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

Sunday, April 30, 2006

1976 Ballot Discussion

1976 (May 15)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

203 54.8 1959 Bob Allison-RF/LF (1995)
181 62.1 1958 Johnny Roseboro-C (2002)
165 35.8 1956 Tito Francona-LF/1B
132 54.2 1952 Ron Kline-RP
126 47.0 1960 Earl Wilson-P (2005)
118 46.5 1957 Mike McCormick-P
116 34.9 1958 Jim Davenport-3B
099 38.8 1957 Don Cardwell-P
117 25.5 1963 Pete Ward-3B
098 31.8 1956 Hank Aguirre-RP (1994)
100 23.8 1963 Jimmie Hall-CF/LF

Players Passing Away in 1975

HoMers
Age Elected

75 1947 Lefty Grove-P
63 1967 Joe Medwick-LF

Candidates
Age Eligible

85 1931 Casey Stengel
85 1931 Max Flack-RF
85——Larry MacPhail-HOF Executive
69 1949 Moose Solters-LF
60 1955 Jeff Heath-LF
57 1961 Sid Gordon-LF/3B
55 1960 Dave Koslo-P
48 1967 Clint Courtney-C
47 1971 Nellie Fox-2B

Upcoming Candidate

32 1979 Jim McGlothlin-P
29 1980 Don Wilson-P

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 30, 2006 at 09:18 PM | 230 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 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:26 AM (#1999637)
It's anybody's guess from the backlog this election. Brown, Gordon, Sisler, and Méndez are the suspects, but who will ultimately win the prize?
   2. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:50 AM (#1999745)
Over the past few days (when I should have been writing a theology paper) I’ve designed a simple template that consists of a) five-year cohorts--1871-5, 1876-80, etc.—through 1970 b)lists each position and c) lists the *prime* years that each Hall of Meriter had at each position during that time period.

A few explanations:

a) While no temporal grouping is flawless, I find five year cohorts to be a helpful tool. It allows us to see who was good both in the first part *and* the second part of the decade. It also gave me a visual to see who were contemporaries during a given time period, particularly for players with whom I was not familiar before the beginning of the HoM project.
b) I list players at the position at which they played the most games during that season, except for pitchers who played a lot of outfield, at which point I just did what made the most sense to me. Bob Caruthers is a pitcher until 1891; Babe Ruth is listed as pitcher only until 1917, even though he pitched a fair amount in’18-19. For Negro Leaguers I used Holway , Integrated9s, and guesswork. Trying to give a year by year position for Dihigo made me cry, but I did it to the best of my ability.
c)I use prime years, rather than a player's entire career, since that is my voting method. This means I eliminate down years and injuries. When I see someone listed in a cohort, I know he was having a good year (though not necessarily a peak or dominant year) at that position. I use primarily Win Shares to determine prime, with 20 WS being a prime year in a 162 game season, but it was not an absolute tool; in some cases I disagreed with WS, and went with my own opinion. For Negro Leaguers I was entirely reliant on the projections Chris Cobb, Dr. Chaleeko, David Foss, i9’s, and John Holway. There is obviously plenty of room to criticize my choices of prime years, and I welcome feedback if you have it. But I was not so concerned about getting the primes exactly right, as much I was looking at patterns.
d) I think this model has implications for voting, and there will be major changes on my ballot. This is not an evaluative tool for players per se, but it does provide context, allowing us to see what positions were overrepresented and underrepresented in a given time period. For example, 1896-1900 is underrepresented, but by pitchers and infielders, not outfielders. This could be helpful information in evaluating, say, George Van Haltren and Vic Willis. It is similar to the work Howie has done listing HoM’rs at positons over a career, although it is organized differently. Often the supporters or critics of these candidates have been arguing the same thing for a long time. Again, having a visual of these arguments has strengthened them.

I’ll be posting the cohorts, along with some notes and particularly how they might affect my ballot, beginning with the 1870s and 1880s. If people find them helpful and/or interesting, let me know, and I’ll keep posting them. If you don’t—if you basically have the same thing sitting on your computer at home, or just think it’s all crap—then let me know as well, and I won’t take up cyberspace posting it. Well, maybe I will, but I’ll know I’m being ignored.

Without further ado, here it goes:
1871-1875

C C McVey (’71, ’73), D White (’71-75)

1B AC Anson (‘73-75), C McVey (’75), J O’Rourke (’73-74), J Start (’71, 74-75)

2B R Barnes (‘71-75)

3B AC Anson (‘71-72), E Sutton (’71-73, 75)

SS R Pearce (’74-75), G Wright (’71-75)

LF

CF P Hines (’75), J O’Rourke (’75), L Pike (’74-75)

RF C McVey (’74), L Pike (’71-73)

P AG Spalding (’71-5)

Total HoM’rs: 12

* I forgot to mention: I used the actual first initial(s) for each player, because I felt silly using the first initial of a nickname. I presume you can figure out who “AC Anson” is.
*Lip Pike was controversial choice, but he is the only HoMr who played more than one year in the outfield during the NA.

1876-1880

C C McVey (’77), D White (’76,’78-79)

1B AC Anson (‘80), C McVey (’76, ’79), J Start (’77-80), E Sutton (’76), D White (’77)

2B R Barnes (‘76)

3B AC Anson (‘76-77), R Connor (’80), M Kelly (’79), C McVey (’78), AH Richardson (’79-80)

SS E Sutton (’77), G Wright (’76, 79)

LF AC Anson (‘78)

CF G Gore (’80), P Hines (’76, ’78-80), J O’Rourke (’76-77), L Pike (’76-78), H Stovey (’80)

RF M Kelly (’80), J O’Rourke (’78-80)

P J Galvin (’79), AG Spalding (‘76), JM Ward (’78-80)

Total HoMrs: 15

*Five HoM’rs played at least one season at 3B during 1876-1880; to date, that is a record for a five year period.
*BALLOT RETURNEES
CHARLEY JONES: Jones had five prime years in LF from 1876-1800. That makes him the best LF in this time period by far, and one of the top three outfielders of the period, along with Hines and O’Rourke. Someone mentioned before that the fact he was born in North Carolina may have contributed to his late start (debuted 1875, at age 25). If you accept that, then there is a strong chance he also would have been one of the top *two* outfielders in the 1871-175 period. Give him credit for his blacklisting (1881-3), and he is also one of the top outfielders for the 1881-5 period (although that is a cohort with a lot of good outfielders, as we shall see). I don’t think Jones has ever been on my ballot before, but he is going to debut very high in 1976. He is the kind of player the HoM was designed to honor.

Kelly in SD has, somewhere, made a much more detailed argument for Jones’ induction, which I believe includes most of this information.

TOMMY BOND: I think this model shows Bond to be a viable candidate as well, who has prime years from ’75-79. He was arguably better than Ward, which would make Bond the best pitcher of the late 1870s, and one of the two best pitchers of the entire decade. That’s a pretty good reason for induction. He’s back on my radar, though not quite on my ballot.
   3. yest Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#1999798)
1976 ballot
after many years and even more arguments George Davis and Jimmy Collins make my PHOM

1. George Sisler I believe everyone knows my view on him by now (made my personal HoM in 1936)
2. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
3. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
4. Joe Sewell love the strikeouts (made my personal HoM in 1939)
5. Nellie Fox led his league in putouts a record 10 years in a row (made my personal HoM in 1971)
6. Chuck Klein 4 hr titles (made my personal HoM in 1951)
7. Sam Rice if he got 13 more hits would he make the HoM? (made my personal HoM in 1940)
8. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
9. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
10. Rube Waddell most Ks/9IP 7 times in a row tying with Vance for the record led in it 1 more time (made my personal HoM in 1917)
11. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles (made my personal HoM in 1940)
12. Ralph Kiner 7 HR titles (made my personal HoM in 1961)
13. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
14. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
15. George Kell He now loses a place on my team very good hitter and fielder at important and under elected position (made my personal HoM in 1963)
16. Harvey Kuenn led AL shortsops in putouts twice assists once (made my personal HoM in 1972)
17. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1957)
18. Edd Roush 323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)
19. Hilton Smith see his thread (made my personal HoM in 1964)
20. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
21. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
22. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)
23. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie (made my personal HoM in 1939)
24. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
25. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
26. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)
27. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
28. Lloyd Waner had the most OF putouts 4 times, finished 2nd once and finished 3rd twice (made my personal HoM in 1968)
29. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
30. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
31. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
32. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)
33. Levi Meyerle best rate season ever (made my personal HoM in 1975)

explanation for players not on my ballot
Joe Gordon would need a real lot of war credit to even approach my ballot (and no discounts)
Willard Brown, Dick Redding, Dobie Moore and Jose Mendez barring new evidence not one will make my ballot (the HoF vote has absolutely no bearing on my vote )
Minnie Minoso would have been on my ballot with the addition of a few good seasons which his Negroe Leaudge stats seem to show he lacked
   4. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:01 AM (#1999807)
Continuing with the five-year cohorts

1881-1885

C C Bennett (‘81-85), W Ewing (’83-85)

1B AC Anson (‘81-85), D Brouthers (‘81-85), R Connor (’82-83, 85), J Start (’81-82), H Stovey (’82-85), D White (’81)

2B R Connor (’84), J McPhee (’84), AH Richardson (’82-85)

3B W Ewing (’82), J O’Rourke (‘81), E Sutton (’83-85), D White (’84)

SS J Glasscock (’82-85), M Kelly (’82)

LF J O’Rourke (’83-84)

CF G Gore (’81-85), P Hines (’81-83, ‘85), J O’Rourke (’85), AH Richardson (’81)

RF M Kelly (’81, ’84-85)

P R Caruthers (’85), J Clarkson (’85), J Galvin (’81, ’83-84), T Keefe (’82-85), C Radbourne (’82-85), JM Ward (’81)

Total HoMrs: 23

*Most positions are fairly well represented, especially 1B. I had forgotten about Roger Connor’s year at 2B. That must have been something to see.


1886-1890

C C Bennett (‘86, ‘88), W Ewing (’86, ’88-90), M Kelly (’88, ’90)

1B AC Anson (‘86-90), D Brouthers (‘86-90), R Connor (’86-90)

2B F Grant (’86-90), J McPhee (’86-87), AH Richardson (’87, ’89)

3B W Ewing (’87), D White (’87)

SS J Glasscock (’86-87, 89-90), JM Ward (’87, ’90)

LF G Gore (’90), W Hamilton (’90), J O’Rourke (’86, ’88-89), AH Richardson (’86, ’90), H Stovey (’87-89)

CF G Gore (’86, ’89), P Hines (’86-88), H Stovey (’86)

RF W Hamilton (’89), M Kelly (’86-87, 89), J O’Rourke (’90), H Stovey (’90), S Thompson (’86-87, 89-90)

P R Caruthers (’86-89), J Clarkson (’86-89), J Galvin (’86-87), T Keefe (’86-90), C Nichols (’90), C Radbourne (’89-90), A Rusie (’90)

Total HoMrs: 27

* I made Frank Grant’s prime from 1886-1897. This gives him a reasonably long prime, while allowing for several down years at the end of his career, which is fairly typical of Negro Leaguers.
BALLOT RETURNEES
PETE BROWNING: 1881-5 is a strong cohort for CF, with Gore and Hines fielding the position, and OF in general, with O’Rourke. The AA is a weak league in this period, although Browning dominates it. I don’t think it presents an argument for Browning. Looking at 1886-90, however, Hines and O’Rourke are coming to the end of their primes, Gore had a couple of down years. Browning has four prime years in this cohort, with a high peak (even with a significant AA discount); he led the Player’s League in OPS+ in 1890. I think he was the best CF of this period, and one of the top four outfielders, along with King Kelly, Harry Stovey, and Sam Thompson. He’s coming back onto my ballot after a long absence.

MICKEY WELCH: We have six and seven pitchers listed in each of the 1880s cohorts. Looking at the rest of the cohorts, that is not an overrepresentation at the position; cohorts from 1901-40 have between nine and twelve. Six and seven is comparable to the number of pitchers we currently have from 1946-1955, which I think is a little short. In fact, believe it or not, 23 total HoMr’s for 1881-5 is the lowest number we have in a five-year period until 1951.

Depending on your definition of prime, Welch has somewhere between seven and nine prime seasons. I have him at eight: compare to Keefe (10), Clarkson (8), Galvin (7), Caruthers (6, although 7 with his year in RF in ’92), Radbourne (6). Hmmmm… I have all those guys ahead of Welch, and he’s not going on my ballot, at least not yet. But if you’ve been keeping Welch off your ballot because we have too many 1880s guys, we don’t. (a fact which has been established before, I believe).
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:03 AM (#1999813)
Nice work, favre, but...

Over the past few days (when I should have been writing a theology paper)

...tsk, tsk! :-)
   6. Mike Webber Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#2000119)
I personally am no fan of electing any more players that were stars 15 minutes after the smoke cleared at the battle of Gettysburg, never the less there was a very interesting post on SABR-L by Frank Vaccaro this week that I thought those who do like 19th Century candidates would like.

I am not even going to attempt to clean up the columns in his post, I know it would take half and hour and then not work, so please excuse the formatting.

It is long, but I think the info merits the bandwidth.

Subject: International Association vs. NL in 1877

Patrick Mondout questions a statement I made in a SABR-L post, April
16th. I had written that "the International Association was a much stronger
league than the National League in both play and fan's opinion" and I had
set the dates for this state of affairs as from "June 18, 1877 to about July
29, 1878." This is a radical statement given MLB history as it exists today
and I should have been chided for making it.

I propose there was a merger of the IA and the NL between 1878 and 1880
which created the NL of 1881 - and by consequence the NL we know today - and
that the DNA of the NL as it is traced back in history is some 60 percent
IA. By the way, after the Canadian teams dropped out in 1878, the
International Association "IA" became the National Association, "NA", a
superficial name change.

The IA was a real league, created in Pittsburgh on February 27, 1877.
Existing teams joined the IA with a $25 fee, an amount above an average
man's weekly paycheck and not unlike many softball leagues today. For a
lower $15 fee, a team could join as a "non-championship club", which meant
you got national recognition and teams traveling by would play an exhibition
game with you. As you all know, MLB had gone from 13 teams in 1875 to 6
teams in 1877. The 80 or so major league professionals who found themselves
discharged were the ones who sowed and led this wealth of talent.

Here is how the IA fared. (Make sure your e-mail is set to "html" rather
than on any "formatting" to keep these columns aligned.)

1877 1878 1879 1880

LOND 13- 3 4T BUFF 33-10 2T ALBA 36-15 2T WASH 16- 9 3T
ROCH 13- 8 T SYRA 28-12 T WASH 29-20 3T ALBA 9-12 3T
ALLE 12- 7 LOND 26-16 T HOLY 28-17 3T BL-ROC 10-14
MANC 10-11 UTIC 27-14 2T SPRI 26-20 T
COLU 7-10 3T ROCH 22-18 WORC 25-26
GUEL 4-12 2T MANC 22-17 T NB 18-31
LYNN 3-11 LOWE 15-24 MANC 14-20
LY-WOR 12-24 UTIC 9-22 T
SPRI 11-26 ALC-ROC 5-19
HORN 21-16
BING 13-16 T
N-N-HA 2-17
ALLE 2-24

These standings show "all games" played. Teams are ranked in their final
order, but the won-lost records shown include a number of games that had
been "thrown out" as was the habit when one team went out of business. With
exhibitions and non-championship games teams played five to six games a
week, most teams played over 75 games a year. Frank Bancroft's 1878 New
Bedford club supposedly played a record 150 games in seven months.

Take a look at the Union Association and Federal League data as it came
up in last Fall's discussion. I've added data for the IA and the breakdown
of the IA data over each of its four seasons.

PLAYERS WITH MINIMUM 3 GAMES: UA FL IA
1884 1914 |total|1877 1878 1879 1880
| |
Total Players 215 200 | 271 | 84 185 74 51
Previous MLB experience 87 131 | 81 | 28 52 28 17
Future MLB experience 97 65 | 161 | 47 114 58 46
Previous and future MLB experience 43 50 | 52 | 17 34 22 15
| |
Future MLB experience, by % 45% 33%| 59%|
| |
100 games future MLB experience 45 25 | 103 | 27 76 41 32
200 games future MLB experience 27 15 | 77 | 20 57 30 23
400 games future MLB experience 15 9 | 47 | 11 34 17 12

The percentage of IA players who went on to established MLB is huge. 103
players played at least 100 games in established MLB after their IA turn. 70
players from the Union and Federal combined went on play a similar minimum
of established MLB games. But note this: schedules prior to 1884 called for
fewer than 100 games so UA and FL alumni were unable match IA alumni even
though their regular schedules were 140 and 154 respectively. To illustrate
the quality of IA players, I've made some "all-star" teams.

The first, the NL team, is made of NL stars at each position who would
go on to sign with the IA for the following season.

1875-76 NL 1877 NL 1878 NL 1879 NL
1b Levi Meyerle Dan Brouthers
2b Chick Fulmer Ross Barnes Charlie Sweasy Chick Fulmer
ss Candy Nelson Davy Force Bill McClellan John Richmond
3b Herm Doscher Joe Battin Bob Ferguson Joe Gerhardt
of Dick Higham Dave Eggler Lip Pike Jake Evans
of Scott Hastings Jim Holdsworth Dick Higham Lew Dickerson
of Jim Clinton Mike Dorgan Tim Murnane Bill McGunnigle
c Charlie Gould Jake Knowdell Pop Snyder
p Candy Cummings Bobby Mathews Tricky Nichols Harry McCormick
p George Bradley Fred Corey
p Candy Cummings

In contrast, these IA teams show IA players who would sign with the NL
in the following season:

1877 IA 1878 IA 1879 NA 1880 NA
1b Jake Goodman John McGuiness Connor/Stovey Dan Brouthers
2b Ned Williamson Jack Farrell Dunlap/Knight Joe Gerhardt
ss Candy Nelson Davy Force Arthur Irwin Bill McClellan
3b Joe Ellick Jack Glasscock Hanlon/Burns Denny Mack
of Dick Higham Hardy Richardson Jack Manning Lew Dickerson
of Chub Sullivan George Gore George Wood Jake Evans
of Scott Hastings Joe Hornung John Cassidy Lip Pike
c King Kelly Tom Dolan Doc Bushong Buck Ewing
p Jim McCormick John Ward Mickey Welch Tim Keefe
p Pud Galvin Larry Corcoran George Wiedman
p Bobby Mathews Lee Richmond Jack Lynch
Fred Goldsmith

The impact of all these, and more, prime players on the NL is one that
has not been fairly evaluated today, or even mentioned. Take a look at the
NL players of 1881, the first full year without the IA. Although the NL
played only 336 games that year, the sum games played for each individual
player is 6,062. (I used stats from David Nemec's "Great Nineteenth Century
Encyclopeadia")

ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL LEAGUE, 1881 PLAYERS GAMES AVG G's/PLAYER

TOTAL 120 6,062 51

VETERANS OF THE 1871-1875 NA 29 1,582 55
No IA, no gaps 13 861 66
No IA, but with gaps 3 64 21
Played with IA 13 657 51

DEVELOPED BY THE 1876-1881 NL 23 798 42
By NL managers 11 336 31
From the 1877 "League Alliance" 2 95 48
From the 1879 North West League 6 272 45
From mid-West AA formative teams 3 9 3
From California 1 85 85 (Denny)

DEVELOPED BY THE 1877-1880 IA 68 3,682 54
Entered NL 1878 14 1,092 78
Entered NL 1879 22 1,309 60
Entered NL 1880 23 1,203 52
Entered NL 1881 9 267 30
From IA "non-championship clubs" 15 842 56

Stars from the IA made up 61 percent of all NL appearances. Figures for
Union Association vets in 1885 and Federal League vets in 1916 are near 10
percent. As noted above, these ex-IA players went on to relatively longer
careers in the NL as well.

If you still think it's just some great coincidence that all these great
players were regulars with the IA or that the NL had no great plan or
interest in copying or "taking over" the IA, consider, why would the NL
"take over" - and in essence "become" - such a lowly minor league? The
answer is: because the IA was not a lowly minor, it was superior to the NL.
The NL begged, borrowed, and stole every player it could from the IA to
regain the greatness it had before it messed up and lost five big cities.

-CONTINUED-
   7. Mike Webber Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:53 AM (#2000131)
FRANK VACCARO'S POST CONTINUED

The NL's plan to break up the IA was this: steal entire teams.

Look at the make-up of the NL from 1876 to 1881. Of the eight teams that
became NL teams from 1878 to 1880, seven jumped straight out of the
International Association: Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Troy, Syracuse, Buffalo,
Cleveland, and Worcester. By 1886 these teams were all gone. The purpose in
adopting these teams was not to move the NL into large cities - these cities
were rather small - but to destroy the IA and steal all the IA's players.
From 1879 to 1882 one-half of the NL teams were transplanted IA teams.
Providence on the other hand was a team that played in 1877 in the NL's
"League Alliance"; a umbrella organization set up by the NL last minute in
as an alternative to the IA. Milwaukee and Indianapolis were IA
non-championship teams and it was relatively easy for the NL to pry them
away. Milwaukee and Indianapolis were ill-suited to compete in the NL and at
the end of the season they dissolved and the NL gobbled up their star
players.

Proof of the NL plan of attack? On May 14, 1879, Troy team owner Gardner
Earl approached firstbaseman Alex McKinnon before an exhibition game and
made an offer to him to sign with Troy. McKinnon was playing with the
Rochester IA club at the time. The New York Clipper, the finest national
baseball weekly magazine from 1872 to 1882, asked Earl how he could make
such an offer when he knew McKinnon was under contract. Earl reportedly
pulled out a telegram from NL president Bill Hulbert. It read: "Get all the
men you can of the Association and break up the damned concern if you can."
Earl said the telegram had been sent to every NL club.

What was the IA's strategy? James C. Williams was the de-facto president
of the IA despite the fact that his title never exceeded secretery or
secretery-treasurer. In January 1879 he said "The International is a
protective Association and I hope one day to see it the only one in the
country. Championship contests are side issues."

Reading from the New York Clipper again, May 11, 1878, page 50, col. 5:
"...the successfull establishment of the International Association as the
ruling professional association of the country - which it now unquestionably
is." At that moment the six team NL looked weak with Providence and IA
castoff non-championship cities Milwaukee and Indianapolis. In the previous
twenty months the NL had lost New York, Philadelphia, Louisville, St. Louis,
and Hartford. Furthermore, on June 18, 1877, the Cincinnati franchise went
bankrupt and disbanded mid-season. Two days later it was propped up by the
NL to finish out it's schedule "games not counting in the championship
record" just as the Montreal Expos were in their final years.

Per Mondout's criticism, I had written that "the International
Association was a much stronger league than the National League in both play
and fan's opinion" and I had set the dates for this state of affairs as from
"June 18, 1877 to about July 29, 1878." I selected June 18 with reason: the
NL at that moment was of five teams, per Cincinnati's mid-season
disbandment. The IA in that year and next led in play, in my opinion, 1)
having the most MLB talent, 2) creating the pitching rotation; 3) the
earliest trade; 4) over-hand pitching; 5) an agreement with the NL to split
exhibition game attendance fifty-fifty; and 6) the creation of the first
full season schedule of games (the NL followed suit in 1879).

I selected July 29, 1878 as the end of the IA's short reign. That day
the judiciary committee re-instated Louisville's expelled Bill Craver.
(Craver had always maintained his innocence.) IA teams protested vehemently
that it was a mistake but all James C. Williams did was to voice his protest
of the judiciary as well. It was against his grain to become a dictator -
even when his league needed him to be one. Ten days later the NL passed a
rule that IA clubs were allowed to become NL teams. Four teams quit the IA
by August 23. Then, the next year, on or about July 6, 1879, came the death
blow: the judiciary committee re-instated disgraced Louisville game-thrower
Jim Devlin. On July 8, Manchester quit the IA; on July 15, Utica quit the
IA; on July 17, Rochester dissolved.

Mondout asks for source material, but source material was biased.
Newspapers from IA cities said the IA was superior while newspapers from NL
cities (Boston and Chicago) said the opposite. Neutral New York went both
ways but with the Clipper leading the way, seemed to praise the IA the most,
especially in the span of dates I mentioned. In 1878 the Clipper gave nine
gold medals to the best nine players at each position in the country: all
nine medals went to IA players. (See Clipper, 4/12/1879.)

When the IA - then called the NA - folded for good in 1880, James C.
Williams picked himself up by the bootstraps and helped organize the
American Association. This time he used the NL strategy of picking the best
cities to represent the League, rather than the NA strategy of allowing any
team to join per payment of a fee.

I have no statements from fans, only the above interpretation of events
that show National League inferiority. Reference to the 1920 PCL, or such
leagues, as equivalent or as deserving of MLB status cannot be made for the
following reason: the PCL didn't claim MLB status, and this was discussed in
the Union Association arguments last Fall. The first test of major status
for any league must be its own "claim" of such.

The history of MLB baseball as we know it is based on many documents and
statements that are part of the continuum that we call the National League.
But this continuum has not admitted of all the items I've shown above. These
have been sanitized from NL history, perhaps unintentionally, but they do
exist. I conclude it's impossible for the NL to claim superiority from June
18, 1877 to July 29, 1878, and disagreeing parties will have to provide
alternative explanations of the above statistics and events.

Frank Vaccaro
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 03:11 AM (#2000375)
>It's anybody's guess from the backlog this election. Brown, Gordon, Sisler, and Méndez are the suspects, but who will ultimately win the prize?

Well, apparently the main thing will be who the voters are and aren't.
   9. Chris Cobb Posted: May 02, 2006 at 03:21 AM (#2000391)
Well, apparently the main thing will be who the voters are and aren't.

Indeed, that's one of the main points of this project. If we were the BWAA or the Frankie Frisch era Veterans' Committee we'd be making rather different selections.
   10. Paul Wendt Posted: May 02, 2006 at 03:33 AM (#2000399)
favre :
I forgot to mention: I used the actual first initial(s) for each player, because I felt silly using the first initial of a nickname. I presume you can figure out who “AC Anson” is.

That's ok.
How do you feel when your write "3F Brown"?

Deacon White is J White.
Does a mere deacon qualify for an exception from a theology student? I think not.

--
Someone observed with a note of apology, it seemed to me, that his put six Negro Leaguers and Minnie Minoso in the top nine. That is only one more than the official result.
   11. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#2000400)
Then there's Jimmie Hall, another star of the '60s Twins. In training camp in 1963 all anybody could talk about was Tony O Tony O Tony O. But when the Twins broke camp, Oliva went down for another year at AAA and some guy named Hall came north as the Twins new CF.

He promptly hit 33 HR with 80 RBI and 88 R, and .260/.342/.521/136 at age 25. Actually I just noticed that he played almost as many games in LF that year... I wonder if some of those were as a late inning defensive replacement for Harmon Killebrew. Also, he didn't take over in CF until incumbent Lenny Green got hurt.

After that it was, as a full time CF:

1964 25-75-.282/.338/.480/125
1965 20-86-.285/.347/.464/124
1966 20-47-.239/.302/.449/106

People say that he became timid against lefties after being beaned by Bo Belinsky in May 1964. But the truth is he struggled against lefties from Day One, and had an outstanding year in '65 after the beaning. Like many players of his day, his apparent decline may have been a reflection of the decline of offense generally in the game at the time. (In '67 with the Angels he went 16-55-.249/.318/.404/117.)

In the '65 World Series he played in just 2 games, going 1-for-7. Joe Nossek, whose OPS+ for the season was 55, played in 6 games going 4-for-20 with no XBH, no R and no RBI. Nossek of course batted right and the Dodgers started lefties Koufax and Osteen 5 times. Hall was said to be bitter about that. He refused to participate in the 40th anniversary of the '65 series--he said he thinks of himself as an ex-Yankee now.

An outstanding player who made the AL all-star team in 1964 and 1965. From mid-year '63 to maybe mid-year '65 he was great. I am shocked that he retired with only 100 WS!
   12. Ardo Posted: May 02, 2006 at 03:45 AM (#2000403)
After I graduate from Michigan State on May 6, I will re-evaluate all players from all eras and all positions. I strongly encourage other voters to do likewise in this double-backlog election year.

Looking ahead thru the month of May, we will have interesting 1977 and 1978 elections.

1977: Ernie Banks is an NB. Jim Bunning is directly comparable to Drysdale and Pierce; that leaves a wide range of potential outcomes.

1978: Roberto Clemente is an NB to me and will probably be elected, though I see why peak voters wouldn't be crazy for him. Hoyt Wilheim is a sui generis candidate.
   13. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: May 02, 2006 at 05:34 AM (#2000450)
Ardo,

Congratulations on the impending graduation! What's your course of study? It's good to have another college student in the electorate.

I'm preparing to transfer for my junior year (with a few detours thrown in) to a tiny liberal arts college in San Francisco this fall -- counting graduate programs, it has about 800 students total.

John,

Has anyone heard from Joe? It's sort of worrying that he didn't vote in the election, given his role as a founder of this project. He probably got bogged down with work or something, but his not voting just raised my (unfortunately, rather considerable) eyebrows a bit.
   14. DavidFoss Posted: May 02, 2006 at 05:42 AM (#2000451)
But when the Twins broke camp, Oliva went down for another year at AAA and some guy named Hall came north as the Twins new CF.

Oliva was with Charlotte (AA) in 1962. He spent 1963 with Dallas (AAA).

Green was the CF out of camp. Harmon in LF. Hall backing up. Harmon went on the DL for a couple of weeks in late April and Hall filled in LF and then as a defensive replacement for Killer throught the end of May. But Hall started off poorly with the bat and was hitting .188/.283/.338 at that time.

Also, he didn't take over in CF until incumbent Lenny Green got hurt.

In June, Hall started to get hot and after several successful pinch-hitting games in a row, it appears that flat out won the job from Green. Starting June 13, Green still played every day, but as pr-cf or ph -- so it doesn't really look like he was hurt. Could be wrong though. Anyhow, Hall hit .322/.410/.632 in June and was secure in the lineup for the rest of the year. When Allison missed a couple of non-consecutive weeks in August, Green went to CF and Hall shifted to RF... and in other games it was quite common for Green to enter the game as a defensive replacement with Hall shifting to LF (with Killer leaving the game). That latter part led to many "CF-LF" games for Hall that year.

Ex-Yankee? Weird. He didn't spend a single off-season with the club. He was purchased from Cleveland in April and traded to the Cubs in September. I'd think you'd have to spend at least one winter with a club to feel some sort of identity with it.
   15. rawagman Posted: May 02, 2006 at 05:58 AM (#2000458)
My need for a Negro League rethink has been diplayed to me in full now.
Can anyone supply the discussion links for Willard Brown, Ben Taylor, Dobie Moore, Luke Easter and Alejandro Oms?
   16. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:25 AM (#2000474)
I continue to be impressed with how serious, open-minded and self-critical people are in this project -- nearly 80 years from the beginning.
   17. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:32 AM (#2000480)
Hugh Duffy Keltner List Part 1 of ?

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
I don't have access to any primary sources for the years when Duffy played. The closest I have is a copy of Spink's The National Game from 1911. In it, he provides commentary about most of the good players back to the National Association. He usually only has good things to say. His comment about Duffy details that he was the starting center fielder for Boston when they won in 1892 and 1983 and starting left fielder in 1897 and 1898. Then it says, “Up to the closing days of his career as a player Duffy was a magnificent fielder and batsman. Although below the medium in height he was a strong, husky figure on the field and he was one of the best men in an emergency the game has ever known.” Spink, The National Game, p. 244.
I checked the Spalding Guide for 1894 (covers the 1893 season) and it doesn’t get into individual players other than mentioning how McCarthy, Duffy, and three others on Boston were the new brainy players.
The Spalding Guide for 1895 doesn’t describe the efforts of any individual player.
Considering the esteem in which batting average was held at the time, I assume Duffy was considered one of, if not the, best player in baseball in 1894.
<u>By win shares each year</u>, (unadjusted by schedule)
1888: 10 WS - NR
1889: 17 WS – NR
1890: 26 WS – <u>2nd in PL</u> to John Ward – 27
1891: 28 WS – <u>3rd in AA</u> to Tom Brown – 31 and Dan Brouthers 29.
<u>5th in majors</u> behind Billy Hamilton – 36, Brown, Brouthers, and Herman Long – 29.
1892: 29 WS – <u>4th in NL</u> to Brouthers - 34, Dahlen and Childs – 32. Elmer Smith had 31 as an outfielder and a pitcher in 134 innings.
1893: 28 WS – <u>1st in NL</u> tied with Ed Delahanty.
1894: 33 WS – <u>1st in NL</u>. Joe Kelley is second – 30.
1895: 23 WS – <u>9th</u> (tied with Willie Keeler) in NL. Burkett 35, Delahanty 31, Hamilton 30, Griffin and Bill Lange 29, Sam Thompson and Jake Stenzel 28, Joe Kelley 27.
1896: 17 WS - NR
1897: 25 WS – <u>8th</u>. Keeler 32, George Davis 31, Fred Clarke 30, Hughie Jennings 29, Hamilton 28, Collins and Kelley 26.
1898: 25 WS – <u>13th</u>.
1899: 17 WS – NR.

<u>From 1890 to 1894</u>, Duffy had 144 WS.
Billy Hamilton: 135
Cupid Childs: 127
George Van Haltren: 117
Herman Long: 113
Bid McPhee: 105
Sam Thompson: 105
Billy Nash: 104
George Davis: 101
Mike Griffin: 96
Ed Delahanty: 95
Jimmy Ryan: 95
Bill Dahlen: 91
Jake Beckley: 90

It is at least arguable that Duffy was the best position player of the first half of the 90s.

2. Was he the best player on his team?
If we consider pitchers, then the answer is no – it would be Kid Nichols every year.
Let’s consider just position players and look at Win Shares and WARP1. I know some voters have issues with WS and some have issues with WARP, but there was no MVP vote and no All-Star teams named so lets go with something. Win Shares then WARP.
<u>Year / win shares and games played / rank on team / team’s finish in league / players ahead of him on his team.</u>
1888: 10 WS in 71g: 7th on Chi – 2nd in NL
1889: 17 WS in 136g: 4th on Chi – 3rd in NL (Ryan 25, Anson 21, Van Haltren 21)
1890: 26 WS in 138g: 1st on Chi – 4th in PL (Ryan was second with 23)
1891: 28 WS in 127g: 3rd on Bos – 1st in AA(Brown 31, Brouthers 29)
1892: 29 WS in 149g: 1st on Bos – 1st in NL (Long was second with 28, then Billy Nash 22)
1893: 28 WS in 131g: 1st on Bos – 1st in NL (Long was second with 25, Nash 25)
1894: 33 WS in 125g: 1st on Bos – 3rd in NL (Lowe was second with 20)
1895: 23 WS in 130g: 1st on Bos – 5th tied in NL (Bannon and Long were second with 19)
1896: 17 WS in 131g: 3rd on Bos – 4th in NL (Hamilton 30, Long 20)
1897: 25 WS in 134g: 3rd on Bos – 1st in NL (Hamilton 28, J Collins 26)
1898: 25 WS in 152g: 3rd on Bos – 1st in NL (J Collins 34, Hamilton 33)
1899: 17 WS in 147g: 4th on Bos – 2nd in NL (Chick Stahl 32, Fred Tenney 25, J Collins 23)
1900: 5 WS in less than half time play
1901: 8 WS in half time play. 4th on Mil – 8th in AL

WARP1
1888: 3.8: 7th on team
1889: 4.4: 6th on team
1890: 8.8: 1st on team
1891: 9.4: 2nd on team to Duke Farrell’s 10.2
1892: 7.9: 3rd on team to Herman Long’s 10.2 and Bill Nash’s 8.7
1893: 8.3: 1st on team (tied with Long)
1894: 10.8: 1st on team
1895: 8.8: 1st on team
1896: 5.5: 3rd/4th on team to Hamilton’s 8.1, Long’s 7.4, and Lowe’s 5.6
1897: 8.6: 2nd on team tied with Hamilton behind Jimmy Collins’ 9.3
1898: 8.7: 2nd on team to Collins’ 11.2
1899: 5.6: 6th on team behind Stahl’s 10.5, Tenney’s 9.4, Collins’ 8.3, Lowe’s 6.9, and Long’s 6.1
1900: 2.2
1901: 3.4: 4th on team.

He was a regular for 11 years.
<u>By win shares</u>, Duffy was the best position player on his team 5 times, 3rd best 4 times, 4th best 2 times. He finished behind HoMers Anson once, Brouthers once, Hamilton 3 times and J Collins 3 times. Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren, Tom Brown, Herman Long, Chick Stahl and Fred Tenney were all good players also.
<u>By WARP1</u>, Duffy was the best position player on his teams 4 times, 2nd best 3 times, 3rd 2 times, and 6th 2 times.
   18. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:37 AM (#2000482)
Hugh Duffy Keltner List Part 2 of ?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
<u>Considering all the outfield positions the same and using win shares, Duffy is one of the best 3 outfielders in his league</u>:
<u>1890</u> in the Players’ League, he is the best outfielder in the league, 26 WS. Three players in the lesser quality National and American Assoc have 26 also.
<u>1891</u> in the American Association, he is the second best outfielder in the league, 28 WS. Billy Hamilton has 36 in the National. Mike Tiernan and Harry Stovey have 26 in the NL.
<u>1892</u> in the National League, he is the best outfielder in the league, 29 WS. Elmer Smith has 31 WS between LF and P.
<u>1893</u> in the National League, he is tied with Ed Delahanty as the best outfielder in the league, 28 WS.
<u>1894</u> in the National League, he is the best OF in the league.

It is at least arguable that from 1890 to 1894, Duffy is the best outfielder in baseball by Win Shares.

<u>If you split it by LF/CF/RF, then we have the following</u>:
RF:
1889: 17 WS – <u>3rd</u> behind Mike Tiernan 28 and King Kelly 24 in the NL
1890: 26 WS – <u>best in PL</u>. Jimmy Wolf in the AA has 27. With allowances for league quality, Duffy is the best.
1891: 28 WS – <u>best in AA</u>. NL is Stovey 26 (25% of games in LF), Tiernan 26, Thompson 22, C Carroll 16, Burns 15, F Carroll 8, Halligan 8, Johnson 6, Marr 6. With league adjustments, he probably slides just behind Stovey and Tiernan.
CF:
1892: 29 WS – <u>best in NL</u>
1893: 28 WS – <u>best in NL</u>
1894: 33 WS – <u>best in NL</u>
1895: 23 WS – <u>5th best</u> in NL behind Hamilton 30, Griffin 29, Lange 29, Stenzel 28.
LF:
1896: 17 WS – <u>7th best</u> in NL behind Delahanty 31, Kelley 31, Burkett 29, Elmer Smith 26, Burke 20, Selbach 18
1897: 25 WS – <u>3rd best</u> in NL behind Clarke 30, Kelley 26
1898: 25 WS – <u>5th best</u> in NL behind Delahanty 33, Burkett 29, Ryan 28, Elmer Smith 27, tied with Clarke 25
1899: 17 WS -


4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Difficult to say. The only two years that I have access to, 1894 and 1895, in Spalding Guides don’t have any descriptions of individual contributions. Here is how Duffy’s teams did in September/October.
1889: Chi – 12-14 as team finishes 3rd, 19 games out. On Sept 1, team was 55-51, 12 games out in 4th.
1890: Chi – 17-10 as team finishes 4th, 10 games out. On Sept 1, team was 59-53, 10 games out in 5th.
1891: Bos – 17-10 as team finishes 1st, 8.5 games in front. On Sept 1, team was 77-32, 8 games in front.
1892: Split Season. Boston won first half at 52-22 by 2.5 games. Boston finished second in second half at 50-26 by 3 games. Best record overall by 8.5 games. Boston beats Cleveland 5 games to 0 to win championship.
1893: Bos – 12-11 as team finishes 1st, 5 games in front. On Sept 1, team was 74-32, 12 games in front.
1894: Bos – 14 -11 as team finishes 3rd, 8 games out. On Sept 1, team was 69-39, tied for second, 2 games out.
1895: Bos – 13-15 as team finishes tied for 5th, 16.5 games out. On Sept 1, team was 58-45, 9 games out in fourth.
1896: Bos – 15-8 as team finishes 4th, 17 games out. On Sept 1, team was 59-49
1897: Bos – 18-5 as team finishes 1st, 2 games in front. On Sept 1, team was 75 – 34, ½ game in front.
1898: Bos – 31-6 as team finishes 1st, 6 games in front. On Sept 1, team was 71-41, tied with Cin for first.
1899: Bos– 24-14 as team finishes 2nd, 8 games out. On Sept 1, team was 71-43, 6 games out in second.

Team improved itself in 1890, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899. Team had nothing to play for in 1891, 1892, 1892, 1893. Team plays worse in 1894, 1895. I would say this is neither a positive nor negative factor for Duffy.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Duffy was injured in 1900 at age 33. He came back to play half-time and manage the Milwaukee team in the new American League with a 120 OPS+ at age 34 and then retired to become a manager. He seems like he could still play. This is probably not a point in his favor.
   19. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:41 AM (#2000485)
Hugh Duffy Keltner List Part 3 of ?

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Merit?
Depends on who you ask.
According to the HoM voters in 1974, 3 people thought he was the best candidate other than Mantle and Mathews. 3 others thought he was the second most deserving.

Per <u>Career Win Shares</u>, adjusted for Wars and schedule length and giving credit to Negro Leaguers:
384 - George Van Haltren (344 unadjusted)
370 - Willard Brown (328 w/o war credit)
351 - Jimmy Ryan (316 unadjusted)
348 - Jake Beckley (318 unadjusted)
346 - Sam Rice (327 unadjusted)
340 - Alejandro Oms (NeL translations)
340 - Mickey Vernon (296 w/o war credit)
335 - Tommy Leach (328 unadjusted)
329 - Harry Hooper (321 unadjusted)
326 - Ben Taylor (NeL translations)
324 - Hugh Duffy (295 unadjusted)
322 - Rabbit Maranville (302 unadjusted)
321 - Edd Roush (314 unadjusted)
310 - Bob Johnson (287 without a year of minor league credit)
305 - Fielder Jones (290 unadjusted)
(I have Spots Poles, Dick Lundy, Bill Monroe, and Bus Clarkson between 300 and 325 but some of these are from very sparse actual numbers.)

However, career totals are not everything.
Lets look at <u>my peak measure – best 3 straight years</u>, adjusted to 154 games.
102 – Pete Browning (75)
102 – Charlie Keller
101 – Hugh Duffy (90)
100 – Al Rosen
98 – Charley Jones (69)
97 – George Burns (89)
97 – Ralph Kiner
96 – Dobie Moore
95 – Wally Berger
95 – Hack Wilson

Lets look at my <u>prime measure – best 7 years, adjusted</u>.
232 – Charley Jones (132)
223 – Pete Browning (161)
218 – Hugh Duffy (194)
217 – Charlie Keller (190)
201 – George Burns (193)
201 – Mike Tiernan (176)
200 – George Van Haltren (179)
198 – Spots Poles
197 – Ralph Kiner
197 – Alejandro Ohms
196 – Wally Berger
196 – Gavy Cravath (175)
196 – Roy Thomas (189)

And <u>Seasonal, or Win Shares per 648 PA</u> to try to equalize differences b/t offensive levels
30.9 – Charlie Keller
30.8 – Frank Chance
28.8 – Gavy Cravath
28.5 – Roger Bresnahan
28.4 – Dobie Moore
27.8 – Al Rosen
27.7 – Wally Berger
27.43 – Pete Browning
27.42 – John McGraw
26.6 – Hack Wilson
26.4 – Charley Jones
26.3 – Roy Thomas
26.1 – Larry Doyle

<u>OPS+</u>
Duffy is about 50th among eligible position players at 122. There are 26 players between 127 and 122.

<u>STATS All-Stars</u>:
STATS is not enthusiastic about him, finding him an all-star just twice.

<u>Win Shares All-Stars</u>:
Win shares likes his defense a lot. It finds him an all-star 5 times. 11 players are all-stars either 6, 7, or 8 times.

<u>Win Shares Gold Gloves</u>:
Win Shares thinks he very good defensively with 4 gold gloves. 17 other players have between 5 and 7 and Ray Shalk has 9.
   20. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#2000488)
Hugh Duffy Keltner List Part 4 of ?

7. Are most of the players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Merit?

Tough question because of the changes in the game. I am going to limit my search to players whose careers were predominantly pre-Lively Ball.
Let's look at some counting numbers first - this is all based on BaseballReference's top 100 lists. I'll look at players with 10% more to 10% less than Duffy.
<u>Hits</u>: Duffy 2282.
The total is not in the top 100. In the 1890s-1890 to 1899, Duffy has the second most hits with 1860. Only Delahanty has more with 1863. The rest of the top 10:
Burkett: 1798
Van Haltren: 1782
Hamilton: 1690
McKean: 1606
Geo. Davis: 1587
Long: 1560
Beckley: 1554
Donovan: 1536.

<u>Triples</u>:
Beckley has 119, 97th all-time. Players with similar totals include Fred Pfeffer, Chick Stahl, Dummy Hoy, Duke Farrell, and John Anderson. This is not a HoMer total.

<u>Doubles</u>:
Duffy has 325 which is nowhere near the top 100 all-time. He does have the second most in the decade however. Ed Delahanty is by far the best however.
Delahanty: 373
Duffy: 271
Davis: 265
Ryan: 264
Beckley: 259
Long: 251
Griffin: 239
Thompson: 236
Dahlen: 225
Doyle: 215

<u>Runs</u>: Everyone scored a lot who played in this era. Duffy had 1552. Looking between 1750 and 1450 gives the following. There are 13 players between 1750 and 1550. 10 are HoMers and Beckley, Ryan, and Van Haltren are not. The 10 HoMers are Wagner, Hamilton, McPhee, O'Rourke, Keeler, Burkett, Connor, Clarke, Delahanty, and Dahlen.
From 1550 to 1450, there are the following HoMers: Davis, Brouthers, Lajoie, and Stovey. Defensive positions and better hitters, higher peaks/primes. Also, there are the following non-HoMers: Tom Brown, Arlie Latham, and Herman Long. Key players for the best team of the 1890s don't get in, nor do Brown and Latham who get hit with the AA markdown.

In the 1890s, Duffy is second to Billy Hamilton.
Hamilton: 1351
Duffy: 1264
Delahanty: 1209
Van Haltren: 1185
Burkett: 1170
Childs, Long, Hoy, Ryan, and Tiernan finish the top 10 down to 1009.

The majority of players with similar runs scored are in. Those that are not had lower peaks and primes than the elected or suffer from the AA discount. Where do you see Beckley?

<u>RBI</u>: Duffy had 1302 which is 91st all-time. The top 100 only goes to 1273 so not much downward comparison.
Players from pre-1920 with similar totals are: Connor: 1322, Thompson: 1299, Brouthers: 1296. No one else is within 70.
In the 1890s, Duffy leads with 1088. Followed by
Delahanty: 1075
Beckley: 953
Davis: 933
McKean: 927
Thompson: 846
Brodie, Long, Kelley, and Lave Cross finish the top 10 down to 759.

<u>Runs Created</u>: Using the numbers from the STATS book, not BB-Ref.
Duffy created 1609 so we will look at 1750 to 1450.
1750 to 1609: Hamilton, Davis, Ryan, Crawford, Clarke, GVH, Duffy.
All these players have been discussed.
1609 to 1450: McPhee, Keeler, Dahlen, Kelley, O’Rourke, and Stovey.

Duffy is in the top 100 in AVG, but not OBP, SLG, or OPS+. The following players who are frequently mentioned above are:
AVG: Delahanty, Speaker, Hamilton, Brouthers, Keeler, Burkett, Lajoie, Collins, Anson, Wheat, Connor, and Clarke are all HoMers.
GVH, and Roush are top 100 but not HoMers.
OBP: There are 8 HoMers from this era mentioned above in the top 100. There are no non-HoMers from above on the list.
SLG: Brouthers and Delahanty are the only ones on the list. None of the non-HoMers listed above are on the list.
OPS+: There are 11 HoMers from those listed above in the top 100. There are no non-HoMers on the list.

I’m not sure where to post this information, but since we are looking at counting numbers, it makes some sense to put park factors here:
First BB-Ref’s park factors, batter’s then pitcher’s (remember over 100 is good for hitters)
1888: 107 / 106
1889: 105 / 104
1890: 104 / 103
1891: 99 / 94
1892: 109 / 107
1893: 108 / 106
1894: 108 / 107
1895: 108 / 107
1896: 106 / 104
1897: 106 / 104
1898: 105 / 102
1899: 110 / 108
1900: 112 / 112
1901: 95 / 98

I thought it would be interesting to see how Duffy’s teams ranked in runs scored and allowed at home and on the road:
year RS/RA at home, RS/RA on road (1 is best and 8 or 12 is worst)
1888: 1 / 8 - - - 4 / 4
1889: 5 / 7 - - - 2 / 6
1890: 4 / 1 - - - 7 / 2
1891: 2 / 3 - - - 1 / 3
1892: 2 / 6 - - - 2 / 1
1893: 5 / 3 - - - 2 / 6
1894: 2 / 12 - - - 1 / 3 - WOW
1895: 2 / 5 - - - 9 / 7
1896: 3 / 6 - - - 8 / 5
1897: 1 / 3 - - - 2 / 2
1898: 3 / 10 - - - 5 / 3 - WOW
1899: 7 / 4 - - - 3 / 2
1900: 1 / 8 - - - 8 / 2 - WOW
1901: 6 / 6 - - - 8 / 8

Duffy played on teams that had great hitting during the first half of his career. The second half of his career, the park greatly aided them. The park helped the team’s numbers every year, but based on the runs scored on the road, in the first 7 years his teams had legitimately very good offenses.

Overall. The strong majority of players with similar numbers to Duffy are in the HoM.
   21. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:51 AM (#2000490)
8. Does the player's numbers meet Hall Of Merit standards?

I don't know. When I first started in the HoM, I was told to judge each election separately and not to focus on Least Common Denominator arguments.
But let's look at few different standards.
<u>Bill James Hall of Fame Standards</u>: Duffy scores a 54.2. The average HoFer will have a 50. By this standard, Duffy has met the standards of an average Hall of Famer.
<u>Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor</u>: Duffy scores an 151.5. A likely Hall of Famer is over 100, and a score of 130 is pretty much a guarantee of HoF election.

Looking at commonalities among center field electees to the Hall of Merit.
I am looking at Cobb, Speaker, Mantle, Charleston, Mays, DiMaggio, Stearnes, Hines, Gore, Hamilton, Torriente, Snider, Ashburn, Carey, Doby, Hill, Averill, and Bell. I didn't include Lip Pike because half of his career is pre-1876 and I have issues about how much weight to place on NA stats.

<u>Unadjusted by War credit or schedule evening Win Shares</u>: HoMers range from Hines’ 249 to Cobb’s 722. Duffy, 295, would be be ahead of Hines, Gore, Doby, and Averill.

<u>Adjusted for war and schedule</u> (War credit based on 3 years on each side of break and schedule straight line adjusted): Averill's 308 to Cobb's 731. Duffy, 324, would be ahead of Averill only.

<u>Win Shares per 162 games</u>: HoMers range from Mantle’s 37.2 to Bell’s 20 or Carey’s 21.7. Duffy’s 24.7 is ahead of Bell, Ashburn, Carey, and Hines.

Center field is tough because it has some of the most consistently high achieving careers that also lasted forever. Cobb, Speaker, Mays, Mantle, Charleston, and Stearnes all made James’ top 25 players of all time.

Some people are not fans of Win Shares, so let's move on.
<u>STATS All-Stars</u>:
Cobb: 16
Speaker: 13
Mantle: 12
Mays: 12
DiMaggio: 10
Averill: 6
Hamilton: 6
Gore: 5
Hines: 5
Snider: 5
Doby: 2
Duffy: 2
Ashburn: 1
Carey: 1

I don't know of another source other than <u>win shares</u> so that I can provide another view of yearly all-stars. But another point-of-view is always good.
Cobb: 13
Speaker: 13
Mantle: 13
Mays: 12
DiMaggio: 10
Averill: 9
Hamilton: 8
Ashburn: 7
Hines: 7
Snider: 6
Carey: 6
Gore: 5
Duffy: 5

<u>OPS+</u>:
Mantle: 172
Cobb: 167
Speaker: 158
Mays: 156
DiMaggio: 155
Hamilton: 141
Snider: 140
Doby: 136
Gore: 136
Averill: 133
Hines: 131
Duffy: 122
Ashburn: 111
Carey: 107

<u>Black Ink</u>:
Cobb: 150
Mantle: 65
Mays: 57
Hamilton: 43
Duffy: 38
Speaker: 34
DiMaggio: 34
Ashburn: 32
Carey: 32
Hines: 30
Snider: 28
Gore: 19
Doby: 18
Averill: 6

<u>Grey Ink</u>:
Cobb: 417
Speaker: 346
Mays: 337
Mantle: 272
DiMaggio: 226
Hines: 186
Snider: 183
Ashburn: 156
Carey: 148
Duffy: 147
Averill: 145
Hamilton: 132
Gore: 125
Doby: 124

<u>Defensive Win Shares Grades and retro-Gold Gloves</u>:
Speaker: A+ / 11
Carey: A+ / 10
Mays: A+ / 10
Ashburn: A+ / 8
DiMaggio: A+ / 8
Gore: A+ / 7
Duffy: A+ / 4
Hamilton: A / 2
Doby: A / 1
Hines: A- / 7
Averill: A- / 4
Snider: A- / 4
Mantle: B+ / 5
Cobb: B+ / 3

<u>Yearly accomplishments as a hitter</u> – Duffy would be among the bottom half in the group, but center field has the highest concentration of great hitters with long careers.
<u>Fielding accomplishments</u>: Duffy meets these.
<u>Career numbers</u>: See question #7 on previous page. Duffy is consistent in the middle of many HoMers of his era and he and Delahanty had the best totals of the 1890s.

9. Is there evidence to suggest the player was SIGNIFICANTLY better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

<u>Team’s record</u>: Duffy’s teams overachieved based on their runs scored/runs allowed almost every year. I agree with the idea that the players should receive credit for their team’s achievements. I know win shares does this, but think that we are missing something about the great Boston teams of the 1890s.

<u>Stolen bases</u>. Duffy stole 574 bases, the vast majority under the old-style rules. Duffy is 21st all-time and 7th among the old-style players behind Hamilton’s 912, Latham’s 739, Tom Brown’s 657, George Davis’ 616, Dummy Hoy’s 594, and Van Haltren’s 583. We don't have caught stealing data so we don't know if there is a hidden positive or negative.

<u>Ground Into Double Plays</u>: Don't have the information to see if he was Jim Rice or Craig Biggio.

<u>Hitting and Running / Small ball</u>: The hit and run was created by he and Tommy McCarthy. Either that or they perfected it to such a degree that current-day observers were amazed.
Duffy was considered a brainy player I believe.

<u>Clutch</u>: I have no information about whether he was considered clutch or not.

Conclusion: I believe Duffy may have been better than his numbers to a degree because of the way his teams, specifically the Boston ones, were able to consistently perform better than expected by their runs scored and runs allowed. I believe he was an excellent base runner. I believe he played a key role in creating or perfecting the motion and running offense. I do not know if those are sufficient markers to meet the “significant” requirement.
   22. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 06:55 AM (#2000496)
Hugh Duffy Keltner List Part 6 of 6

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Merit but not in?

A little more depth.
My top 11 eligible center fielders are Berger, Browning, Duffy, Fielder Jones, Alejandro Ohms, Spots Poles, Roush, Ryan, Thomas, Van Haltren, and Wilson.

<u>Career Win Shares</u> (schedule adjusted/war credit/minor league credit for screwy team management.) and unadjusted totals.
384 – Van Haltren – 344
353 – Poles – 327
351 – Ryan – 316
340 – Ohms
324 – Duffy – 295
321 – Roush – 314
305 – Jones – 290
293 – Browning – 225
270 – Thomas – 260
241 – Berger
224 – Wilson

<u>Peak - 3 consecutive years</u> - adjusted for season length only
102 – Browning
101 – Duffy
95 – Berger
95 – Wilson
92 – Roush
92 – Ryan
87 – Ohms
87 – Poles
87 – Van Haltren
85 – Thomas
84 – Jones

<u>Per 648 Plate Apps</u>:
27.7 – Berger
27.4 – Browning
26.6 - Wilson
26.3 – Thomas
25.8 – Roush
25.0 – Van Haltren
24.7 – Duffy
24.6 – Jones
24.5 – Poles
24.3 – Ohms
22.6 – Ryan

<u>STATS all-stars then Win Shares All-Star</u>s:
8 – Browning – 5
7 – Ohms – credit from various sources
5 – Roush – 5
5 – Wilson – 4
3 – Berger – 3
3 – Poles
2 - Duffy – 5
2 – Ryan – 2
1 – Jones – 5
1 – Thomas – 4
0 – Van Haltren - 2

<u>OPS+</u>:
162 – Browning
144 – Wilson
138 – Berger
126 – Roush
125 – Ohms
124 – Ryan
123 – Thomas
122 – Duffy
121 – Van Haltren
111 – Jones
Poles - unknown

<u>Black Ink</u>:
38 – Duffy
31 – Wilson
21 – Browning
17 – Thomas
14 – Roush
12 – Ryan
9 – Berger
7 – Van Haltren
0 - Jones
Poles and Ohms – no figures

<u>Grey Ink</u>:
147 – Browning
147 – Duffy
125 – Roush
121 – Van Haltren
116 – Ryan
110 – Wilson
103 - Berger
67 – Thomas
61 – Jones

Defensive:
A+: Berger, Duffy, Jones
A: Poles
A-: Roush, Thomas
B+: Ryan
B/B+: Ohms
B: Van Haltren
C+: Browning, Wilson

11. How many MVP-type seasons did the player have? Did the player ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

<u>First</u>, <u>there was no MVP award during his career</u> so he could never have won one. I think Duffy would be a strong candidate in 1891, 1892, and 1893 as he was the best position player on pennant winning teams. I think Duffy was an obvious MVP candidate with his triple crown domination year of 1894.

<u>Second</u>, from my examination of his career, it looks like he had several, as many as 6, MVP-type seasons. A win shares season of 30 or more is an MVP-type season. After adjusting for season-length, Duffy had years of 29, 32, 29, 33, 39, and 29.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did the player have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other player who played in his many go into the Hall of Merit?

There were no all-star games during his career.

How many all-star type seasons did he have? 5 years as the league's best at his position. A season of 20-30 win shares is an all-star type year and Duffy had 3 between 20 and 27 after adjusting for schedule length. So he had 9 years between an All-star and MVP type years.

13. If this man were the best on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I would say yes. He was the best player on two teams that won pennants. He was the 3rd best player on three other pennant winners.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipement? Did he change the game in any way?

Along with Tommy McCarthy, the perfection and popularization of the hit-and-run and “brainy ballplaying”

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guideline, instructs us to consider?

Non-applicable, but I have no information that Duffy was an #######, a killer, a racist, a gambler, had a bad temper, frequently assaulted people, or a convicted violent felon.
   23. Kelly in SD Posted: May 02, 2006 at 07:00 AM (#2000497)
Did anyone post a defense of Willard Brown last year? If not, I was going to post some reasons to back him in 1976. Also, a voter was looking for info about Tetelo Vargas. I found some in the book, <u>Baseball's Other All-Stars</u> by William McNeil. Again, I can post if this was not already posted.

Oh, if anyone is looking for a copy of Holway's Complete Book of the Negro Leagues and doesn't want to pay the $80 and up I found at Amazon and other on-line booksellers (new and used), call the publisher - Hastings House. They are selling them at list price plus shipping.
   24. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: May 02, 2006 at 07:11 AM (#2000499)
Because I'm procrastinating with some reading, I'm looking through some files on the HOM Yahoo Group and I was wondering what you all thought of KJOK's Negro League MLEs. They give me the following short-form WS estimates for Spottswood Poles (offWS from KJOK, defWS from Chris Cobb's MLEs, crediting 4.0 WS for 1922):

---

SPOTTSWOOD POLES WIN SHARES
1909 - 15
1910 - 18
1911 - 26
1912 - 32
1913 - 28
1914 - 36
1915 - 31
1916 - 28
1917 - 33
1918 - 30 (WWI; average of four surrounding seasons)
1919 - 24 (adjusted for season length from 140 games to 154 games)
1920 - 36
1921 - 22
1922 - 15
TOTAL - 374
Note: CS included in batting outs.

CONVENTIONAL STATS: .305/.388/.457/140 OPS+ in 8020 PA against a .257/.323/.388 league average.

---

They run counter to our previous estimates of Poles, but I think that given his reputation, it is a closer estimate to his true talent level. It puts him eerily similar to Billy Hamilton. Thoughts?
   25. rawagman Posted: May 02, 2006 at 07:21 AM (#2000501)
Kelly,
Very nicely done Keltner list for Duffy.
I have him 1st for a reason.
Obviously, he was not a front line inner nucleus HOF-er or HOMer. But he leads the charge of the rest in my eyes.
Take away your Mantles, your Mays', Speakers, Cobbs, DiMaggios, and Sniders, and there you have Hugh Duffy.
Looking at his comparables, his career wasn't the longest, his peak wasn't the highest.
But you may notice that the combined effect of it all is more impressive.
More meritous.
   26. Michael Bass Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:05 AM (#2000510)
That was me, re: Vargas, Kelly. From the exceedingly little info we had, seemed like he had an extraordinarily long and productive career. At a mimimum, I think a detailed look at his numbers would appeal to Cool Papa Bell voters, at a maximum, he could get a serious look from a decent chunk of the electorate. For now, I have zero comfort placing him, though.

-------------------------

I'd be worried about my new consensus high if I'd changed my ballot much lately, but I really haven't. :) I did upgrade Gordona "year" or two back, but he was already on my ballot. I prefer to think it's the electorate coming to their collective senses on the Mendez/Sisler/Gordon/Brown group, as well as Redding and Moore lower down. :D It's not even a matter of electing those who I disagreed with. This was, of course, the case with Bell and Rixey, but I was a big booster of Jennings and Doerr, who recently went in off the backlog, as well.

Anyway, my prelim (and if for any reason this doesn't get posted to the main thread by voting time next week, please copy it for me):

1. Moore
2. Mendez
3. Gordon
4. Sewell
5. Boyer
6. Walters
7. W. Brown
8. Minoso
9. Trouppe
10. Sisler
11. B. Johnson
12. Redding
13. Dunlap
14. Browning
15. Pierce
   27. rawagman Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:50 AM (#2000515)
I have been doing more research and Willard Brown will be on my ballot this "year." Eyeballing somewhere between 5-10. I have been undervaluing the Negro Leaguers for the most part.

I still want to relook at Redding (I'm not sure if he's closer to Robin Roberts or Mickey Welch), Ben Taylor, Alejandro Oms, Dobie Moore (different positions, of course, but what's the value difference between him and Charlie Keller?) and maybe Luke Easter.
   28. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:53 AM (#2000516)
Continuing with the cohorts…

1891-1895

C

1B AC Anson (‘91), D Brouthers (‘91-2, ‘94), R Connor (’91-93), W Ewing (’92)

2B F Grant (’91-’95), J McPhee (’91-95), JM Ward (’92-93)

3B W Dahlen (’91), G Davis (’93-95)

SS W Dahlen (’92-94), J Glasscock (’92-93), H Jennings (’94-95)

LF J Burkett (’92-95), E Delahanty (’93-95), W Hamilton (’91-’92), J Kelley (’94-95)

CF E Delahanty (’92), G Gore (’91), W Hamilton (’93-’95), J Kelley (’93)

RF R Caruthers (’92), W Ewing (’93), W Keeler (’94-95), H Stovey (’91), S Thompson (’91-95)

P R Caruthers (’91), J Clarkson (’91-93), J Galvin (’91), C Griffith (’94-95), T Keefe (’92), C Nichols (’91-95), A Rusie (’91-95), RJ Wallace (’95), DT Young (’91-95)

Total HoMrs: 28

*28 HoMr’s is not a particularly low figure for a five year cohort. In fact, it is higher than 1901-10 (25 & 24), equal to ‘11-15, higher than ‘16-20 (23), equal to ’41-45 (!!!), and just one more than what we currently have in ’46-50. It is not a high figure, either—like 1926-40—and there is certainly room for additional inductees in this time period. But I don’t think I would use the word “underrepresented” for it, either. This makes sense, of course; the big stars from the 1880s are still coming to the end of their primes in the early 1890s.
*You all know this already, but there is no HoM player who has a single prime season at catcher from 1891 until 1911, when Santop arrives. I’m not sure there are any viable candidates in the 1890s. Deacon McGuire, maybe?
*I didn't realize that Geroge Davis was primarily a 3B during this period.



1896-1900

C

1B N Lajoie (’97)

2B F Grant (’96-97), N Lajoie (’98, ’00)

3B J Collins (’97-00), G Davis (’96), H Wagner (’99), RJ Wallace (’97-98)

SS W Dahlen (’96, ’98-99), G Davis (’97-00), H Jennings (’96-98), G Johnson (’99-00), RJ Wallace (’99)
LF J Burkett (’96-00), F Clarke (’96-99), E Delahanty (’96-00), J Kelley (’96-00)

CF W Hamilton (’96-98, 00)

RF E Flick (’98-00), W Keeler (’96-00), H Wagner (’00)

P C Griffith (’96-00), J McGinnity (’99-00), C Nichols (’96-00), A Rusie (’96-98), DT Young (’96-00)

Total HoMrs: 21


*Now THIS is an underrepresented cohort—21 HoMrs, the lowest number we have in a five-year period from 1881-1950. No one at C, one season by Nap Lajoie (?) at 1B, and only five pitchers. OTOH, wit is well represented at SS, and it has some pretty decent outfielders as well.
BALLOT RETURNEES:
VIC WILLIS: Not a guy who has gotten much attention in the past, though just recently seems to be on the radar screen. The 1896-1900 cohort is very short on pitchers, and Willis adds three prime years to them—1898-1900. IOW, although Willis spent the majority of his career in the 1900’s, you can *also* think of him as a (partial) 1890s pitcher. 118 ERA+ in 3996 innings, with two ERA+ and one IP title (nine times in the top ten). He has a high peak, and we’ve elected most of the guys with careers like him. He’ll make my ballot for the first time this year.

JAKE BECKLEY (pause for audible groan of peak voters). I'm not saying anything you don't alredy know, but between 1897-1922—or TWENTY SIX years—we have NOBODY at 1B; George Sisler's election will reduce the career gap to twenty years.. We have three prime seasons at 1B from 1894-1922: one by Joe Kelley in 1901, the other two by Pete Hill in 1912-13. Beckley has eleven or twelve prime years between 1889-1904, depending on your definition, with six of them after 1894. He doesn’t have the peak of Frank Chance, of course—whom we should also be seriously considering--but his prime is twice as long. Obviously you’re not going to vote for him if you’re a peak voter. If you’re borderline on Jake, all I can say is that he helps fill a pretty serious gap at that position in the HoM. He’s been on my high on my ballot for a long time.

HUGH DUFFY Kelly (once again) is already giving us well-detailed argument for him. Thanks for your work, Kelly.

GEORGE VAN HALTREN Although 1896-1900 is underrepresented in total, it actually isn’t in outfielders: we have Burkett, Clarke, Delahanty, Kelley, Hamilton, and Keeler all having strong primes. But those weren’t the best years for VH anyway, who was stronger at the first part of the decade. Duffy was better than VH in 1891-5, though he wasn’t as good Billy Hamilton at CF. That puts Van Haltren, IMO, as the fifth best OF in the 1891-5 cohort. Van Haltren has 344 career WS and a very solid career argument. However, if you're putting him on your ballot because the 1890s are underrepresented, you might consider two things: a)1891-5 is not really underrepresented, although more additions would be fine b) 1896-000 is VERY underrepresented, but not really at OF, and these years were not Van Haltren's best.

CUPID CHILDS: Adding his name to the 1896-00 cohort would be welcome, although his best years were 1890-7. He is currently behind Joe Gordon and Nellie Fox in my rankings, and therefore off the ballot, though still very much in the mix.
   29. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 09:29 AM (#2000519)
Nice work, favre, but...

Over the past few days (when I should have been writing a theology paper)

...tsk, tsk! :-)


I guess its fitting that you changed your name to "You Can Call me Grandma"...:]
   30. rawagman Posted: May 02, 2006 at 09:32 AM (#2000520)
I have been putting Willard Brown under the microscope and he should be at 9 on my 1976 ballot, bumping Nellie Fox off ballot.
The others seem to be lacking a little of that something that I like and are currently between slightly (Oms and Taylor) to a bit more than something(Easter, Moore) off my ballot.
Otherwise, my prelim is the same as last year's ballot:
1) Hugh Duffy
2) Rube Waddell
3) Gavy Cravath
4) Joe Sewell
5) Lefty Gomez
6) George Sisler
7) Jose Mendez
8) Jake Beckley
9) Willard Brown
10) Minnie Minoso
11) Vern Stephens
12) Ralph Kiner
13) Edd Roush
14) Quincy Trouppe
15) Dizzy Dean

I may end up without Dean after a compare him to a few others in my top 25 consideration set.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 11:21 AM (#2000529)
Dobie Moore's career was as long as Ralph Kiner's, loinger than Dizzy Dean's.
   32. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 11:41 AM (#2000539)
None of my guys got elected in '75--four of them came close!--so my ballot won't be changing much.

Oh, except for Drysdale, I did have him at #15 though I can't say that makes me much of an advocate for him. He was only my #5 pitcher, and not my PHoM choice. But anyway, I do have to decide who to slot into the #15 slot.

And I have to pick 2 more backloggers for my PHoM.

#16-20 (next in line for #15) are Oms, Duffy, Rizzuto, Fox and Keller. Duffy's WS numbers remain impressive but his OPS+ does absolutely nothing for me. I am torn there, but among "bats" I think I will focus on Oms and Keller. Among the "gloves" there's Rizzuto and Fox. No pitchers in that next tier.

For PHoM my next 5 in consideration are Griffith, Roush, Willis, Averill and Minoso--then Hack and Drysdale next. Then Doerr and the 5 I just mentioned. My focus will be on the top 6 (Griffith through Hack--the Oms, Rizzuto, Fox, Keller group is definitely a step behind that group, and Willis clearly beats Drysdale IMO).

If anybody wants to advocate for any of those 11 players, I am listening. All of them except Fox, who dropped a dozen slots or so, either moved up a bunch (Willis, Griffith, Roush, Oms) or just plain survived an extensive re-eval. for the 1975 ballot. That doesn't mean there couldn't be some more adjustments this backlog year.

Of course, for the Main Event, I have Sisler #4, Gordon #9, W. Brown #10 and Mendez #13. The list that far is stable, however, so I am not really thinking about that part of it too much. If I had voted last year, Sisler would have won. Oh, never mind, I did vote last year--but only once, darn. ;-)

Dobie Moore will be #1 again, with a bullet!
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2006 at 11:49 AM (#2000544)
I guess its fitting that you changed your name to "You Can Call me Grandma"...:]

:-D
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2006 at 11:53 AM (#2000545)
I continue to be impressed with how serious, open-minded and self-critical people are in this project -- nearly 80 years from the beginning.

We try to do so, Ivan. Thanks for the kind words.

Has anyone heard from Joe? It's sort of worrying that he didn't vote in the election, given his role as a founder of this project. He probably got bogged down with work or something, but his not voting just raised my (unfortunately, rather considerable) eyebrows a bit.

I guess your question has been answered now. :-)
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 11:59 AM (#2000549)
What is really interesting to me is that we are now not only into players that I saw play. We are now into players most of whose rookie seasons I remember. Ron Kline, no, but most of the rest.

I remember Jimmie Hall, of course, but that same year Pete Ward had an even better rookie season but like Hall fizzled out from there. Both played exactly 1963-70, Ward got those 17 extra WS, and Ward in fact played exactly 10 more games 973-963. The WS seem closer than you'd think if all you knew was that Ward was a 3B with a career OPS+ of 116 while Hall was an OF at 112. Not only that but both hit .254 for their careers but Ward's OBA was .339 to Hall's .321. Hall of course has a significant edge in SA .431 to .405. But Ward in fact played less than 60 percent of his games at 3B. He didn't play enough innings there to get a WS letter grade but appraently he wasn't great.

But his rookie year was at age 24 and for 2 years he was damn good.

1963 .295/.353/.482/135
1963 .282/.348/.473/130

Then he fell off the same cliff Hall did: OPS+ 104-(74)-19-17-1-2. That "2" was as a PH for the Yankees in 1970, getting 77 AB in 66 G and playing in the field only 13 times, all at 1B.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:14 PM (#2000556)
What is really interesting to me is that we are now not only into players that I saw play. We are now into players most of whose rookie seasons I remember. Ron Kline, no, but most of the rest.

Mays will be the first candidate that I saw when he's eligible in '79. Don't know about rookie seasons yet.
   37. TomH Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:24 PM (#2000559)
Duffy's case may rest on
1. How much credit should he get for his team's "extra" (overperforming Runs scored runs allowed) wins?
2. Is the Win Shares record of his defense (A+) in CF correct; or is it closer to the BP (Rate of 103, good but not great) evaluation?

I note that he moved to corner OF after the age of 28. Of the 36 A+ outfielders as rated by Win Shares, he may be the one with the least portion of time in CF. Someone will have to convince me to rank him among the top 40 defensive OFers ever, because I don't see it.
   38. Howie Menckel Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:26 PM (#2000561)
A bit vertical, but probably a good time to run it...

HOMers per year, min 10 G, listed thru 1965, results thru 1975 election

1856-59 - 1
1860-65 - 2 (3 in 1864)
1866-67 - 4
1868--- - 6
1869--- - 8
1870--- - 9

1871--- - 10
1872-78 - 12 (11 in 1877)
1879--- - 16
1880--- - 17
1881--- - 20

1882--- - 21 (1 AA)
1883--- - 20 (3 AA)
1884--- - 22 (3 AA, 1 UA)
1885--- - 23 (4 AA)
1886--- - 24 (4 AA + Grant)
1887--- - 23 (3 AA + Grant)
1888--- - 25 (4 AA + Grant)
1889--- - 25 (4 AA + Grant)
1890--- - 29 (14 PL, 14 NL, 0 AA + Grant)
1891--- - 32 (5 AA + Grant)

1892--- - 30 (Grant)
1893--- - 27 (Grant)
1894--- - 23 (Grant)
1895--- - 24 (Grant + Johnson)
1896-99 - 23 (Grant + Johnson)
1900--- - 22 (Grant + Johnson)

YEAR TOT (NL vs AL vs Negro Leagues)
1901----- 23 (16 to 5 to 2)
1902----- 24 (10 to 11 to 3)
1903----- 22 (8 to 10 to 4)
1904----- 24 (10 to 11 to 3)
1905----- 25 (10 to 12 to 3)
1906----- 24 (9 to 11 to 4)
1907----- 25 (8 to 13 to 4)
1908----- 26 (9 to 13 to 4)
1909----- 26 (8 to 14 to 4)
1910----- 27 (8 to 13 to 6)
1911----- 27 (10 to 11 to 6)
1912----- 26 (10 to 10 to 6)
1913----- 28 (10 to 11 to 7)
1914----- 26 (8 to 12 to 6)
1915----- 25 (9 to 9 to 7)
1916----- 32 (10 to 14 to 8)
1917----- 26 (8 to 12 to 6)
1918----- 22 (6 to 10 to 6)
1919----- 24 (8 to 10 to 6)
1920----- 25 (7 to 9 to 9)
1921----- 26 (7 to 10 to 9)
1922----- 30 (9 to 10 to 11)
1923----- 33 (9 to 10 to 14)
1924----- 37 (10 to 12 to 15)
1925----- 41 (10 to 16 to 15)
1926----- 44 (12 to 18 to 14)
1927----- 44 (11 to 18 to 15)
1928----- 44 (11 to 18 to 15)
1929----- 41 (11 to 16 to 14)
1930----- 40 (10 to 15 to 15)
1931----- 42 (10 to 16 to 16)
1932----- 44 (14 to 16 to 14)
1933----- 41 (13 to 16 to 12)
1934----- 41 (11 to 17 to 13)
1935----- 40 (12 to 16 to 12)
1936----- 40 (11 to 16 to 13)
1937----- 41 (10 to 18 to 13)
1938----- 36 (10 to 16 to 10)
1939----- 37 (10 to 15 to 12)
1940----- 40 (11 to 17 to 12)
1941----- 39 (12 to 15 to 12)
1942----- 34 (11 to 13 to 10)
1943----- 24 (8 to 8 to 8)
1944----- 19 (6 to 5 to 8)
1945----- 20 (4 to 6 to 10)
1946----- 29 (8 to 12 to 9)
1947----- 30 (12 to 11 to 7)
1948----- 28 (12 to 12 to 4)
1949----- 24 (11 to 12 to 1)

YEAR TOT (NL vs AL)
1950----- 23 (10 to 13)
1951----- 23 (10 to 13)
1952----- 20 (11 to 9)
1953----- 21 (11 to 10)
1954----- 20 (10 to 10)
1955----- 20 (11 to 9)
1956----- 21 (12 to 9)
1957----- 18 (10 to 8)
1958----- 17 (5 to 8)
1959----- 14 (8 to 7)
1960----- 13 (8 to 5)
1961----- 12 (8 to 4)
1962----- 12 (8 to 4)
1963----- 11 (7 to 4)
1964----- 8 (6 to 2)
1965----- 7 (5 to 2)

American Association/UA/PL references are to any HOMers who played in that league that year; already accounted for in the main number.

player seasons spent in 2 leagues - listed with main league.

Important adjustment: This time I added in seasons of Negro League players who were in Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, etc in the 1930s and 1940s. Ok, they didn't play in the (decimated and broke) Negro Leagues those years, but they were playing quality ball and to not list them would be far more misleading (makes careers like Dihigo and Bell look artificially shorter, for instance).
   39. Howie Menckel Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:36 PM (#2000563)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1975

HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct to be listed)

(I gave Mackey an "80" - seems like his other games were split all around the INF. Anyone think he played 10 pct of his games at 3B? That seems slightly high, so I didn't give him that yet.)

C (9.70) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (13.95) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, Mantle 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (11.15) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (7.23) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (15.18) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10

OF (42.45) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Mantle 88, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, Ward 11, White 10, JRobinson 10

SP (39.18) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

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

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.
   40. DL from MN Posted: May 02, 2006 at 12:37 PM (#2000564)
Prelim ballot:

1) Billy Pierce
2) Bob Johnson (first time as an elect-me)
3) Ralph Kiner
4) Ken Boyer
5) Tommy Bridges
6) Charlie Keller
7) Joe Gordon
8) Minnie Minoso
9) Virgil Trucks
10) Quincy Trouppe
11) Dutch Leonard
12) Bob Elliott
13) Joe Sewell
14) Jake Beckley (on ballot again)
15) Dick Bartell - this is where I have him without any war credit. Rowdy Dick will do wonders for my plummeting consensus score. If soneone has a decent argument for war credit he could beat out Beckley.
16-20) Chuck Klein, Gavy Cravath, Rube Waddell, Jose Mendez, Willard Brown
21-25) Urban Shocker, George Sisler, Tommy Leach, Edd Roush, Dobie Moore
26-30) Wally Berger, Al Oms, Dizzy Trout, Rocky Colavito, Fielder Jones
31-36) F Jones, J ryan, C Childs, P Browning, G Van H, V Willis, D Redding

I'm also interested in a more thorough look at Spots Poles and Ben Taylor, also Bill Monroe. I have a feeling all could be in my top 40. This is the first pure backlog election in a while.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:08 PM (#2000585)
HoM by era--there's really not much to whine about until you get to the discrepancy between the Golden Age (1925-1937) versus the post-WWII era (1946-? 1949-? 1957-? pick the start date of your choice). If someday we get the '50s and '60s up to around ther 30-35 range, well, that's still not quite right but it's damn close. But those are the questions: 1) What is going to happen to the period from the late '40s through whenever, and 2) When is whenever?

HoM by position--Mackey helps and obviously we're going to elect Johnny Bench and Gary Carter and Mike Piazza. The acid test will be the Joe Torres and Bill Freehans and Lance Parrishes of the world. We're going to have to be more supportive of some of the borderline catchers if we're going to equalize at catcher.

3B has a bunch of guys coming, though I haven't paused to calculate whether it will be enough. Maybe, but it might also depend on how we treat the guys not named Schmidt, Brett and Santo--i.e. B. Robby? Evans? Nettles? Bando? etc. etc.

In both cases, it seems clear enough that the current backlog is deader than David Palmer.
   42. Rusty Priske Posted: May 02, 2006 at 01:13 PM (#2000587)
It is funny that this is the year that yest puts Jimmy COlins in his PHoM, because I am doing the same thing.

Prelim:

PHoM: Lou Boudreau & Jimmy Collins


1. Willard Brown
2. George Van Haltren
3. Jake Beckley
4. Mickey Welch
5. Dobie Moore
6. George Sisler
7. Hugh Duffy
8. Tommy Leach
9. Nellie Fox
10. Edd Roush
11. Minnie Minoso
12. Sam Rice
13. Quincy Trouppe
14. Tony Mullane
15. Cupid Childs
   43. TomH Posted: May 02, 2006 at 02:40 PM (#2000640)
Nice charts/tables Howie.

Can someone post a quick 'years played' list for our NgL backloggers Brown, Mendez, Oms, Trouppe, Moore, Monroe, Redding, and anyone else I missed? I am surprised to see the fast rise in HoM among NgLers from 1919 to 1923.
   44. DavidFoss Posted: May 02, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#2000648)
Holy Hugh Duffy bonanza! Any chance of that stuff getting copied into the Hugh Duffy thread?
   45. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 02, 2006 at 03:45 PM (#2000660)
Crap. I just had a huge post erased because my Cherry Coke bumped the "ESC" key.

Short version: I'm the apologetic Negro League voter Paul mentioned back in post #9. I'm a little bit concerned that I might be giving Negro League candidates a bit of an easier time because there's fewer arguments presented against them, and the issues are largely philosophical instead of statistical, and I'm less likely to change my opinions on them.

The other side is that of the 6 Negro Leaguers high on my ballot, 3 are close to election (Brown, Mendez, Redding), and the other 3 are matched by 3 I don't have in my PHoM. If I specifically compare them (Trouppe/Mackey, Moore/Bell, Bill Monroe/Rube Foster), I still think my arguments make sense, although the last one feels like a decision I made 2 years ago that I haven't really reconsidered too much.
   46. Chris Cobb Posted: May 02, 2006 at 05:19 PM (#2000667)
From my eligibility spreadsheet, here are the dates for the NeL players Tom H asked about.
These are complete playing careers, as far as I know them. The MLE seasons for the players might well be different, of course, and in some cases my records of play in Latin America are a bit sketchy, so start and end dates for Latin careers may be off by a year or two.

Willard Brown 1935-56
Jose Mendez 1908-26
Alejandro Oms 1917-40? (may be a year or two off)
Quincy Trouppe 1930-54
Dobie Moore 1916?-26 (Moore was recruited to play for the 12th? Infantry Wreckers in 1916.)
Bill Monroe 1899-1914
Dick Redding 1911-32

and a few more stars, with special attention to early and late

Spotswood Poles 1909-23
Bruce Petway 1906-25
Ben Taylor 1910-29
Andy Cooper 1920-38
Dick Lundy 1916-37
Bus Clarkson 1937-56
Leroy Matlock 1929-42
Marvin Williams 1943-61
Artie Wilson 1944-57
Luke Easter 1947-64 (played for a St. Louis company team before the war: see his thread for full discussion)
George Scales 1921-48
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: May 02, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#2000670)
David, when Jimmie Hall refused to participate in the 40th anniversary of the Twins '65 AL champs (the only living member to do so) he said that he didn't feel like a former Twin, that he himself felt more like a former Yankee. These are his own words. The reason he gave is that the Twins had not contacted him more than once or twice if at all in those 40 years, whereas all former Yankees get regular newsletters and get free tickets to Yankee games whenever they want them and get frequent invitations to pparticipate in events at Yankee Stadium. IOW, the Boss apparently runs a hell of an alumni program.
   48. DavidFoss Posted: May 02, 2006 at 05:43 PM (#2000684)
he didn't feel like a former Twin, that he himself felt more like a former Yankee. These are his own words.

Oh, I wasn't doubting you, I just thought it was strange. Regular newsletters for decades certainly fosters a sense of membership, though. Those "alumni programs" sound quite interesting. It would give those former stars who get front office jobs (do they still have those) something constructive to do. That and pension eligibility -- but I would guess that would be more of a MLBPA thing and not a team thing.
   49. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#2000939)
Continuing with the five-year cohorts:

1901-1905

C

1B J Kelley (’01)

2B N Lajoie (’01-04)

3B J Collins (’01-05)
SS W Dahlen (’02-05), G Davis (’01-02, ‘04-05), G Johnson (’01-05), H Wagner (’01-05), RJ Wallace (’01-02, ’04-05)

LF J Burkett (’01-04), F Clarke (’01-03, ’05), E Delahanty (’01-02), P Hill (’04-05), S Magee (’05), SJ Sheckard (’01-03, ’05)

CF

RF S Crawford (’01-05), E Flick (’01, ’03-05), W Keeler (’01-02, ’04),

P M Brown (‘03-05), A Foster (’03-05), C Griffith (‘01, 03), C Mathewson (’01-05), J McGinnity (’01-04), C Nichols (’01, ’04), E Plank (’01-05), DT Young (’01-05)

Total HoMrs: 25



1906-1910

C

1B

2B E Collins (’09-10), N Lajoie (’06-10), JH Lloyd (’06-08)

3B F Baker (‘09-10)

SS W Dahlen (’06), G Johnson (’06-10), JH Loyd (’09-10), H Wagner (’06-10), RJ Wallace (’06-’08, 10)

LF F Clarke (’06-09), P Hill (’06-10), S Magee (’06-10), SJ Sheckard (’06-07,’09-10)

CF T Cobb (’10), S Crawford (’07-09), E Flick (’06), T Speaker (’09-10)

RF T Cobb (’07-09), S Crawford (’06,’10), E Flick (’07)

P M Brown (‘06-10), A Foster (’06-08, ’10), W Johnson (’08, 10), C Mathewson (’07-10), J McGinnity (’06), E Plank (’06-10), E Walsh (’06-10), DT Young (’07-08)

Total HoMrs: 24

*Pretty small cohorts, with 25 and 24 HoMr’s each. Good numbers of seasons at pitcher (eight HoMrs in each cohort) and shortstops, with quite likely the three best shortstops in baseball history playing during the decade.
*No seasons at catcher in either cohort, only one season at 1B, and no one at CF from 01-05. I looked back to the Pete Hill thread, but didn’t find any information about fielding. I9s lists him as a left fielder through most of his career, although he played some center, and is listed as a CF in the plaque room. I'm going with the i9s projection unless someone has better information.
*During their elections I didn’t pay close attention to the positions Cobb and Crawford played, since both were total no-brainers. I had no idea that Crawford played CF and Cobb played RF during the Tigers pennant years, 1907-09. Maybe their manager should have kept them there.

BALLOT RETURNEES

ROGER BRESNAHAN Yeah…not only would Roger give us some long overdue prime at catcher (1906-8), he would also give us two seasons at CF in ’03 and ’05, where we currently have no one from 1901-5, (although Pete Hill played at least some center during those years). Bresnahan will be back on my ballot after a long absence.

FRANK CHANCE His prime was 1903-08, and he has the best peak of anyone between the ABC boys and George Sisler. But he only has half the number of prime seasons as Beckley, so he is currently off my ballot.

RUBE WADDELL I have him as the third or fourth best pitcher of 1901-5, behind Cy Young and Christy Mathewson…McGinnity was probably better too, I’m not sure yet. I still think Waddell is the best pitcher on the board, and he’ll remain very high on my ballot.

TOMMY LEACH Someone has already done a seasonal notation on him. Played CF primarily in the second half of his career, when he was contemporary of Cobb and Speaker. He has 324 WS, and the Hall is short of third basemen who played before Eddie Mathews. Still, I now think Bob Elliott and Ken Boyer have better cases at 3B, and Leach is going to fall off my ballot, although he’ll remain in my top 25.
   50. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#2000943)
1911-1915

C L Santop (’11-15)

1B P Hill (’13-14)

2B E Collins (’11-15), H Groh (’14), N Lajoie (’12-13)

3B F Baker (‘11-14), H Groh (’15)

SS G Johnson (’11-12), JH Lloyd (’11-15), H Wagner (’11-12, 15)

LF F Clarke (’11), P Hill (’12), S Magee (’11, ’13-14), SJ Sheckard (’11), Z Wheat (’14)

CF M Carey (’12-13), T Cobb (’11-15), S Magee (’15), T Speaker (’11-15), C Torriente (’14-15)

RF S Crawford (’11-15), J Jackson (’11-15)

P GCAlexander (‘11-15), M Brown (‘11), UC Faber (’15), W Johnson (’11-15), C Mathewson (’11-13), E Plank (’11-12, 15), E Walsh (’11-12), J Williams (’13-15)

Total HoMr’s: 28

*A little better represented than the 1900s cohorts. Very strong in the OF, and P continues to be represented well. Still weak at 1B, although Santop checks in at C. That’s one reason I spent so much time on this darn thing. It’s interesting to see, in a visual pattern, who Santop’s contemporaries were.
BALLOT RETURNEES
JOSE MENDEZ This doesn’t add much to his candidacy either way. I have him at #4 during this period, behind Johnson, Alexander, and Mathewson, but obviously you don’t have to be one of those guys to get elected to the HoM. He’s been on my ballot for a long time, and I’m happy to see him near induction. However, I will likely still be forced to drop him from my ballot, as other pitchers have come to the fore during my re-evaluation.

GAVVY CRAVATH Much like Mendez; he’s been on my ballot the post few years, and this model neither really adds or subtracts from his candidacy. This is a tough cohort for right fielders: with minor league credit for ’11, I still have Cravath behind Jackson and Crawford in RF during ’11-15, and of course behind Cobb and Speaker as outfielders. The dates are a little unfair to him, though; if you change the years from 1913-17, then Cravath is the best RF in that period, although as an OF he’s still behind Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, and possibly Torriente. I’m not sure what I’m going to do with him on the next ballot.
   51. Paul Wendt Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:15 PM (#2000963)
It seems clear enough from the season statistics that Lenny Green was the defensive replacement. Jimmie Hall made 53 position switches within the outfield, CF to LF, I suppose. The team made at least 75 LF switches, 72 CF switches, and 11 RF switches; and at least 94 outfielder replacements. Allison made at least 7 switches, Hall at least 53, Green at least 16. (calculations by eye and mind, error-prone)
Minnesota 1963, with outfielding


Hugh Duffy in championship series (singular)
6g 3r 9rbi ; .462,.481,.846
Hugh Duffy, with postseason batting
   52. TomH Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:22 PM (#2000980)
quite likely the three best shortstops in baseball history playing during the decade

I'll give you two; Wagner and Lloyd would be my first 2; but which one do you count as #3?
   53. DavidFoss Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:37 PM (#2001008)
Minnesota 1963, with outfielding

Retrosheet has more detailed information here with G/GS/CG breakdowns for each player at each defensive position.
   54. jimd Posted: May 02, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#2001025)
I had forgotten about Roger Connor’s year at 2B. That must have been something to see.

Particularly because he was 6'3", 220lb and throws left.
David Ortiz is listed as 6'4, 230. Gives some idea.
Also demonstrates the complete non-importance of the dp-pivot...
   55. favre Posted: May 02, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2001091)
I'll give you two; Wagner and Lloyd would be my first 2; but which one do you count as #3?


Grant Johnson. I would actually have him at #2, and Lloyd at #3.
   56. jimd Posted: May 02, 2006 at 10:57 PM (#2001231)
FRANK VACCARO'S POST

Thanks Mike for posting this.

There was some discussion on the early ballot threads about the IA. I distinctly remember it WRT to Pud Galvin, and maybe for Ross Barnes and King Kelly, too.

This period predates the invention of the reserve clause, so there is unrestricted free-agency once a contract expired. The economic relationship between the cities of the NL and of the IA would parallel that of today's large-market and small-market clubs. It's possible that the differences in the quality of play might be no wider. While I would like more evidence before accepting any claim of equality between the two circuits, the claim that the IA was better than the UA or FL or early AA has credibility.

The implications of accepting that claim could be some extra credit for: Fred Dunlap, Bobby Mathews, Jim McCormick, Levi Meyerle, Mickey Welch, and Ned Williamson, to mention those who have received the most HOM support in the past.
   57. Brent Posted: May 03, 2006 at 03:58 AM (#2001725)
Hugh Duffy in championship series (singular)
6g 3r 9rbi ; .462,.481,.846

He also did pretty well in the 1897 Temple Cup series:
5 g 6r 7rbi ; .524, .545, .619
   58. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: May 03, 2006 at 10:00 AM (#2001823)
Great stuff so far wow.

Favre walking us through time. Showing gaping holes that Charley Jones and Jake Beckley could fill :-)

Kelly's Keltner List for Duffy. Say that 5 times really fast.

Mike W's posting of Frank Vaccaro's comments.

Howie's list of year by year HoMers.

James N. tossing in a re-eval of Spots Poles.

Other stuff I'm probably forgetting.

Way to go guys, being that this is a backlog year, it's a very good time to reevaluate everything.

One thing I noticed from Frank Vaccaro's post to SABR-L, I agree with jimd - especially on Ed Williamson, Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick (all players I've voted for in the past). How much extra credit should they be getting? Especially for Williamson and Welch - could that be a difference maker?

Kelly great job with the Keltner list - one question regarding #7. Doesn't choosing the exact 1890-99 period skew the results in Duffy's favor? That lines it up perfectly for him. It centers on his age 27-28 seasons. It ends in his last full-time season.

How would it look if you considered say 5-6 extra years on either end, like 1885-1905? Basically by comparing Duffy using 1890-99, you are giving him the advantage of lining it up exactly with his productive years. GVH for example is a year older during that time, so he's being judged on 24-33, instead of 23-32. Probaby not a big deal. But Jimmy Ryan was 27-36 during this period, much of which was past his prime. Willie Keeler was 18-27, so his 1900-1904 isn't counted.

I think the only 'fair' way to do it is to either make the time period 5 or 6 years longer on either end, or take all players that played during the period of 1890-99 and then compare Duffy to their age 23-32 seasons.

Great work, but that's my one qualm.
   59. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: May 03, 2006 at 10:57 AM (#2001829)
In both cases, it seems clear enough that the current backlog is deader than David Palmer.

Marc,

Thanks for outing yourself as a "24" fan -- it may be the one thing on which you and I agree!

"You're going to have to shoot down that plane, Mr. President." -- I thought that President Logan was going to crap his pants when he heard that!

Anyway, time to put the finishing touches on a college application, then off to bed.
   60. TomH Posted: May 03, 2006 at 12:16 PM (#2001849)
what makes a player underrated?

I'm thinking of a Bill James in the 80s Abstracts, where he listed factors that caused a player not to get noticed; poor park, mulit-skilled vs one shining talent, etc.

So, HOM-ies, what KINDS of players are undervalued by our group? We supposedly saber-minded guys have accounted for the basis park effects, and even incoporated subtle things like defense behind the pitchers. But I'll postulate a few items here:

1. lack of stellar peak seasons in Win Shares or WARP
2. lack of great career accomplishments
3. being the best at one's position; I list this since we have a shortage of C and 3Bmen; not sure how better to say it
4. playing in conditions that made it tough to accumulate value, such as being an infielder in the rough-n-tumble 1890s

what else is there?

From the above list, one of my favorites is crying "pick me! pick me!" The ony player I can think of who is 4-for-4 is my pal Mugsy. KJOK (a.k.a. Best Friend Of John McGraw) can take a bow.
   61. sunnyday2 Posted: May 03, 2006 at 12:39 PM (#2001851)
I first watched 24 this very season, but since have rented and watched all 4 previous seasons. The only episode that I have not seen, now, is the very very pivotal 1st episode of Day 5. But I think I've heard enough about it to know what happened.

Just finished Day 4 last night. The first season was very very good and many say that Day 5 is the best so far. But I kinda like Day 4. Marwan is the best bad guy yet. More formidable in his own way than President Logan. Logan is protected by all the powers of his office. With Marwan it just his wiles that made him so tough.

Anybody know--was the female hostile at the very very end of Day 4 the same one (Mandy) who takes down the jumbo jet at the beginning of Day 1?

And I hear that there will be a movie, and it will cleverly be a prequel so that Palmer and Nina and Teri and all of the very best characters can be there. Can't wait.
   62. sunnyday2 Posted: May 03, 2006 at 02:48 PM (#2001888)
This is my second attempt at the following comment. If the first effort pops up, my apologies (but I sent it in before #61).

Most importantly we are:

• Underrating the WWII generation

• And similarly, underrating the integration generation of black players

These are the main issues for me.

I still don't really think we have elected anybody who fought in WWII that we wouldn't have elected without WWII credit anyway.

And the black players whose careers were chopped up into NeL/ML/MiL/Latin leagues have really suffered. We have elected from 10 to 16 NeLers from 1922-1942 and 1945, and one NeLer from 1949. Then how many blacks who were active in the MLs inthe 1950s? I don't know off hand, favre isn't far enough along in his cohortization, but it will be very interesting to see what he's got on this time period. But I'm guessing that looking at it by 5 year cohorts that the black players who were born 1920-1925 and/or 1925-1930 we're going to drop from 6 or 8, to 1 or 2, and then back to 6 or 8.

I'd like to see more work on some of those guys. I don't know if that is Artie Wilson or Bus Clarkson, it probably includes Luke Easter and I don't know who else. The likelihood is there was some very very good talent out there that we haven't quite come to grips with yet.

But my wish list for this project is to do a better job with players, both white and black, who peaked in the 1940s and suffered career disruptions unprecedented since 1880 or so.
   63. DavidFoss Posted: May 03, 2006 at 02:49 PM (#2001890)
Anybody know--was the female hostile at the very very end of Day 4 the same one (Mandy) who takes down the jumbo jet at the beginning of Day 1?

Yep... she's a fan favorite. She's also the same one with the deadly handshake at the end of season 2. There is always a rumor about when she'll turn up next and the show has been pretty smart in making her appearances rare enough to be 'events'.
   64. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 03, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2001904)
I still don't really think we have elected anybody who fought in WWII that we wouldn't have elected without WWII credit anyway.

Hopefully, that will change in '76, Marc.
   65. Daryn Posted: May 03, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2001905)
Anybody know--was the female hostile at the very very end of Day 4 the same one (Mandy) who takes down the jumbo jet at the beginning of Day 1?

Yep... she's a fan favorite. She's also the same one with the deadly handshake at the end of season 2. There is always a rumor about when she'll turn up next and the show has been pretty smart in making her appearances rare enough to be 'events'.


She also stars in the L Word, a lesbian drama on Canadian TV at least. She's a huge star on the 24 internet fora. Mia Kershner.
   66. favre Posted: May 03, 2006 at 05:17 PM (#2001957)
Keeping the cohorts coming…

1916-1920

C L Santop (’16-17, 20)

1B

2B E Collins (’16-20), R Hornsby (’20), JH Lloyd (’20)

3B F Baker (‘17-19), H Groh (’16-20), R Hornsby (’16, ’19), R. Mackey (‘20)

SS R Hornsby (’17-18), JH Lloyd (’16, ’18)

LF O Charleston (’17, ‘20), J Jackson (’16-17, ’19-20), GH Ruth (’18-19), Z Wheat (‘16-20)

CF M Carey (’16-18, ‘20), O Charleston (’18-19), T Cobb (’16-20), T Speaker (’16-20), C Torriente (’16-20)

RF H Heilmann (’19), GH Ruth (’20)

P G.C. Alexander (‘16-17, ‘19-20), S Coveleski (’17-20), UC Faber (’16-17, ’20), W Johnson (’16-19), E Plank (’16), E Rixey (’16, 17), W Rogan (’20), GH Ruth (’16-17), J Williams (’16-20)

Total HoMr’s: 24

1921-1925

C C Hartnett (‘24-25), R Mackey (’23, ’25) L Santop (’21)

1B G Suttles (’25), J Wilson (’23-25)

2B E Collins (’21-25), F Frisch (’22-25), R Hornsby (’21-25), JH Lloyd (’21-23), R Mackey (’22)

3B J Beckwith (‘21-2, ‘24-5), F Frisch (’21)

SS J Beckwith (‘23), R Mackey (’24)

LF L Goslin (’24-25), GH Ruth (’21-22), N Stearnes (’24), Z Wheat (’21-22, ’24-25)

CF J Bell (‘25), M Carey (’21-25), O Charleston (’21-25), T Cobb (’21-25), A Simmons (’25), T Speaker (’21-25), N Stearnes (’23, ’25), C Torriente (’21, 23)

RF H Heilmann (’21-25), GH Ruth (’23-24)

P GC Alexander (‘21-23, ‘25), S Coveleski (’21-23, ’25), UC Faber (’21-23), W Johnson (’21-22, 24-25), T Lyons (’25), E Rixey (’21-25), W Rogan (’21-25), C Vance (’24-25), J Williams (’21-24)

Total HoMrs: 31

*Please take a moment and look at the outfielders from 1916-1925. This ten-year period has to have the highest concentration of talent at that position than any other time in baseball history. Tick off the names: Ruth, Charleston, Cobb, Speaker, Torriente, Jackson, …and, uh, Max Carey. And that’s not all: you have Collins, Hornsby, and Frisch at second base; Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, and Smokey Joe Williams at pitcher. Pop Lloyd is coming to the end of his prime, but still having very good seasons at 2B/SS. That’s lot of top-tier, in-the-best-of-all-time-conversation talent.
*Biz Mackey begins his prime and career in this cohort, playing 2B, 3B, and SS in various seasons.
*The '21-25 cohort has 31 HoMr's. That's more than any previous cohort, although still well short of the 1926-40 period, which averages about 40 HoMr's.

BALLOT RETURNEES
DOBIE MOORE I’ll wait for Chris’ projections before giving a full-on argument for Moore. Looking at the cohort, he’s pretty clearly the best SS in baseball from 1919-1925.

GEORGE SISLER The HoM drought at 1B continues from 1897 until 1923. Sisler will give the HoM prime at the position from 1916-22. A worthy inductee; he will continue to be high on my ballot.

DICK REDDING I honestly don’t have a sense of how good he was. Someone once compared him to Orel Hershiser, which has stuck in my mind, but he may well have been better than Bulldog. I tentatively have his prime from 1915-22. We’ve already elected a number of pitchers from that period, so this template doesn’t encourage me to put Redding on the ballot.

EDD ROUSH His prime was more or less 1916-26, except for his injury year in ’23. Again, there was A LOT of talent in the OF, particularly CF, during that period. That might be worth considering if Roush is borderline on/off your ballot.
   67. OCF Posted: May 03, 2006 at 05:19 PM (#2001959)
Hank Aguirre is eligible this year. 1376 IP at a 116 ERA+ doesn't make him a serious candidate, of course, even if he did have an isolated great year in 1962 (185 ERA+ in 216 innings as a swingman).

I brought him up to comment on another facet of his playing skills, or lack thereof: Aguirre was a worse hitter than Sandy Koufax. The very year I'm citing as his best pitching year, 1962, produced this offensive line: 80 plate appearances, 4 sacrifices, one walk, two singles, 46 strikeouts. .027/.039/.027, OPS+ -84.

For his career, Koufax was .097/.145/.116 and struck out in 45% of his plate appearances. Aguirre "topped" that with career marks of .085/.117/.108, striking out in 55% of his plate appearances.

This was noticed at the time. I vaguely remember long-ago commentary on him, and when I saw his name, I said, "Wasn't he a terrible hitter? I should look him up."

Oddity: he's listed as bats right, throws left. These days, coaches and managers get paranoid about exposing the pitching arm to HBP (although Aguirre was good at staying out of the way - never hit in his entire career). But it's not like turning around to bat left could have done him much harm.
   68. DavidFoss Posted: May 03, 2006 at 06:03 PM (#2002009)
For his career, Koufax was .097/.145/.116 and struck out in 45% of his plate appearances. Aguirre "topped" that with career marks of .085/.117/.108, striking out in 55% of his plate appearances.

Next year brings the other Cy Young winner from Dodger Stadium, Dean Chance, and his .066/.113/.069 line.
   69. OCF Posted: May 03, 2006 at 06:03 PM (#2002010)
Sunday, June 4, 1967, second game of a doubleheader. The only start a 37-year-old Aguirre would make all that year.

TIGERS 2ND: Horton made an out to shortstop; Northrup singled to
first; Price doubled to left [Northrup to third]; Cash struck
out; Oyler was walked intentionally; Aguirre tripled to center
[Northrup scored, Price scored, Oyler scored]; Stanley made an
out to center; 3 R, 3 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Tigers 3, Yankees 0.

Aguirre stayed in the game long enough to strike out in his second AB. Then he never batted again for the rest of the year. It was the only triple of his career (and he had no HR). The event left him with a positively Forsterian batting line of .500/.500/1.500 for 1967.

As for the intentional walk to Ray Oyler - hey, it was Oyler's best offensive year: .207/.281/.264 (61).
   70. OCF Posted: May 03, 2006 at 06:19 PM (#2002028)
Chance also struck out in 55% of his plate appearances. What's particularly noticeable about Chance is the lack of power. Koufax has a career XBH line of 9-0-2 in 776 AB, Aguirre 7-1-0 in 388 AB, but Chance only 2-0-0 in 662 AB. In slight defense of Chance: he may have been a better bunter. Chance has one SH per 12.4 PA, Aguirre one SH per 17.8 PA, and Koufax one SH per 24.5 PA.
   71. DavidFoss Posted: May 03, 2006 at 06:34 PM (#2002033)
What's particularly noticeable about Chance is the lack of power

Dean Chance career ISO: .003

Impressive. :-)
   72. favre Posted: May 03, 2006 at 08:15 PM (#2002114)
More cohorts...

1926-1930


C GS Cochrane (’27-30), W Dickey (’29-30), C Hartnett (27-28, ’30), R Mackey (’26, ’28, ’30)

1B O Charleston (’29), J Foxx (’29-30), HL Gehrig (’26-30), G Suttles (’26-30), W Terry (’27-30), J Wilson (’29)

2B M Dihigo (’27, ’28), F Frisch (’26-30), C Gehringer (’27-30), R Hornsby (’26-29), J Wilson (’28)

3B J Beckwith (‘28), M Dihigo (’26, ’30), J Foxx (’28), J Wilson (’26-27, 30)

SS J Beckwith (‘26-7, ‘29), J Cronin (’30), W Wells (‘26-30)

LF M Dihigo (’29), L Goslin (’26-28, ’30), GH Ruth (’26), A Simmons (’28-30), N Stearnes (’30)

CF HE Averill (‘29-30), J Bell (‘26), O Charleston (’26-28), A Simmons (’26-27), T Speaker (’26), N Stearnes (’26-29)

RF T Cobb (’27), H Heilmann (’26-30), M Ott (’28-30), GH Ruth (’27-30), P Waner (’26-30)

P GC Alexander (‘26-28), S Coveleski (’26), W Ferrell (’29-30), W Foster (’26-30), R Grove (’26-30), C Hubbell (’29-30), T Lyons (’26-27, 30), L Paige (’28, ’30), E Rixey (’26-29), W Rogan (’26-28), C Vance (’27-30), J Williams, (’26-27, 29)


Total HoMrs: 41


1931-1935


C GS Cochrane (’31-35), W Dickey (’31-35), J Gibson (’31-35), G Hartnett (’33-35), R Mackey (’31)

1B O Charleston (’31-33), J Foxx (’31-35), HL Gehrig (’31-35), H Greenberg (’34-35)
W Leonard (’34), G Suttles (’32-35), W Terry (’31-35), J Wilson (’34-35)

2B F Frisch (’31, 33), C Gehringer (’32-35), W Herman (’32, ’35), R Hornsby (’31)

3B J Beckwith (‘31), S Hack (’35), J Wilson (’31-33)

SS L Appling (‘33, ‘35), J Cronin (’31-33), A Vaughan (’32-35), W Wells (’31-33)

LF J Bell (‘35), L Goslin (’31-32), J Medwick (’33-35), A Simmons (’31-34), G Suttles (’31)

CF HE Averill (‘31-35), J Bell (‘31-34), M Ott (’31), N Stearnes (’31-35)

RF M Ott (’32-35), GH Ruth (’31-34), P Waner (’31-35)

P R Brown (‘34-5), M Dihigo (’35), W Ferrell (’31-32, ’34-35), W Foster (’31-32), R Grove (’31-33, ‘35), C Hubbell (’31-35), T Lyons (’32, 35), L Paige (’32-35), C Ruffing (’31, 35), J Williams (’31)


Total HoMr’s: 42
   73. Chris Cobb Posted: May 03, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#2002117)
Just a quite note in case anyone misses it: I've posted new MLEs for Dobie Moore on his thread. No great surprises in the results, but some changes that might change the view of him a little, and for anyone who was uncomfortable relying on the unmethodical old MLES for Moore, these were produced using the fully developed system that I applied to the later NeL candidates.
   74. favre Posted: May 03, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#2002118)
1936-1940


C W Dickey (’36-39), J Gibson (’36-40), G Hartnett (’37)

1B M Dihigo (’37), J Foxx (’36-40), HL Gehrig (’36-38), H Greenberg (’37-40), W Leonard (‘36-40), J Mize (’36-40), G Suttles (’36), J Wilson (’36)

2B R Doerr (’40), C Gehringer (’36-40), W Herman (’36-37, ’39)

3B S Hack (’36-40), M Ott (’38)

SS L Appling (‘36-37, ‘39-40), L Boudreau (‘40), J Cronin (’36-40), M Irvin (’40), A Vaughan (’36-40), W Wells (’38-40)

LF J DiMaggio (’36), L Goslin (’36), J Medwick (’36-39), G Suttles (’37), T Williams (’40)

CF HE Averill (‘36-38), J Bell (’37-38, ‘40), J DiMaggio (’37-40), N Stearnes (’36-37)

RF M Ott (’35-37, 39-40), E Slaughter (’39-40), N Stearnes (’38), P Waner (’36-37), T Williams (’39)

P R Brown (‘36, ‘38-40), M Dihigo (’36, 38), R Feller (’38-40), R Grove (’36-39), C Hubbell (’36-38), T Lyons (’37-40), L Paige (’36-37), C Ruffing (‘36-40)


Total HoMrs: 39


*The 1926-40 period is the period with the most inductees in the HoM, a fact which we’ve known for a long time, of course. I do think it’s it worth noting that the ’21-25 cohort has 31 HoMrs, while the ’26-30 cohort has 41. We should not think of the entire 1920s as having extremely high representation.

*We don’t have a lot of candidates getting votes from this period, probably because we’ve elected damn well nearly everybody. Alejandro Oms and Bob Johnson finished at #28 and #29 in the voting, with twelve and thirteen votes a piece; Dizzy Dean came in at #36 with nine votes.

I think it would be prudent for voters to re-evaluate whether these guys should be on the ballot. I’m directing this more towards those voters who consider them borderline cases. Both Oms and Johnson had one elect-me votes a piece in the last election. I wouldn’t expect to sway those voters. Clearly they think that they are the most eligible players on the ballot, no matter how many other players have been elected from that time period. I’m not trying to argue against their cases here, and I’m certainly not saying that the fact that we already have forty or so players from that time period destroys their candidacy. But if these players are at the bottom of your ballot, then it might be worth asking yourself: how does this outfielder or pitcher compare to his contemporaries? Does he stack up reasonably well, or are there other players from different eras that might be worth taking another look at?

To show that I’m putting my money where my mouth is, I’m dropping Alejandro Oms from my ballot. I was once Oms’ best friend; I had him in an elect me spot several times during the 1960s. In the past few years I lowered him to mid-ballot, but I’ve still been a strong advocate for him. He was an excellent player, and I don’t regret supporting his candidacy. But he also played in an era with Ruth, Ott, Stearnes, Waner, and Simmons; Oms was simply not int the class as those guys. And that, of course, does not exhaust his contemporaries in the OF we’ve elected: he also played with Goslin, Averill, Medwick. and Bell. This tier more accurately reflects his talent level, and he was pretty close to a clone of Averill. But I’m not sure he was better than Goslin, his projected peak is nowhere near Medwick, and his career value was nowhere near Bell’s. So Oms is maybe the seventh, eighth, ninth best outfielder of his era…again, Alejandro was a fine player. But given that we want to be fair to all eras and positions, and his position and his era are represented extremely well in the HoM, I can’t see supporting him when there are other eras and positions that are undrerrepresented. End of soapbox.
   75. DL from MN Posted: May 03, 2006 at 11:08 PM (#2002259)
I have Bob Johnson as an elect-me and I do recognize that 26-40 is well represented. However, Johnson also qualifies as a 40-45 candidate which I believe is underpicked.
   76. jimd Posted: May 04, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#2002603)
2B ... JH Lloyd (’21-23), ...

3B J Beckwith (‘21-2, ‘24-5), F Frisch (’21)

SS J Beckwith (‘23), R Mackey (’24)

There is a hole in the HOM representation at SS during the early 1920's.

Beckwith was primarily a 3b-man and Lloyd had gotten older, shifted to 2B.

It's clear who the best SS in baseball was during this interval: Joe Sewell.
   77. sunnyday2 Posted: May 04, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2002805)
>It's clear who the best SS in baseball was during this interval: Joe Sewell.

You need to add the qualifier "in ML baseball" here. Dobie Moore was the best SS in the civilized world at this time.
   78. sunnyday2 Posted: May 04, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#2002826)
Note 14 NeLer HoMers active 1931-35 and 11 1936-40.

I am very anxious to see how many from the 1940s and how many MLers in the 1950s. It's my sense that the demise of the NeLs, and the fact that integration was not a smooth process for the vast majority of black players, has resulted in our very much underestimating some black ballplayers from this era. But we shall see.
   79. Brent Posted: May 04, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#2002841)
Dean Chance career ISO: .003

Impressive. :-)


During the 1960s I can remember something called the "Most Horrible Hitter" award, which I believe it was given as a joke to the worst hitting pitcher. I particularly remember seeing a picture of Koufax receiving the award one year - I'm not sure where I saw it, but it was probably in either the Street & Smith annual or the Dodgers yearbook.

I googled it and couldn't find anything, so I assume it must have disappeared long ago.
   80. jimd Posted: May 04, 2006 at 01:59 AM (#2003039)
Dobie Moore was the best SS in the civilized world at this time.

Dobie Moore MLE's (from the Moore thread, already adjusted to 162)
vw Joe Sewell ML (adjusted to 162)

1920 24
1921 34 28
1922 36 22
1923 26 31
1924 31 23
1925 28 26
1926 -- 31
--- 179 161

Sewell then adds 3 more full seasons at the 22-24 rate (the last at 3B) and 3 more at 16-18 (they would be 20-22 but he is no longer durable). (Partial season for Moore in 1926 removed for ease of comparison)

I think the extra longevity offsets the peak shortfall. Sewell has 291 career WS (adjusted to 162G), Moore 194. YMMV, and in this case, it obviously does.
   81. Brent Posted: May 04, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#2003046)
To show that I’m putting my money where my mouth is, I’m dropping Alejandro Oms from my ballot. I was once Oms’ best friend; I had him in an elect me spot several times during the 1960s. In the past few years I lowered him to mid-ballot, but I’ve still been a strong advocate for him. He was an excellent player, and I don’t regret supporting his candidacy. But he also played in an era with Ruth, Ott, Stearnes, Waner, and Simmons; Oms was simply not int the class as those guys. And that, of course, does not exhaust his contemporaries in the OF we’ve elected: he also played with Goslin, Averill, Medwick. and Bell

Why don't you throw in Cobb and Speaker too? Actually, I'd argue that Oms (b. 1895) was closer to a contemporary of Cobb (b. 1886) and Speaker (b. 1888) than he was to Ott (b. 1909) and Medwick (b. 1911).

If we were to limit his list of contemporaries to just the players born +/- 5 years, that is from 1890-99, we're talking about five outfield HoMers--Ruth, Charleston, Torriente, Heilmann, and Carey--and candidate Roush. That's not an unusually large 10-year cohort. I can't see penalizing the candidacy of Oms just because an unusually large cohort emerged in the late stages of his career.
   82. jimd Posted: May 04, 2006 at 02:08 AM (#2003094)
Dobie Moore new MLE's (from the Moore thread, not adjusted to 162)
vw Joe Sewell ML (un-adjusted to 162, best 5 seasons)

1921 23 26
1922 31 (21)
1923 32 29
1924 33 (22)
1925 25 24
1926 -- 29
1928 -- 23
--- 134 131
   83. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 04, 2006 at 02:41 AM (#2003256)
It still looks like Dobie Moore was the best SS in the civilized world from 1920-1925 to me. You could argue that Sewell was the better player overall but during that time it is pretty obvious that Moore was better.
   84. Trevor P. Posted: May 04, 2006 at 02:53 AM (#2003311)
A year-by-year OPS+ look at how Bob Johnson stacks up vs. the ten other HOM ML outfielders listed by favre above:

1931 - Johnson did not play.
1932 - Johnson did not play.
1933 - Fourth (134) out of eight, behind Ruth (176), Ott (139) and Waner (135)
1934 - Fifth (143) out of eight, behind Ott (168), Ruth (161), Waner (155) and Averill (149)
1935 - Third (130) out of seven, behind Ott (156) and Medwick (151)
1936 - Seventh (125) out of eight, behind all but Simmons
1937 - Fourth (147) out of eight, behind Medwick (180), Ott (150) and Dimaggio (168)
1938 - Third (141) out of eight, behind Ott (178) and Averill (141)
1939 - Fourth (155) out of nine, behind Dimaggio (185), Ott (174) and Williams (160)
1940 - Fifth (129) out of seven, behind Dimaggio (173), Williams (162), Ott (137) and Slaughter (133)

Bob Johnson - fourth or fifth best outfielder of the 1930s?
   85. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: May 04, 2006 at 05:53 AM (#2003483)
A THOUGHT ON POSITIONAL BONUSES

Figuring out positional bonuses has been the devil for me since the start of this project. Any number I choose, especially for pitchers and catchers, seems to be little more than dart-throwing. I think I have figured out a way how to get something concrete using Win Shares. If we can figure out the proportion of Win Shares earned by each position, we can then assign credits or debits accordingly. For example, what if the distribution for Win Shares looked like this:

POSITIONAL DISTRIBUTION
OF WIN SHARES BY PERCENTAGE

P: 33.00
C: 7.00
1B: 9.00
2B: 8.50
SS: 8.75
3B: 7.25
LF: 9.00
CF: 8.50
RF: 9.00

To put pitchers on the same footing as positional players, let's divide by five (on the assumption that an ace starter would pitch 20 percent of a team's innings -- around 280 innings for a 162-game season). The distribution would then look like this:

P: 6.60
C: 7.00
1B: 9.00
2B: 8.50
SS: 8.75
3B: 7.25
LF: 9.00
CF: 8.50
RF: 9.00
AVERAGE: 8.18

Positional bonuses and discounts would then look like this:
P: 24%
C: 17%
1B: -9%
2B: -4%
SS: -7%
3B: 13%
LF: -9%
CF: -4%
RF: -9%

Now, these numbers are nothing more than guesses. However, if someone out there has a sortable database of Win Shares, we can figure out the actual distribution of value and act accordingly, even if it is deciding that certain positions were simply less valuable.

We agree that, for instance, catchers as a whole have not accrued as much value as corner outfielders. We ought to figure out exactly how much.
   86. Kelly in SD Posted: May 04, 2006 at 06:03 AM (#2003488)
Joe,

Re: Post 58.

I agree that the 1890-1899 numbers are cherry picking. But, I was using the STATS All-Time Handbook/Sourcebook and that is the way they break things out.

I was wondering if voters would like me to repost my Keltner Lists for Charley Jones, Jake Beckley, and Mickey Welch? I have a Jennings one also, but he actually got elected.
   87. Kelly in SD Posted: May 04, 2006 at 07:25 AM (#2003508)
A Willard Brown Recap:

First, a look at his career by year, then his Puerto Rico Winter League and Texas League careers broken out.

<u>1934</u>: Signed to minor league Monroe Monarchs

<u>1935</u>: Signed to the KC Monarchs, played SS, no data.

<u>1936</u>: 11 for 30 in seven league contests; t-5th in the league in AVG.

<u>1937</u>: .361 average; <u>Led NAL in HR (9), HR/550 (24), doubles (13), triples (8)</u>; 6 SB tied for fourth, though KC may have been only team reported.
-8/20 in playoff series
-1/2 in WS (with CHI)
-5/13 vs. White players
-8/55 in Cuba.

<u>1938</u>: Switched to CF for KC. <u>Led league in HR (6), HR/550 (29), SB (10)</u>; Second in league with 3 triples and fifth in AVG (.362).

<u>1939</u>: CF. <u>Led league in doubles (9) and SB (3)</u>; Second in HR (2); Third in HR/550 (9); Fifth in AVG (.343).

<u>1940</u>: Mexico, Nuevo Laredo, OF. 294 ABs, .354, 18 doubles, 4 triples, 8 HR, 61 RBI, 10 BB, 15 K, 13 SB, .524 SLG.

<u>1941</u>: a) Mexico, Aguila, OF. 125 ABs, .256, 7 doubles, 0 tirples, 2 HR, 24 RBI, 4 BB, 5 K, 5 SB, .360 SLG - I believe Gadfly has said this is not the same Brown...

b) KC, CF. <u>1st in HR (2), doubles (4), HR/550 (11)</u>; 2nd in triples (4); fourth in AVG (.347)

c) 2nd in P.R. Winter League with .409 avg.

<u>1942</u>: KC, LF, <u>led league in HR (9), HR/550 (24), SB (3)</u>; second in triples (3); third in doubles (4), .310 average.
-7/17 in playoffs
-2/3 vs. whites.

<u>1943</u>: KC, CF. Led league in HR (6); second in HR/550 (28); third in doubles (5), .309 average.

1944-1945: Military service.

<u>1946</u>: KC, LF, <u>Led league in HR (13), HR/550 (102!!!)</u>, second in AVG (.348), third in SB (13) [no data on doubles and triples]
-Playoff 7/29
-P.R. Winter league: 99/124 (.390) to lead league in average.

<u>1947</u>: a) KC, CF. hit .336.
b) MLB, you know the story.
c) P.R. Winter League, 101/234 (.432) to lead league, 27 HR to lead league. 86 RBI to lead the league. Brown wins Triple Crown.

<u>1948</u>: KC, CF. <u>Led league in HR (18), HR/550 (101!!!)</u>; second in SB (13); third in doubles (20) and AVG (.374).
-P.R. Winter League. .323 AVG. and 18 HR (per Riley).

Holway numbers end, we're in Riley territory now.

1949: .371 AVG
-P.R. Winter League: 16 HR, .353 AVG, 97 RBI. Wins Triple Crown again.

1950: Border League, Ottowa. .352 AVG, 1 HR, 18 RBI*
-P.R. Winter League. 14 HR, .325 AVG.

1951: P.R. Winter League. .295.

1952: P.R. Winter League. .342.

1953: Texas League, Dallas. Hit .310 with 23 HR, 108 RBI.
-P.R. Winter League. .265.

1954: Texas League, Houston. Hit .314, 25 HR (another source, http://www.attheplate.com/wcbl/majorleaguers.htm, says 35 HR), 120 RBI.

1955: Texas League. Hit .301, 19 HR, 104.

1956: a) Texas League, Austin, San Antonio, Tulsa. Hit .299, 14 HR, 73 RBI.
b) Western League, Topeka. Hit .294 with 3 HR, 14 RBI.
-P.R. Winter League, Santurce. .261, 2 HR, 23 AB, 5 RBI.

1957: Mandak League, Minot. .307 AVG, 9 HR, 29 RBI

*per http://www.attheplate.com/wcbl/majorleaguers.htm

Brown's Puerto Rican Record:
YEAR-AB-R-H-2B-3B-HR-RBI-BA-SA
41-42 122 22 050 13 04 04 26 .409 .680
46-47 254 44 099 25 04 09 50 .390 .626
47-48 234 79 101 20 05 27 86 .432 .906
48-49 294 59 095 20 03 18 69 .323 .595
49-50 331 65 117 21 06 16 97 .354 .598
50-51 305 57 099 19 03 14 76 .325 .544
51-52 112 14 033 04 01 04 22 .295 .455
52-53 114 20 039 07 00 03 20 .342 .482
56-57 023 02 006 00 00 02 05 .261 .522
TOT 1940 378 679 135 27 101 473 .350 .604

NOTES
Played with Santurce every year except the first.
1941-42 Finished 2nd in BA (behind Josh Gibson)
1946-47 Finished 1st in R, H, BA.
1947-48 Finished 1st in R, HR, RBI, BA (Triple Crown) also finished just 1 behind the league leaders in H (101-102) and 2B (20-21).
1948-49 Finished tied for 1st in HR.
1949-50 Finished 1st in H, HR, RBI, BA (Triple Crown) and second in 2B.
1950-51 Finished 1st in RBI, 2nd in HR, 3rd in H

From Jorge Colon Delgado, Post 90
Willard Brown is the most productive player in the PRWL. He's first in lifetime average (.350) and slugging (.603).

Other highlights of his carrer are:

<u>Batting Leader(3)</u>; (1946-47) (1947-48) (1949-50)
<u>MVP</u> (1); (1949-50)
<u>Home Runs</u> (3); (1947-48) (1948-49) (1949-50)
<u>Hits</u> (2); (1946-47) (1949-50)
<u>Runs</u> (1); (1947-48)
<u>RBI's</u> (4); (1946-47) (1947-48) (1949-50) (1950-51)
<u>Slugging</u> (2); (1947-48) (1949-50)
<u>Triple Crown</u> (2); (1947-48) (1949-50)

In addition he connected 27 homers in 1947-48 and 97 rbi's in 1949-50 (both are still record)

Here are Brown's stats in the Texas League, along with league totals:

<u>Yr age g ab h d t hr r rbi bb so sb ave oba slg</u>
53 Brown 38 138 522 162 36 2 23 91 108 35 52 3 310 354 519

54 Brown 39 144 583 183 36 5 35 92 120 35 56 2 314 353 573

55 Brown 40 149 544 164 34 4 19 73 104 39 42 3 301 348 483

56 Brown 41 104 351 105 17 0 14 50 73 36 36 2 299 364 467

Per William F. McNeil's <u>Baseball's Other All-Stars</u>, Brown holds the career record for highest career Avg. in PRWL at .350.

MLEs
Dr. Chaleeko's latest MLEs for Brown have him hitting .318 / .362 / .480, OPS+ 130, and 380 win shares with WWII credit.
Year by Year, Chaleeko estimates the following:
Willard Brown

YEAR LG AGE sfws
----------------
1935 NL 20 7.1
1936 NL 21 18.5
1937 NL 22 32.0
1938 NL 23 7.0
1939 NL 24 21.1
1940 NL 25 15.5
1941 NL 26 25.3
1942 NL 27 28.3
1943 NL 28 14.9
1944 NL 29 25.0 * credit year
1945 NL 30 27.5 * credit year
1946 NL 31 31.7
1947 AL 32 35.7
1948 NL 33 26.3
1949 NL 34 25.0
1950 NL 35 11.1
1951 NL 36 21.7
1952 NL 37 7.3
   88. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 07:51 AM (#2003511)
Why don't you throw in Cobb and Speaker too? Actually, I'd argue that Oms (b. 1895) was closer to a contemporary of Cobb (b. 1886) and Speaker (b. 1888) than he was to Ott (b. 1909) and Medwick (b. 1911).


Brent, you're right--I have Oms's projected prime from '21-'30, with some good years '31-4. But he was primarily a '20s OF, with his best years coming right at '21-25. Somehow I misread the projections when I posted, thanks.

That said, the 1920's are also pretty loaded with outfielders, particularly at CF.
   89. Kelly in SD Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:16 AM (#2003525)
I have information about Tetelo Vargas and Pancho Coimbre. Should I post it here or on their threads. Also, I found a history of the California Winter League. Dobie Moore, Turkey Stearnes, and Mule Suttles dominated it. Many other NeL players spent time there. Is anyone interested in this?
   90. rawagman Posted: May 04, 2006 at 01:33 PM (#2003590)
can I get some info about the HoM Yahoo group?
   91. Paul Wendt Posted: May 04, 2006 at 04:39 PM (#2003771)
James Newburg wrote:
Marc,

Thanks for outing yourself as a "24" fan -- it may be the one thing on which you and I agree!

"You're going to have to shoot down that plane, Mr. President." -- I thought that President Logan was going to crap his pants when he heard that!

Anyway, time to put the finishing touches on a college application, then off to bed.


You will barely know from memory anyone who is eligible when the project ends!

Ah, much too young to be a "42" fan with Marc also. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything"]Forty Two (42)[/url]
Douglas Adams
   92. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 04, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2003789)
James,

You have to watch out with pitchers. If you are giving that pitcher bonus to anywone form the badball era or before you are seriously overrating them. Of course you probably know this.

As far as position adjustments, I am not a big fan. it is perfectly OK with me if more CFers or SS's were great players than 3B. Just like it is OK with me if we have no 1920's MLB SS"s or o 1B between ABC and Gehrig. It happens. I do have small adjustments when I think a measure if over or underrating a position or a player. Hoever, they are not numerical as I do not think I can come up with any number that is better than a guess, it is more of a bullshirt dump thing for me.
   93. sunnyday2 Posted: May 04, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#2003908)
42

24

I get those two mixed up all the time.
   94. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2003986)
More cohorts…

1941-1945

C R Campanella (’44-5), J Gibson (’41-45)

1B J Foxx (’41), W Leonard (’41,’43-45), J Mize (’41-42)

2B R Doerr (’42-44), W Herman (’41, ’43), J Robinson (‘45)

3B S Hack (’41-43, ’45)

SS L Appling (‘41-3), L Boudreau (‘41-5), J Cronin (’41), H Reese (’42), A Vaughan (’43), W Wells (’41-42)

LF M Irvin (’41-2), J Medwick (’41, ’44), S Musial (’42-44), T Williams (’41-42)

CF J Bell (‘42), J DiMaggio (’41-42)

RF M Ott (’41-45), E Slaughter (’41-42)

P R Brown (‘42-3), R Feller (’41), T Lyons (’42), H Newhouser (’42-45), L Paige (’41)

Total HoMrs: 28


*I do give war credit as a voter, but not in the template; in the cohorts, I’m more interested in what people actually did. I do, however, give NeL credit to guys who played in the majors, so Irvin, Campy, and Jackie all have seasons listed here.
*28 HoMr’s is actually not a very low number for the cohort, although it is a big drop off from ’36-40 period. The average number of a cohort between 1886-1950 is right at 30. That, however, includes the big years from ‘26-40. Five of the thirteen cohorts from 1886-1950 have 27 or 28 HoM’rs, and nine of the thirteen have between 24-31. The ones that don’t are the 1896-1900 cohort (21) and the ’26-40 (41, 42, 39). So the ’41-50 cohorts seem to be on track.
* One position that is underrepresented in this era, however, pitchers. Only five in this cohort, tied with 1896-00 for the lowest of any cohort from 1881-1960

BALLOT RETURNEES

BUCKY WALTERS His peak was ’39-40, but his prime was mostly in this cohort, depending. His peak is excellent, and given the *really* low number of pitchers we have in this era, I think he should go in. It would be nice to have at least one member of the ’39-40 Reds pennant winners in the Hall as well, although that’s not a reason why I’m voting for him. He’ll appear on my ballot for the first time this year. The dearth of pitchers also encourages to take a long look at Virgil Trucks and Dizzy Trout.

JOE GORDON Was an A fielder with a 125 OPS+ despite missing two prime years to war. Before and after WWII he was a better hitter than Bobby Doerr, and a better hitter and fielder than Billy Herman. With war credit, that makes Gordon the best 2B of the ’41-5 cohort; also the best in ’47-’48. He’ll remain high on my ballot.

CHARLIE KELLER It’s hard to rank players at position because everyone was in the service. With war credit Keller may have been the best RF of the ’41-5 cohort; I just don’t know. Doesn’t make my ballot yet, although James’ minor league projections help make him a viable candidate.

WILLARD BROWN Kelly (once again) is doing a detailed write-up on him. No wonder he’s sleep deprived.

QUINCEY TROUPPE. According to Dr. C’s projections, his prime is between ’39-’48, with two down years in ’44-’45. Was 26 in ’39, so it may have began earlier; if I understand correctly, we are missing info from the early part of the career. Played at the same time as Josh Gibson. I currently have him as the #3 available catcher behind Bresnahan and Schang.
   95. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2004000)
1946-1950

C L Berra (‘48-50), R Campanella (’47-50), J Gibson (’46)

1B H Greenberg (’46), W Leonard (’46-48), J Mize (’46-48), S Musial (’46-47)

2B R Doerr (’46, ’48-50), J Robinson (’48-50)

3B W Herman (’46)

SS L Appling (‘46-9), L Boudreau (‘46-8), M Irvin (’46), H Reese (’46-50), J Robinson (’46)

LF M Irvin (’48, ‘50), J Medwick (’46), S Musial (’48-50), E Slaughter (’48-49), T Williams (’46-49)

CF DR Ashburn (‘48, ‘50), J DiMaggio (’46-48, ’50), L Doby (’46-50), E Snider (’49-50)

RF E Slaughter (’46)

P R Feller (’46-48, ’50), R Lemon (’48-50), H Newhouser (’46-49), R Roberts (’50), W Spahn (’47, 49-50), E Wynn (’50)

Total HoMrs: 27

*Again, 27 HoM’rs just a little under average, and right at the median. It’s still short at pitcher, and there’s a big hole 3b which…

BALLOT RETURNEES

…BOB ELLIOTT would fill nicely. We can also use more pre-1950 third sackers. He has been just off my ballot the past few years; makes it on this year.

RALPH KINER This is a tough cohort for left fielders. Musial and Williams are at their peaks, Irvin and Slaughter are in the mix. Still, I think Kiner’s peak is so good that I will likely keep him on my ballot. He would also add prime years to the ’51-55 cohort, which is underrepresented.
   96. rawagman Posted: May 04, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2004018)
favre - why not look (even briefly) at Tommy Bridges and Lefty Grove among returning balloteers? Over-representation 1926-40? Bridges had some pretty decent seasons in the early 40's as well, albeit in a different role.
How about Wally Berger? He gets no love, but has been spotted just off ballot for several electors, myself included.
   97. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#2004146)
favre - why not look (even briefly) at Tommy Bridges and Lefty Grove among returning balloteers?

Well, Grove already squeaked into the HoM in 1947. ;]

As for Bridges, yes, while majority of him prime was in the '30s, he does have four seasons between '40-3 between 147-194 IP and an ERA+ 134, 142, 144, and 147. I don't know yet whether He was better than Trucks or Stout, but given the shortage of 40s pitchers, he does deserve some serious consideration.

As for Gomez, I'll have to read his thread--was he drafted?
   98. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:13 PM (#2004148)
that should be "his prime", "with 147-194 IP", and "he was better".

My mother would be appalled.
   99. rawagman Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#2004169)
I meant Gomez, right. He was not drafted. As simply ceased pitching effectively and left the game. He probably could have pitched if he chose to, but didn't. There is a quote from www.baseballlibrary.com. (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/G/Gomez_Lefty.stm)
After pitching one game for Washington (he lost) in 1943, Gomez retired, later to hook up with the Wilson sporting goods company as a goodwill ambassador. He was asked on joining Wilson why he had left his last position. Gomez, who never took himself seriously, responded that he left because he couldn't "get the side out."


It seems that the HoM could use a few more live arms to match the outfield lumber.

Another question. While it is great that we are looking seriously at some unheralded Negro League greats (Redding, Trouppe most significantly) doesn't it make sense that we reexamine some of the ones recently inducted by Cooperstown. Brown and Mendez are looking like future locks (at least one should get in in '76), I hear no talk for Andy Cooper, Ray Brown, or Ben Taylor.
Biz received credit for teaching Campy. Taylor taught Buck Leonard.
   100. rawagman Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#2004177)
correction - Brown wasn't elected. Neither does top 15 vote getter Dobie Moore.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.6339 seconds
49 querie(s) executed