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, November 14, 2005

1965 Ballot Discussion

1965 (November 28)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

323 97.2 1938 Enos Slaughter-RF (2002)
296 77.6 1939 Mickey Vernon-1B (living)
268 77.3 1942 Larry Doby-CF (2003)
204 85.5 1942 Murray Dickson-P (1989)
220 68.9 1944 Andy Pafko-CF/RF (living)
217 68.7 1946 Carl Furillo-RF (1989)
233 62.1 1946 Del Ennis-LF (1996)
174 52.3 1945 Hank Sauer-LF (2001)
175 50.2 1950 Bobby Avila-2B (2004)
144 41.2 1948 Granny Hamner-SS/2B (1993)
132 40.4 1950 Chico Carrasquel-SS (living)
125 29.8 1949 Gus Zernial-LF (living)
101 38.8 1947 Jim Hearn-P (1998)
109 35.4 1951 Solly Hemus-SS (living)
104 35.9 1949 Stan Lopata-C (living)
105 35.3 1948 Carl Erskine-P (living)
095 37.0 1948 Bob Porterfield-P (1980)
097 36.0 1949 Alex Kellner-P (1996)

1965 (November 13)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

HF 42-59 Larry Doby-OF/2B (1923) – 1 – 2*
00% 40-59 Claude Johnson-P (1922) – 0 – 1*

HoMers
Age Elected

91/92 1925 Grant “Home Run” Johnson-SS/2b
79     1935 Pop Lloyd-SS

Candidates
Age Eligible

81 1926 Oscar Stanage-C
80 1923 Bobby Byrne-3b
79 1924 Vean Gregg-P
72 1926 Happy Felsch-CF
69 1932 Carson Bigbee-LF
65 1942 Buzz Arlett-RF
60 1946 Rabbit Warstler-SS
45 1958 Fred Hutchinson-P


For the millionth time, thanks to Dan and Chris!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 14, 2005 at 01:07 AM | 172 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. karlmagnus Posted: November 21, 2005 at 03:14 PM (#1740457)
Yes Daryn, but if the inevitable flaws in the distribution of HOM slots vs. the distribution of players has caused some decades to be underrepresented, shouldn't we work to correct that? Both the 1890s and the 1920s seem underrepresented for artificial reasons, because of the slot dearth and the NEL glut. If nobody timelined, your paradigm would work, but half the electorate timelines (see all the "will never see my ballot again" comments on older players) and that throws it off.
   102. sunnyday2 Posted: November 21, 2005 at 03:40 PM (#1740480)
I don't think the point is to apply a quota. But it is to suggest that if a player was among the best in his particular prime period, then that had a lot of value for his team in its quest for a pennant-is-a-pennant-is-a-pennant. I mean, even if it were apparent that Rixey or Sisler or whomever was not as skillful as some more recent player, we are supposed to be about value. And the 9th best white MLer of the '20s probably had more value than the 19th best white MLer of the '30s.
   103. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:03 PM (#1740525)
Daryn, maybe some time in the future, an average ballplayer of that time would have been considered a HoMer of today. Does that mean, if we had started the HoM in the future, we would have to elect these mediocre players because they had the benefit of better training and medicine?

This is exactly why Joe wanted the HoM project to start in the 19th Century because the more dominating players of that era would have been neglected and less dominating players from the 20th Century would have taken their spots.

As for quotas, I have never used one and have been at the forefront against any of them, including timelining.
   104. Daryn Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:17 PM (#1740544)
I don't think the point is to apply a quota. But it is to suggest that if a player was among the best in his particular prime period, then that had a lot of value for his team in its quest for a pennant-is-a-pennant-is-a-pennant. I mean, even if it were apparent that Rixey or Sisler or whomever was not as skillful as some more recent player, we are supposed to be about value. And the 9th best white MLer of the '20s probably had more value than the 19th best white MLer of the '30s.

Yes, but (for example) we've had 60 years to analyze the 1890s players in their context and we have had 30 years to analyze the 1920s players -- we should not let distribution charts of our own voting change our analysis.

If nobody timelined, your paradigm would work, but half the electorate timelines...

That's the problem then -- but it should not cause non-timeliners to artificially boost their own evaluation of older players to counteract others' voting choices. One person, one vote -- and each person should be true to their own analysis, without regard to the group results. To me, this is immensely important to the entire exercise.
   105. Daryn Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:20 PM (#1740548)
Daryn, maybe some time in the future, an average ballplayer of that time would have been considered a HoMer of today. Does that mean, if we had started the HoM in the future, we would have to elect these mediocre players because they had the benefit of better training and medicine?

I'm not sure what this is addressing, but it doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm making. It so happens I don't timeline and if someone did, they may run into the problem you raise. But my point is that each voter should follow his own system without regard to the results of the electorate.
   106. sunnyday2 Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:28 PM (#1740565)
>but it should not cause non-timeliners to artificially boost their own evaluation of older players to counteract others' voting choices.

I don't think anybody is doing this. The fact that, say, Ed Williamson was one of the half dozen best players in baseball in his prime speaks for itself, unless you timeline.

I don't see why timelining is just a "given" and non-timelining should have to be defended.
   107. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:37 PM (#1740573)
Daryn, I agree with you on not changing a ballot solely to meet the electorate.

What I'm saying is that maybe, we as the electorate have made a mistake or two, and the trough is evidence that maybe we did. All I'm saying is that we should re-evaluate those guys (especially speed-era 3B), because maybe we missed something, or someone dropped off the radar who shouldn't have.
   108. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:47 PM (#1740581)
I'm not sure what this is addressing, but it doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm making.

This is what I was addressing, Daryn:

I'd just like to remind everyone that our goal each ballot is to rank the best 15 eligible players.

What I took from your sentence was that we should only look at the "bottom line" for each player without placing them in their proper context (IOW, how dominant were they?) I may be wrong about this interpretation, however.

My point was that there may be players in the future who would have been considered great during our time, but who would have been considered anything but in their own. I think this is analogous to touting lesser players retired in 1965 over more dominant early players who have not been elected yet (Williamson, Childs, Duffy, etc.) Before anybody beats me up on that last sentence :-), it was a hypothetical and I'm not charging any one with this.

BTW, I do feel that there should be more HoMers in the later generations than the earlier ones.
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:48 PM (#1740583)
Daryn, I agree with you on not changing a ballot solely to meet the electorate.


Same here. My consensus score backs me up on that. :-D
   110. Daryn Posted: November 21, 2005 at 04:59 PM (#1740596)
What I took from your sentence was that we should only look at the "bottom line" for each player without placing them in their proper context (IOW, how dominant were they?) I may be wrong about this interpretation, however.

I can see how you might read it that way -- hopefully, my posts above clarify that I meant "the best 15 eligible players" taken in the context of their times and positions as each individual voter chooses to interpret those contexts within the rules and spirit of our Constitution.
   111. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 21, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1740599)
hopefully, my posts above clarify that I meant "the best 15 eligible players" taken in the context of their times and positions as each individual voter chooses to interpret those contexts within the rules and spirit of our Constitution.

Then we are in 100% agreement, Daryn.
   112. DavidFoss Posted: November 21, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1740602)
see all the "will never see my ballot again" comments on older players

That's not necessarily timelining, it could be just math. For a 100 person consideration set, the top 15% make the ballot, for a 200 person consideration set, only the top 7.5% make the ballot.

It was a lot easier to grab my #15 ballot slot when I first started in the early 20s than it is today.
   113. Chris Cobb Posted: November 21, 2005 at 05:38 PM (#1740656)
Agreed that we shouldn't have strict quotas, but it does seem more likely, doesn't it, that we will have overlooked playersw in eras that have fewer HoMers than in eras that have more HoMers, in proportion to the the # of teams or the size of the talent pool? I think it's right for us to look with special care at players from eras with fewer electees than we would expect.

That said, It is my view that we will elect, and elect rightly, proportionately more players from the late 1920s through the early 1940s than from any other era. All of the evidence that we have about levels of competion indicate that they were high. the Depression, baseball's general popularity, and the relative lack of competition from other professional sports combine to make it as attractive a career option as it ever would be. The talent pool for baseball that we are considering has reached all of the U.S. and its ethnic groups and all of Latin America: the geographical reach of MLB (and its alternative, the NeL) is as great as it will be until Asian players begin to enter the U.S. game in the 1990s, although the total population in the region will grow quite a bit. All of the historical factors support what the data, as we have it, shows: this was a "golden age" in terms of top-tier talent in the game.

That said, we should be about done with this era, and I believe that we are a bit behind on the 1890s and on the 1915-25 era. I think we'll rectify those shortages with picks from the backlog over the next ten years, and we'll have a chance to fill out our selections from the 1940s in the mid-80s and mid-90s lulls.
   114. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 21, 2005 at 05:47 PM (#1740670)
Getting back to the pitchers and Chris's post in #58....

I think Pierce is much closer to Lemon and Wynn than he is to Newc, Dickson, et al. Those guys need the extry cred to get near a ballot. Billy Pierce will be ballot worth the moment he's eligible with no extra nuthin'.

Pierce is, in the context of his times, a legitimately great pitcher, and I hope we make a very careful study of his career.
   115. OCF Posted: November 21, 2005 at 05:58 PM (#1740703)
Thinking about the 20's trough...

We had the overwhelming talent-glut elections of '33 and '34 (and it was '37 by the time the glut started to clear). If you take the approach of "centering" each candidate and assigning a decade to them, those were all 1910's players, mostly with peaks in the early teens. But they all also had fabulously long careers and played - played very, very well, for the most part - through most of the 20's, which is why they weren't eligible until '33 or '34 (or '36, in the case of Alexander).

One other thing about the 1920's: Babe Ruth towered over that decade. The averages against which we measure people, the league leaders we look for - those all included Ruth. You can't even start to compare the other players of the 20's to Ruth. Does that hurt their chances?

Some not-so-overwhelming candidates did survive being introduced to the electorate at such a fiercely competitive time: Coveleski, Groh, Carey. Were there others who slid out of view at the time? (My own pet "lost cause" is a teens player rather than a 20's player: Larry Doyle.)
   116. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1740722)
Doc - I'm very interested in looking at Billy Pierce. One of the best pitchers very few people remember. I mean we remember him, but he doesn't jump to the front of the memory. He's more like the guy, that after someone mentions him, you are like, 'oh yeah, I forgot about him, but he was really good.'

I kind of think of him the same way I think of Tommy Bridges and Bucky Walters.
   117. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 06:09 PM (#1740725)
Just an FYI, Chico Carrasquel died earlier this year . . . I guess we should maybe update these lists when we hear of a player passing on, it's easy to forget. I'm sure we'll lose a few more over the next two years.
   118. OCF Posted: November 21, 2005 at 06:54 PM (#1740820)
In preparing this year's ballot, I suddenly said, "What about Eddie Stanky? I don't remember looking at him and surely he's eligible by now." Of course, he's on DanG's lists: 191/66.7 in 1959 (the same year Mize, Elliott, Leonard, and Newsom became eligible). So I worked him up - not quite enough to make by ballot, but a very interesing player in any case.
   119. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 07:09 PM (#1740847)
I would like to wish Charlie Bennett a happy 151st birthday . . .
   120. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 08:08 PM (#1740939)
Who exactly do we have in our upper backlog that is from the 1920's?

Is Sisler? He is a guy that I have at #22 this year and is a real borderline case for me but I am nto against his election. Still, his last relevant year, for me, was 1921, everything afterward doesn't push him any closer to the HOM.

Rixey? He is at #15 for me and is a good candidate, but I see him as more of a laste teens guy.

Sewell? I dont' think he makes it unless you think that the top tow ro three at every position every era should make it. Sewell was never great.

Who else? Schang? Are Wilson and Klein 20's guys? Traynor? Combs? I don't really think there are many candidates to look at, which is why we had backlog years in the late 30's.

Also, when I say something like, "Jake Beckley will never make my ballot" it isnt' because I am timelinging (I have Duffy, Childs, and Griffith on my ballot) but because we would have to elect something like 60 eligible guys for him to get there. And I doubt that any new information will come along that will change my mind on him. We have been over someone like him (and welch and some of my guys as well) so many times that where they are ranked is most likely where they will stay.

And finallly to add to OCF's comment on stanky, I find that the further we go along in this project the less I take a good look at guys like Stanky, Yost, KLuszewski, etc. A first glance takes away any chance of being a top 60 guy for me with so many other players to compete against and I just dont' have the time to spend on everyone. In the 1930's (my first decade here) I felt I had to do everyone because there were suaully 4 or 5 guys that were legitimate top 50 guys, not because they were better but because the pool was smaller.
   121. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 08:12 PM (#1740947)
I'm finishing these charts up per position, here's the pitching version.
A bit long, but they clarify just how many regulars there were at each position each year. The 10 G minimum at times is a little misleading when a number of guys only played a few dozen games, as happened on occasion.
Every position, by the way, has the occasional guy who raises an eyebrow (he played regularly THERE? I forgot that), like Bobby Wallace as one of the few SPs in 1894-95.
At bottom, I list chronologically list the candidates at the position who in the last election got about 100 votes or more.

HOM Ps, by year, through 1964 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G - and mainly this position - to be listed:
1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884 (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1855-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890-91 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1892 (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (4) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1895 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Wallace
1896 (3) - Young Nichols Wallace
1897-98 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1899-00 (3) - Young Nichols McGinnity
1901 (5) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (5) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (6) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904-05 (7) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906-07 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1908 (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1909 (7) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1910 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams
1911-12 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander
1913 (7) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander
1914 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF BrownW Johnson Williams Alexander Faber
1915 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Ruth
1916 (8) - Plank Foster WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Ruth Covaleski
1917 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Ruth Covaleski
1918 (3) - WJohnson Williams Covaleski
1919 (5) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1920 (4) - Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski
1921 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922-23 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1924 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons
1925 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove
1926 (10) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove BFoster
1927 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rogan Vance Lyons Grove BFoster Paige
1928 (9) - Williams Alexander Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove BFoster Paige
1929 (10) - Williams Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1930 (9) - Williams Faber Vance Lyons Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1931 (9) - Williams Faber Vance Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1932 (10) - Williams Vance Lyons Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1933 (8) - Lyons Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1934 (7) - Lyons BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1935 (6) - Lyons Grove BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1936 (6) - Lyons Paige Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1937 (6) - Lyons Grove BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1938 (5) - Lyons Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1939-40 (5) - Lyons Grove Hubbell RBrown Feller
1941 (6) - Paige Lyons Hubbell RBrown Feller Newhouser
1942 (5) - Paige Lyons Hubbell RBrown Newhouser
1943-45 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1946-47 (3) - Paige Feller Newhouser
1948-50 (2) - Feller Newhouser
1951 (1) - Feller
1952 (3) - Paige Feller Newhouser
1953 (2) - Paige Feller
Welch would be 1880-91
Griffith would be 1891; 1894-1906
Waddell would be 1900-09
Mendez would be 1908-14, very roughly
Redding would be 1911-30, roughly
Rixey would be 1912-17; 1919-33
Grimes would be 1917-31
Ruffing would be 1925-42
Walters would be 1936-45
Lemon would be 1947-56
   122. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 08:15 PM (#1740952)
And of course Van Haltren would be 1887-88 and 1890...
   123. yest Posted: November 21, 2005 at 08:52 PM (#1741024)
Rube Waddel pitched 10 games in 1899 and 1910
   124. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 08:56 PM (#1741032)
Yest,
this is a tougher level than "10 G minimum," this basically is having to be a 'regular,' or 154 IP in a 154 G season, for instance...
   125. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 08:58 PM (#1741039)
Note that there are NO HOMer Cs who played regularly in these years:
1866-68
1880
1893-1909
1918-19


HOM Cs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1861 - Pearce C-SS
1862-63 - Pearce
1864-65 - Pearce C-SS
1866-68
1869-70 - White
1871-73 - White, McVey
1874-76 - White
1877 - McVey
1878 - White, Bennett C-OF
1879 - White
1880
1881 - Bennett, Ewing C-SS
1882 - Bennett
1883-86 - Bennett, Ewing
1887 - O'Rourke C-3O
1888 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-OF
1889 - Bennett, Ewing
1890 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-SS
1891 - Bennett, Kelly
1892 - Kelly
1893-09
1910-17 - Santop
1918-19
1920-22 - Santop
1923-24 - Santop, Hartnett
1925-28 - Hartnett, Cochrane
1929 - Cochrane, Dickey
1930 - Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey
1931-35 - Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey, Gibson
1936-38 - Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson
1939 - Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson, Campanella
1940-41 - Dickey
1942 - Dickey, Gibson, Campanella
1943 - Dickey, Gibson
1944-46 - Gibson, Campanella
1947-57 - Campanella
Bresnahan would be 1901; 1905-08; 1910-11; 1914-15
Schang would be 1913-14; 1917-24; 1926-29
Mackey would be 1923-26, 1928-31, 1933-37, 1939, roughly
Trouppe would be 1938-39; 1941-49, very roughly
   126. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:00 PM (#1741042)
Also, Santop was the only HOMer C in a 30-year span from 1893-1922..
   127. yest Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:00 PM (#1741043)
Bob Feller 1938 277 IP
   128. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:02 PM (#1741048)
typo, but you indeed got me there, yest!
thanks, I'm fixing it in my home list now.
   129. yest Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:20 PM (#1741082)
what do you conisder a rgeluar for positen players
   130. KJOK Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:24 PM (#1741090)
Also, Santop was the only HOMer C in a 30-year span from 1893-1922..

Another reason why Bresnahan needs more support...!!
   131. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:34 PM (#1741098)
yest,
I went with "appearing in at least half his team's games" for hitters, although I skipped the occasional pinch-hitter-influenced season if it was borderline.
   132. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:00 PM (#1741157)
FIRST BASE
Notes
There have been no HOM 1B regulars so far in:
1899
1903
1905-10
1912-17
1921-22
from 1952 on

From 1898-1922, there are lots of guest regulars but no 'true 1B.'
The 1880s and especially the 1930s were the golden era of 1B.


HOM 1Bs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1860-71 - Start
1872 - Start, Hines
1873 - Start, Anson, O'Rourke 1B-OF
1874 - Start, Anson 1B-3B, O'Rourke
1875 - Start, Anson 1B-OF, McVey 1B-OC
1876 - Start, McVey
1877 - Start, Spalding, White 1B-OF, Sutton 1B-2B
1878 - Start
1879 - Start, Anson, McVey, Brouthers
1880 - Start, Anson
1881 - Start, Anson, White 1B-2O, Connor
1882 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor 1B-O3, Stovey 1B-OF
1883 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Stovey
1884 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey
1885 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Stovey
1886-88 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1889-90 - Hines, Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1891 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1892 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Ewing
1893-94 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1895-96 - Anson, Connor, Ewing
1897 - Anson, Lajoie
1898 - Wagner 1B-3B
1899
1900 - Delahanty, Jennings
1901 - Jennings, Kelley
1902 - Jennings
1903
1904 - Kelley
1905-10
1911 - Lajoie 1B-2B
1912-17
1918 - Magee 1B-OF
1919-20 - Heilmann
1921-22
1923 - JWilson
1924 - JWilson, Terry
1925 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles
1926 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Dihigo UT
1927 - Terry, Gehrig
1928 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles
1929 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Lloyd, Foxx
1930 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Lloyd, Foxx, Charleston
1931 - Terry, Gehrig, Foxx, Charleston
1932 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston
1933 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg
1934-35 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg, Leonard
1936 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Leonard, Mize
1937 - JWilson, Gehrig, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1938 - Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1939 - Suttles, Foxx, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1940 - Foxx 1B-C, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1941-42 - Foxx, Leonard, Mize
1943-44 - Leonard
1945 - Foxx 1B-3B, Leonard
1946-47 - Greenberg, Leonard, Mize, JRobinson
1948 - Leonard, Mize
1949 - Mize
1950 - Mize, Irvin 1B-OF
1951 - Mize
Beckley would be 1888-1906
Sisler would be 1915-22 and 1924-30
   133. Daryn Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:07 PM (#1741172)
Note that there are NO HOMer Cs who played regularly in these years:

1893-1909


This is Bresnahan's case in a nutshell -- and I think it is a good one. He has moved back into my top 20, which will be significant 15 years from now.
   134. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:07 PM (#1741176)
SECOND BASE
Notes

There have been no 2B HOM regulars so far in:
1878
1880-81
1905
1944
1947
from 1953 on

This was a popular spot in the 19th century and the 1920s and 1930s.
It seems like we elected some modest 2B HOMers from the 1800s, but Billy Herman is as low as the bar has gone in the 1900s.


HOM 2Bs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1870 - Pike
1871 - Barnes 2B-SS
1872-76 - Barnes
1877 - Wright
1878
1879 - Glasscock
1880-81
1882-83 - Richardson, McPhee
1884 - Richardson, McPhee, Connor 2B-OF
1885 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee
1886 - McPhee, Grant
1887 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1888 - Richardson, McPhee, Grant, Delahanty 2B-OF
1889 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1890-91 - McPhee, Grant
1892 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant, Ward
1893-94 - McPhee, Grant, Ward
1895-97 - McPhee, Grant
1898-99 - McPhee, Grant, Lajoie
1900-03 - Grant, Lajoie
1904 - Lajoie 2B-SS
1905
1906-07 - Lajoie
1908 - Lajoie, GDavis, E Collins 2B-SS
1909-10 - Lajoie, E Collins
1911 - E Collins
1912-13 - Lajoie, E Collins, HR Johnson
1914 - Lajoie, E Collins, Groh
1915-16 - Lajoie, E Collins
1917-19 - E Collins
1920-21 - E Collins, Hornsby
1922 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch 2B-3B
1923 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch
1924 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Dihigo UT
1925 - E Collins, Hornsby, Lloyd, Dihigo UT
1926 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Gehringer
1927-28 - Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Gehringer
1929 - Hornsby, Frisch, Gehringer
1930 - Frisch, Gehringer
1931 - Hornsby 2B-3B, Frisch, Gehringer
1932 - Frisch 2B-3B, Gehringer, BiHerman
1933-35 - Frisch, Gehringer, BiHerman
1936 - Frisch 2B-3B, Gehringer, BiHerman
1937-41 - Gehringer, BiHerman
1942-43 - BiHerman
1944
1945 - JRobinson
1946 - BiHerman 2B-3B, JRobinson
1947
1948-52 - JRobinson
Browning (!) would be 1882 2B-SS-3B
Childs would be 1890-1900
Doyle would be 1908-20
Gordon would be 1938-43; 1946-50
Doerr would be 1938-44; 1946-51
   135. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:13 PM (#1741189)
THIRD BASE
Notes

There have not yet been any 3B HOMers as regulars so far in these years:
1867-69
1889
1906
1947
1949-54

Not much in the way of complete droughts.
Of course, most of the years have only one or two 3Bs, and not once has there been a year with more than three 3B HOMer regulars.
I listed Elliott (made the minimum seven votes from last year), since otherwise only longshot Leach (a 3B-OF) would make the list of 3B contenders.


HOM 3Bs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1866 - Pike 3B-O2
1867-69
1870 - Sutton
1871-72 - Sutton, Anson
1873 - Sutton
1874 - Sutton 3B-SS
1875 - Sutton
1876 - Sutton, Anson
1877 - Anson 3B-C
1878 - Sutton, McVey
1879 - Kelly 3B-OC, Richardson
1880 - Richardson, Connor
1881 - Sutton, O'Rourke
1882 - Sutton, White, Ewing 3B-C
1883 - Sutton, White
1884-85 - Sutton, White
1886 - White
1887 - White, Ewing
1888 - White
1889
1890 - White 3B-1B
1891 - Dahlen 3B-OF
1892 - GDavis 3B-OF
1893-94 - GDavis
1895 - GDavis, JCollins 3B
1896 - GDavis 3B-SS, JCollins
1897-98 - JCollins, Wallace
1899 - JCollins, Wagner 3B-OF
1900-05 - JCollins
1906
1907-08 - JCollins
1909-14 - Baker
1915 - Groh
1916 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-SS
1917-18 - Baker, Groh
1919 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-S2
1920 - Groh Frisch
1921 - Baker, Groh, Frisch 3B-2B
1922 - Groh
1923 - Groh, Beckwith
1924 - Groh
1925 - Frisch 32S
1926-27 - Beckwith, JWilson
1928 - JWilson, Dihigo, Foxx 3B-1B/C
1929 - Beckwith 3B-SS
1930 - JWilson, Dihigo UT, Beckwith
1931 - Beckwith, JWilson
1932-33 - JWilson
1934-37 - Hack
1938 - Hack, Ott 3B(OF)
1939-46 - Hack
1947
1948 - Appling 3B-SS
1949-54
1955-56 - JRobinson
1957 - Reese 3B(SS)
Browning (!) would be 1883, 3B-OF-1B
Leach would be 1899; 1901-04; 1906 3B-OF; 1908
Sewell would be 1929-32
Walters (!) would be 1934
Trouppe (!) would be 1940
Elliott would be 1942-45; 1947-51; 1953
   136. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1741201)
SHORTSTOP
Notes

There were no HOMer SS regulars in 1861-63, or 1865. Since then, there have been no HOM SS regulars in:
1923

The turn of the century was a boom time here, until the 1910s kicked off a two-decade downturn. The 1930s and 1940s already have produced a significant number of HOMer SSs, however.


HOM SSs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1856-60 - Pearce
1861-63
1864 - Wright
1865
1866-67 - Pearce, Wright
1868-70 - Pearce, Wright, Barnes
1871 - Pearce, Wright
1872 - Pearce, Wright, O'Rourke SS-C
1873-75 - Pearce, Wright
1876 - Wright
1877- Sutton SS-3B
1878 - Wright
1879 - Barnes, Sutton SS-3B
1880 - Sutton SS-3B, Glasscock
1881 - Barnes, Glasscock
1882 - Wright, Glasscock, Kelly SS-OF
1883-84 - Glasscock
1885-86 - Glasscock, Ward
1887 - Sutton SS-OU, Glasscock, Ward
1888-89 - Glasscock, Ward
1890 - Glasscock, Ward, Delahanty SS-2O
1891 - Glasscock, Ward, Jennings
1892 - Glasscock, Jennings, Dahlen SS-3B
1893 - Glasscock, Dahlen
1894 - Glasscock, Jennings, Dahlen SS-3B
1895-96 - Jennings, Dahlen, HR Johnson
1897-98 - Jennings, Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis
1899 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace SS-3B
1900 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace
1901 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace, Wagner SS-O3
1902 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace
1903 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner
1904-07 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace, Wagner
1908 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1909-11 - HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1912 - Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1913-16 - Wagner, Lloyd
1917-18 - Lloyd, Hornsby
1919 - Lloyd
1920-22 - Lloyd, Beckwith SS-3B
1923
1924-25 - Wells, Beckwith
1926 - Wells
1927 - Wells, Dihigo UT
1928 - Wells, Beckwith
1929 - Wells, Dihigo UT, Cronin
1930-31 - Wells, Cronin, Appling
1932-35 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan
1936 - Wells, Cronin SS(3B), Appling, Vaughan
1937-41 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan
1940-41 - Cronin, Appling, Appling, Boudreau, Reese
1942 - Wells, Appling, Vaughan, Boudreau, Reese
1943 - Appling, Vaughan SS-3B, Boudreau
1944-45 - Boudreau
1946-47 - Appling, Boudreau, Reese
1948 - Boudreau, Reese
1949 - Appling, Boudreau SS-3B, Reese
1950 - Boudreau, Reese
1951 - Boudreau SS(3B), Reese
1952-56 - Reese
Moore would be 1920-25, roughly
Sewell would be 1921-28
WBrown would be 1937
   137. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:21 PM (#1741208)
And finally......

OUTFIELD
Notes

There have been a relatively consistent number of OF HOMer regulars through the years, rotating from around 7 to 12 per year and often at 8 to 10.
There is some slippage beginning in the late 1930s, as WW II begins to loom on the horizon. And it's a little early on the 1940s to judge too firmly on that count.

HOM OFs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1867 (1) - Pike OF-IF
1868 (1) - Pike
1869 (1) - McVey
1870 (1) - McVey
1871 (1) - Pike
1872 (1) - Pike OF-2B
1873 (2) - Pike OF-SS, Hines
1874 (2) - McVey, Hines
1875 (2) - Pike, Hines OF-2B, O'Rourke OF-3B
1876 (3) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke
1877 (3) - Pike OF-2B, Hines, O'Rourke
1878 (5) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke, Anson, Kelly
1879 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Gore
1880 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-1S, Kelly OF, Gore, Stovey OF-1B
1881 (5) - Hines, Kelly, Gore, Brouthers OF-1B, Richardson
1882 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Gore
1883 (4) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, Kelly OF-C, Gore
1884 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Ward OF-2B
1885 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Thompson
1886 (8) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Richardson OF-2B, Thompson, Sutton OF-3S2
1887 (5) - Hines, Kelly OF-2C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Thompson
1888 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Stovey
1889 (6) - O'Rourke, Kelly, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton
1890 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Richardson, Thompson, Hamilton, Burkett OF-P, GDavis
1891 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty
1892 (7) - O'Rourke, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Caruthers
1893 (7) - O'Rourke, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Ewing
1894-96 (7) - Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1897 (6) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1898-99 (8) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick
1900 (9) - Hamilton, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Wagner, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford
1901 (10) - Hamilton, Delahanty OF-1B, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1902 (10) - Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Wagner OF-S1, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1903 (7) - Burkett, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1904 (7) - Burkett, Keeler, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee
1905 (8) - Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee
1906 (9) - Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1907 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1908 (7) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1909 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker
1910 (8) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat
1911 (9) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1912 (8) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1913 (9) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1914 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee OF-S1, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1915 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, W heat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1916 (11) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Charleston
1917 (10) - Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Charleston
1918 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann OF-1B, Charleston, Ruth OF-P
1919 (8) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Torriente, Ruth, Charleston
1920 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Ruth, Charleston
1921 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston
1922 (9) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin
1923 (10) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes
1924 (12) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles
1925 (11) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons
1926 (12) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner
1927 (11) - Cobb, Speaker, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner
1928 (10) - Cobb, Carey, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott
1929 (9) - Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1930 (8) - Heilmann, Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1931 (9) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Dihigo
1932-34 (7) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1935 (7) - Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Dihigo OF-P
1936 (8) - Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Dihigo OF-P, DiMaggio
1937 (7) - Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, PWaner, Ott OF-3B, Averill, DiMaggio
1938 (5) - Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Averill, DiMaggio
1939 (6) - Stearnes, Simmons, PWaner, Ott OF(3B), Averill, DiMaggio
1940 (6) - Stearnes, Suttles, PWaner, Ott OF-3B, DiMaggio, Irvin
1941 (5) - Suttles, PWaner, Ott, DiMaggio, Irvin
1942 (3) - PWaner, Ott, DiMaggio
1943-44 (2) - PWaner, Ott
1945 (2) - Ott, Greenberg
1946-49 (1) - DiMaggio, Irvin
1950 (1) - DiMaggio
1951 (2) - DiMaggio, Irvin OF-1B
1952
1953-54 (1) - Irvin, JRobinson OF-3B
1955
1956 (1) - Irvin
CJones would be 1876-80; 1833-87
Browning would be 1883 OF-SS, 1885-92
Duffy would be 1888-99, 1901
Van Haltren would be 1889, 1891-01, 1903
Leach would be 1905; 1907; 1909-15
Cravath would be 1908; 1912-18, roughly
Roush would be 1915-21; 1923-27; 1929; 1931
Oms would be 1922-32, etc., roughly
Bell would be 1924-36, 1942-46 (roughly)
Medwick would be 1933-45
WBrown would be 1938-39; 1942-43; 1946-48, roughly
Elliott would be 1940-41; 1946; 1952
Kiner would be 1946-55
   138. Trevor P. Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:25 PM (#1741217)
Joe, didn't realize you were only accounting for a particular era of third basemen. On reflection, it seems obvious, though.

Another 3B we shouldn't be forgetting about, along with Elliott, is Negro Leaguer Bus Clarkson. I was (and still am) intrigued by his contributions at SS.
   139. Trevor P. Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:37 PM (#1741244)
And of course Van Haltren would be 1887-88 and 1890...

As we have only elected three pitchers from 1888, we must elect GVH to repair this heinous imbalance! :)

(This message brought to you by the Friends, Supporters, and Campaign Contributors of George Van Haltren. For GVH's stances on abortion and gun control, visit our website at...)
   140. KJOK Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:43 PM (#1741259)
1899
1900 - Delahanty, Jennings
1901 - Jennings, Kelley
1902 - Jennings
1903
1904 - Kelley
1905-10
1911 - Lajoie 1B-2B
1912-17
1918 - Magee 1B-OF
1919-20 - Heilmann
1921-22
1923 - JWilson


and here's the case for Beckley, Chance and Tyalor...
   141. KJOK Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:46 PM (#1741264)
1919 - Lloyd
1920-22 - Lloyd, Beckwith SS-3B
1923
1924-25 - Wells, Beckwith
1926 - Wells
1927 - Wells, Dihigo UT
1928 - Wells, Beckwith


Good case for Sewell here, unless you believe that NO major league SS's were HOM worthy during this era, which seems unlikely for one of the most important defensive positions...
   142. sunnyday2 Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:46 PM (#1741265)
Well, it's also "the case" for George Sisler.

I'd really like to see a head to head of Beckley and Taylor from somebody who supports them both, if there is such a person. I've generally leaned more toward Taylor though he has slipped down the ballot quite a ways too. As long as Sisler is eligible they're pretty moot for me, however. But assuming Sisler gets elected someday, one of the three (including Chance, now) goes to the top of the deep backlog.
   143. DavidFoss Posted: November 21, 2005 at 10:48 PM (#1741269)
Beckley, Chance and Tyalor...

and also perhaps Sisler
   144. yest Posted: November 21, 2005 at 11:21 PM (#1741345)
can someone more knoligable in the Negroe Leauges please tell me what years Hilton Smith would make Howie's list
   145. yest Posted: November 22, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1741453)
Howie if your able to with out much work can you please post the list you made in post number 78 with the names of the players and from the 1860's
   146. KJOK Posted: November 22, 2005 at 02:06 AM (#1741597)
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (4) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1895 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Wallace
1896 (3) - Young Nichols Wallace
1897-98 (3) - Rusie Young Nichols
1899-00 (3) - Young Nichols McGinnity
1901 (5) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (5) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (6) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown


The case for Clark Griffith to slot in here also looks strong..
   147. KJOK Posted: November 22, 2005 at 02:09 AM (#1741600)
1939-46 - Hack
1947
1948 - Appling 3B-SS
1949-54


and at least one more large gap, which Elliott would fill...
   148. jimd Posted: November 22, 2005 at 03:46 AM (#1741806)
On early SS vs 3B.

I think there's a strong case to be made that the two positions were largely interchangeable (many of our HOMers at one spent seasons at the other), and that the better players tended to wind up at SS. Which would account for the surplus at SS and the shortage at 3B.

On SS and 3B in the 1920's.

Offense at both positions nose-dived during the 1920's by about 7 points of OPS+, and then recovered in the 1930's to about where they had been during the 1910's. Now maybe there was an extreme talent shortage for both positions simultaneously at this time. Could happen.

Or maybe the changing game made them more difficult defensively. Around 1920 three things happened that ended the deadball era; livelier baseballs, clean baseballs, spitball ban. All made it easier to hit the ball harder, and practically all players were taught the Cobb ideal; line drives, hard grounders (emulating Ruth won't happen until later). The league is still much more right-handed than it is today. Maybe the older and/or slower fielders were getting eaten up alive out there. And managers reacted by looking for better gloves, sacrificing perhaps too much offense.

Just a thought.
   149. sunnyday2 Posted: November 22, 2005 at 05:18 AM (#1741934)
Or the SSs became better hitters but at a slower pace than everybody else, thus the drop in OPS+, but I doubt if they dropped OPS.

That's on average. You know, if their feet are in a block of ice...and all that. IOW at any given time in the early '20s anyway, about half the SSs would be "hitters" and half would be "gloves." And two years later, the teams that had hitters would have gone to a glove and vice versa. Whereas at the corners and in the OF there was no backsliding back to the gloves.

Oddly, harder hit balls reduced the premium on a great arm at SS, maybe? What you would need would be more lateral range. Never as much of a req. at 3B.
   150. Paul Wendt Posted: November 22, 2005 at 06:23 AM (#1741990)
Er, wow! I ain't gonna read it . . .

Daryn #104 quoted Marc and replied:
> the 9th best white MLer of the '20s probably had more value than
> the 19th best white MLer of the '30s.

Yes, but (for example) we've had 60 years to analyze the 1890s players in their context and we have had 30 years to analyze the 1920s players -- we should not let distribution charts of our own voting change our analysis.


Daryn makes a good point before the dash. I agree about the practical meaning of the charts, too. Without endorsing the application of quotas when the classification is perfect, let me say that the classification is gross. (Or it was gross back at #80 or so, which was yesterday or so. I see that Howie M has attacked the problem.)

--
charlemagne, about 50 rounds back:
However, there's also the 1920 washout of a number of great players; Chapman might well have made it, Jackson might have ended up a 20s player

Groh didn't play long.
Terry got a late start.
Hartnett and Cochrane are very close to 1920s. They would be HOMers if they had been run over by motorcars when they were still 1920s guys. ;-)
   151. andrew siegel Posted: November 22, 2005 at 03:37 PM (#1742252)
I was playing around with offensive winning percentage statistics and noted two interesting sets of similarities:

(1) Ralph Kiner's offensive won-lost record is almost exactly identical to Ducky Medwick's record through (I think it was) 1941. Given Medwick's greater defensive value and the non-zero value of his post-1941 career, I think he has to rank substantially above Kiner.

(2) George Sisler's pre-injury offesnive won-lost record is almost identical to Charlie Keller's career numbers. The implications of that one are a bit more complicated as you have to make some assumptions about relative value of very different defensive positions, the quality of the two players' defense, and the value (if any) of Sisler's post-injury career. Still, this seems either to hurt Sisler or help Keller.
   152. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 22, 2005 at 04:11 PM (#1742290)
I don't think that the lists above are any reason to elect Sisler, Chance, Taylor, Sewell, or anyone else. The reasons to elect those players are what they did on the field. Yes, this means I don't necessarily think that any 1B that played between 1890-1920 (roughly) had a HOM career and that any 1920's SS had one either (Though Sisler is close and I could be convinced).
   153. Chris Cobb Posted: November 22, 2005 at 04:25 PM (#1742308)
I don't think that the lists above are any reason to elect Sisler, Chance, Taylor, Sewell, or anyone else. The reasons to elect those players are what they did on the field.

Yes.

But.

Have you entertained the possibility that gaps in the record might point towards flaws in our comprehensive metrics that obscure or even misrepresent what those players did on the field?
   154. karlmagnus Posted: November 22, 2005 at 04:32 PM (#1742316)
Particularly in cases where the sabermetric metrics tell a different story from the raw numbers, as with Beckley? By the raw numbers, he was one hell of a player, but dodgy statistics invented 90 years after he retired say otherwise. Possibly the dodgy statistics are at fault, no?
   155. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 22, 2005 at 05:00 PM (#1742359)
karlmagnus, the sabermetric methods portray his offense better than conventional stats. That shouldn't be arguable. Where there are problems is with the value of defense at first base during his time. If anything, conventional stats are more circumspect on that matter than sabermetrics.

BTW, I say all of this as a friend of Jake Beckley.
   156. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 22, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1742465)
Yes I have and it isn't just the newer metrics. These players don't hadd up to HOMers (with the possible exception of Sisler) using any measures for me. I am fine with this.
   157. sunnyday2 Posted: November 22, 2005 at 06:09 PM (#1742470)
andrew,

>(2) George Sisler's pre-injury offesnive won-lost record is almost identical to Charlie Keller's career numbers. The implications of that one are a bit more complicated as you have to make some assumptions about relative value of very different defensive positions, the quality of the two players' defense, and the value (if any) of Sisler's post-injury career. Still, this seems either to hurt Sisler or help Keller.

Huh?

If one portion of Sisler's career is essentially equal to all of Keller's it would clearly help Sisler and hurt Keller. Unless you are deducting negative values for the rest of Sisler's career. Then there's defense of course...and you're thinking Keller had more defensive value in a shorter career?

Huh? Huh? And huh? Maybe you just meant to say helps Sisler and hurts Keller?
   158. DavidFoss Posted: November 22, 2005 at 06:32 PM (#1742500)
Huh? Huh? And huh? Maybe you just meant to say helps Sisler and hurts Keller?

I did a double-take on that one, too. Sisler should still rank ahead of Keller, but Sisler is now placed 10th and in good shape for a possible eventual induction. Keller is 43rd and appears on only four ballots. I think the question he's raising is whether Sisler's post-injury career is really the difference between 10th and 43rd place.
   159. Chris Cobb Posted: November 22, 2005 at 06:43 PM (#1742513)
Sunnyday & David:

I suspect the answer is "war credit," which what Keller gets on top of his career numbers, while Sisler gets a lackluster post-injury career added to his excellent peak.
   160. Daryn Posted: November 22, 2005 at 07:53 PM (#1742637)
I think the question he's raising is whether Sisler's post-injury career is really the difference between 10th and 43rd place.

It is for me, and probably for other career voters. Of course it is not that simple, but there is not that much room between Sisler who I do have at about 10th and Edd Roush who I have at 43rd. The ballot is tight.
   161. KJOK Posted: November 22, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1742861)
I don't think that the lists above are any reason to elect Sisler, Chance, Taylor, Sewell, or anyone else. The reasons to elect those players are what they did on the field. Yes, this means I don't necessarily think that any 1B that played between 1890-1920 (roughly) had a HOM career and that any 1920's SS had one either

Yes, what they did on the field - exactly! What they did on the field was perform at their position better than anyone else while they were ON THE FIELD - not against some future Fred McGriff or Rafael Palmeiro who were not even born yet! They provided their teams value above what those other teams ON THE FIELD THEN where getting at that position.
   162. Mark Donelson Posted: November 22, 2005 at 11:43 PM (#1743183)
OK, so if all the really good catchers all were hit by those motorcars, and the best remaining catcher in the majors for a five-year span were, say, Benjie Molina, we should put Molina in the HOM?

(I admit I'm suggesting a pretty extreme and unlikely case, but it points out a hole in this argument, I think: just because someone's the best or among the best at a position for a period of time does not necessarily mean that player is HOM-worthy.)
   163. OCF Posted: November 23, 2005 at 12:52 AM (#1743269)
Followup on Andrew Siegel's #51 using my version of context-adjusted RCAA, best to worst:

Sisler 70 68 51 46 44 37 35 15 10 10  5 -3 -7 -9 -9
Keller 75 68 65 54 48 47  * 22 20  7  6  3  1  0

The * in Keller's line is for 1944; the 22 is his actual partial 1945. A modest WWII competition discount has been taken in the appropriate years for Keller. The biggest difference between the two lines: the small numbers in the right hand part of the line represent full but mediocre seasons for Sisler and mere scraps of playing time for Keller.
   164. KJOK Posted: November 23, 2005 at 12:55 AM (#1743276)
OK, so if all the really good catchers all were hit by those motorcars, and the best remaining catcher in the majors for a five-year span were, say, Benjie Molina, we should put Molina in the HOM?

No, not for a 5 year span only where we KNOW with certainty that the positional shortage was created in an extremely short timespan by forces outside of baseball, but maybe yes if it's a 15 or 20 year span, and still no one comes along at catcher who's better, even after managers have adjusted and moved some good, young up and coming players to catcher who have now had careers and retired.
   165. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 23, 2005 at 10:11 PM (#1744514)
NO KJOK. What they did on the field was hit singles, home runs, doubles, field their position etc. This adds up to is runs created and saved (not necessarily those metrics but in the sense that what they are doing is helping their team win) and these players should be judged on that. They have no control over what everyone else at their position is doing. Therefore if we have a weak crop os SS or 1B I don't think we should elect the best one from those crops. It seems silly to me.
   166. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 23, 2005 at 10:13 PM (#1744523)
I also shouldn't say a weak crop of SS or 1B. If you look over time the average and replacement level of these position isn't much different, it is just that there are fewer stars during these periods.
   167. DavidFoss Posted: November 23, 2005 at 10:53 PM (#1744612)
it is just that there are fewer stars during these periods.

Yeah, we have this discussion every ten 'years' or so. The position-by-era shortages do raise a red flag. Its up to us to discern whether its do to a random dip in the number of stars or perhaps a change in the defensive spectrum that's causing us to underrate players from these eras.
   168. KJOK Posted: November 23, 2005 at 11:30 PM (#1744677)
The time gap between Mize and McCovey isn't as long as the gap between ABC and Gehrig, but who is the best first baseman of the 50's (other than Musial, whom I mostly think of as an outfielder)?

So we had to bring this up. :>)

Gil Hodges would be the "obvious" answer. For my analysis, since I take a 20 - 30 year view, there isn't much of a gop due to Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg & Mize, then McCovey, Killebrew & Allen.
   169. yest Posted: November 23, 2005 at 11:40 PM (#1744694)
Ted Kluszewski
   170. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 24, 2005 at 06:23 PM (#1745522)
Happy Thanksgiving!
   171. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 25, 2005 at 12:28 AM (#1745742)
Happy Thanksgiving isn't a 1B John...
   172. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 25, 2005 at 05:19 AM (#1745923)
lol
Page 2 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
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0627 seconds
49 querie(s) executed