Bonds (I said "a" Barry Bonds, not "the" Barry Bonds, of course.)

The knock is, what? Short career? Nine times BA title eligible (plus a 10th season of more than 100 games) versus 10 times for Averill. 10 for Larry Doyle. 9 for Joe Gordon, or 11 with full WWII XC. 9 for Lou Boudreau. 10 for Elmer Flick.

Flick 6194 AB + BB .313/.389/.445/149 1,752 H 480 XBH 597 BB
Kiner 6216 AB + BB .279/.398/.548/148 1,451 H 624 XBH 1,011 BB

Kiner has an extra 100 times OB and 144 more XBH, and of course their OPS+ are pretty much the same, except Kiner's is OBA heavy.

Or, is the knock on Kiner his WS? Again, his Pirates went .413 over 7 years and the Cubs little better for 2 more years. If Bob Johnson, then Ralph Kiner.

And the only hitter I can find (eligible) with a better 5 year peak OPS+ is Pete Browning. Anyway if you'r looking for a moneyball hitter with a short career, it's gotta be this guy.
   14. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:15 PM (#1629836)
Yeah, Foxwoods is really expanding the NY area.

I could probably figure this out by double-checking the Who's Eligible When thread, but I'm feeling a little lazy. At this point, have all of the pure Negro League candidates come onto the ballot? I know that there are several "crossover" candidates still to come, but I just wanted to get a handle on where we are.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:16 PM (#1629838)
At this point, everyone's moving up just a smidge. I am concerned that I'm hosing Charley Jones in the same way I was hosing Browning, and so I'm hoping to do an extensive reconsideration of him this week.

Also, spotting Coimbre on Sunnyday's prelim reminds me that I'd like to work with what little information we have about him and see how the MLE process sees him.

1960

1 Duffy
2 Oms
3 Mendez
4 cravath
5 browning
6 Matlock
7 Walters
8a (Newhouser)
8 Sisler
9 Ferrell
10 Burns*
11a (Hack)
11b (Herman)
11c (Lyons)
11 Willard Brown
12 Trouppe
13 Ruffing
14a (jennings)
14 Averill
15 Rixey

No real surprises, everyone moves up a smidge.

New guys. Pee Wee Butts was a bad hitter, so my MLE of him well overestimates his playing time. No where near my ballot.

Ferris Fain probably merits a longer look because I think he qualifies for war credit, however, he'd not three huge seasons to get close to my consideration set, so he's not a serious candidate.

Vern Stephens was very good and is at the edge of the SS consideration set. Among infielders in general, his peak/prime look a lot like N Fox, E Williamson, and H Long, but he's got a little less career, and some big years came during the war, so he slides in just a bit behind them.

Sid Gordon qualifies for WW2 credit, but it doesn't do him enough good.

Eddie Joost is one of my favorites because he's the Rob Deer of shortstops, but he just doesn't have enough juice to get near the consideration set.

Which leaves me with Ralph Kiner. As anyone who's followed the recent discussion knows, I'm ranking Kiner pretty low. I see he and Keller as extraordinarily close, though a slim advantage to Kiner. Albert Belle is a very good comp as well, as might be Frank Howard and Bobby Veach, though Kiner's a little better than all of them.

Yet, Kiner, for me, is at the very edge of my consideration set for corner outfielders. On the other hand, Burns is pretty close to the edge of it himself. Which is leading me to deduce that perhaps it's not my non-ranking of Kiner that's the problem, but rather that Burns appears on this ballot at the expense of either GVH or Moore, both of whom are a little further from the margin (as I've defined it) at their repective positions than Burns is at his.

I think a little more thinking may be in order. Of course if Burns moves down, then Medwick, Cravath, and Browning must surely follow him down the ladder....
   16. KJOK Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:18 PM (#1629844)
So far I am really shocked at the lack of support for Ralph Kiner

Bob Johnson contributed roughly the same value in his best 10 seasons, plus had a bout 3+ more decent seasons in his career, PLUS was a much better fielder.

Pete Browning was an even better hitter, but with about 2 less seasons, and was a Poor CF in a era where there were less outfield plays vs. Kiner who was a Fair LF in an era with more OF plays, so he "hurt" his team defensively about as much as Browning did.

Even Frank Chance, a better hitter, but with about 2 less seasons, but a better defender at a position (1B)that was for it's era possibly more valuable than LF was in Kiner's era.

And then there's Medwick, Averill, Van Haltren, Bell, Willard Brown, almost all of whom had longer careers and were better defenders while being pretty good offensively also.

So, it's hard to rank Kiner onto the ballot given the competition...
   17. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:22 PM (#1629852)
Devin,

That depends on what you mean by "pure." If by that you mean "never played in the majors," then Alonzo Perry, Bonnie, Serrell, and Piper Davis and a few others are still on the way.

But there's a slew of guys who only got a little cup of coffee: Clarkson, Wilson, Marv Williams, Luis Marquez, Diomedes Olivo, Sam Hairston, and many more.

In terms of who will be the final candidate(s) whose case requires any kind of MLE-type analysis, I think Ellie Howard wraps that bunch up, though I don't want to say so too soon. Obviously, Banks, Aaron, Mays come along after that, but intuition tells me that none of their candidacies will rely too heavily on an analysis of their MLEs.
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:27 PM (#1629861)
Sunnyday2,

The other knock on Kiner is that he was, at best, an average defensive outfielder.

Yes, he and Flick are highly comparable in terms of career length and offensive production, but WARP has Flick at 58 FRAA for his career and Kiner at -70 FRAA for his.

That's a big difference.

How does he look in win shares? The outfield/1B group I've been studying now has 15 players: Averill, Berger, Brown, Burns, Cravath, Johnson, Keller, Kiner, Klein, Medwick, Oms, Roush, Sisler, Veach, Wilson.

In this group, Kiner is 12th in fielding win shares over a ten-year prime, ahead of first-baseman Sisler, Cravath, and Klein. He leads the latter two by less than 1 win share each, and he trails some of the top fielders like Averill, Oms, and Roush by 15-25 win shares over a ten year period.

In both systems, his weakness as a fielder generally hurts him in comparison the other "hitter" candidates.
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:29 PM (#1629867)
K,

Check the Kiner thread for my thinking on all the players you mention.

Johnson--low peak and I'm a peak voter
Browning--yes, rates ahead of Kiner
Chance--really short career
Averill--moved up my ballot after comparison with Kiner and other Kiner comps, but hey he only had 10 years of BA eligible to Kiner's 9

Kiner's peak is just too good, IMO. Somebody noted that Kiner was named to the 3 man ML all-star OF many times despite the competition (forget Johnson and Averill) of DiMaggio, Musial and Williams. I don't think the other guys were anywhere that highly regarded at the time.
   20. Mike Webber Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:35 PM (#1629880)
I posted this on the Grimes and Luque thread, but since it did not pop up on hot topics, I'll post it here too.

On the 1960 Ballot Philly Booster wrote the following on his Luque comment:
“The stat I wish existed would be the opposite of the "Most Similar by Age" list, where you can now see that at 28, Luque was "Most Similar" to Otis Lambeth, a career 11-9 pitcher who pitched his final 7 innings at age 28. Thank you very much, I learned a lot. My new stat would be "Most Similar FROM Age", so that instead of looking at Luque's career from birt to age 28, you could look at it from Age 28 onward only.”

With Wins Shares you can look at value patterns, so I it might be interesting to see who had similar value patterns to Luque. All the lists below are pitchers only, though they include hitting win shares.

Luque had 4 Win Shares before age 28, from 28 on he had 237. That ties him for 24th all time with Nolan Ryan. Cy Young was 1st with 480, 42 players had 200 or more.

Here is the list with 200 or more, you can tell me how many of these guys are HOM worthy.
Total WS28Player
634   480   Young
Cy
374   367   Niekro
Phil
476   365   Alexander
Pete
412   357   Spahn
Warren
391   333   Grove
Lefty
369   321   Perry
Gaylord
391   317   Radbourn
Old Hoss
361   289   Plank
Eddie
560   276   Johnson
Walter
269   269   McGinnity
Joe
296   264   Brown
Three Finger
305   257   Hubbell
Carl
398   257   Clemens
Roger
317   256   Gibson
Bob
256   256   Wilhelm
Hoyt
286   255   Johnson
Randy
426   253   Mathewson
Christy
287   252   Quinn
Jack
309   246   Wynn
Early
366   243   Carlton
Steve
292   242   Faber
Red
241   239   Vance
Dazzy
413   238   Keefe
Tim
[strong]241   237   Luque
Dolf[/strong]
334   237   Ryan
Nolan
322   234   Ruffing
Red
315   233   Rixey
Eppa
359   233   Maddux
Greg
388   233   Seaver
Tom
243   227   Adams
Babe
221   221   Hutchison
Bill
258   221   Walters
Bucky
233   217   Hough
Charlie
399   216   Mullane
Tony
319   215   Sutton
Don
312   212   Lyons
Ted
233   210   Leonard
Dutch
259   206   Hecker
Guy
245   204   Coveleski
Stan
237   204   Newsom
Bobo
223   201   Root
Charlie
245   200   Jones
Sad Sam 



Luque from age 30 to 34 had win share totals of 23,18, 39, 14, 27. A very Bret Saberhagenish pattern. Any way, that is 121 total. That is good for 15th place all-time, tied with Warren Spahn.
Total   30-34 Player
221     184   Hutchison
Bill
634     160   Young
Cy
426     157   Mathewson
Christy
269     154   McGinnity
Joe
296     153   Brown
Three Finger
305     151   Hubbell
Carl
391     137   Grove
Lefty
317     135   Gibson
Bob
258     132   Walters
Bucky
369     130   Perry
Gaylord
399     129   Mullane
Tony
476     126   Alexander
Pete
391     125   Radbourn
Old Hoss
413     124   Keefe
Tim
412     121   Spahn
Warren
[strong]241     121   Luque
Dolf[/strong]
560     119   Johnson
Walter
209     119   Chesbro
Jack
158     119   Mathews
Bobby
315     118   Rixey
Eppa
292     115   Faber
Red
359     115   Maddux
Greg
322     111   Ruffing
Red
257     111   Bunning
Jim
156     109   Crowder
General
245     107   Coveleski
Stan
241     107   Brown
Kevin
212     107   Leever
Sam
312     107   Palmer
Jim
309     106   Wynn
Early
388     106   Seaver
Tom
165     106   Lee
Thornton
224     106   Lolich
Mickey
232     105   Lemon
Bob
240     105   Pennock
Herb
403     104   Galvin
Pud
361     102   Plank
Eddie
247     102   Cicotte
Eddie
276     101   Glavine
Tom
173     101   Brecheen
Harry
374     100   Niekro
Phil
243     100   Orth
Al
148     100   Ewing
Bob
293     100   Willis
Vic 


So who has a similar value pattern?

Just eyeballing it, Red Faber is a pretty good match. He had 50 WS before the age of 28, and had 51 more in his career than Dolph.

Dazzy Vance is also similar, but his peak start is even later than Luque’s.

Bunning, Coveleski, General Crowder and School Master Sam look similar too. You could make a nice Bucky Walters or Walter Johnson comparison too.

By the pattern I mean, big seasons sprinkled with average seasons. Eppa Rixey for instance at that age was 22, 23, 26, 21, 26. That is not really the same thing.


Who are the players close to him on both lists combined? Guys with between 150 and 106 Win Shares ages 30 to 34, and 200 to 260 Win Shares after the age of 28.


Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Bucky Walters, Tony Mullane, Tim Keefe, Dolph Luque, Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, Greg Maddux, Red Ruffing, Stan Coveleski, Early Wynn and Tom Seaver



So, there is the info. And I suppose people will read into it what they want.
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 02:55 PM (#1629944)
I was struck by Dazzy Vance 241-239 and Luque 241-237. Anybody want to compare the two since we elected Vance relatively easily, you know, compared to Pike and Jennings. Especially since Luque has a lot of value outside of his ML record and Vance didn't. 'Course it's a different competitive set today.
   22. Daryn Posted: September 20, 2005 at 04:05 PM (#1630087)
On Kiner,

I know this group has disdain for traditional stats, but Kiner has 7 consecutive Homerun titles. Seven. Consecutive.

I hate peak only careers. Hughie Jennings was not really in my consideration set and is the only electee so far I have vehemently disagreed with. But Kiner has 8 great years. He'll make the middle of my ballot. If I were voting on peak and prime only, he'd be near the top.

Is there anyone who isn't an inner circle HoMer who played more than five seasons and never had an OPS+ less than 115?
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1630102)
>Kiner has 7 consecutive Homerun titles. Seven. Consecutive.

While also racking up more than 100 BB per year for his career. He is basically Harmon Killebrew for 9.5 years.
   24. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 20, 2005 at 04:52 PM (#1630183)
John,

Could you please create threads for Hank Thompson and Bus Clarkson?

Thank you!
   25. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 20, 2005 at 04:53 PM (#1630187)
He is basically Harmon Killebrew for 9.5 years.

He's Half-a-Brew?

I was struck by Dazzy Vance 241-239 and Luque 241-237.

Of all the pitchers listed in the Top 100 in the New Historical Abstract, the two with the worst RSIs are . . . . Dazzy Vance (90.47) & Dolf Luque (91.81).

I figure Luque's W/L record is what's killing him. Not only did he have bad run support, but he won 12 games fewer than he should've with his existing run support.
   26. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2005 at 04:57 PM (#1630198)
He is basically Harmon Killebrew for 9.5 years.

Yes. As a fellow Twins fan, I agree. He and Harmon were #2 & #3 on the HR/AB list (behind Ruth) for many years before the 1990s came along.
   27. jingoist Posted: September 20, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1630241)
Ralph Kiner; a Pete Browning who could field "a little bit".
2,000 runs+RBI on less that 1,500 hits.
Very impressive 10 year run but Ralph was toast by age 32 and traded at age 30 to the Cubbies.
Those were the days when Pittsburgh and Chicago vied for last place in the NL almost every year.
I always thought he got his 1,000 walks because the Pirates didn't have another guy capable of driving Ralph in from 1B. Opposing pitchers just pitched around Ralph to get to the the weak sisters who populated the Pirates batting order.

Very unpopular trade in Pittsburgh back then as Ralph and Rip Sewell were the only talent on the Pirates going back to the days after WWII.
The trade was considered a disaster in Pburgh as nobody the Bucs got in return for Ralph ever amounted to a hill of beans.

I've always been on the fence about Ralph. He was everything to the Pirates back then; but then again the Pirates really s*cked so what does that say about Ralph.
   28. Al Peterson Posted: September 20, 2005 at 05:36 PM (#1630284)
Is there anyone who isn't an inner circle HoMer who played more than five seasons and never had an OPS+ less than 115?

Happens more than you think. I'll define season as 1/2 a teams games - that to eliminate the small sample seasons most players have at the beginning and end of a career. Just quickly checking on some "hitters", here's some who had 5 or more seasons and all seasons OPS+ >= 115:
Joe Harris     7
Dave Orr       7
Henry Larkin  10
Bob Johnson   13

Nobody has opened the HOM gates for these guys. They all have issues but there's Bob Johnson again, looking good :)
   29. Daryn Posted: September 20, 2005 at 05:59 PM (#1630334)
Johnson is a true example. Harris doesn't qualify -- 103 in his last year. Orr and Larkin were last century -- let's arbitrarily exclude them. It doesn't happen often.
   30. Chris Cobb Posted: September 20, 2005 at 06:29 PM (#1630391)
Is there anyone who isn't an inner circle HoMer who played more than five seasons and never had an OPS+ less than 115?

I think the "never had" is a red herring here. It says nothing about Kiner's innate quality that he skipped his seasoning time at the start of his career because of WWII and that his career ended quickly because of back problems.

The question should be Is there anyone who isn't an inner circle HoMer who had, like Kiner, ten or more consecutive seasons achieving an OPS+ of 115 or better?

Bob Johnson is already identified as a member of this group for whom the HoM gates haven't opened. Who else gets added by the 10-year consecutive 115+ OPS+ criterion?
   31. Al Peterson Posted: September 20, 2005 at 06:39 PM (#1630419)
Babe Herman seems to fit the bill as well. He had 11 seasons from the start of his career where he posted OPS+ at 115+.

He last got a vote...well, I don't know if he ever got a vote.
   32. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2005 at 06:42 PM (#1630421)
Bob Johnson is already identified as a member of this group for whom the HoM gates haven't opened. Who else gets added by the 10-year consecutive 115+ OPS+ criterion?

Charley Jones
Babe Herman
Chuck Klein
Earl Averill
Edd Roussh

Wally Berger, Jeff Heath, Ken Williams and Chick Hafey can give you nine.

(found this just scanning -- didn't thoroughly scan a db -- should be more)
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 06:57 PM (#1630445)
Check out the Ralph Kiner thread for an extended discussion of all the big moneyball guys (most of whom) you mention here. Ken Williams, Jeff Heath, Babe Herman, all in comparison to Kiner, Browning, Charlie Keller, etc. Those 115s are nothing (I realize they are the bottom end of those careers. But what interests me is the difference between guys who were at 180-170-160-150 at their peak. That is where the men are separated from the boys.)
   34. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 20, 2005 at 07:50 PM (#1630523)
Really looking at Kiner a bit more closely to prep putting him on the ballot, and I clearly seem to like him more than most people here. I was always a big fan of his - looking at his numbers he looked like a monster to me, but seeing the lukewarm response he's getting here I thought I'd revisit and make sure that I wasn't letting childhood impressions (of him in the 'cyclopedia - not nearly old enough to remember him as a player) get in the way, but I still think he's a monster.

I've got a geek-show stat system I use to help organize the hitters in my mind. It only looks at hitting, so everything else has to be adjusted for. There's a few versions of it - the common denominator is that it's based on 60% prime and 40% peak.

Plugging Kiner in, and looking at the system using a 10 year (non-consecutive) prime with the best years weighted heavier and the worst years wegithed less, Kiner coming in third among leftfielders behind Pete Browning and Charlie Jones. Among all hitters, he comes in fourth, just baaarely behind Jake Beckley for third.

Using a 7 year (non-consecutive) prime (similar weighting as the time before) and he comes out third in LF again. Now he's almost halfway between Jones & fourth-place Bob Johnson (he was closer to Johnson in the first method). Among all hitters, he's in fifth - George Sisler blows past both him & Beckley for third.

7 year (nonconseutive) prime - this time all years weighted equally: he comes in third for leftfielders (behind the usual suspects) and just baaarely edges out Sisler & Beckley for third overall.

One last version - looking at 10 year (non-consecutive) prime but this time weighting all those years equally: Now he's fourth among LFrs - just a little behind Bob Johnson. He's fifth overall, behind Beckley as well.

Just for the heck of it - comparing that last version not only with current potentials, but also alongside those already inducted - he comes off worse than just about every LF in. He's just ahead (a virtual dead heat) of Joe Kelley, and notably ahead of Jimmy Sheckard.

Also, if you take his games played every year, and divide by his teams' games played, and add all that together, you get 9.49 seasons played. That's exactly the same as Charlie Jones. A list of Kiner with some similars:

Chuck Klein 11.41
Earl Averill 10.80
Sam Thompson 10.63
Frank Baker 10.48
Harlond Clift 10.20
Babe Herman 10.08
Elmer Flick 9.93
Jake Fournier 9.91
Pete Browning 9.55
Charlie Jones 9.49
Ralph Kiner 9.49
Ken Williams 9.09
Hank Greenberg 9.01
Wally Berger 8.75
Hack Wilson 8.72
Joe Jackson 8.70
Gavy Cravvath 8.15
Charlie Keller 7.58


Before trying to make any adjustments at all I figure he's no worse than the fifth best hitter under consideration. He'd go over Charlie Jones. The others were on my ballot last time and will be again this time. So will Kiner. Add a year of play for WWII, and for me that would likely rub out a lot of the defensive and demeritis he has against the other big hitters. Right now I'm pegging him somewhere from #5-10 on my ballot.
   35. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2005 at 08:30 PM (#1630609)
Check out the Ralph Kiner thread for an extended discussion of all the big moneyball guys (most of whom) you mention here.

Yeah, I freely admit that I used the bb-ref's similarity scores to find these guys. It could very well be that there are steady long-career guys who had a 10 year run of 115 OPS+ or more. (115 is not really a high bar here.)

As far as 'moneyball' goes -- its great to see that players like this are not being underrated anymore, but on the other hand, there is no salary limitations in the HOM. We're not on a budget here.
   36. PhillyBooster Posted: September 20, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1630638)
Who are the players close to him on both lists combined? Guys with between 150 and 106 Win Shares ages 30 to 34, and 200 to 260 Win Shares after the age of 28.

Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Bucky Walters, Tony Mullane, Tim Keefe, Dolph Luque, Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, Greg Maddux, Red Ruffing, Stan Coveleski, Early Wynn and Tom Seaver


Thanks, Mike. Not a bad list at all. A bunch of HoMers. A bunch of not-quites.

The not-quites who are eligible are Tim Keefe (AA discount), Eppa Rixey (potential future inductee), Red Ruffing (mostly sub-par year in Boston before age 28, potential future inductee), Bucky Walters (late bloomer).

I am clearly in a minority of one here, but how is it that Luque gets treated like he's just another Bucky Walters (Not even! Walters gets ten votes!) when there's clearly a backstory that's not getting considered.
   37. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 20, 2005 at 08:59 PM (#1630659)
Has anyone done translation work on Dolf's Cuban seasons?
   38. Mark Donelson Posted: September 20, 2005 at 09:13 PM (#1630697)
1961 prelim

For now, just keeping the same order as last year, and placing Kiner...lots to go over before finalizing, though.

1. Rube Waddell
2. Wes Ferrell
3. Dobie Moore
4. George Sisler
5. José Méndez
6. Joe Medwick
7. Hugh Duffy
8. Biz Mackey
9. Cupid Childs
10. Ralph Kiner
11. Willard Brown
12. Ed Williamson
13. Earl Averill
14. Vic Willis
15. Quincy Trouppe

Now...things to consider: first, Kiner. He seems really close to Keller to me, but the somewhat better peak elevates him. Am I right to put him above most of my CF candidates?

Do I have the AA gang, Browning and Jones, too low (low 20s/high 30s, at present)? If so, should either/both make the ballot?

Do I have my second-tier SS group (particularly Pesky and Stephens) slotted too low (just outside the top 50 at present)?

How the heck do I get any idea of where to put Coimbre?

Was Oms significantly better than Poles (I have them stuck together right now, around the low 20s)? If so, does he elevate to my ballot?

And once and for all, was Mackey really better than Trouppe?

Any help on any of these subjects (partisan or not) is of course most welcome! ;)
   39. Michael Bass Posted: September 20, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1630725)
Pete Browning was an even better hitter, but with about 2 less seasons, and was a Poor CF in a era where there were less outfield plays vs. Kiner who was a Fair LF in an era with more OF plays, so he "hurt" his team defensively about as much as Browning did.

This actually understates it a bit...if you like WARP, Kiner was a *worse* defensive OF than Pete Browning. -70 FRAA vs. -43. And factoring in CF vs. LF, 83 FRAR vs. 248.

For me personally, if you suck that bad in the field, you're going to have to bring both peak and career hitting to the table, aka Harry Heilmann. Kiner does not, and thus he's off ballot.
   40. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 20, 2005 at 09:48 PM (#1630766)
Is there a Dolf Luque thread anywhere? For that matter, is there a way to find the individual threads for any non-Negro Leaguers? I click on the "selected 20th century player" link on the Important Links page, but I get sent to a blank thread.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:02 PM (#1630795)
Mark, your questions re. the hitters--Kiner, Browning, et al--are all (ok, some) answered on the Kiner thread. There's a lengthy discussion of the "moneyball" candidates.

But yes, Browning belongs up higher unless you think the 19C didn't happen, and Kiner is the real deal though with a short career. I don't see penalizing him for bad defense, he just doesn't get as much defensive value as better defenders.

Michael, Ralph Kiner = Frank Thomas? I mean, Thomas has by no means a long career by current standards. Off ballot?
   42. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1630807)
I've always liked Kiner a ton too, looking forward to more serious analysis of him.

His career is a dead ringer for Albert Belle's, with a few of the 2B turned into HR.

Also remember, Forbes Field was an awful HR park. Good hitters park, terrible HR park, which makes Kiner's HR feats all the more impressive.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1630828)
Just the Kiner-Elizabeth Taylor connection should be enough for a ballot spot. :-)
   44. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:18 PM (#1630832)
Is there a Dolf Luque thread anywhere?

He's Burleigh Grimes' roomie.
   45. Mark Donelson Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:20 PM (#1630834)
Marc: Obviously, I do think the 19c happened (I was a big Hughie partisan, and Duffy and Williamson are also on my ballot). The question is more whether I think the American Association happened, so to speak, or at least how much it happened compared to the NL. (And, even if it did, why Browning is better than Charley Jones, who I'm giving some blacklist credit.)

I've read the Kiner thread, and it's helped some, but while your (and others') methodology helped me a lot with Kiner himself, it's not as convincing to me re Browning and a few others. Is Browning really better than Kiner? Than Keller? Than Averill? I find myself ping-ponging back and forth between your arguments and those of people like Chris Cobb.

Still, mainly, I'm still having a hard time with how much AA discount to give. I'm a peak voter, but are these guys' peaks really as good as, say, Kiner's and Keller's?

Mind you, I'm not asking you or Chris or anyone else to decide for me here; I need to take some more time myself to look this over. But further clarification (if you feel like it) would be swell.
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:26 PM (#1630841)
I click on the "selected 20th century player" link on the Important Links page, but I get sent to a blank thread.

For some reason, it was closed. If you notice any other pages in the same situation, please let me know.

BTW, you may notice pages that have the intos doubles at the top. I have no idea what's going on there, but I assume it's connected to the system changeover.
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2005 at 10:29 PM (#1630846)
Mark, take your time. I've taken 50+ years with Browning who is not in my PHoM yet. Charlie Jones went in in 1921. I use a 10 percent AA discount (well, it varies from 0 to 35 percent season by season but averages out to about 10 for a long-term AA guy like Browning), but I've kinda decided that Browning probably was a better hitter than Jones and both are hitting candidates--period. As a wild-### rule of thumb, call his OPS+ 148 instead of 164. He's still got a longer career than a lot of the moneyball players.

But is he better than Kiner et al? It's close. (And I didn't mean you particularly about whether the 19C happened. It's just that there are voters who've now timelined it to Narnia and beyond.)
   48. Michael Bass Posted: September 20, 2005 at 11:04 PM (#1630935)

Michael, Ralph Kiner = Frank Thomas? I mean, Thomas has by no means a long career by current standards. Off ballot?


Frank Thomas: 915 BRAR, 96.2 WARP1 (despite, as you note, being an even worse defender than Kiner)

Kiner: 608 BRAR, 74.9 WARP1

Thomas has a huge career advantage on Kiner. Also, while Kiner has the two best years with the stick, Thomas had 7 consecutive 80+ BRAR years, to only 3 total for Kiner. In other words, he's very slightly behind Kiner on peak, and just destroys him in prime and career.

And yes, I do think Big Hurt is overrated, but he will still make my ballot.
   49. EricC Posted: September 21, 2005 at 12:16 AM (#1631022)
Who else gets added by the 10-year consecutive 115+ OPS+ criterion?

Medwick
   50. TomH Posted: September 21, 2005 at 12:37 AM (#1631109)
The BP translated stats show that in an 'alltime neutral' environment, Kiner would have a similar OBP to Browning, but would outslug him by 60 points.

I don't think the league strength adjustment should be quite this large, but even if it is off by quite a bit, Kiner still would appear to be a 'better' hitter. It's difficult for me to imagine that a 162 OPS+ in a part-AA league in 1885 is tougher to achieve than a 149 OPS+ in 1950 when the NL was integrating.

Their career lengths are even, their defense is even. I have to place Kiner higher.
   51. Chris Cobb Posted: September 21, 2005 at 01:06 AM (#1631232)
Joe D wrote:

His career is a dead ringer for Albert Belle's, with a few of the 2B turned into HR.

John Murphy wrote:

Just the Kiner-Elizabeth Taylor connection should be enough for a ballot spot. :-)

I guess we conclude, then, that his career is a dead ringer for Albert Belle's, except for the off-the-field parts :-) .
   52. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 21, 2005 at 02:32 AM (#1631604)
I have a question about Perucho Cepeda and Pancho Coimbre...

Are these the type of guys that we should be looking at as we look at Japanese league guys? In other words, should we put off voting on guys like Coimbre aand Cepeda and others that I have yet ot hear about.

ALso, how many votes have these guys received so far? If they have received votes that could complicate things.

I am nto advocating one way or the other just asking. Especially since these guys have been eligible for years and we still don't have good MLE's or any solid data. Saving them for later might actually benefit them.
   53. Chris Cobb Posted: September 21, 2005 at 02:49 AM (#1631670)
Coimbre and Cepeda are, and should be, eligible now because they are North American players: Coimbre played in the Negro Leagues, so he is obviously eligible, and both Coimbre and Cepeda competed against players with whom we are quite familiar in the Puerto Rican Winter League and probably elsewhere in Latin America. We have all the resources we need to develop MLEs for the PRWL if we would take the time to do it.

Since they will never lose their eligibility, their being eligible now doesn't prevent them being saved for later. No amount of delay will provide statistics for their careers prior to the formal organization of the PRWL, which is the biggest obstacle to giving their careers a fair assessment.

I do not believe either player has yet received a vote, but that should have no bearing on their eligibility.
   54. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 21, 2005 at 11:38 AM (#1632044)
I see Kiner and Medwick as similar, but I'll take Kiner's peak (basically 3 years equivalent to Medwicks 1937 with teh bat), over Medwick's one extra season as a regular and a few extra seasons of part-time play. I don't think it's too close.

Was Kiner's D that bad? His range factors are a little below average and his fielding percentage was a little below average, but they aren't awful. He came up as a CF/LF, which suggests he must have had some skills out there as well. He had more than 10 assists 3 times. Prospectus has him at 70 runs below average over 10 years, or 7 runs a year, which isn't exactly God-awful, and there's defintely room for error as well.

I cannot see how one could rank Medwick above Kiner.
   55. Daryn Posted: September 21, 2005 at 01:48 PM (#1632136)
I stand corrected on the uniqueness of 10 consecutive 115 OPS+ seasons.

I am willing to bet that it is a pretty select group who won 7 consecutive homerun titles. In fact, I went and checked. Members of that group: 1 (kiner, Ralph). Ruth managed it six consecutive times and a handful managed it 4 consecutive times. Interestingly, Kiner tied for the league lead 3 of those 7 years.
   56. PhillyBooster Posted: September 21, 2005 at 01:53 PM (#1632146)
For those who don't feel like searching, there's lots of good stuff on Luque in this thread..

Chris Cobb suggests that an appropriate ERA+ for Luque in 1913 to 1916 would be 97. I argued that it should be closer to his career 117. James Newburg points out that his 123 ERA+ from age 28 on is one of the greatest ever for pitchers who threw 3000+ innings from age 28 on.

And now Mike Webber gives a list of players who are comparable from age 28 onward:

Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Bucky Walters, Tony Mullane, Tim Keefe, Dolph Luque, Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, Greg Maddux, Red Ruffing, Stan Coveleski, Early Wynn and Tom Seaver

Putting aside Keefe due to league-strength issues, the only guy not getting much support is Bucky Walters (although even he has ten voters!), a genuine late bloomer. Luque was playing in top level Cuban teams at age 22, and playing in the Negro Leagues and high minors soon afterward.

The irony, I think, is that if you took away his major league career, leaving just Cuban League (#2 pitcher all time), Negro League, and white minor league numbers, he'd probably doing a lot better. His 194 major league wins are hurting his case, because voters are looking at it in a strictly (pun intended) black and white way, where Luque falls on the white/non-excluded side, getting blinded to the difficulties he had breaking in, compared to a "whiter" player.
   57. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 21, 2005 at 02:20 PM (#1632209)
Great points Philly and Mike W., is Luque the Cravath of pitchers? I could see him making a huge jump (like getting on) my ballot this time . . .
   58. TomH Posted: September 21, 2005 at 02:20 PM (#1632210)
Why I vote for Bucky Walters (and why you should, too)

Bucky Walters - on the surface, not a great career candidate or peak candidate. But by every measure, he seems to grade out nicely. You jsut need to look deeply (into my eyes....)

From 1935-46, his prime, he threw 2936 IP with an ERA+ of 125. Pretty sweet, ain't it? How does that measure up to your favorite (non-deadball) candidate? Plus he could hit (OPS 630).

In his best years, 1939-40, he was as valuable player as there was in the NL.

His overall W-L and ERA numbers are worse in hsi early career, but that is because he pitched for a patheitc team, the Phillies, who won fewer than 60 games a year and posted team ERAs in the high 4s to low 5s.

Win Shares? Career, 258. Career rate, 29.1. Try to find an eligible pitcher who can match both of those.

WARP? He has 85.6 WARP3 in 12 years. Again, try to find an eligible pitcher who can match both of those. Maybe Ferrell if you're a prime-meister, or Ruffing if a career-lover.

What other tool would you like? Bring it on baby!
   59. sunnyday2 Posted: September 21, 2005 at 02:45 PM (#1632260)
The big problem I have with Luque, speaking as a peak voter, is I can't quite get it into my head that Mendez wasn't better (peak).
   60. Chris Cobb Posted: September 21, 2005 at 03:54 PM (#1632432)
Joe D. wrote:

I cannot see how one could rank Medwick above Kiner.

Surely this is hyperbole? Here's a quick comparison of Medwick to Kiner (and Averill) using win share and WARP1:

5-year peak
Medwick    Averill     Kiner
154.8 ws   142.6 ws    154.5 bws
430 RAR    449 RAR     453 RAR

10-year prime
Medwick    Averill     Kiner
265.0 ws   266.9 ws    242.1 ws
731 RAR    857 RAR     691 RAR

Career, no MiL or WWII credit
Medwick    Averill     Kiner
311.8 ws   278.4 ws    242.1 ws
878 RAR    877 RAR     691 RAR


By win shares, Medwick beats Kiner in all three measures, Averill beats him in prime and career.

By WARP1, Kiner has the best five-year peak, but Averill and Medwick beat him in prime and in career value.

Of course, there are caveats:

With war credit and MiL credit and with WWII discounts for Medwick, both Averill’s and Kiner’s careers are stronger than this table shows.

There are arguments to be made that Kiner is underrated by win shares because he played on bad teams, and there are arguments to be made that Kiner is underrated by WARP because it underestimates his fielding quality.

However, anyone who accepts one of these metrics or who combines them could easily place Medwick and Averill ahead of Kiner. To place Kiner ahead of either of these two players entails either (1) a very heavy emphasis on peak or (2) modification or disregard for the findings of WARP and win shares or (3) significant war credit for Kiner.

Joe asked:

Was Kiner's D that bad? His range factors are a little below average and his fielding percentage was a little below average, but they aren't awful. He came up as a CF/LF, which suggests he must have had some skills out there as well. He had more than 10 assists 3 times. Prospectus has him at 70 runs below average over 10 years, or 7 runs a year, which isn't exactly God-awful, and there's defintely room for error as well.

I think this is soft-pedaling the fielding issue a bit. Yes, Kiner played half his first season in centerfield, but neither WARP nor win shares suggests he had any business being in centerfield. (I'd be interested to learn more about how he was used there -- did the Pirates start him in center, realize that was a mistake, and shift him to left, or did they move him to center later in the season, to replace an even worse option, or did they mix his time in center and in left?)

Although he wasn't Greg-Luzinski or Dave-Kingman awful as an outfielder, he was significantly worse than most of the other power-hitting outfielders to whom he is being compared now, and that's what matters for our purposes--the extent to which his fielding disadvantages offset his batting advantages in comparison to Medwick, Averill, Brown, Oms, Keller, Roush, etc.

A factor to consider in evaluating Kiner's defense is that he was part of a number of bad defensive teams, and both WARP and win shares' evaluations are informed by this fact.

Both WARP and win shares have Kiner as a good outfielder in one season: 1948. That year was the only year in which the Pirates were _good_ defensively during the Kiner era: according to B-R, they led the league in defensive efficiency and were 2nd in fielding percentage. All other seasons they were mediocre to poor: they were last in defensive efficiency in 1946, 1951, 1952, and 1953, 6th in 1949, and 4th in 1947 and 1950.

The WARP and WS fielding evaluation of Kiner tracks pretty closely the teams' finishes in defensive efficiency. So there's some evidence that Kiner is here, as elsewhere, suffering for being on a bad team. However, all the evidence and Kiner's reputation suggests strongly that he was contributing his fair share to the team's defensive badness.
   61. sunnyday2 Posted: September 21, 2005 at 04:07 PM (#1632464)
My question could be phrased in this way: So what?

IOW I remain unconvinced that corner OF defense really matters much. Certainly if we're splitting hairs between to essentially equal hitters. But in most cases the differences among corner OF as hitters can be and are easily quantified and therefore understood. In an awful lot of cases, I just don't think defensive efficiency makes up for more than a spit's worth of those offensive differences.

But you're also right, my rating of Kiner is based on a heavy peak emphasis. Or rather, it's not about MY peak emphasis. It's about Kiner's peak. I mean, the guy had one. Look at his OPS+. Now, of course, rate stats can be very misleading, but Kiner also played about 150 games a year through most of that period.

That's Kiner's story. 7-8 years of huge OPS+ and excellent durability.
   62. PhillyBooster Posted: September 21, 2005 at 04:09 PM (#1632467)
The big problem I have with Luque, speaking as a peak voter, is I can't quite get it into my head that Mendez wasn't better (peak).

Well, you're not getting any arguments from me on that one. I had Mendez #4 (made 12 ballots) and Luque #6. I also had Cravath #3 (made 8 ballots).

In some ways, it's really the Mendez and Cravath voters who I am reaching out to first. The Mendez guys have accepted the validity of Cuban pitching stats. (Mendez is #1 all time in Cuban wins, Luque is #2). The Cravath guys have accepted that an ostensibly white guy can still be excluded from MLB before 1947 and deserve credit accordingly. (Luque's case is stronger, due to racism.)

It's really the same sorts of arguments that lead me to put Cravath, Mendez, and Luque high on my ballot, but -- at least for Luque -- I am the sole voter.

I feel a little like karlmagnus in his quixotic attempt to gather support for Sam Leever -- another "one voter" candidate. But, unlike karlmagnus, I feel like I never had the dignity of having my arguments knocked down.

The Luque thread was a veritable love-fest where the debate centered around which great players he compared to, "how much" extra credit for his early years, and the like. But when it came time to vote, I was the only one there.
   63. Michael Bass Posted: September 21, 2005 at 05:21 PM (#1632630)
My two cents on why Luque isn't really on my radar screen...

Luque, to me, is Rixey minus quite a few innings, plus two years of a decent peak. Similar career ERA+, lot fewer innings (though XC tacks on some, he's not getting to Rixey level), two very strong years that Rixey never got. Given their positions on your ballot, I think that's a reasonable statement of how you see them as well.

I'm much more peak than you are, so Luque is ahead of Rixey for me. But the difference is, Rixey isn't in my top 50; isn't even really close. Luque doesn't separate himself enough from that standard to merit serious ballot consideration from me. Lot of this is the "bad NL" argument again; not really worth going into, as its the unending fight, but that's my view on him.

Re: XC

My first inclination at the time was to limit his XC, given that his first 3.5 years in the majors were mediocre at best. However, that certainly is an outdated method.

Looking through his thread, it appears to me we have stats for some of his Cuban league work, and for his minor league work. It does not appear from me that the numbers listed here are likely to provide any more peak seasons, which he would need to get anywhere near my ballot, but if someone does work up WS estimates, I will be glad to include them; the more I think about it, the more I really would prefer to match up his pre-majors credit to the way I've done Averill, and will do Robinson/Doby et al.
   64. Mark Donelson Posted: September 21, 2005 at 06:08 PM (#1632727)
I agree that Luque could benefit from some Cuban League MLEs, as I really don't know how much of a boost his numbers there would give him. All I do know is that I'm pretty sure he falls well short of Mendez (to a peak voter) there.

But going by his NL stats alone, he appears to have been David Wells plus one Roger Clemens season (broadly, of course). That's not enough for me.

I had been almost ignoring the Cuban stats up to this point on him, and I shouldn't, so he may move up a few slots. But that'll only (maybe) get him into my top 50, nowhere near my ballot. It'll take a real sense that his Cuban years showed a great peak, similar to that one great NL year, for that to change.
   65. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 21, 2005 at 06:19 PM (#1632750)
I agree with Michael on this one. As a somewhat peak-centric voter, for my money I want the MLEs to give Luque a big peak/prime boost. I don't see that coming, so the best he could do is end up being as good as Red Faber who I believe was a mistake selection and who would be fortunate to be in my current fab 50.
   66. Mark Donelson Posted: September 21, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1632997)
John--

I got the same blank-page problem as mentioned above with the selected19-century players link. Just so's you know...
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 21, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1633199)
I'm officially in reconsideration mode for Charley Jones. Until this point I've been essentially ignoring him and hoping he'll go away. He hasn't, and he's the elephant in the room of my ballot.

I've looked at his WARP1 which shows three 10-win seasons in years where the schedule makes it extremely hard to do, and, of course, he gets completely whacked by WARP2/3.

Over in WS land, he looks pretty great. In either case, I'm adding the blacklist years back in, but even if I didn't, he'd look at least as tasty as Browning.

Someone please tell me why I should or shouldn't vote for him.

Thanks!
   68. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: September 21, 2005 at 09:56 PM (#1633248)
Someone please tell me why I should or shouldn't vote for him.

Strength of competition adjustment is what's hurting him with me.
   69. sunnyday2 Posted: September 21, 2005 at 10:10 PM (#1633285)
Keep in mind the NL was a 6 team league in '77-'79. According to the numbers I've seen, it was a decade or more before the competition was as tough. And that is Jones' first peak. Like Browning (in the PL in 1890), whatever Jones did in the AA he did in tougher leagues, too.
   70. Chris Cobb Posted: September 22, 2005 at 01:43 AM (#1634043)
Someone please tell me why I should or shouldn't vote for him.

Thanks!


The problem that I have with Charley Jones (and with Pete Browning, too) is that in the context of their peers, they don't stand out so much, and I think we've taken enough players from an era in which the population base for MLB was a lot smaller than it would become: no blacks, almost no southerners, no one from the West.

To assess Charley Jones' WARP1 scores in context, I'd suggest that you do two things:

(1) Go through and compare those scores to the position players we long ago elected who peaked in the late 70s and early 80s: Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Gore, Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly, Ewing, Glasscock, Bennett. Look at Ed Williamson and Fred Dunlap, whom we haven't elected, and see how unusual Charley Jones' three 10-WARP1 seasons between 1879 and 1886 look then. Check his career totals against theirs, with some appropriate blacklisting credit.

(2) Consider the demographic issues and check out Howie's HoMers by year count (most recently posted at #102 on the 1960 ballot discussion thread) adn see what you think about the representation of Charley Jones's era.

Then you'll be in a good position to decide (1) how outstanding Jones was in the context of his time, (2) how much representation that era ought to have in the HoM beyond what it already does, and (3) whether, if we should be electing more from this era, Jones is clearly the most deserving. How does he stack up against Bond, Browning, Dunlap, Welch, and Williamson, who are, as a group, the top candidates from that era?

If, after looking at those things, you're convinced Jones belongs on your ballot, put him on. Then you can start persuading me that I'm wrong to think that he's not as good as the players we've elected, we have gotten the full complement of deserving HoMers from that era, and that, if we do go back into that pool, Charley Jones is not the player we should elect first.
   71. Brent Posted: September 22, 2005 at 01:44 AM (#1634047)
For those of us who give WWII credit, cases like Johnny Sain can drive us crazy. Sort of the flip side to Cecil Travis, in 1942 Sain was a marginal relief pitcher. Then, after three years of military service, he came back in 1946 with three seasons as one of the top starting pitchers in the National League. If he gets WWII credit at his 1942 rate, he’s way outside anyone’s consideration set. On the other hand, if he gets full credit at his 1946-48 rate, he just might be ballot worthy.

It seems that the reasonable thing to do is to split the difference, which leaves Sain well off ballot, but still with a much better ranking than one might guess by simply looking at the raw statistics.

Sain also had a couple of good seasons as a relief pitcher for the Yankees.
   72. Sean Gilman Posted: September 22, 2005 at 02:51 AM (#1634376)
To assess Charley Jones' WARP1 scores in context, I'd suggest that you do two things:

(1) Go through and compare those scores to the position players we long ago elected who peaked in the late 70s and early 80s: Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Gore, Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly, Ewing, Glasscock, Bennett. Look at Ed Williamson and Fred Dunlap, whom we haven't elected, and see how unusual Charley Jones' three 10-WARP1 seasons between 1879 and 1886 look then. Check his career totals against theirs, with some appropriate blacklisting credit.

(2) Consider the demographic issues and check out Howie's HoMers by year count (most recently posted at #102 on the 1960 ballot discussion thread) adn see what you think about the representation of Charley Jones's era.


With all due respect Chris, these are essentially the same argument: "We've reached our quota, so we should ignore anyone else from this time period".

Browning and Jones are borderline candidates. By definition they will not compare well to the no-braner picks from their time. In the same way the borderline picks of the 30s (Medwick, Averill) will not compare well to the no-brainers of their time (Gehrig, DiMaggio).

What would be useful is to compare these players on their merits, not on the basis of an arbitrary quota.
   73. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 04:46 AM (#1634481)
I have never given Jones full credit for his blacklisted years because I don't think he was a complete innocent. Much the same reason that Jackson and Cicotte dont' get credit from me. Were they picked on? yes. Were they innocents in the was that NeL players, WWII players, or a guy like Cravath or Luque was? No way.
   74. Chris Cobb Posted: September 22, 2005 at 04:46 AM (#1634482)
<i>With all due respect Chris, these are essentially the same argument: "We've reached our quota, so we should ignore anyone else from this time period".<i>

Not at all. If Dr. Chaleeko hasn't compared Charley Jones to his contemporaries (and I infer from his post that he has not), it's important that he do so, because _value in context_ should be the first criterion for establishing merit. Then consideration of the quality of play in the era is necessary to decide how to compare the contextual value of one player to the contextual value of another. I didn't tell Dr. Chaleeko what he should conclude in either of these assessments, and I don't know what he will conclude.

I told him what I have concluded, which is that Charley Jones isn't quite good enough for the HoM. I'm not ignoring Jones. He's ranked against his peers in the 1880s and is, in my view, the second-best non-elected player from that era, Mickey Welch being the best (and considerably better than Jones).

I use a non-arbitrary quota element as a guideline in ranking players from different eras against each other. That element suggests to me that Charlie Jones is fairly close in my system to players like Dobie Moore, Charlie Keller, and Dom Dimaggio, all of whom are excellent players but fall demonstrably short of Hom performance with respect to their contemporaries in my system.

I use a quota element because I think it is obvious that comparing players from different eras without some adjustment for differing qualities of competion is wrong, and that WARP2/3 does not offer an acceptable set of adjustments. Under the circumstances, I think a sufficiently flexible quota element is the best way to go.

How do you compare players from different eras "on their merits"?
   75. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 05:34 AM (#1634559)
Comparing Charley Jones to his peers:

149 OPS+
Lead league in OBP once, finished top 5 in slugging 5 times. 3rd oldest player in the league during 1885 and 1886 and posted 157 and 132 OPS+. Lead league in walks once, top 3 two other times. Top 7 in his league in OPS+ every year he played from age 26-35, top 3 times during that span.

Career OBP .345, league .294. Career SLG .444, league .336. Career BAvg .298, league .257.

Career FPct. .881, league .858.

Black ink, 20, Grey ink 162. Average HoF 27/144.

Probably would have been runnerup to Paul Hines for the 1879 NL MVP.

I give him full credit for the blacklisted years, and I can't see how his situation should be treated anything like the Black Sox.

"But after the 1880 season he was suspended by the club and blacklisted for refusing to play. He countered that he had not been paid and sued for his salary. A jury sided with the club . . . "

Juries make the right choice all the time, right? :-)

He'll continue to be the big elephant on my ballot :-)
   76. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 05:36 AM (#1634564)
"top 3 times during that span."

Should say top 3 3 times during that span.

Jones was top 3 in OPS+ 1877, 1878 and 1879, didn't mean to inflate his case - he doesn't need that :-)
   77. Sean Gilman Posted: September 22, 2005 at 06:19 AM (#1634611)
How do you compare players from different eras "on their merits"?

If you have compared Jones to his peers and found that he compares to them as Dom DiMaggio does to his peers, so be it. I have no problem with that, though I can't see how you would reach that conclusion. It simply a matter of our disagreeing about how to measure 'merit' and there's plenty of room for all of our subjective definitions of 'merit'.

If you do that, though, then you have no need to resort to a quota syste (and any quota system is if not by definition, then necessarily, arbitrary). You would only use a quota system if you've decided that you've elected enough 1870s-1880s players, and therefore regardless of how Jones compared to his peers, you would not advocate his election.

I don't use a quota system because I think it's obvious that a pennant is a pennant. I think it is one of the keystone assumptions of this entire project. Otherwise we should have just elected the top 200-some players of all-time and need spent several years doing this. Under these circumstances, I think one should rank players on their merits and on their merits alone. I define merit as a player's contribution to his team's pennant chances. Not as contribution per capita.
   78. Sean Gilman Posted: September 22, 2005 at 06:23 AM (#1634613)
ah late night spelling:

"no need to resort to a quota systeM"

"Otherwise we should have just elected the top 200-some players of all-time and nOT spent several years doing this."
   79. sunnyday2 Posted: September 22, 2005 at 10:05 AM (#1634716)
I've said it before--the demographic argument is a red herring. The players we are voting for are outliers, talent way out at the right hand edge of the bell curve is more of a random occurrence. Yes, the odds of finding great(er) talent goes up as the sample size goes up, but one could also say--and I guess I am saying--that the odds similarly are that great talent will pop up where it will.
   80. TomH Posted: September 22, 2005 at 12:11 PM (#1634741)
but it sure is easier for right-hand-bell-curve talent to pop up when you include dark-skinned people, when the population rises, when players previously prohibited from plaing by economic circumstances now see baseball as a viabale career, when recruiting and training get better, when we find players oversees or in the caribbean, when baseball is a sought-after career by masses who want to "be like Mike". So no, demographics is not completely a red herring :)
   81. andrew siegel Posted: September 22, 2005 at 02:44 PM (#1634873)
Talent level does clearly factor in in one important way: at the early stages of the game, there was more disparity in talent within the big leagues and the standard deviation of rate stats was larger. Therefore, a 154 OPS+ is much easier to achieve in 1880 than in 1980. On the other hand, top 3 in the league is still top 3 in the league. (Though of course, top 3 in a 6 team league is not the same as top 3 in a 16 teams league.)

I think Jones is the best pre-1890 player available and have had him on my ballot many times. But when you take a little bit of air out of his numbers to account for the above issue, he falls just short in my mind. He's somewhere between 20 and 25 on my current list.
   82. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1634956)
All Charley Jones had to do in the early stages of his dispute was realize that he, like everyone else, was only going to get paid at the end of the road trip since the Red Sox didn't have the money on them. Instead he made a big fuss that some believe was a way for him to be granted his release. AND then if he had asked for a reasonable sum of money afterward, instead of some huge settlement, from the Red Stockings he again could have avoided what happened to him.

He didn't. Was he treated fairly? No. But at the same time he had a few chances for this to blow over quickly and he chose to pick a fight.

Here is where the black sox analogy came from. It has been argued, prominently by karlmagnus on this board, that the banned White Sox players were not treated like Hal Chase and members of the 1917 Giants (was that the other series that had whispers about it?) had. This is true, they were made an example of and precedent was set when dealing with them. They may not have realized that the punishment for what they did was a lifetime ban when they were throwing the series. However, they still threw the World Series.

Charley Jones was made an example of in his dispute. However, it can be argued, and to somepoint I believe it, that Jones was trying to get released and at a few points could have just taken some money and gone to another team. Instead he tried his best to stick it to the Stockings as well. Was he treated absolutely fairly? no. But did this just 'happen' to him? no.
   83. Chris Cobb Posted: September 22, 2005 at 03:50 PM (#1634990)
But did this just 'happen' to him? no.

No, it happened to him because he tried to stand up for what he actually deserved, rather than accepting that he was a wage-slave of his employers, accepting that they had the right to pay him when they felt like it and to destroy his livelihood if he asked for what he deserved.

Maybe Jones didn't do the "smart" thing by refusing to compromise. But he is not therefore culpable for his mistreatment by his team and by organized baseball.

To argue otherwise is a clear example of blaming the victim.
   84. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 04:47 PM (#1635104)
When they wanted to?

If the team does not have the money with them how are they supposed to pay him? They were on a road trip and he was going to get his money when he got home. He was given what he would need for the road trip and the rest was with held from him because the team didn't want to carry large amonts of money all over the county. This seems reasonable to me. It had been the practice over his entire tenure with the team and probably over the entire league. It wasn't as if they weren't going to pay him when he got home.

And the more I about the situation I come to believe that Jones was trying to, in the words of BIll James, 'engineer his release'.

He was a victim and a man that was made an example of. I do give him some credit, but I am unwilling to give him the peak and prime seasons that he would need to get anywhere near my ballot. He wasn't innocent either.
   85. OCF Posted: September 22, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1635141)
Vote totals:
1916     1960
Waddell          306      148
Duffy            250      210
Van Haltren      231      274
Beckley          219      274
Ryan             217       45
Joss             128       27
Griffith         123      350
Chance            83       13
Welch             78      193
Sol White         73        
-
Childs            63      226
Willis            60       28
McCormick         48        
-
McGraw            41       54
H
Wright         37        -
[b]CJones          36      134[/b]
Long              26        
-
Cross             23        -
Thomas            22        -
...
Williamson        14       38
Monroe             
-       61 

The thing is, a lot of worthy players have become eligible in 44 years. I used to vote for Waddell, for Ryan, for Chance, for Willis, for McCormick, for Williamson. With other players elbowing their way onto my ballots, there's just not room any more.

Let's put it another way: put Jack Glasscock and Bid McPhee back on the ballot. How would they fare against Sewell, Doerr, Gordon, Moore, and Stephens? Put Sam Thompson back on the ballot - would you prefer him to Medwick and Kiner? Many of you would, of course, but it's a fair question. Charlie Jones was eligible when we elected Glasscock, McPhee, and Thompson. What do we know about him now that we didn't know then? Is the difference between those whose stock has risen in a half century and those whose stock has fallen mostly a matter of who has the most vocal and persistent supporters?
   86. sunnyday2 Posted: September 22, 2005 at 05:05 PM (#1635151)
j,

I thinkn the point is they shoulda had the money with them. I don't think players today are asked to fund their own expenses on road trips and get reimbursed when the get home.

If rules are rules, then what of Curt Flood? He coulda, shoulda, woulda also, and didn't.
   87. sunnyday2 Posted: September 22, 2005 at 05:08 PM (#1635159)
>Is the difference between those whose stock has risen in a half century and those whose stock has fallen mostly a matter of who has the most vocal and persistent supporters?

Persistent, yes. That is, they vote for them. Vocal? I dunno. I don't think Griffith's supporters are any more vocal than Beckley's or GVH's. And McGraw has always had support that was outspoken, self-confident.

If your point is that a few opinion leaders here are leading everybody else around, I don't see that happening.
   88. karlmagnus Posted: September 22, 2005 at 05:31 PM (#1635208)
This is why it would be fascinating to run the entire process in reverse, starting at say a 1980 ballot, with players becoming eligible 5 years before they made their ML debut (so Yaz, who debuted in 1961, would be eligible for the 1955 election.) That way, we would be doing the most difficult elections, for the candidates with the most uncertain knowledge, at the end of the process instead of at the beginning.
   89. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1635300)
Sunny,

I see the point, I just wanted to say that the reason that Jones is currently out of my top 50 is that I am not giving him full credit for his blacklisted years, especially where peak and prime are concerned.

However, in 1880 (or was it 1881?) the financial situation was much different. Today, money can be wired electronically and many other neato things that I have no clue about. Was it possible for money to be put into bank accounts, via direct deposit in those days? Was it possible for a guy like Jones to access that account hundreds of miles away? If not they would have had to give it to him in cash or maybe by check. What was the checking situation like in the early 1880's?

I presumed that the team had to give them the money by hand and that they felt that they wouldn't carry that much money with them on road trips. They did give Jones what was needed for the road and the rest was to be given to him upon his return to Boston. At least this is how I see it.

I don't know about Curt Flood. It will be a mute point as I dont' think he was good enough anyways, but I don't know about giving him credit for the years he missed. Was he blacklisted at all or was it just that he refused to play for the Phillies and the Phillies refused to trade him?
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: September 22, 2005 at 06:20 PM (#1635309)
As a peak voter I don't give Charley Jones any blacklist credit myself, yet he is in my PHoM. I was commenting to the larger pointbut the truth is I don't know exactly what the circumstances were, since it doesn't really affect my vote directly.
   91. karlmagnus Posted: September 22, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1635329)
Jschmeagol, it's a very interesting point. Wire transfers existed by 1880 (the telegraph followed the railroads pretty quickly, once it was discovered that you needed to know if a train was coming the other way) but were very expensive. However, there was at least a system of national banknotes, that you could spend anywhere.

Had the majors been in existence before the National Banking Act of 1862, they would have had to pay all expenses in banknotes of their local bank, which would only have been exchangeable at a huge discount (theoretically, they could have used gold, but that was very hard to come by.) Thus a Boston Club on a road trip to Cincinnati would have found local hotels, restraants etc. giving them only 80 cents of value for their dollar Boston banknotes they took to pay for expenses. A St. Louis team would have had even more trouble, because Western bank notes were practically unexchangeable on the East Coast, as the banks were considered shaky.

This may well be why the first big baseball tour happened in 1869 not 1859; the railroads and the market were both in place in 1859, but providing expenses for the players would have been very expensive.

I don't think Jones guessing wrong about what the rules were, and what they wouldn't let him do, should be held against him, given the embryonic state of the professional game at that point. I have him above both Klein and Wilson, and slightly below Browning; all four have a similar case to be amde for them.
   92. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 22, 2005 at 07:08 PM (#1635376)
When I think about it Jones may be in my PHOM as well if I hadn't started in 1935 and instead had been around since the beginning. However, since then I don't see him as especially better than Klein and Wilson, who are righting for their top 50 lives right now.
   93. TomH Posted: September 23, 2005 at 05:11 PM (#1637637)
ribbit
ribbit

cheep cheep

{silence}
   94. DanG Posted: September 23, 2005 at 05:20 PM (#1637652)
The New Eligibles thread is updated with 1976-80. I don't see it showing up on the Hot Topics listing.
   95. Paul Wendt Posted: September 23, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1637952)
Wire transfers were very expensive. However, there was at least a system of national banknotes, that you could spend anywhere.

I have presumed that gate revenues were overwhelming in significance (??) and principally in coin with standard ticket prices being 25c and 50c (true) and season ticket sales being small (??). I suppose that Boston would normally cover operating expenses in its share of gate receipts on a road trip.

I wonder whether clubs settled on the spot (before leaving town) in 1879 as must have been routine in 1869. By 1879 there was league structure in place to support another arrangement. Eg, report attendance and receipts to the league office by telegraph within a week, and settle up with the home offices of visiting clubs within a month.

--
It's true that most ballplayers from South of the Missouri, Ohio and Potomac Rivers were only a stone's throw to the South but the Eastern or Bell Atlantic version of the geographic argment is overdone. The White Stockings in 1875 targeted six star players, all now in the Hall of Merit(!), and succeeded in hiring five. Anson and McVey were born in Iowa (McVey raised in Indianapolis). Barnes and Spalding were born and raised in Illinois. White and Sutton were born and raised in Western New York, first playing high-level baseball in Cleveland and Rochester. All were professional players before 1870.

Also in 1875, local boy Jim Galvin made his pro debut in St Louis. Jack Glasscock was born and raised in Wheeling, er, Virginia, but certainly West rather than South.

Perhaps the curveball pitchers were all from the East.
   96. Paul Wendt Posted: September 23, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1637996)
Indianapolis is West for Cal McVey,
North for Oscar Charleston,
eh?

[i]                1916     1960
Beckley          219      274
Ryan             217       45
Joss             128       27
Griffith         123      350
Chance            83       13
Welch             78      193[
/i] 


As OCF noted elliptically, column two is not monotonically decreasing.
   97. karlmagnus Posted: September 23, 2005 at 08:41 PM (#1638094)
Paul, your assumption that they settled expenses out of their share of gate receipts has to be correct, just because that's the way you would do it (I speak as an ex-banker.) However, there would then be a horrible hiatus if you went on a road trip and attendance was lousy, or there were a lot of rain days. That may well have been the problem with Jones -- the club may have not taken much cash, relying on gate receipts, and then with poor attendance have run out of money before the end of the trip (or have had to spend it on rail fares, accomodation, etc.)
   98. karlmagnus Posted: September 23, 2005 at 08:43 PM (#1638102)
Incidentally,you'd presumably take some broken down ex-slugger as a baggage guy, since schlepping 20,000 quarters round the railroad system can't have been fun!
   99. Paul Wendt Posted: September 24, 2005 at 06:02 PM (#1639796)
Paul, your assumption that they settled expenses out of their share of gate receipts has to be correct, just because that's the way you would do it (I speak as an ex-banker.)

Question is, did they get their share of gate receipts immediately? Unlike 1869, the strong and continuing relationship (league) provided a reasonably secure alternative, which would interfere with paying salaries on the road. If a representative of the visiting team was in the counting-house after the game, we would see complaints about hiding money rather than complaints about under-reporting.

However, there would then be a horrible hiatus if you went on a road trip and attendance was lousy, or there were a lot of rain days.

Yes. "Hiatus" was still a threat to barnstorming trips 100 years ago, including semi-official ones (eg, organized by Cinci GM Frank Bancroft, consisting mainly of Reds players, but without financial aid).

In 1869, Harry Wright borrowed money from the Cincinnati Commercial(?) correspondent who followed the tour.

schlepping 20,000 quarters round the railroad system can't have been fun!

Players are always asking for advances. Give advances and pay salaries in quarters!
:-)
   100. Paul Wendt Posted: September 24, 2005 at 06:04 PM (#1639800)
ribbit
ribbit

cheep cheep


I suppose they are all schlepping quarters at Foxwoods.
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
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1424 seconds
49 querie(s) executed