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 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2004185)
1951-1955

C L Berra (‘51-55), R Campanella (’51-3, ’55)

1B S Musial (’55)

2B J Robinson (’51-52)

3B E. Mathews (‘53-5)

SS H Reese (’51-55)

LF M Irvin (‘51, ‘53), S Musial (’51-54), J Robinson (’53-54), T Williams (’51, ’54-55)

CF DR Ashburn (‘51-5 ), L Doby (’51-55), M. Mantle (‘52-5), E Snider (’51-55)

RF E Slaughter (’52)

P R Feller (’51), EC Ford (’53-55), R Lemon (’52-55), R Roberts (’51-55), W Spahn (’51-55), E Wynn (’51-52, ’54-55)

Total HoMrs: 19

*At 19 HoM’rs. In future elections, Willie Mays and Hoyt Wilhelm start their prime years in this period; Banks, Kaline, and Aaron also begin their primes in 1955. That will add five, pushing the cohort to 24. That’s still a little low, IMO, particularly in the infield and at pitcher.

BALLOT RETURNEES

NELLIE FOX Both the ’51-55 and ’56-60 cohorts are low on infielders. The ’56-60 cohort is particularly short of middle infielders; at this point, only Ernie banks looks like a shoe-in. Fox’s induction will help. He makes my ballot this year.

BILLY PIERCE Again, we’re low on pitchers from ‘41-55. We already have six pitchers in the ‘56-60 cohort, with Wilhelm and Bunning likely on the way, so we’re doing better there. Pierce’s prime is from 1950-8, so electing him and Wilhelm would bring the ’51-55 cohort within a reasonably normal range. After doing this template, I feel better about electing Bob Lemon and Early Wynn.

ORESTES MINOSO We’re short on 1950s players, but the OF is pretty loaded, at least at LF and CF: Musial, Williams, Mantle, Mays, Snider, Doby, Ashburn. He’s been on my ballot the past few elections, and I’m not sure what I’m going to do with him yet.
   102. rawagman Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2004190)
post 101 won't be viewable til we get 102?
   103. Chris Cobb Posted: May 04, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#2004191)
I hear no talk for Andy Cooper, Ray Brown, or Ben Taylor.
Biz received credit for teaching Campy. Taylor taught Buck Leonard.


We elected Ray Brown 20 years ago; discussion of Ben Taylor has restarted on his thread.

Andy Cooper is probably deserving of another look.

Teaching a catcher who became a top-notch defender is a different thing than teaching a first baseman. And Mackey didn't get "credit" for it: it was used as evidence that Mackey's defensive reputation was justified.

Taylor is generally credited by the electorate as having been an excellent defensive first baseman.
   104. favre Posted: May 04, 2006 at 10:03 PM (#2004210)
And here are the last three cohorts...

1956-1960

C L Berra (‘56-59)

1B S Musial (’56-58)

2B

3B E. Mathews (‘56-60)

SS

LF T Williams (’56-58)

CF DR Ashburn (‘56-8, ‘60), L Doby (’56) M. Mantle (‘56-60), E Snider (’56-7)

RF

P D Drysdale (’57, ’59-60), EC Ford (’56, ‘58-60), R Lemon (’56), R Roberts (’58), W Spahn (’56-59), E Wynn (’56, ’59-60)

Total HoMrs: 14


1961-1965

C

1B

2B

3B E. Mathews (‘61-65)

SS

LF

CF R Ashburn (‘61), M Mantle (‘61-2, 64)

RF

P D Drysdale (’61-65) EC Ford(’61-64), S Koufax (’61-65), R Roberts (’62, ’64-65), W Spahn (’61-3)

Total HoMrs: 8



1966-1970

C

1B M. Mantle (‘67-68)

2B

3B

SS

LF

CF

RF

P D Drysdale (’67-68) S Koufax (’66)

Total HoMrs: 3
   105. OCF Posted: May 04, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#2004228)
I'm sure many of us are examining the "holes" in favre's post #104 an lining up just how the not-yet eligible will fit into things. Of course, we won't hold the already-long CF line in the 1956-1960 cohort against a certain W.M.
   106. jimd Posted: May 04, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#2004263)
the proportion of Win Shares earned by each position

Theoretically, the proportion of WS earned by each of the 8 fielding positions should be equal. The only theoretical basis that I know of for calculating the Fielding Intrinsic Weights is "absence of offense", i.e. the fielders receive enough fielding WS so that the totals of BWS+FWS at each position should be equal (over whatever time interval you're calculating the Intrinsic Weights) approximately. This represents the amount of offense that managers are willing to sacrifice on average to get an average glove at the position. And it assumes that the time interval is long enough that talent has evened out at the positions. Unless James has worked out another theoretical basis that he has not published, then this should apply.

If the Fielding Intrinsic Weight is set too high at a position, then we would observe a surplus of all-stars at that position, relative to the other positions, on a regular basis, when compiled yearly. The position is receiving too many FWS. If the Fielding Intrinsic Weight is set too low, then we would observe a shortage of all-stars at that position on a regular basis (assuming equal playing time). The position is not getting enough FWS.

Catchers have a playing time issue at the season level. They have a problem competing in value, because backups get more playing time, splitting the catcher's share. The total value given to catchers may be the same as at other positions, but the breakdown is different between regulars and backups. Compensating catchers each season based on typical seasonal workloads may be reasonable to prevent a shortage of star catchers or unreasonable if such a shortage is not troubling.

Career totals are another issue. Certain positions may promote longevity, others hinder it. Positional bonuses to compensate is a matter of taste similar to the catcher's issue. (And affects catchers more than any other position.)

Pitchers are an entirely separate concern. WS reserves approximately 35% of the total Win Shares for pitchers, independent of era. The number changes somewhat depending on the strikeout rate, but not a lot. Spalding-era pitchers are the entire staff and receive mind-blowing amounts of PWS, particularly when adjusted to 162G. A modern 6-inning starter will receive about 1/7th of that, or little more than half of an ace from the Cy Young era. More and more pitchers compete for the same sized slice of the WS pie. Compensation could be a sliding scale ranging from a catcher's bonus (approximately) down to nothing. (Failing to compensate will imply that pitchers will appear less and less competitive as we move forward, at least when compared by raw uncompensated WS numbers.)
   107. Paul Wendt Posted: May 05, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2004500)
Below I quote two items from the SABR 19th Century Committee newsletter 19c Notes #2004.2 and 2005.1 (successive issues). I have essentially the same material for 1877 and 1878, too, when the league name was International Association (two clubs, then one, were in Canada). Those are the only four league-seasons for which I have the modern compilation of playing statistics. To order all four by mail, send $2 to me. pgw@world.std.com
Paul Wendt 
64 Riverside St 
#3
WatertownMA 02472-2652 

(Free to SABR members, but we the 19c Cmte solicit donations to support this service.)

>>
ARTICLES AVAILABLE IN PRINT

The 1879 National Association, presented by Joseph E. Wayman and Art Cantu, Minor League Baseball Research Journal 2 (1996), p97-102. 6pp.
Official standings and statistics published in the 1880 NA Guide. Batting (all players) and pitching (12 or more games).

1880 National Association. By Bob Tiemann. 199?. 3pp.
One page of narrative and two pages of playing statistics compiled from scratch. Season Batting and Pitching for players and teams, win-loss for managers. NA 1880 is the fourth and final season of the Inter/national Association founded in 1877.

Playing statistics for other 19c leagues have been completed, rarely compiled from scratch, by other SABR members. Usually Batting and Pitching only. I have asked the Minor League Cmte whether any league-season is available, complete; evidently, none is available from the MLC now. Compilers are listed by league-season in The SABR Guide to Minor League Statistics by Carlos Bauer (1st 1995, 2d 2003).
<<
   108. rawagman Posted: May 05, 2006 at 06:48 AM (#2004990)
We elected Ray Brown 20 years ago; discussion of Ben Taylor has restarted on his thread.

Andy Cooper is probably deserving of another look.


Check that up to a noobie mistake made before going to bed. I live in Israel, so my time zone factor is way off most of you.

I tried to restart Ben Taylor talk.

Now I absolutely understand the goal of this project is to rectify some of the past mistakes made by those "worthy" men who invited some questionable players into the Hall. Frankie's flunkies.

I don't think it can be maintained that the group who made the recent Negro League selections had the same, or a similar, bias.
Yet these historians chose not to elect many wonderful players such as Dick Redding, Dobie Moore, Willard Brown, Spotswood Poles, Quincy Trouppe and more (including Minnie Minoso).
The Hall of Fame has refused to publish a votig list, or go into the whys and wherefores of the election process, but I remember reading (maybe from Fay Vincent) that the committee worked on a basis of knowing that all 96 candidates had good reasons to be inducted, but not all would be honored. They did their business looking for reasons why not to induct.
So maybe we should ask ourselves, why didn't they induct Willard Brown? Too close a comp to Andre Dawson and we all what love the hall's voters have shown the Hawk? Brown's perceived lackadaisical attitude to baseball? It was said he would walk back to the outfield for defensive innings, forcing the pitcher to wait for him to get into position. What else?

What about Redding? Having the second best fastball isn't a qualification for anything. He had a couple of great years and a fair bit of dross. Is this a warped version of Jamie Moyer?

(Please excuse my use of modern comps)

Is defensive 1B work underrated? I can't remember which article, but in the recent Hardball Times Annual, it was pointed out that Albert Pujols may be the best defensive 1B in baseball as his numbers of bad-throw scoops (which largely goes unrecorded in the traditional fielding stats) was far and away higher than any of his peers. He had saved something like 20 extra throwing errors from the rest of his infield last year. You decide for yourselves what 20 saved errors is worth in runs and wins.

Now Ben Taylor was a noted specialist in digging out the dirtballs.

I think I'll shift the rest of my blurb about Ben to his discussion.</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>
   109. Chris Cobb Posted: May 05, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#2005124)
So maybe we should ask ourselves, why didn't they induct Willard Brown.

They did induct Willard Brown.
   110. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 05, 2006 at 01:40 PM (#2005125)
I think the reason why did didnt' elect some very good players (Trouppe, Moore, and REdding are all on my ballot) and did elect some pretty crappy ones (Taylor, Cooper) is that the committee had too many historians and not enough guys who knew how to evaluate baseball players.
   111. sunnyday2 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 01:55 PM (#2005137)
Or to put it another way...

The whole point of the HoM is to avoid the mistakes of the HoF--from Tommy McCarthy to Rube Marquard to (apparently) Hilton Smith and Leon Day.

One might have hoped, and we all did hope, that the latest NeL committee would do better. And maybe it did, but if so, incrementally better. But that there might have been mistakes should hardly be surprising. The Curse of Frankie Frisch is strong medicine and even this committee could not elude its effects.
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2005233)
and did elect some pretty crappy ones (Taylor, Cooper)

"Crappy" is a little harsh, don't you think, Mark?
   113. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:59 PM (#2005260)
yeah, I meant crappy selections not crappy players. I think that Taylor and Cooper are the former and not the latter. Good catch.

Of course the committee also elected a couple of guys like Jud Wilson and Cristobal Torriente that were glaring omissions of the VC. But when it came to finding the borderline guys for whom the new data didn't scream ELECT ME their record was pretty spotty.

I guess all of this says that just because Ben Taylor and Andy Cooper (and for that manner any of the other guys like Mendez and Brown who weren't bad selections necessarily) made it into the HOF doesn't mean they will be making my ballot until I see the new evidence that the HOF commitee had.
   114. OCF Posted: May 05, 2006 at 06:38 PM (#2005403)
Earlier on this thread, I commented on how bad a hitter Hank Aguirre was, which led eventually to mention of Dean Chance's career .003 ISO - and all the time I failed to notice another name among this year's eligibles. How about a pitcher with a career ISO of .174? With 35 HR in 740 AB? In a career centered in the low-offense middle 60's? Now that man had power!

I'm speaking, of course, of Earl Wilson. Career OPS+ of 76 with 5 different full (for a pitcher) seasons above 100 OPS+. With 405 games played to 338 games pitched, it's clear that he was used some as a pinch hitter, although I'd eyeball that as not used as a pinch hitter as much as he should have been.
   115. Paul Wendt Posted: May 05, 2006 at 06:49 PM (#2005420)
(Taylor, Cooper)

Do knowledgeable HOMeboys generally consider Taylor and Cooper the worst selections? For anyone who feels expert on that, how do you think they compare with Judy Johnson and Ray Dandridge (Leon Day or Hilton Smith if I need a pitcher? I don't know).


I remember reading (maybe from Fay Vincent) that the committee worked on a basis of knowing that all 96 candidates had good reasons to be inducted, but not all would be honored. They did their business looking for reasons why not to induct.

39 candidates for Vincent and the committee of twelve.
In about the same number of words quoted here, I paraphrased or even quoted that part of the report by Sammy Miller in the Negro Leagues Committee (SABR research committee) newsletter, which he compiles and edits.

The current newsletter of the Latin America Committee has a "Member Spotlight" on Adrian Burgos, who was on both committees. He notes that he was an advocate for Minnie Minoso, proud that he persuaded the five to put Minoso on the ballot, disappointed that Minoso was not elected by the twelve.

That is all that I have read by AABBC members (or ABC, take your pick).
   116. OCF Posted: May 05, 2006 at 06:49 PM (#2005423)
Not that he's a serious HoM candidate - 99 career ERA+ in just over 2000 IP - but give me a league average pitcher who hits like Rob Deer and I think I could find a place for him on my team. Of course that's probably why he was a little underutilized as a PH - the model PH in most people's minds is a LH high-average guy, not a RH extreme TTO hitter.
   117. sunnyday2 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 06:59 PM (#2005433)
Paul without going back over all the numbers, I'd say that Leon Day is probably the weakest pitcher selection of the HoF, weaker than Andy Cooper. And I'd say that Judy Johnson is clearly a weaker selection than Ben Taylor.
   118. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 05, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2005496)
Day appears to be the misstep. In fact, if the SoG numbers say anything, they say that we're right about Day and wrong(ish) about Hilton Smith. On the other hand Andy Cooper's numbers aren't available yet, so there's not much to say there except that he's in essence comparable to dick Redding in that both were long-time pitchers in the leagues with big career win totals. Difference there is that Cooper pitched for mostly awesome teams, Redding for mostly not-so-awesome teams. Split the diff and they are similarly credentialed.

Ben Taylor, on the other hand, is tough to speak to because he
a) pitched successfully for a short time
b) was reputed to be an outstanding 1B
c) played 1B before it became a slugger's position (that is, he's mostly contemporaneous to Sisler)
d) was a batting-average maven a la Sisler
e) played for a long time.

Until the numbers come down (and even after, there will be questions about pre1920), he looks like a cross between Sisler and Beckley to me. I don't think he's an awful selection by any means; in fact Buck O'Neill would have been a much worse 1B selection---as a player only---but we don't truly know how bad or good he is yet.

As noted elsewhere Judy Johnson is indubitably the worst NgL hitter selection, but IMO Ray Dandridge runs an extremely close second. See his MLEs and you'll understand why: no power, no walks, no speed, not as much average as you think. Bill Madlock or George Kell are the best of his realistic MLB comps, and that's without knowning the league averages of the NgLs in the 1930s and without any park factors for any of his playing days.
   119. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 05, 2006 at 09:02 PM (#2005537)
Paul,

I was saying that Cooper and Taylor were bad picks by the NeL committee, Johnson, Dandridge, Day, et al were VC selections.
   120. rawagman Posted: May 05, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#2005552)
I knew Willard was in. For some reason, I skimmed over his name when reviewing the recent elections. These last few days I've done a really sloppy job of editing my posts. My apologies.
   121. Chris Cobb Posted: May 05, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#2005557)
I'll third Sunnyday2 and Dr. Chaleeko: Andy Cooper and Ben Taylor are definitely better picks than Judy Johnson, Ray Dandridge, and Leon Day.

From the evidence I have seen, I think Cooper and Taylor are probably mistakes, but it is possible that more data would show both to worthy. Hilton Smith is, I think, a similar case.

It also might be the case that the fact that both Cooper and Taylor were fairly successful managers may have assisted their election, and, insofar as I understand the Committee's criteria, that might be an appropriate consideration.

The available evidence is quite sufficient to show that Johnson, Dandridge, and Day are mistakes. They were good players, but they were only briefly stars.
   122. Chris Cobb Posted: May 05, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2005571)
Over on the Ben Taylor thread, I mentioned that Ed Konetchy had come back to my attention. So what about Ed Konetchy?

Konetchy 2085 games, 122 OPS+, A- defensive first baseman
Sisler 2055 games, 124 OPS+, C- defensive first baseman

Konetchy 95.3 WARP1, .289 EQA, 57 FRAA for career (loses 13.8 wins to competition adjustments)
Sisler 85.7 WARP1, .292 EQA, -64 FRAA for career (loses 7.6 wins to competition adjustments)

Now, I know Sisler is a peak candidate and not a career candidate, but still . . .

And since I would otherwise be remiss in documenting the career-candidate first basemen:

Jake Beckley 2386 games (no season length adj.), 125 OPS+, B defense
Mickey Vernon 2409 games, 116 OPS+, B- defense

Jake Beckley 115.4 WARP1, .289 EQA, 67 FRAA, (loses 15.5 wins to competition adjustments)
Mickey Vernon 78.1 WARP1, .285 EQA, -43 FRAA (loses 3.8 wins to competiton adjustments)
   123. yest Posted: May 05, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#2005664)
Konetchy A- defensive first baseman
Sisler C- defensive first baseman

I don't think those people who called Sisler the greatest fielding 1st baseman would agree with this
   124. OCF Posted: May 05, 2006 at 11:34 PM (#2005726)
Didn't "those people" actually say that Hal Chase was the greatest fielding first baseman?

In my offensive system, sorted best year to worst:

Konetchy  45 41 39 32 31 29 23 21 18 17  9  6  6 --8
Sisler    70 68 51 46 44 37 35 15 10 10  5 
----


That comes out in Sisler's favor, and indeed he has been on the fringes of my ballot and Konetchy not. Of course Chance looks quite a bit better than Sisler on this RCAA-based system - until I start reaching outside the system to consider games played.
   125. Howie Menckel Posted: May 06, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2006183)
Off topic:

Was just listening to some great stories by Ralph Kiner during the Mets game tonight, and note that only Minoso, Kiner, and Pierce are alive among our candidates with more than 50 pts in the last election.

Kiner was recalling the 1964 pennant race, which the Cards won by a game over the Phillies and Reds and by 3 over the Giants. I think he said entering the final weekend there still was a chance for a 4-way tie, but Gibson pitched Friday night and then again in relief on Sunday (if that's wrong, it's me and not Ralph!) to crrry the Cardinals.

He also was saying how much Warren Spahn did not get along with Casey Stengel, who oddly was his manager in both his 1st year in Boston in 1942 and his last in NY in 1965 (and not at all in between).
Spahn said he got stuck with Casey "before and after he was a genius."

Kiner has a trace of Bell's Palsy, and probably sounds dreadful to a new listener.
But he's still mentally savvy at 83. He was swapping early tales with booth guest Al Jackson, the old Mets pitcher, and Kiner remembered those days better than Jackson did.

Kiner also acknowledged how little 'protection' he had in the Pitt lineup, and said that the easiest way into a slump was to swing at those bad pitches. Of course, he was 1st or 2nd in the NL in walks from 1948 thru 1953, and in the top 10 in each of his nine full seasons.

Now back to our purely scientific discussion...
   126. DavidFoss Posted: May 06, 2006 at 02:22 AM (#2006568)
Wow... I'm getting a big ad between the last post and the posting window. How intrusive! Yuck!
   127. sunnyday2 Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:16 AM (#2007125)
Better you than me, David, I don't see it!

Must be because I'm on a Mac ;-)
   128. DavidFoss Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:41 AM (#2007187)
They moved it to *below* the posting window (and below the live preview) now. Much better. Gotta pay the bills I guess, but between the posts and the posting window was crazy.
   129. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 06, 2006 at 05:57 AM (#2007313)
Chris,

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why Sisler is a serious candiate and Konetchy, Taylor, and Vernon are not (Beckley is not a serious candidate with me). Sisler was an MVP type player at his best which helps push teams towards pennants and to the best of our knowledge none of the other three were. So Sisler is on my prelim in 1976 and the other four are not.
   130. sunnyday2 Posted: May 06, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#2007360)
Thought this was interesting:

"Jim Delsing, who spent 10 seasons in the big leagues, including more than two seasons with the Browns, died Thursday (May 4, 2006) at his home in Chesterfield from complications of cancer. He was 80.

"...Delsing became part of one of the more colorful tales of baseball when the Browns met Detroit in a doubleheader at Sportsman’s Park on Aug. 19, 1951. St. Louis owner Bill Veeck had signed midget Eddie Gaedel to play in the second game. After Tigers pitcher Bob “Sugar” Cain walked pinch hitter Gaedel on four pitches, Browns manager Zack Taylor sent Delsing in to pinch run.

"Delsing once said: 'It was just a three-ring circus, with a couple of rings missing.'"
   131. rawagman Posted: May 06, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#2007624)
As a hitter, did anyone else notice the similarities in George Sisler's career path to that of Tony Gwynn?
It's not so striking on a career sim score basis, but year-by year, they are always in the same neighbourhood.
Scores, Ages 24-37:
24: 931
25: 943
26: 930
27: 898
28: n/a
29: n/a
30: Sisler didn't play
31: 843
32: 828
33: 845
34: 853
35: 866
36: 865
37: 885

Interesting, interesting.
   132. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 01:22 AM (#2008128)
HOM Ps, by year, through 1975 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G to be listed:

1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884 (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1855-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1891 (9) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1892 (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (5) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1895 (5) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1896 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1897-98 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1899-00 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity
1901 (6) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (6) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (7) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904-05 (8) - Young Griffith Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906 (8) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1907 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1908 (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1909 (7) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1910 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams
1911 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander
1912 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1913 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1914 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF BrownW Johnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber
1915 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth
1916 (9) - Plank Foster WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1917 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1918 (3) - WJohnson Williams Covaleski
1919 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1920 (5) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1921 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922-23 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1924 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons
1925 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing
1926 (12) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster
1927 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1928 (11) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1929 (12) - Williams Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1930 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1931 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1932 (12) - Williams Rixey Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1933 (10) - Rixey Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1934 (8) - Lyons Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1935 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Grove BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1936 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1937 (9) - Lyons Ruffing Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1938 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1939-40 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Grove Hubbell RBrown Dihigo Feller
1941 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Dihigo Feller Newhouser
1942 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Dihigo Newhouser Wynn
1943-45 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1945 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1946 (5) - Paige RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn
1947 (7) - Paige RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1948 (6) - RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1949 (7) - RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1950 (6) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1951 (5) - Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1952 (7) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1953 (7) - Paige Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Ford
1954-56 (5) - Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Ford
1957 (4) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Drysdale
1958 (6) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1959 (5) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford
1960 (5) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1961 (4) - Spahn Ford Drysdale Koufax
1962 (6) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1963-65 (5) - Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1966 (2) - Drysdale Koufax
1967 (1) - Drysdale
1968 (1) - Drysdale

Welch would be 1880-91
Van Haltren would be 1887-88 and 1890.
Waddell would be 1900-09
Mendez would be 1908-14, very roughly
Redding would be 1911-30, roughly
Grimes would be 1917-31
Walters would be 1936-45
Pierce would be 1949-63
   133. yest Posted: May 07, 2006 at 02:18 AM (#2008217)
does anyone else find it a little strange that we have the most pitchers from one of the highest hitters eras ever
   134. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 02:52 AM (#2008273)
HOM OFs, by year, through 1976 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1867 (1) - Pike OF-IF
1868 (1) - Pike
1869 (1) - McVey
1870 (1) - McVey
1871 (1) - Pike
1872 (1) - Pike OF-2B
1873 (2) - Pike OF-SS, Hines
1874 (2) - McVey, Hines
1875 (2) - Pike, Hines OF-2B, O'Rourke OF-3B
1876 (3) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke
1877 (3) - Pike OF-2B, Hines, O'Rourke
1878 (5) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke, Anson, Kelly
1879 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Gore
1880 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-1S, Kelly OF, Gore, Stovey OF-1B
1881 (5) - Hines, Kelly, Gore, Brouthers OF-1B, Richardson
1882 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Gore
1883 (4) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, Kelly OF-C, Gore
1884 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Ward OF-2B
1885 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Thompson
1886 (8) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Richardson OF-2B, Thompson, Sutton OF-3S2
1887 (5) - Hines, Kelly OF-2C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Thompson
1888 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Stovey
1889 (6) - O'Rourke, Kelly, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton
1890 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Richardson, Thompson, Hamilton, Burkett OF-P, GDavis
1891 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty
1892 (7) - O'Rourke, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Caruthers
1893 (7) - O'Rourke, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Ewing
1894-96 (7) - Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1897 (6) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1898-99 (8) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick
1900 (9) - Hamilton, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Wagner, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford
1901 (10) - Hamilton, Delahanty OF-1B, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1902 (10) - Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Wagner OF-S1, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1903 (7) - Burkett, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1904 (7) - Burkett, Keeler, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee
1905 (8) - Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee
1906 (9) - Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1907 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1908 (7) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1909 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker
1910 (8) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat
1911 (9) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1912 (8) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1913 (9) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1914 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee OF-S1, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1915 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, W heat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1916 (11) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Charleston
1917 (10) - Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Charleston
1918 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann OF-1B, Charleston, Ruth OF-P
1919 (8) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Torriente, Ruth, Charleston
1920 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Ruth, Charleston
1921 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston
1922 (9) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin
1923 (10) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes
1924 (13) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell
1925 (12) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell
1926 (13) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner
1927 (12) - Cobb, Speaker, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner
1928 (11) - Cobb, Carey, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott
1929 (10) - Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1930 (9) - Heilmann, Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1931 (10) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Dihigo
1932 (8) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1933-34 (9) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick
1935 (9) - Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick, Dihigo OF-P
1936 (10) - Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick, Dihigo OF-P, DiMaggio
1937 (9) - Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott OF-3B, Averill, Medwick, DiMaggio
1938 (8) - Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Averill, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter
1939 (10) - Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott OF(3B), Averill, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams
1940 (10) - Stearnes, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott OF-3B, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin
1941 (9) - Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin
1942 (8) - Bell, PWaner, Ott, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial
1943-44 (5) - Bell, PWaner, Ott, Musial, Medwick
1945 (4) - Bell, Ott, Medwick, Greenberg
1946 (6) - Bell, DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby
1947 (5) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby
1948 (7) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, Ashburn
1949 (8) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, Ashburn, Snider
1950 (7) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Doby, Ashburn, Snider
1951 (9) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Irvin OF-1B, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1952 (6) - Slaughter, Musial OF(1B), Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1953 (8) - Slaughter, Irvin, Musial, JRobinson OF-3B, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1954 (8) - TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, JRobinson OF-3B, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1955 (6) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1956 (7) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1957 (6) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1958 (5) - TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1959 (4) - TWilliams, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1960 (5) - TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle
1961 (3) - Musial, Mantle, Berra
1962 (2) - Musial, Mantle
1963 (2) - Musial, Snider
1964 (1) - Mantle
1965 (1) - Mantle
1966 (1) - Mantle
CJones would be 1876-80; 1833-87
Browning would be 1883 OF-SS, 1885-92
Duffy would be 1888-99, 1901
Van Haltren would be 1889, 1891-01, 1903
Leach would be 1905; 1907; 1909-15
Cravath would be 1908; 1912-18, roughly
Roush would be 1915-21; 1923-27; 1929; 1931
Oms would be 1922-32, etc., roughly
Johnson would be 1933-45
WBrown would be 1938-39; 1942-43; 1946-48, roughly
Keller would be 1939-43; 1946
Elliott would be 1940-41; 1946; 1952
Kiner would be 1946-55
Minoso would be 1949-50; 1951 OF-3B; 1952-61 and 1963
Boyer would be 1957 OF-3B
   135. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#2008276)
add Feller to the 1938 list (and now fixed on my master list):

1938 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo Feller
   136. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:13 AM (#2008294)
Note that there are NO HOMer Cs who played regularly in these years:
1866-68
1880
1893-1909
1918-19

Also, Santop was the only HOMer C in a 27-year span from 1893-1919


HOM Cs, by year, through 1976 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1861 - Pearce C-SS
1862-63 - Pearce
1864-65 - Pearce C-SS
1866-68
1869-70 - White
1871-73 - White, McVey
1874-76 - White
1877 - McVey
1878 - White, Bennett C-OF
1879 - White
1880
1881 - Bennett, Ewing C-SS
1882 - Bennett
1883-86 - Bennett, Ewing
1887 - O'Rourke C-3O
1888 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-OF
1889 - Bennett, Ewing
1890 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-SS
1891 - Bennett, Kelly
1892 - Kelly
1893-09
1910-17 - Santop
1918-19
1920 - Santop, Mackey C-UT
1921 - Santop, Mackey C-2B-3B
1922 - Santop, Mackey
1923-24 - Santop, Mackey, Hartnett
1925-28 - Mackey, Hartnett, Cochrane
1929 - Mackey, Cochrane, Dickey
1930 - Mackey, Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey
1931-35 - Mackey, Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey, Gibson
1936-38 - Mackey, Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson
1939 - Mackey, Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson, Campanella
1940-41 - Mackey, Dickey, Gibson
1942 - Dickey, Gibson, Campanella
1943 - Dickey, Gibson
1944-46 - Gibson, Campanella
1947-48 - Campanella, Berra C-OF
1949-57 - Campanella, Berra
1958 - Berra C(OF)
1959 - Berra
1960 - Berra C-OF
Bresnahan would be 1901; 1905-08; 1910-11; 1914-15
Trouppe would be 1938-39; 1941-49, very roughly
   137. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:23 AM (#2008299)
There have been no HOM 1B regulars so far in:
1899
1903
1905-10
1912-17
1921-22
1952-54
1960-66

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

HOM 1Bs, by year, through 1976 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1860-71 - Start
1872 - Start, Hines
1873 - Start, Anson, O'Rourke 1B-OF
1874 - Start, Anson 1B-3B, O'Rourke
1875 - Start, Anson 1B-OF, McVey 1B-OC
1876 - Start, McVey
1877 - Start, Spalding, White 1B-OF, Sutton 1B-2B
1878 - Start
1879 - Start, Anson, McVey, Brouthers
1880 - Start, Anson
1881 - Start, Anson, White 1B-2O, Connor
1882 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor 1B-O3, Stovey 1B-OF
1883 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Stovey
1884 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey
1885 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Stovey
1886-88 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1889-90 - Hines, Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1891 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1892 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Ewing
1893-94 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1895-96 - Anson, Connor, Ewing
1897 - Anson, Lajoie
1898 - Wagner 1B-3B
1899
1900 - Delahanty, Jennings
1901 - Jennings, Kelley
1902 - Jennings
1903
1904 - Kelley
1905-10
1911 - Lajoie 1B-2B
1912-17
1918 - Magee 1B-OF
1919-20 - Heilmann
1921-22
1923 - JWilson
1924 - JWilson, Terry
1925 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles
1926 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Dihigo UT
1927 - Terry, Gehrig
1928 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles
1929 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Lloyd, Foxx
1930 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Lloyd, Foxx, Charleston
1931 - Terry, Gehrig, Foxx, Charleston
1932 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston
1933 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg
1934-35 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg, Leonard
1936 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Leonard, Mize
1937 - JWilson, Gehrig, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1938 - Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1939 - Suttles, Foxx, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1940 - Foxx 1B-C, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1941-42 - Foxx, Leonard, Mize
1943-44 - Leonard
1945 - Foxx 1B-3B, Leonard
1946 - Greenberg, Leonard, Mize, JRobinson, Musial 1B(OF)
1947 - Greenberg, Leonard, Mize, JRobinson, Musial
1948 - Leonard, Mize
1949 - Mize
1950 - Mize, Irvin 1B-OF
1951 - Mize
1952-54
1955-56 - Musial 1B-OF
1957-59 - Musial
1960-66
1967-68 - Mantle
Beckley would be 1888-1906
Sisler would be 1915-22 and 1924-30
   138. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:30 AM (#2008306)
HOM 2Bs, by year, through 1976 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1870 - Pike
1871 - Barnes 2B-SS
1872-76 - Barnes
1877 - Wright
1878
1879 - Glasscock
1880-81
1882-83 - Richardson, McPhee
1884 - Richardson, McPhee, Connor 2B-OF
1885 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee
1886 - McPhee, Grant
1887 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1888 - Richardson, McPhee, Grant, Delahanty 2B-OF
1889 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1890-91 - McPhee, Grant
1892 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant, Ward
1893-94 - McPhee, Grant, Ward
1895-97 - McPhee, Grant
1898-99 - McPhee, Grant, Lajoie
1900-03 - Grant, Lajoie
1904 - Lajoie 2B-SS
1905
1906-07 - Lajoie
1908 - Lajoie, GDavis, E Collins 2B-SS
1909-10 - Lajoie, E Collins
1911 - E Collins
1912-13 - Lajoie, E Collins, HR Johnson
1914 - Lajoie, E Collins, Groh
1915-16 - Lajoie, E Collins
1917-19 - E Collins
1920-21 - E Collins, Hornsby
1922 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch 2B-3B
1923 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch
1924 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Dihigo UT
1925 - E Collins, Hornsby, Lloyd, Dihigo UT
1926 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Gehringer
1927-28 - Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Gehringer
1929 - Hornsby, Frisch, Gehringer
1930 - Frisch, Gehringer
1931 - Hornsby 2B-3B, Frisch, Gehringer
1932 - Frisch 2B-3B, Gehringer, BiHerman
1933-35 - Frisch, Gehringer, BiHerman
1936 - Frisch 2B-3B, Gehringer, BiHerman
1937 - Gehringer, BiHerman
1938-41 - Gehringer, BiHerman, Doerr
1942-43 - BiHerman, Doerr
1944 - Doerr
1945 - JRobinson
1946 - BiHerman 2B-3B, Doerr, JRobinson
1947 - Doerr
1948-51 - Doerr, JRobinson
1952 - JRobinson

Browning (!) would be 1882 2B-SS-3B
Childs would be 1890-1900
Doyle would be 1908-20
Gordon would be 1938-43; 1946-50
Fox would be 1949-64
   139. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:33 AM (#2008310)
1Bs should be

1967 - Mantle, Mathews 1B-3B
   140. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#2008314)
There have not yet been any 3B HOMers as regulars so far in these years:
1867-69
1889
1906
1947
1949-51

Not much in the way of complete droughts.
Of course, most of the years have only one or two 3Bs, and not once has there been a year with more than three 3B HOMer regulars.

HOM 3Bs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1866 - Pike 3B-O2
1867-69
1870 - Sutton
1871-72 - Sutton, Anson
1873 - Sutton
1874 - Sutton 3B-SS
1875 - Sutton
1876 - Sutton, Anson
1877 - Anson 3B-C
1878 - Sutton, McVey
1879 - Kelly 3B-OC, Richardson
1880 - Richardson, Connor
1881 - Sutton, O'Rourke
1882 - Sutton, White, Ewing 3B-C
1883 - Sutton, White
1884-85 - Sutton, White
1886 - White
1887 - White, Ewing
1888 - White
1889
1890 - White 3B-1B
1891 - Dahlen 3B-OF
1892 - GDavis 3B-OF
1893-94 - GDavis
1895 - GDavis, JCollins 3B
1896 - GDavis 3B-SS, JCollins
1897-98 - JCollins, Wallace
1899 - JCollins, Wagner 3B-OF
1900-05 - JCollins
1906
1907-08 - JCollins
1909-14 - Baker
1915 - Groh
1916 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-SS
1917-18 - Baker, Groh
1919 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-S2
1920 - Groh Frisch
1921 - Baker, Groh, Frisch 3B-2B
1922 - Groh
1923 - Groh, Beckwith
1924 - Groh
1925 - Frisch 32S
1926-27 - Beckwith, JWilson
1928 - JWilson, Dihigo, Foxx 3B-1B/C
1929 - Beckwith 3B-SS
1930 - JWilson, Dihigo UT, Beckwith
1931 - Beckwith, JWilson
1932-33 - JWilson
1934-37 - Hack
1938 - Hack, Ott 3B(OF)
1939-46 - Hack
1947
1948 - Appling 3B-SS
1949-51
1952-54 - Mathews
1955-56 - Mathews, JRobinson
1957 - Mathews, Reese 3B(SS)
1958-66 - Mathews

Browning (!) would be 1883, 3B-OF-1B
Leach would be 1899; 1901-04; 1906 3B-OF; 1908
Sewell would be 1929-32
Walters (!) would be 1934
Trouppe (!) would be 1940
Elliott would be 1942-45; 1947-51; 1953
Boyer would be 1955-56; 1958-67; 1968 3B-1B
   141. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:43 AM (#2008318)
We haven't elected an SS since Reese in 1964, longest drought of any position.

There were no HOMer SS regulars in 1861-63, or 1865. Since then, there have been no HOM SS regulars in:
1923
1957-1970

HOM SSs, by year, through 1964 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1856-60 - Pearce
1861-63
1864 - Wright
1865
1866-67 - Pearce, Wright
1868-70 - Pearce, Wright, Barnes
1871 - Pearce, Wright
1872 - Pearce, Wright, O'Rourke SS-C
1873-75 - Pearce, Wright
1876 - Wright
1877- Sutton SS-3B
1878 - Wright
1879 - Barnes, Sutton SS-3B
1880 - Sutton SS-3B, Glasscock
1881 - Barnes, Glasscock
1882 - Wright, Glasscock, Kelly SS-OF
1883-84 - Glasscock
1885-86 - Glasscock, Ward
1887 - Sutton SS-OU, Glasscock, Ward
1888-89 - Glasscock, Ward
1890 - Glasscock, Ward, Delahanty SS-2O
1891 - Glasscock, Ward, Jennings
1892 - Glasscock, Jennings, Dahlen SS-3B
1893 - Glasscock, Dahlen
1894 - Glasscock, Jennings, Dahlen SS-3B
1895-96 - Jennings, Dahlen, HR Johnson
1897-98 - Jennings, Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis
1899 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace SS-3B
1900 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace
1901 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace, Wagner SS-O3
1902 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace
1903 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner
1904-07 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace, Wagner
1908 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1909-11 - HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1912 - Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1913-16 - Wagner, Lloyd
1917-18 - Lloyd, Hornsby
1919 - Lloyd
1920-22 - Lloyd, Beckwith SS-3B
1923
1924-25 - Wells, Beckwith
1926 - Wells
1927 - Wells, Dihigo UT
1928 - Wells, Beckwith
1929 - Wells, Dihigo UT, Cronin
1930-31 - Wells, Cronin, Appling
1932-35 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan
1936 - Wells, Cronin SS(3B), Appling, Vaughan
1937-41 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan
1940-41 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Appling, Boudreau, Reese
1942 - Wells, Appling, Vaughan, Boudreau, Reese
1943 - Wells, Appling, Vaughan SS-3B, Boudreau
1944 - Wells, Boudreau
1945 - Boudreau
1946-47 - Appling, Boudreau, Reese
1948 - Boudreau, Reese
1949 - Appling, Boudreau SS-3B, Reese
1950 - Boudreau, Reese
1951 - Boudreau SS(3B), Reese
1952-56 - Reese

Moore would be 1920-25, roughly
Sewell would be 1921-28
WBrown would be 1937
   142. Tiboreau Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:52 AM (#2008326)
does anyone else find it a little strange that we have the most pitchers from one of the highest hitters eras ever

It does look a little strange, doesn't it?

But from '25 to '27/'28 it includes two pitchers primarily considered for their Deadball Era accomplishments (Johnson & Alexander), the number of Negro League pitchers peaks from '27 to '37 (averaged between 3 to 5 NeL pitchers; only reached 3 in two years--'41 & '42--before and after that), and one cannot forget the impact of banning the spitball, using clean baseballs, & Babe Ruth on hitting statistics--none of which I'd blame on pitchers.

Besides, the difference between the average of 10 to 12 pitchers isn't that large compared 7 to 9 average in the surrounding eras (except for from '18 to '20) considering the number of pitchers--let alone ballplayers--in the MLB.
   143. Paul Wendt Posted: May 07, 2006 at 04:32 AM (#2008355)
"Coveleski" is the accepted spelling.
I wonder how that happened with birth name "Kowalewski" in Western PA, not Poland.

If favre is related to Faber, maybe he knows.

--
does anyone else find it a little strange that we have the most pitchers from one of the highest hitters eras

Expansion, thanks to Negro Leagues organization?
but the "Negro Leagues" maximum seems to be five in 1932, ironically.

Is nine the maximum number of regular pitchers in organized baseball?
1891
1915
1925-26
with decrease to four in 1934.
   144. rawagman Posted: May 07, 2006 at 04:56 AM (#2008363)
It makes sense.
Wagman used to be Veygman/Veigman 100 years ago in Poland.
Most of them morphed into Wagman upon the American arrival, some just turned the 'V' to a 'W'. It depended upon the immigration officer.
Some changed names later, to minimize discrimination.

I know Similarity scores don't mean that much - it's still interesting.
   145. rawagman Posted: May 07, 2006 at 05:52 AM (#2008394)
I just looked at last year's ballots, specifically the ones wherein Drysdale and Mackey garnered 'Elect-Me' votes, and 1976 should be even closer than last year.
They had 13 elect-me votes between them, and Joe Dimino will probably be more careful to get his vote in on time, so that makes 15. In those ballots, 13 different players split the extra 15 elect me's.

Then again, some may just change their minds.
   146. favre Posted: May 07, 2006 at 11:31 AM (#2008442)
"Coveleski" is the accepted spelling.
I wonder how that happened with birth name "Kowalewski" in Western PA, not Poland.

If favre is related to Faber, maybe he knows.



I don't know for sure. There was a serious backlash against perceived "foreign elements" during the 1920s, particularly eastern Europeans and Jews, whom nativists identified with communists. Immigration from Europe was more or less suspended, and the KKK made a lot of political gains, even electing a couple of governors out west. Maybe in that climate Kowaleski decided it would prudent to anglicize his name, but that is only a guess.

BTW, you're right, Paul--Faber is the German version of the French name Favre.
   147. Howie Menckel Posted: May 07, 2006 at 12:16 PM (#2008449)
So we elected Rouge Favre years ago?
   148. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#2008462)
So we elected Rouge Favre years ago?

Sounds like a stripper from the 1950s.
   149. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:08 PM (#2008500)
As a hitter, did anyone else notice the similarities in George Sisler's career path to that of Tony Gwynn?

This would be significant if they played in the same offensive environment, but Sisler played in the far more favorable era.
   150. rawagman Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#2008503)
I know it's not really significant - just fascinating
   151. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 07, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#2008504)
I know it's not really significant - just fascinating

I'll give you that. :-)
   152. sunnyday2 Posted: May 07, 2006 at 11:45 PM (#2009432)
>This would be significant if they played in the same offensive environment, but Sisler played in the far more favorable era.

George Sisler's rookie season was 1915 when his .285/.307/.369 was worth OPS+ 106.

In 1916 .305/.355/.400 was a 133. His all timebest was of course a monstrous .407/.449/.632 (179) in 1920.

Gwynn's all-time best OPS+ was 171 (.394/.454/.568) in 1994 (short season). Not at all unlike Sisler's 1920.

His first two years were .289/.337/.389 (109) and .309/.355/.372 (106). Not at all unlike Sisler's 1916, in terms of the environment--not nearly as good of seasons individually, of course. By the looks of things the offensive environment in 1915 was well below anything Gwynn ever saw.

Career

Gwynn .338/.388/.459 (133)
Sisler .340/.379/.468 (124)

On average Gwynn's run environment would appear to be slightly less than Sisler's, but just slightly.
   153. favre Posted: May 08, 2006 at 12:05 AM (#2009447)
So we elected Rouge Favre years ago?

Sounds like a stripper from the 1950s.


What a coincidence. I am a stripper from the 1950s.
   154. rawagman Posted: May 08, 2006 at 06:30 AM (#2009731)
here's a link to a very interesting article I read this morning before going to work. Note the system used, and the placements of the different starting pitchers in the inner circle, the second ring and the third and fourth tiers.

Ask yourself (if you're inclined) how does that system measure up? Why are Lefty Gomez and Rube Waddell and Addie Joss and Dizzy Dean second ring, but Don Drysdale, Robin Roberts, Red Ruffing, Eppa Rixey, etc...third ring?

My own reasonings? The 1st tier are career/prime/peak incredibles.

The second is super peak, shorter career guys.

Third come the long career/prime, low peak pitchers.

Agree or not, it's good read.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/bert-again-and-again-and-again/
   155. Howie Menckel Posted: May 08, 2006 at 11:53 AM (#2009774)
Rawagman,
The concept isn't bad, but the execution just doesn't work.

Any charts where the ranks are a simple 1 to 18, and then 'add up the points,' is primitive at best. For instance, a player might rank well ahead of the bottom six and nearly even with six more, yet be treated as if he was exactly between the sixth-worst and eighth-worst.
Plus any chart where Blyleven gets bonus pts for K/9 over a guy like McGinnity is silly. The game was so different in that respect in the respective era that it can't even be included as a category. You might as well give McGinnity bonus pts for allowing infinitely fewer home runs than Blyleven!
In fact, HR allowed ARE listed in the first chart, yet it is conveniently decided that it is not one of the 11 categories worth ranking pitchers by. Add in HR/9, and you can bet that McGinnity would be one of the ones passing Blyleven on the chart.

The irony is that there is a condescending flavor here of 'sportswriters are too dumb to understand the real methods, so let's give them something easy to make them vote for Bert.'
But if the chart itself is mostly worthless, who cares if it's easy to understand?
   156. rawagman Posted: May 08, 2006 at 12:15 PM (#2009786)
I don't agree that it's completely worthless. The categories themselves are arbitrary, not being reflective of the style of play/context of play, but I do find interest in the ranking methodology.

I honestly cannot say that any one particular method which claims to accurately establish of value-centric rank for different players over different contexts can be scientifically accurate. Any system is bound to have a certain (almost overriding) amount of subjectivity to it. Sometimes, simplicity has merit, too.

My limited experience of this forum has shown that to be the case here, too. Different voters have different methods of establishing their ranks, valuing vastly different player traits, and we naturally see very few occurances of unanimity among the electorate. Justly so.

These variances are a big part of what make baseball magical.
   157. Howie Menckel Posted: May 08, 2006 at 12:28 PM (#2009792)
Right, I actually wrote "mostly worthless" and not "completely worthless," you'll notice.
   158. rawagman Posted: May 08, 2006 at 12:37 PM (#2009800)
Point taken.
I really just wanted to bring attention to the fact that Waddell, Gomez, Joss and Dean were second-runged, and above questioning, while Drysdale, Rixey, Ruffing, et all were third-tiered.

You may have noticed my tendency to vote for Waddell and Gomez really highly, while at the same time having Drysdale around 20th in my list.

That's just me. When it's all said and done, even Jose Lima can throw a baseball much better than the average human being.
   159. DavidFoss Posted: May 08, 2006 at 01:55 PM (#2009843)
Waddell, Gomez, Joss and Dean were second-runged, and above questioning, while Drysdale, Rixey, Ruffing, et all were third-tiered.

That kinda stuck out as I read it as well. The phrase he used was "Guys who are hard to compare to Bert but are probably better". I agree with the first part -- and it makes sense that he had to get those guys out of his study somehow -- but the second part is a giant can of worms.
   160. rawagman Posted: May 08, 2006 at 02:59 PM (#2009891)
as I said before, it seems to be that the extreme peak, shortish career guys were in that group. I tend to like that group better than the third group that was being studied, but most of the electorate likes the third group better. Much better.
   161. TomH Posted: May 08, 2006 at 03:03 PM (#2009893)
anti Hugh Duffy rant
---
I do not understand the top-10 love for Hugh Duffy. The man had one great year (1894). After that, what is there? A bunch of decent seasons.

Hugh Duffy's 2nd best season, according to WARP (either WARP1 or WARP3), was his 1891 for BOS in the Amer Assoc. His value to the team that year was exceeded by teammates Charlie Buffington, Duke Farrell, George Haddock, and Paul Radford (oh yes, household names all), and equalled by Brouthers. Then there was Tom Brown who led the league in steals, runs scored, and total bases. And played CF while Hugh got put in RF.

If a man is only the 5th or 6th best player on his (admittedly very good!) team in a weaker league during the 2nd best year of his career, how good is he? Not good enough to be in the HoM.

If we could get consensus that his defense was spectacular, I might see it differently, but I am not whole-hog buying the A+ Win Shares eval.
   162. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2006 at 03:42 PM (#2009931)
WS regards Duffy very highly, which has kept him alive in my consideration set, at least, and generally in the low 20s on my (or off my) ballot. If I went by WS alone, he'd be top 10 for sure, maybe top 5. But while WS keeps him alive, what TomH says keeps me from pulling the trigger. In the end I expect it to keep him out of PHoM, at least, but probably out of HoM too.

Currently eligible CFers Roush and Browning (granting Browning to be more of a corner OF-type candidate in terms of his actual skills and record) rate higher for me, and I recently moved Oms ahead of Duffy, too. Duffy and Berger are probably a good comp, or even Duffy and Wilson. Granted Duffy had a longer career, but there are a few fairly empty seasons on those shoulders.

Still, I will acknowledge that he is a hard one to dismiss, but in the end harder to support.
   163. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 08, 2006 at 04:09 PM (#2009947)
Sunny is right. WS likes Duffy a lot more than WARP does. However, it isnt' just that WS and WARP disagree on exactly how good Duffy was, which they do, especially where defense is concerned, this can be seen by the fact that Duffy rates higher within his own teams in WS than in WARP. It is that Duffy's team tended to far outplay their pythags AND their pythpat (which measures how many runs a team should have scored and allowed instead of did). And seeing as how WS is basede on wins and WARP on how many runs a players should have produced/saved, WS will have Duffy higher.

I am inclined to give members of the 1890's BoSox credit for outplaying their pythags and pythpats because if they didnt' they would not have won the titles that they did. And winning titles is the reason you play a season, its the ultimate goal (hence my love of high peaks).

So Duffy is a top 5 guy for me, I believe that he was a great defensive OFer AND I have no problem with giving him credit for his team's overachieving. Of course I do downgrade him a bit as WS seems to love all of the 1890's CFers to an unhealthy degree, otherwise he may be #1 for me.

If there is anyone I think we are close to making a mistake with it is Minnie Minoso. With the MLE's that we have and the whole age thing, I dont' see how is is better than any number of OFers (I have Keller, Duffy, Kiner, Browning, GVH, Oms, Brown, Cravath, and Berger ahead of him in that order). Actually I wonder why I have him around #30 sometimes.
   164. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#2009983)
Compared to all the guys you mention Minoso would have one obvious advantage--the timeline. Or is it two advantages--the timeline, and a competition advantage. Very very slight as compared to Kiner of course. He also had a longer career than most of those named, the obvious exception being GVH but then Oms and Brown, too. Still I don't think there can be much doubt, again with the possible exception of Kiner, that he faced tougher competition than the rest of them did.
   165. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 08, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#2009992)
So the argument for Minoso is based on timelining? As someone who doesn't timeline, or does only slightly, and who believes that a pennant is a pennant is a pennant, I guess I dont' see that as very persuasive.

And as for league quality, Minoso played in the AL in the 1950's, not the NL. I think our consensus here is that the AL of the 1950's wasn't much better than the AL and NL of the 1940's. Maybe if he had played in the NL he could recieve anythign more than a very slight bonus.

I guess on his own merits I just don't see Minoso as spectacular or HOM worthy. He doesn't have a great peak, he doesn't have a particularly long, prodcutive career. His prime is impressive but nothing more than Oms or Ashburn (and he doesn't have their career).

If Minoso had been found to have the pre-MLB career that most thought he had under his previous stated age, then I would support him. But he doesn't and I can't see the wild support for him at all. Not an awful candidate but not someone that really seperates himself in any way.
   166. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 08, 2006 at 05:39 PM (#2010022)
does anyone else find it a little strange that we have the most pitchers from one of the highest hitters eras ever
I've long wondered about this sort of thing. I think it's the, I dunno contrpositive? of the whole Rube Waddell/Addie Joss argument. These guys look awesome until you realize that they were at best second-tier hurlers from their generation, and that, in part, their snazzy ERA+s are functions of the mathematical/numerical (and other) limitations of the run environment.

Flash forward and Randy, Maddux, Pedro, Clemens are amazing, but I've kind of wondered if playing in a high-octane run environment has helped them to stand out more. Or perhaps even enhanced their value relative to someone pitching in a more historically average time. To put it another way, what would the perception of Bert Blyleven be if his career began in 1920 or in 1960? Would Pedro stand out as much in the environment of 1900-1915 as he does today?

If Minoso had been found to have the pre-MLB career that most thought he had under his previous stated age, then I would support him. But he doesn't and I can't see the wild support for him at all. Not an awful candidate but not someone that really seperates himself in any way.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
   167. TomH Posted: May 08, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#2010188)
balance check: Of our top 15 backloggers, 4 are C/IF (Gordon Moore Sewell Childs), 3 are pitchers (Mendez Redding Waddell), and 8 (over half) are hitters (Brown Sisler Minoso Duffy Kiner Browning Van Haltren Beckley).

Referencing Howie's post #39, our HoM is NOT short on 1B/OFers!

I urge for a sanity check on ballots that are heavily laden with bats. My top six will likely go 2B-SS-OF-P-1B-3B.
   168. rawagman Posted: May 08, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2010189)
Hey - the "hitters" need to field and the glove men need to hit, too.
   169. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2006 at 08:32 PM (#2010220)
>So the argument for Minoso is based on timelining?

j, well, I listed 3 things. I also said he had a longer career than most of the players you mentioned--the Kellers and Kiners and Cravaths and Bergers anyway (unless you give MLE credit to Cravath and not Minoso).

And, as I also said, Minoso sure faced tougher competition than GVH and Duffy and Pete Browning (not to mention Brown and Oms and Cravath) even if you want to argue that Charley Keller played against just as tough of competition. Personally I wouldn't want to defend that one, but whatever. You ignored all the rest.

>If Minoso had been found to have the pre-MLB career that most thought he had under his previous stated age, then I would support him.

Some people give Keller MLE credit for MiL play. How good was he, pre-MLB? For both, it's a question of a bit more career, not more all-star seasons. If Keller was a MLB all-star in '38, he wouldn't have been in Newark. (Cravath might be a special case.)

>I guess on his own merits I just don't see Minoso as spectacular

We're talkin' backlog here. Which of them are? You can find reasons NOT to vote for most of these guys, including Minoso. But with 15 slots on your ballot, you also gotta find reasons TO vote for some of them, and I don't find that Minoso has a lot of negatives either. Not compared to the Mantles and Clementes and Mays and Aarons, sure, but we're talkin' backlog here. It comes
   170. DL from MN Posted: May 08, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#2010241)
I've got 4 pitchers, 6 C/IF and 5 hitters in my top 15.
   171. Daryn Posted: May 08, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#2010274)
Marc's wife clearly entered the room...
   172. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#2010302)
Marc's wife clearly entered the room...

lol
   173. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2006 at 09:50 PM (#2010309)
Good one...

But no, the vagaries of cut and paste.
   174. TomH Posted: May 08, 2006 at 10:34 PM (#2010341)
best line of the week. I never let me wife catch me doing thi
   175. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 09, 2006 at 02:24 AM (#2010562)
Sunny,

1. I didnt' just ignore the other aspects of your argument. Minoso's career is indeed longer than Keller's and Kiner's but his peak is nowhere near as good. He needs more than a slightly longer career, he needs a VERY LONG career to catch up, I would think at least, and he doesn't have that. It's not like he is Jake Beckley.

2. I do believe that Keller could have been an MLB all-star in 1938 but was kept down on the farm because there were three other players playing at an MLB all-star level or at least a level close to that during the season. Our MLE's have Keller's MiL time as much more valuable (per season of course) than Minoso's. He may even have been an all-star in 1937, but I only give credit after a 'look at me' season and 1937 is Keller's.

3. There may nto be any spectacular players but there are players with spectacular aspects to their careers. What I really meant by that comment, however, is that there isn't anything that really seperates him, he isn't spectacular compared to the backlog. I have him as my 8th or 9th OFer and could have him lower. Why Minoso and not a guy like Roy Thomas or Fielder Jones, players whose peaks and primes are just about as impressive without the long career that Minoso is also lacking? Jimmy Ryan? George Burns? Even Rocky Colavito has a similar peak without a prime and career that are that far behind. Again not a bad candidate, but I don't see why he has been singled out amongst so many as a real candidate.

Tom,

I would probably categorize Duffy as a glove. I know that CF wasn't as important defensively but Duffy's defense is what has him at the top fo the 1890's CF trio, not his offense. With that in mind I look to have 6 C/IFers (Childs, Moore, Gordon, Trouppe, Howard, Boyer), 3 'hitters' (Keller, Kiner, Browning), 4 pitchers (Redding Walters, Dean, Waddell), Duffy, and one of Sisler/Mendez/Rosen/GVH on my ballot. However, 15-30 is loaded with OFers for me so that could change. I will look into it.
   176. Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#2010596)
I noted on my ballot that I found it well-worth it to reread the threads of several top-ranked guys whom I have not been voting for - in my case, WBrown, Mendez, and Moore.
I recommend the same for others, whether you wind up adding one to your ballot or not....
   177. Paul Wendt Posted: May 09, 2006 at 04:40 AM (#2010666)
TomH in admittedly "anti-Hugh Duffy rant":
>I do not understand the top-10 love for Hugh Duffy. The man had one great year (1894). After that, what is there? A bunch of decent seasons.

But I will not admit to pro-Hugh Duffy eulogy!

Win Shares gives Duffy the Cap Anson Award for 1893 also, in a tie with Ed Delahanty.

And the Cap Anson Award? That is the mirror image of the Cy Young Award for the days when the most valuable players are almost all pitchers; that is, the most valuable non-pitcher. (In the 1890s, Delahanty 1899 is the only non-pitcher MVP by Win Shares.)

>Hugh Duffy's 2nd best season, according to WARP (either WARP1 or WARP3), was his 1891 for BOS in the Amer Assoc. His value to the team that year was exceeded by teammates Charlie Buffington, Duke Farrell, George Haddock, and Paul Radford (oh yes, household names all), and equalled by Brouthers. Then there was Tom Brown who led the league in steals, runs scored, and total bases. And played CF while Hugh got put in RF.

Win Shares ranks him 5th on team, 9th in league (with none of the top three on that team --wow). Behind Brouthers but ahead of Farrell and Radford, 3B and SS. That matches a general difference between James and Davenport, with CFs higher-ranking by Win Shares and 3B-SS-2B higher-ranking by WARP.

1888: team 9th (10 WS)
1889: team 6th (17 WS)
1890: tm 3, lg 9
1891: tm 5, lg 9
1892: tm 3, lg 13 (with his pitching teammates 1-2 in league)
1893: tm 2, lg 7
1894: tm 2, lg 6
1895: tm 2, lg 20
1896: tm 5, lg ~top 40 (17 WS)
1897: tm 4, lg 13
1898: tm 5, lg 22
1899: tm 7, lg ~top 50 (17 WS)

Of course, his team and league rank by Win Shares
among "non-pitchers" only (casually defined) looks like another man.

Team _7 _4 _1 _3 _1 _1 _1 _1 _3 _3 _3 _4
Leag --- --- _3 _3 _4 _1 _1 10 --- _8 13 ---


Despite having some of those ordinals pencilled into Win Shares, that took me so long ...
   178. TomH Posted: May 09, 2006 at 11:48 AM (#2010764)
I guess the conclusion is that WS and WARP have VERY different views on Duffy, from the 'perfect storm' combo of the perceived defense difference (great vs avg), the WS bonus for CFers, and the WS bonus for team over-performing its RS/RA.

Maybe tonight I'll look up and post RCAP ranks for Duffy's good years and see where he lies on that scale.
   179. Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2006 at 11:54 AM (#2010768)
This stuff was over in the ballot thread, I moved it here.

Chris Cobb Posted: May 08, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#2010603)
(quoting the Howie ballot) "Goes 12 for 67 with NO walks at age 32 for the St Louis Browns. That ain't ALL racism."

No, it's making the jump from a league somewhere between AA and AAA in quality to the majors, PLUS racism.

For comparison, consider the performance of another hitter who jumped immediately from the NeL to the majors in 1947:

Larry Doby, 1947, 5-32, 1 bb 1 2b.

That performance was sure an excellent predictor of Doby's future in the major leagues . . .


sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2006 at 11:05 PM (#2010619)
Read Bill James discussion of Willard Brown's so-called trial with the Browns (it's in thge Jeff Heath entry), and then say it ain't racism.

If you don't have TNBJHBA, here's the gist. The Browns told Brown not to bring his bats, they would supply them. Well, Brown used a heavy bat and there was nobody on the Browns who used anywhere near as heavy a bat. Heath used the heaviest bat on the team but refused to allow Brown to use one. Brown finally found one of Heath's bats, busted, in a trash bin, the knob was knocked off. Brown taped the knob back on and used the bat one day, and hit his only ML HR. Heath retrieved the bat and smashed it into pieces.

Howie, it WAS ALL RACISM.


Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2006 at 07:50 AM (#2010765)
I'm sure no one seriously wants to compare Brown's MLB failure at age 32 to a player who was about decade younger when he failed on a first try (32 AB vs 67 is a real difference, as well). And if Brown wasn't ready to face major league pitching at age 32, when was he going to be ready?
If Brown had played in the 'real' Negro League and dominated, I'd be more inclined to partially overlook this failed trial. But I already had reason to be skeptical of his numbers before, and this just reinforces that.

And let's assume for a moment that the story about Brown being told not to bring his bats is true.
He gets there, and there is no appropriate bat for him.
At that point, what? He couldn't find a bat on his own for an entire month?
So the 12 for 67 with no walks is all racism?
You know, as badly as all of these players got screwed in real life, finally here's a payback for one of them: No matter how poorly Brown does in this trial at age 32, he gets zero deduction. Yet if he did well, it's a huge bonus, no doubt.

James obviously is more accurate than most researchers, but he's listed a few doozies in his day. What is the sourcing for this "taped knob" "Heath broke the bat" stuff? I'm not saying it's definitely not true, I'm just saying we shouldn't just assume it so.

A good portion of the entire Brown thread reads to me like a predisposition to elect the guy, and then numerical gymnastics to make it happen. I also feel like we were properly skeptical of legendary tales about players from the turn of the century. We need be no less diligent in examining later tales.

No offense meant, but no one gets a free pass here, I'm sure you all agree. Jump my hurdles regarding Brown, and I could even wind up voting for him.
   180. Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2006 at 11:56 AM (#2010770)
PS, I have the original BJ Historical Baseball Abstract around somewhere, but it's been a while. I don't recall if that was one of the entries where he sourced material; sometimes he just told a story and you wondered where it came from...
   181. Chris Cobb Posted: May 09, 2006 at 02:05 PM (#2010835)
Re Brown's 12-67 vs. Doby's 5-32:

Age has nothing to do with it. I cited Doby's numbers only because I didn't want to clog up the ballot thread with a long post, but an initial struggle for a player making the jump from the Negro Leagues to the majors shows up in some fashion in the records of many players who did it.

When I worked out the competition adjustment from the Negro Leagues to the majors, I eneded up not using the players' first year, because it was so much lower than subsequent performance that it was clearly skewing the data. The difficulty of the immediate transition doesn't show up as dramatically in the players who had a full season when they broke in, but the performance level is lower that year for everybody.

There's a pretty famous story about Willie Mays going 1-25 when he first came up to the majors before he settled in. If he became a .300 hitter immediately after that, he'd have a batting line of 13-65 by the time he got to 65 at bats.

So Mays was young: a rookie. Monte Irvin, even with time in AAA, which he dominated, also struggled greatly in his first trial in the majors when he was
30. His record:

17-76, no home runs.

He did draw 17 walks, so he showed plate discipline that Brown didn't, but other than that, his record in his first year is of the same order as Willard Brown's, Larry Doby's, and what we can project for Willie Mays.

Brown's teammate on the Browns, Hank Thompson, did a little bit better than Brown did, but the Browns let him go, too.

20-78, 10 walks, no home runs. .256/.341/.295

He was young, and got another chance with the Giants, and he became a successful major league hitter, though he drank himself out of his career just as he was reaching his prime. Brown did not get another chance.

Or how about Luke Easter? He was 33, maybe more, when he got his shot with Cleveland late in the 1949 season. Here's his line:

10-45, 0 home runs, 8 walks. .222/.340/.289


Brown's performance in his major-league stint is totally in line with all of these initial trials. Brown's numbers differ only in his lack of walks, which we should only expect given the style of hitting he showed in the Negro Leagues. Since his performance is so much in line with the performance of players who would become excellent major-league hitters, it is unreasonable to use these numbers as an argument against Brown, when it is also all too easy that Brown, because of his age and the "quota" system that governed the early years of integration, would never get the second chance that these others did.
   182. rawagman Posted: May 09, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2011070)
Brown's MLB numbers scream "SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!!!
How can any serious historian make an analysis of a career based on 67 plate appearances?!?!?
No bonus, no penalty.
   183. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 09, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#2011088)
Brown's MLB numbers scream "SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!!!
How can any serious historian make an analysis of a career based on 67 plate appearances?!?!?
No bonus, no penalty.


That's where I also stand, rawagman. It means squat.
   184. TomH Posted: May 09, 2006 at 06:16 PM (#2011132)
Well, it DOES mean he had 67 poor PAs that actualy occurred, which the MLEs ought to include, but I agree no more than that.
   185. Chris Cobb Posted: May 09, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#2011158)
My MLEs do include them.

Also, for the record, I hope it was clear from my post above that I don't give Brown a bonus for doing badly in his brief major league stint, just like all these other great early black major-leaguers. I take the similarity of his performance to theirs to indicate that a bad initial run of 70 PA is only to be expected under the circumstances, and that it certainly shouldn't be taken as predictive of future performance.
   186. TomH Posted: May 09, 2006 at 10:50 PM (#2011499)
more Hugh Duffer. I mean Duffy :)

From 1888 to 1895, Duffy was a very good hitter for an outfielder (OWP of .671). From 1896 on, he was an slightly-above-avg hitter (OWP of .530), not good for an OFer (typical OWP of .580).

During his peak, 1890 to 1895, he was 5th overall in RCAP, behind Hamilton, Brouthers, Thompson, and Cupid Childs.

On the RCAP leader boards, Duffy was tied for 7th in the PL in 1890, 2nd in the AA in 1891, and 2nd in the NL in 1894. Those are his only top 10 appearances.

His peak is shorter than Sisler's, and his value outside of his peak was only slightly better.

So, I can add a few bonus wins for his team's overachieving, but he still can't compete on my ballot to the other prime candidates, and he doesn't have the career value of others. Unless, again, his defense was superb. By the way, how many years was Duffy's primary position centerfield? Answer: 4. Go ahead, name another A+ outfielder with as few seasons in center....
   187. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 10, 2006 at 12:29 AM (#2011792)
and he doesn't have the career value of others.

Except players of his time didn't have, on average, the long careers that players of later generations had, so I take that into account.
   188. Kelly in SD Posted: May 10, 2006 at 01:13 AM (#2011986)
Re: Duffy and CF and Win Shares.

If Duffy was only a regular CF for 4 years, then the Win Shares "bonus" for CF does not have much of an impact on him.
Also, if Duffy was a regular CF for only 4 years and still graded out to an "A+" that means he was a great defensive outfielder, at least by Win Shares.
   189. jimd Posted: May 10, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#2012182)
the Win Shares "bonus" for CF

WS has no "bonus" for CF, per se, because it does not know the position of OFs. It gives out a bonus for having a high OF range factor, and this is usually the indicator of the CF. LF and RF can also earn that bonus, but it is much more difficult to do from those positions because of the lower base. OTOH, it might be easier to do in 19thC LF than later because of the extreme right-handedness of the league(s), both pitching and hitting. OTOH, if it is easier to do then, the LFs also deserve it more because of the relatively increased traffic at the position.

James has stated his lack of interest in 19thC baseball so whether it works or not back then is not a major concern for him.
   190. rawagman Posted: May 10, 2006 at 05:42 AM (#2012430)
If you like peaks, you like Duffy. If you want career, Duffy's not bad. He did everything well. Prime was not his forte. Who peaked better.
YOu can say all you want about the increased run environment of 1893, there is still merit in adjusting better than anyone else.
   191. rawagman Posted: May 10, 2006 at 10:50 AM (#2012459)
another interesting study in how to go about creating a hall of...
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/balancing_peak_value_vs_career_value/
   192. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 10, 2006 at 01:17 PM (#2012532)
which [Brown's] MLEs ought to include
My MLEs also included Brown's MLB trial.
   193. Howie Menckel Posted: May 10, 2006 at 01:47 PM (#2012557)
Catchup time, mostly from Post 81:
17 for 76 with 17 walks for Irvin is exponentially better than 12 for 67 with none for Brown. Differing only in walks? We're talking about 110 walks per 600 PA (so 490 AB) vs 0. That's a heckuva difference.

To various HOMer voters who replied: Yes, he 'small sample size' issue indeed is there.
But, this is an extremely bad performance in OBP. Extremely bad.

And that brings me to a key issue: I see the MLEs tossed around like gospel at times. "He has a 126 OPS+ in 8800 AB" for some Negro Leaguer.
Might it be possible to show just many ACTUAL plate appearances these are based on?

I am treading a fine line here, because I greatly respect that work - and frankly, it has raised the quality of all of voting dramatically. I suppose I seem to be shooting spitballs at a sacred cow, to mangle metaphors.

But wasn't our info on some Negro Leaguers, especially earlier ones, a bit sketchy? Little we can do about it, of course, but at times we had to extrapolate from smaller sample sizes.

I certainly don't see 67 terrible MLB PAs and discount Brown as a hitter. A comparison to Cecil Cooper is not an insult to either man. But we need to try to grasp if this guy was Cooper, or Andre Dawson, or Frank Robinson.

With Brown, I see a guy in a weak league much of his career who faltered in an admittedly brief trial in the bigs.

Enter Pete Browning.
Does anyone think Brown's main league was closer to the gold standard than Browning's was?
After spending 8 years in the "weak" AA, Browning joins the PL in 1890 - the best of the three leagues that year. All he does is post a league-leading 169 adjusted OPS+ ! That's right in line with AA OPS+s of 190, 177, 177, 173, 163, 154....
And in rugged one-league 1893, in 220 ABs with tinnitus and alcoholism and everything else, Browning posts a 151 OPS+.

Those latter numbers are suggestive evidence of what a great player he was even while in the (ironically-abbreviated) AA.

I guess my question is, do we have as much evidence of Brown's greatness outside of HIS weak league? Where did he play with clear HOMers and demonstrate that he was on their level?
(I pray that doesn't seem sarcastic; I know there is some evidence of that caliber, but I'd like to see if it's Browning-level or not).

Anyway, thanks for the civil responses. I'm trying to challenge conventional wisdom here, and that can be taken as offensive. I have nothing personally against Brown or any other candidate; but they all have to conquer questions to get on the ballot.
   194. Chris Cobb Posted: May 10, 2006 at 03:01 PM (#2012651)
17 for 76 with 17 walks for Irvin is exponentially better than 12 for 67 with none for Brown. Differing only in walks? We're talking about 110 walks per 600 PA (so 490 AB) vs 0. That's a heckuva difference.

This response is irrelevant to an evaluation of Brown. I advanced the data not to argue that Brown was just as good a hitter as Irvin. He wasn't, because he wouldn't take a walk. The electorate recognized the differences between them when it elected Irvin immediately and left Brown in the backlog.

The significance of Irvin's data for an evaluation of Brown is that a top-notch NeL hitter in his 30s could not hit for either average or power when he broke into the major leagues. Irvin had, and kept, his plate discipline, but he lost everything else, until he adjusted. Same for Luke Easter. Brown didn't have plate discipline to lose. His offensive game was batting average and power, and he lost both.

The point is that there isn't any evidence here that Brown was specially unqualified to hit in the majors because of his style. His overall value is less because of his lack of plate discipline, but there's no evidence that his major league performance was otherwise significantly worse than that of other NeL stars making the transition.

Might it be possible to show just many ACTUAL plate appearances these are based on?

Pretty much all the data that served as the basis for the MLEs Dr. Chaleeko and I produced is available in the first 25 posts on the Brown thread. His early years are poorly documented, but for most of his career small sample size is not an issue: we've got over 4000 recorded PA for Brown.

Brown's MLEs have as much or more integrity than those of the other Negro-Leaguers.

I guess my question is, do we have as much evidence of Brown's greatness outside of HIS weak league? Where did he play with clear HOMers and demonstrate that he was on their level?

You can compare his performance in the Puerto Rican Winter League to Josh Gibson's.

As to the "weak league" argument: for Brown's early years when the NAL was just getting started, I lowered the translation factor somewhat to account for that. When I examined the players who made the jump from the NAL to the majors togetehr with the players who made the jump from the NNL to the majors, I did not see any evidence that the quality of the NAL was lower overall at that time than the NNL's was: the translation factor for each group was the same.
   195. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 10, 2006 at 04:36 PM (#2012781)
The question of Brown versus Browning is really interesting. Consider who the top OF holdovers are in the backlog. There's Brown, and he's a longish-career, avg/power combo who probably played a decent-good CF. Then there's a string of shorter-career, high-OBP, power hitters, (Kiner, Keller, Browning, Minoso, Johnson), some of whom had fielding issues. Heck you could throw Doyle in with them.

There is a simple difference in style of play here. For Browning, et al. that style helps them rack up value in short careers. On the Brown side, his offensive upside was limited by his lack of discipline, but his power and athleticism may well have helped him stay in the league long enough to amass the kind of value we estimate him to have. And it's not like our estimates see him as a C.P. Bell peakless wonder either. In fact, I personally feel that the electorate has made a slight error in supporting Bell over Brown (insofaras NgL CFs are concerned). It's just my opinion, but there are as many anamolies and inscrutables in Bell's record as in Brown's (and some more damning than a low walk rate), and it seems obvious (to me at least) that Brown was probably a more "impactful" player than Bell.

I personally rank Duffy, Brown, and Browning very close together. The differences among them essentially cancel out, and you're left with something like a pick'em of the 16th-18th best CFs in the history of the game (YMMV depending on your own personal peak vs. career tilt). That's right on the in/out line, a smidge ahead of Roush, GVH, and Ryan. Bell, Carey, and Ashburn are all, to me, a few lengths beyond that line, because their peak/prime performance isn't quite as peaky/primey as I'd like it to be.
   196. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 10, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#2012855)
Just to add a little food for thought for the OFs mentioned in my previous post (both electees and backlogs)....

Here's how many times each finished as the best player at their position (position determined by season and meaning LF, CF, RF, not just OF or CF and Corner Outfield) or in an All-Star slot, defined as among the top 25% at their position (so, the top 2 in a 6 or 8 team league, top 3 in a 10 or 12 league, top 4 in a 14 or 16 league--yes, I'm rounding up for convenience).
NAME       1ST  A-S
-------------------
Ashburn      1    5
Browning     5    1
Carey        5    2
Doyle        7    2
Duffy        5    1
Johnson      2    2
Keller       2    2
Kiner        3    2
Minoso       6    2
Roush        3    3
Ryan         4    2
GVH          2    4

In addition, here's something more speculative. Assuming that Brown and Bell would have played CF for their entire big-league careers, we can compare their MLEs to the NL CFs in the seasons they are projected to have played to see where they might have ranked.

NAME       1ST  A-S
-------------------
Bell         1    5
Brown        6    3


Now remember, I'm not saying this is what would have happened, I'm only saying that our latest estimates suggest that this was the level they were playing at, based on what we know about them and the NL of the period. 

Bell appears to be analagous to Ashburn. Brown, by this analysis, looks like the best CF on the board. And he barely squeaks by Minoso for best OF. Doyle, the lone, smoking, infielder, appears to have been slightly more dominant overall. 

That we elected Ashburn then Bell is sensible in as much as in electing Ashburn we set a precedent for guys who failed to dominate their league or position, but who played at a high level for a long time, and in Bell we have continued that pattern. It's not my preference that we continue that precedent, let some peaksters have their day in CF too..

That we're about to elect Brown seems to make sense since our latest estimates of him support the perception that he exhibited a strong level of dominance over his position. The MLEs are far from gospel, but they represent a systematic best guess. The uncertainty in Brown's MLEs isn't greater than the uncertainty in Bell's or most anyone else's we've done. If you thought previously that Bell's MLEs accurately represented him as Rich Ashburneque, then I'd say you need to take Brown's MLEs with the same seriousness, even if you can't find an exact MLB analog for his style of play or his perceived level of dominance over the league.
		
   197. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 10, 2006 at 06:26 PM (#2012950)
How many players spent their first 60+ PA's without a walk and went on to have a HOM level career?

I know that the above question is silly for many reasons. It is only 60 PA's, Brown was 32 at this point where many others were in the early 20's, so a lack of plate discipline may have been more ingrained in him than other players, etc.

But what is the precedent for this? I know that a few years ago Shea Hillenbrand and Alfonso Soriano had records like this in their first few months and they became decent players but they are clearly not HOM material. Jeff Francouer was like this last year and has some potential to do so, but it is WAAAAY too early.

I only ask because I do see Willard Brown's MLE's or, more accurately, his hypothetical MLB career as having as high a variable as we have seen among NeL candidates due to his complete lack of plate discipline. It is possible that by playing in a weaker league tha MLB he was never forced to learn plate discipline and that he could have done so. However, other NeL players with HOM talent had no problem learning plate discipline as their careers went along, no?

I think that Howie is right in saying that Brown could have been Frank Robinson (I would say Vlad Guerrero muself, but the point is the same), Andre Dawson, or Cecil Cooper, or I would say even worse if he really was never going to learn plate dscipline. If you take the middle of those three players, Andre Dawson, I have to say that he won't be making my ballot anytime soon as I am not a fan of the Hawk's HOM case as the lack of walks for the Hawk stopped him from ever being a truly great player in any one season, let alone 4-5.

I think a lot of Brown's high grades are due to the fact that he may have been an awesome player, but at the same time he may not have been at all. While his MLE's may not have as many varibales in them, I think that any transition to a higher league would have for a player such as he.

So I guess I am asking if we are giving Brown more leeway than we woudl someone like Andre Dawson (or a comparable player that is more contemporary, I can't think of one) because the variability in the former's career means that he may have been great, but was more likely as good as, whereas there is little variability in the record of the latter.
   198. sunnyday2 Posted: May 10, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2013059)
>I think that Howie is right in saying that Brown could have been Frank Robinson (I would say Vlad Guerrero muself, but the point is the same)

Well, having seen F. Robby and Vlad, I would have to argue that the point would not be the same. If he was F. Robby, then he was a ton better than Vlad!

But anyway, yes, Brown coulda been anybody from Vlad to the Hawk to Cecil Cooper (I myself have never argued and would not argue that Willard Brown was F. Robby, even though Willard is in my PHoM).

Similarly, CP Bell coulda been Brett Butler, in fact, probably was, or Max Carey, or maybe he was Richie Ashburn, or maybe he woulda been Joe DiMaggio but for an ill-advised effort to become a switch-hitter and if he had been in a culture that encouraged swinging for extra bases.

And Pete Browning coulda been Henry Aaron or he coulda been Rocky Colavito, and Hugh Duffy coulda been Ken Griffey or Kirby Puckett or Vada Pinson or Jim Wynn or he coulda been Amos Otis or he coulda been Tommie Agee.

The fact that Willard Brown coulda been anywhere in a range if he had played in an integrated ML environment is not news. We have been struggling with this for 60 years or so, since black ballplayers first came into our consideration set in some numbers. And of course the same is true of the white 19C MLers, not to mention Larry Doyle. Was he Rod Carew or was he Juan Samuel?

I don't think anybody is giving Willard Brown any leeway. As Chris Cobb said "years" ago: All of the NeLers could be somewhere in a range, but where we rank them is where they are most likely to belong--which I would think would logically be in the middle of the range. But OTOH I'll bet more voters are voting Willard Brown and have voted NeLers generally at the bottom of their range than at the top.

What I don't think is kosher is saying that, well, since we don't really know how good Willard Brown really was, I'm gonna knock 10 percent of his most likely rating (or the bottom of his potential range). This, as I have said before, is penalizing him twice for living in a racist era.

And then my other point would be: Besides, who cares what we woulda coulda shoulda done in the MLs? We in fact do know what he did in the NeLs, and that ultimately is what we are rating him on. That ultimately is his legacy and it is either ballot-worthy or it's not. The NeLs are not a bizarro-ML world, they were a world unto themselves with their own worth and that is why we are electing NeLers to the HoM, at least as I see it.

Having said all of that, Brown continues to rank around #10-12 on my ballot and is in my PHoM. But obviously, reasonable people can disagree. There are 50 players on the borderline, any of whom can make a legitimate claim on about 10 HoM spots. There are an infinite number of variables involved in how each of us individually ranks all those various players, so of course we come to wildly different conclusions. Viva la difference, as my father said upon his return from WWII. I never knew what he meant.

But also, viva la Willard Brown.
   199. Chris Cobb Posted: May 10, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#2013061)
The Brown/Dawson comparison only gets you so far, because, even if you say Dawson didn't have a great peak, his level of play was high enough early in his career, walks or no walks, that if he could have sustained it for 8-10 years instead of 5 he would be a solid HoMer, rather than a borderline case.

It was his knee problems on top of his limited plate discipline that brought his level of play down, sapping his playing time and his defensive value.

Brown's injury history is much cleaner.

Even if we say no more of Brown than "Andre Dawson without knee problems," I think that's going to be a pretty strong case.
   200. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 10, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#2013168)
Well I doubt that Dawson will ever be in my top 30, so I don't find many comparisons to him as very convincing.

The thing with Brown and caring about what he did in MLB is that his walk rate was low enough that he coudl have become one of those players with a ton of talent that never makes it in a higher league. However, he played in the NAL, which could very well have been league that was not good enough to punish hitters with patience problems and thrived. This would beg the question, "Are there any white MLB players whose plate disciplne did them in but could have become HOM type players in a league like the NAL?" I have no clue what the answer is, but since Brown seems to have a flaw that can make or break careers in his resume, and one that may have hurt him much less that a simpmle translation would report in the league in which he played, I think it is a valid question.

Also, I realize that many NeL players have ranges in which they could have playe din MLB, I just think that Brown is larger than pretty much every else's (besides maybe Luke Easter) due to his one flaw, which could have been overcome or could have broke him. I am not sure that the low end of his range is Cecil Cooper is all.
Page 2 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
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(99 - 9:21am, Dec 22)
Last: Moeball

Herman Long
(11 - 9:22pm, Dec 21)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0799 seconds
43 querie(s) executed