Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, October 11, 2004

Cannonball Dick Redding

I’m confident he wasn’t the pitcher of the magnitude of a Johnson, Alexander or Williams, but beyond that?

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 11, 2004 at 02:40 PM | 153 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Chris Cobb Posted: October 11, 2004 at 02:51 PM (#909710)
Here's Holway's data on Dick Redding. For each season, I have included Redding's w-l record, his team's w-l record, and runs allowed, when available.

I'm not certain how I'm going to rank Redding myself, but I am certain that his own w-l record needs to be evaluated in the context of his teams.

Dick Redding in the Negro Leagues
1911 5-1, TRA 5.35 for NY Lincoln Giants; team 7-5 or 6-4
1912 2-2 for NY Lincoln Giants; team 5-4; (other dec. Joe Williams)
1913 0-0 for NY Lincoln Giants
1914 4-4 for NY Lincoln Giants; team 15-14 or 14-16 (Joe Williams 6-4)
1915 6-2 for NY Stars, TRA 2.55; team 10-9; Holway George Stovey Award. All-star
1916 4-1, 5.59 TRA for NY Lincoln Giants; team 10-9 (Joe Williams 5-6); GSA
1917 14-5, 1.57 TRA for Chi Am Giants; team 30-7
1918 2-0 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 5-3; military service
1919 3-3 for AC Bacharach Giants; team 6-5; military service
1920 8-7, 3.87 TRA for AC Bacharach Giants; team 12-12; GSA
1921 15-11, 3.36 TRA for AC Bacharach Giants, team 34-28, 2-0 in playoff vs. Hilldale; 0-2 in playoff vs. Chi Am Giants
1922 9-6, 1.65 TRA for AC Bach Giants; team 20-24; GSA, All-star; 0-1 in WS vs. CAG
1923 3-2 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 18-18
1924 1-5 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 12-23 (Joe Williams 3-4)
1925 2-1 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 16-16
1926 0-3 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 3-15
1927 2-5 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 14-26
1928 2-0 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 3-6
1929 no data; pitched for Bkn Royal Giants, who were not in ECL
1930 0-2 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 0-6
1931 0-1 for Bkn Royal Giants; team 0-7
1932 no data; pitched for Bkn Royal Giants, who were not in East-West league

Total 82-61, .573 WP
Holway’s total, 89-63 (often Holway's own posted career totals don't quite match what I get when I add up the posted seasonal data)

Teams 218-238, .478 WP
Teams w/out Redding 136-177, .434 WP
   2. Chris Cobb Posted: October 11, 2004 at 02:52 PM (#909713)
P.S. GSA = George Stovey Award, Holway's Negro-League Cy Young award
   3. DavidFoss Posted: October 11, 2004 at 03:18 PM (#909743)
The recent Neyer/James pitcher's book rates Redding's fastball as one of the best ones of the teens.
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: October 11, 2004 at 03:57 PM (#909819) excerpts, I invite you as always to view the full story, there's lots more...

"In his first season, 1911, Redding reeled off 17 consecutive wins. Through 1914, he teamed with Smokey Joe Williams to give the New York Lincoln Giants one of the all-time-great one-two pitching punches. Jumping to the Lincoln Stars in 1915, he won 20 straight, including several games against major league all-star squads. In that year's Black World Series, he went 3-1 with a shutout over the Chicago American Giants, and batted .385.

Redding fought in France in 1918, then returned as player-manager of the Bacharach Giants. In 1920 he led them to the Eastern Colored League championship.
(looks like he was a manager/player well into the 1930s)
He eventually died in a mental hospital under mysterious circumstances.
   5. KJOK Posted: October 11, 2004 at 11:06 PM (#910647)
The 1928 Brooklyn Royal Giants were actually 4-6 instead of 3-6, and Redding was 1-0 instead of 2-0....
   6. KJOK Posted: October 11, 2004 at 11:26 PM (#910671)
Interesting article from the July 30, 1927 Afro-American:

Cannon Ball Dick Redding, manager of the Brooklyn Royals has been in big league baseball since 1910.

Redding, who stands 6 feet tall and weighs around 235 pounds started his baseball career as a college twirler while in school at Morris Brown University, Atlanta, Ga. He was born in the Georgia state capital.

Redding made his Eastern debut with the Philadelphia Giants in 1910 as an infielder and pitcher. Then a year or so later he passed to the Lincoln Giants and in 1916 to Rube Foster's Chicago American Giants. It was in this year that "Dick" and "Ben" Taylor, now leader of the Black Sox, played on opposing teams. Ben was with his brother Ci.I, who had the Indiannapolis A.B.C's. During that season Redding pitched two 16 inning contests against the Taylormen.

From Foster's clan Redding passed over to the Bacharach of N.Y. where he was manager for five years. During this time he pitched upon one occaison 22 scoreless innings. After leaving the Bees, Redding joined the Royals where he is now pitcher-manager.

Dick Redding, as he is known thruout the country, is one of the greatest characters in colored baseball. There is not another man in the Eastern League who is due as much honor as he. His nearest competitor is Ben Taylo. Redding, when on the field is quiet and unassuming never having much to say to anyone. When arguments arise on the field, he lets the umpire settle it. Only decisions that are really unfair move the big speed king.
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: October 12, 2004 at 08:11 PM (#912288)
For purposes of developing a 30,000 foot view of Negro pitchers, I developed a little numerical score based on the info provided by Chris Cobb (GSAs and All-Star and MVPs and HoF status, etc.). This is a very blunt tool of course, but it provides a starting point. Here is the rating and ranking of Negro League pitchers.

1. Smokey Joe Williams 13.5
2. Bill Foster, Joe Rogan 10
4. Ray Brown, Hilton Smith 6
6. Dick Redding 5
7. Leon Day 4.5
8. Rube Foster 3
9. Chet Brewer, Jose Mendez, Satchel Paige 2

Paige's rating is of course affected by the demise of the NeL while he was still kickin' but then so was Ray Brown's and Hilton Smith's (maybe).

Meanwhile, Rube Foster's and Mendez' rating is also depressed by the lack of organization and documentation in their day.

So this is by no means my final ranking. But I think Redding is a ballot contender, for sure, as are Rogan, the second Foster, Ray Brown, H. Smith and Day in turn...and Paige, of course. I could cheerfully elect them all, but at the risk of bringing some ire down on myself, I think getting Redding pegged correctly vs. Foster and Smith and Brown and Chet Brewer and Day is a major necessity to knowing where to put him on the ballot. I'm inclined to start him out above Mendez, which means above Waddell, which means above Coveleski, which means...oh, about 8-10th.
   8. Thane of Bagarth Posted: October 13, 2004 at 03:20 AM (#913392)
Pretty much on reputation alone I see Cannonball Dick as third among the NeL pitchers, behind the obvious choices of Paige and Williams. Willie Foster might be tied with him, but Redding was pretty clearly the top pitcher of his era after Smokey Joe. I'm not going to hesitate putting him at number 1. Is that going to make me his new best friend?
   9. TomH Posted: October 13, 2004 at 11:33 AM (#913652)
"Pretty much on reputation alone I see Cannonball Dick as third among the NeL pitchers"
I must be reading different sources of reputation. Holway doesn't have him in his top 7. James excludes him from his top 4. NeL authority Ted Knorr, in a private list he gae me, didn't place him in his top 8. SABR poll had a top 4, with no Redding. Pitts Courier poll, top 5, no Redding. McNeil encycloedia? i9s projections? I know some of htis can be explained by "timelining" - that later black stars got more press - but I see lots of sources that don't compare Redding well to his peers. Show me otherwise.
   10. Thane of Bagarth Posted: October 13, 2004 at 07:23 PM (#914409)
"Pretty much on reputation alone I see Cannonball Dick as third among the NeL pitchers"

My opinion was based off what I generally remember hearing or reading throughout the years (about pitching only, I wasn't taking hitting into account), but my primary source for HoM voting has been Riley's Encyclopedia, which says something like "one of the greatest Negro League pitchers" and also has a picture of Redding and S.J. Williams with the caption "two greatest pitchers of the deadball era." I have not seen the "sources that don't compare Redding well to his peers." I think it means a lot to be the "best of..." for your era, that's why I'm voting for Taylor, too.

I couldn't find any of the other rankings you mentioned, but the SABR Top 40 has Cannonball 21st overall and eighth out of the pitchers--clearly lower than I would have guessed. So, I did completely forget about Dihigo, who--without looking for any references--I would put ahead of Cannonball.

Who else shows up in the rankings you mentioned? Is hitting affecting the ranking? That would obviously (and justifiably) help guys like Dihigo, Rogan, Day, and Rube Foster.
   11. Chris Cobb Posted: October 13, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#914522)
A readily available source for Holway's and James's rankings is the front page of the thread entitled "Discussion of Negro League candidates" listed down on the bottom part of the HoM home page.

The Courier rankings are available on line at one or more of the sites devoted to negro-league baseball, but off the top of my head I don't remember which one.
   12. KJOK Posted: October 14, 2004 at 12:47 AM (#915066)
The Courier Rankings are at the bottom of the page here:

Pitch Black FAQ - Courier Rankings
   13. KJOK Posted: October 14, 2004 at 12:50 AM (#915081)
and the rankings from "Baseball's Other All-Stars" by McNeil are here:

Baseball's Other All-stars Rankings
   14. KJOK Posted: October 14, 2004 at 09:59 PM (#916824)
And for good measure, the SABR Rankings:

Rankings of Best Negro League Players, 1999
By The SABR Office

Rk Player Votes %
1 Paige, Satchel 85 100.0%
1 Leonard, Buck 85 100.0%
3 Bell, Cool Papa 84 98.8%
4 Charleston, Oscar 82 96.5%
5 Foster, Rube 81 95.3%
5 Gibson, Josh 81 95.3%
5 Lloyd, Pop 81 95.3%
8 Dihigo, Martin 80 94.1%
8 Stearnes, Turkey 80 94.1%
8 Wells, Willie 80 94.1%
11 Dandridge, Ray 79 92.9%
11 Rogan, Bullet 79 92.9%
13 Suttles, Mule 77 90.6%
13 Williams, Smokey Joe 77 90.6%
15 Johnson, Judy 76 89.4%
16 Day, Leon 75 88.2%
17 Mackey, Biz 66 77.6%
18 Foster, Willie 65 76.5%
19 Irvin, Monte 63 74.1%
20 Torriente, Cristobal 59 69.4%
21 Redding, Dick 54 63.5%
22 Santop, Lou 53 62.4%
23 Posey, Cumberland 50 58.8%
24 Manley, Effa 45 52.9%
25 Wilkinson, J.L. 44 51.8%
26 O'Neil, Buck 43 50.6%
26 Wilson, Jud 43 50.6%
28 Smith, Hilton 41 48.2%
29 Lundy, Dick 40 47.1%
30 Doby, Larry 39 45.9%
30 Greenlee, Gus 39 45.9%
32 Radcliffe, Ted 38 44.7%
33 Taylor, Ben 36 42.4%
34 Mendez, Jose 35 41.2%
35 Allen, Newt 34 40.0%
35 Beckwith, John 34 40.0%
35 White, Sol 34 40.0%
38 Jethroe, Sam 33 38.8%
39 DeMoss, Bingo 32 37.6%
39 Petway, Bruce 32 37.6%
39 Trouppe, Quincy 32 37.6%
   15. ronw Posted: October 15, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#917053)
When are Cum Posey, Effa Manley, J.L. Wilkinson and Gus Greenlee eligible?

Seriously, this SABR list is really a "most influential person associated primarily with the Negro Leagues" list.
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2004 at 02:27 PM (#917535)
Having checked out the Courier, MLB and SABR lists, I have to say that I have a lot more confidence in my list (post #7 above). It simply adds up simple numerical values for the following:

1. whether the pitcher is in the Cooperstown HoF or not
2. how many votes the pitcher got as HoF worthy in the Cool Papas voting
3. how many times the pitcher was listed as an all-star or G. Stovey Award winner by Holway
4. how many times the pitcher was listed as the best of the NeL (how many seasons) by Bill James.

IOW, it is based on the info included in the pitchers' shorthand description at the top of the ballot discussion thread each year (compiled by Chris Cobb).

In the interest of completeness, hwoever, I am now adding a numerical rating for the Courier, MLB and SABR polls, and I come up with this.

The rating is still weighted in favor of the Holway and James all-star and "cy young" awards, because they represent some level of seasonal analysis that is missing in all of the other inputs. And I would describe this rating and ranking as a "reputation monitor," not as a value or achievement ranking per se.

1. Smokey Joe Williams 21.5
2. Joe Rogan 18
3. Bill (don't call me rube) Foster 17

These three could be called the more or less unanimous choices.

4. Dick Redding 11

Sometimes rated as low as 8th, but at least everybody has got him among the top 10 where some of the others bounce all the way from top 4-5 to not mentioned in the top 10.

5. Satchel Paige 10

Satchel's rating is depressed by a low number of all-star seasons according to Holway and a low number of "cy young" years according to Holway and James. Coulda/woulda won more such awards (I assume, I don't know for sure) had the NeL continued throughout his prime years.

6. Leon Day 9.5
7. Ray Brown 9
8 (tie). Hilton Smith 8

Two guys whose rating seems to vary a whole lot, all did especially poorly in the Courier poll and Brown did not make the SABR list.

8 (tie). Rube Foster 8
10 (tie). Jose Mendez 3

These ratings are depressed by the general lack of knowledge/information from the earliest days. i.e. both do poorly in the all-star and "cy young" ratings because those awards were not given for parts of their careers.

They also ran (the second, or third if you prefer, tier)--John Donaldson, Dave Brown, Nip Winters, bill Holland, Bill Byrd, Ted Radcliffe, Frank wickware, Slim williams, Luis Tiant, Dizzy Dismukes, Don Newcombe, Cockrell, Mcdonald, McClellan, Jackman, Chet Brewer, Henderson, Matlock.

My gut would be that Winters, Brewer and Byrd were the best of the rest but that's a guess.

In short, I can't take the SABR poll at all seriously, the Courier poll seems quite selective and the MLB list is too short to be of much use. That nice little line that Chris Cobb provides each year is your best source of a quick and dirty impression of each pitcher, IMO.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2004 at 02:34 PM (#917551)
And P.S. Redding stays around #8-10 or maybe even moves up a notch or two on this year's ballot based on this additional analysis.

It is clear to me that the only NBs on the list are indeed Williams, W. Foster and Rogan, and probably Paige, though I am undoubtedly in a minority of one when I say that I believe Paige to be somewhat overrated. He may be as low as the #4 NeL pitcher all-time, and to those who think that is scandalously low, I would only say that Williams, Foster and Rogan are just that good.

I am comfortable that Redding is probably the #5 guy and should be a HoMer.

Then, getting Day, R. Brown and H. Smith right will be a little bit harder. Hopefully someone can shed some light on the reasons why some apparently knowledgeable folks didn't have them among the top 10 or even 15 NeL pitchers when the time comes. If those opinions can be/should be discredited, then I would guess that all three of these are alos worthy of the HoM. But the jury is out on that, I think the verdict on Redding is in and it is "guilty" of being a HoMer.
   18. TomH Posted: October 15, 2004 at 04:46 PM (#917790)
snippet of sunnyday's fine gross compilation of NeL pitcher sources -

1. Smokey Joe Williams
2. Joe Rogan
3. Bill Foster
4. Dick Redding
5. Satchel Paige
rating depressed by a low number of all-star/cy young seasons (Holway and James).
6. Leon Day
7. Ray Brown
8 (tie). Hilton Smith
8 (tie). Rube Foster
rating depressed by the general lack of knowledge/information from the earliest days.

Agree that Satchel may be overrated, but he DID have a longer-than-Cy-Young-length career, so I'd be shocked to have him lower than 3rd. As you mentioned, Rube could easily be higher - that would push Redding to 6th.

Ted Knorr's (and he has a pile o' knowledge) top 6 NeL pitchers included (not in order) Satchel, Smokey Joe, B Foster, R Foster, Rogan, and Brown.

His next 6 included (not in order) Day, Smith, Winters, Donaldson, Byrd, Redding, and maybe Dihigo (since he was ultilty) and maybe Mendez.

I would place Redding as tied for 6th with Brown. Another borderline HoMer for my ever-growing mass of those!
   19. Michael Bass Posted: October 15, 2004 at 06:10 PM (#917970)
Chris, are you planning to do a WS analysis of Redding? I still feel a little list with him, and I'd love to try to see an approximate WS total or W-L record to compare him to, say, Mendez.
   20. Chris Cobb Posted: October 15, 2004 at 06:37 PM (#918028)
Yes. Actually I've done the analysis, just haven't had time to write it up properly. Several huge writing projects are devouring my life just now. I plan to get to it tonight. I will say that I think the numbers support the reputation-based analysis suggesting he is a borderline HoMer. YMMV when it comes to interpreting the numbers, of course.
   21. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 15, 2004 at 08:54 PM (#918286)
Anyone have any thoughts on Redding versus Coveleski?
   22. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: October 15, 2004 at 08:58 PM (#918293)
I think right now I will be putting Coveleski Higher (I have him at #6) than Redding (anywhere from 7-9 right now). I jsut dont' have enough of a grasp on Redding to puth im any higher and I think that Coveleski is a HOMer.
   23. Chris Cobb Posted: October 15, 2004 at 09:10 PM (#918304)
As requested, win share projections for Dick Redding

This is my best estimate of Redding’s major-league career projection.

Here’s what I did.

Part I

1) Found Redding’s actual recorded Negro-League w-l record, 82-61, .573 WP
2) Found Reddings’ teams actual recorded record, 218-238, .478 WP
3) Found teams’ record without Redding, 136-177, .434 WP
4) Adjusted Redding’s record to what it would look if his teams had been .500 without him. That record projects as 91.4-51.6, .639 WP
5) Reverse-pythagged that to get an estimated support-neutral ERA+ of 133.
6) Found the MLE for that, which is 116.
7) Pythagged that to get a support-neutral MLE winning percentage of .574
8) Estimated Redding’s MLE decisions based on i9s innings projections. That estimate is 407.
9) Multiplied decisions by wp to get a projected support-neutral record of 234-174
10) Estimated win shares based on that support-neutral record. Total = 279, + war credit + bws?

Problem – this estimate overrates Redding somewhat, because it overstates his impact on his team winning percentage. In an actual season, he would have necessarily pitched a smaller percentage of games.

Part II

So, I ran through this same process, except that I projected Reddings’ records and his team records, using team winning percentage with Redding’s starts included for the team projection.

That led to a projected Negro-League record for Redding of 246-161, a support-neutral NeL record of 253—154, and a SN NeL ERA+ of 128.3

All that translates into a 226-181 MLE record, a 111.6+ MLE ERA+, and 255.8 win shares, + war credit + bws?

Problem – this estimate underrates Redding somewhat, since it understates his impact on his teams’ winning percentage.

So, to get what I thought was a better estimate, I averaged the two.

Final career estimate for Redding

Support Neutral MLE projected record: 230-177
ERA+ 114 (DERA 3.95)
267 win shares

Part III

Using the full-season and team records from Part II, I estimated seasonal win shares from wins above team, then smoothed them out a bit and adjusted the numbers to match the career win shares estimate. Here’s my best projection of his seasonal pitching win shares

1911 27
1912 11
1913 5
1914 14
1915 40
1916 33
1917 27
1918 6
1919 4
1920 19
1921 21
1922 19
1923 13
1924 5
1925 8
1926 2
1927 7
1928 6

267 total

Your guess is as good as mine as to the number of batting ws Redding would have earned, most likely between 2 and 7, I think.

You should set WWI credit as you see fit. I think he missed about one full season: I’m giving him 18 additional win shares for that time.

There’s a lot of guesswork, but I think that the career estimates of 256 – 279 pitching win shares is a fairly reliable range.
   24. Chris Cobb Posted: October 15, 2004 at 09:16 PM (#918312)
Anyone have any thoughts on Redding versus Coveleski?

I agree with jschmeagol, though he has Coveleski slightly lower and Redding slightly higher than I will.

Redding has more innings in a longer career, but Coveleski's advantage in ERA+ more than outweighs Redding's durability.

Coveleski 126 (calculated from a 3.57 DERA)
Redding 114 (estimated above)

That's a big difference, and it leads to Coveleski having a much higher peak value.
   25. karlmagnus Posted: October 15, 2004 at 10:05 PM (#918362)
I love Chris Cobb's calculations on these NL players, particularly pitchers, because they act as an excellent reality check on opinions in either direction. However, Chris, did you use I9 straight to estimate the number of decisions -- in which case for hitters I have been taking I9 minus 10 percent for length of career, and I thought others had been doing roughly the same. Subtracting 10% from your estimate of 230-177 gives 207-159, which is a number and level that "feels" about right, and probably equates reasonably to him being about the #5-6 NL pitcher.
   26. KJOK Posted: October 15, 2004 at 10:26 PM (#918390)
"When are Cum Posey, Effa Manley, J.L. Wilkinson and Gus Greenlee eligible?

Seriously, this SABR list is really a "most influential person associated primarily with the Negro Leagues" list. "

Technically, they're eligible for the Hall of FAME right now. Obviously, the SABR list was not conducted for the sole purpose of the Hall of Merit to use...
   27. Michael Bass Posted: October 16, 2004 at 01:17 AM (#918633)
The key comparison to me is vs. Mendez, who currently resides at 10 on my ballot.

Redding seems to have an advantage in career pitching, particularly once some war credit is given. Depending on how much the credit is, that probably gives him a 25-30 career WS advantage on Mendez.

However, Mendez's advantages seem to outweigh Redding's. First, Mendez was a high qaulity hitter; even not counting his later career as a pure batter, his advantage with the bat as a pitcher probably makes up much of the career WS advantage.

Furthermore, just using Chris's numbers, Mendez has a large peak advantage. He is listed as having 30+ WS for each of 1911-1914, a number Redding reached only twice. And factoring in hitting, the difference in peak is probably bigger than that even.

At the moment, he is 4 spots below Mendez on my ballot. That will be right on the borderline of actually making the ballot, we will have to see.
   28. Chris Cobb Posted: October 16, 2004 at 03:07 AM (#918730)
Chris, did you use I9 straight to estimate the number of decisions -- in which case for hitters I have been taking I9 minus 10 percent for length of career, and I thought others had been doing roughly the same. Subtracting 10% from your estimate of 230-177 gives 207-159, which is a number and level that "feels" about right, and probably equates reasonably to him being about the #5-6 NL pitcher.

Yes, I used i9s straight for number of decisions in this case. As far as I can tell, the i9s folks make their own subjective decisions about where to set the beginning and ending of the projected major-league careers for each player they project and about how to set the playing time within each season. I therefore compare their projections to the biographical and statistical record of Negro-League play in each individual case, and I accept or modify their career projection according to what I find.

It appeared to me that i9s projected Joe Williams’ innings well above what was reasonable, considering the evidence of his career and the conditions of major-league pitching at the time. So I reduced his innings in my projections to what seemed reasonable.

In the case of Redding, however, their projections seem quite reasonable, both for career length and for innings pitched within seasons. I would argue against applying a 10% reduction to his career length as estimated by i9s. Let me lay out the evidence I have considered.

First, i9s seems to model his overall career shape accurately.
For his start, Redding burst onto the scene with great success in 1911: i9s catches that accurately. He seems not to have been pitching regularly in 1913 (don't know the reason), and i9s catches that. It accounts for his wartime service. As his career wound down, i9s remains accurate, it seems to me. Redding appears to have pitched well, if sparingly, through 1928, which was his age 37 season. He continued pitching to 1932, but i9s chooses to break of his projected major-league career in 1928. Overall, they're not projecting him to throw innings when he clearly couldn't have, either according to the historical record or to what we know about athletes' aging patterns.

Second, their projections of his individual seasons seem reasonable, though that is harder to gauge. Here’s what I’ve looked at.

On individual seasons, i9s has him breaking 300 ip in 4 seasons: 1915, 1917, 1920, 1921. Here is how he would place among the major-league leaders in each season (Redding in bold, totals above 300 ip only listed)

1915 376.3, 341.3, 336.7, 319, 309.7, 306, 305
1917 388, 346.7, 339.7, 333.7, 326.3, 326, 321, 320
1920 363.3, 350, 339.7, 327, 319, 315, 312, 303.7, 303.3, 301.7, 301
1921 354, 336.7, 330.7, 327, 326.7, 315, 308.7, 304, 302.3, 301

He leads the majors in innings pitched once; otherwise his innings are within the established range of what top pitchers were throwing in those seasons.

Among the top major-league pitchers from 1910-1930, here are the times each of them broke 300 innings

9 – Johnson, Alexander
5 – Grimes
4 – Redding
3 – Rixey, Faber, Coveleski, Cicotte
2 – Shocker, Cooper, Mays, Luque

These comparisons suggest that Redding is being projected as of outstanding durability within seasons: beneath the all-time greats, but toward the top of the rest of the pack. I see this as a reasonable projection.

One might see it as optimistic, but it seems unlikely to me that Redding would have thrown any less than 2 seasons of 300+ innings given this data, which shows that pretty much every pitcher of comparable quality and career length did so. Furthermore, it seems to me that for a pitcher to endure the workload of a Negro-League pitcher during the teens (for example, Redding is credited with 55 decisions in his well-documented 1912 season, which suggests that he actually threw over 400 innings that year) without burning out, he would have to be of outstanding durability. Of the great Negro-League pitchers of the teens, only two didn’t burn out: Joe Williams and Dick Redding. Mendez, Donaldson, and Wickware were brilliant for 3 to 5 years, all possibly better at their peak than Redding, and then their arms were gone. Redding has more than a decade of top-notch pitching to his credit.

For a final consideration, let me turn back to career for a moment. Here’s how the group listed above looks in terms of career innings.

5924 Johnson
5189 Alexander
4495 Rixey
4180 Grimes
4088 Faber
3556 Redding
3480 Cooper
3224.3 Cicotte
3220.3 Luque
3092.7 Coveleski
3020.3 Mays
2674.7 Shocker

Also note that in this era Jack Quinn (3935), Sam Jones (3883), Waite Hoyt (3762), and Herb Pennock (3558) all topped 3500 innings pitched, though none of them ever threw 300 innings in a season.

For two Negro-League pitchers – Williams and Redding – to place within this cohort of 9 Major-League pitchers does not seem unlikely.

That’s how I see the innings-pitched projections issue. Dropping Redding's career from 3556 ip to 3200 innings pitched would not radically depart from the statistical record of his career, but I think it less likely to be an accurate projection than the higher figure.
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 18, 2004 at 12:51 AM (#921371)
Looking over Chris' fine projections, Redding looks like he'll just miss my ballot. Comparing him to his contemporaries, I just don't see him as HoM worthy. Great start for his career, but he petered out after 1923. Even WWI credit doesn't help his HoM case, IMO. I'll take Coveleski, Rixey and Faber over him (the latter two at the bottom of my ballot later on). Redding's peak was slightly better than Coveleski, but the latter had a greater sustained brilliance.

I'll keep working on him to see if I'm missing something.
   30. Chris Cobb Posted: October 18, 2004 at 03:11 AM (#921889)

I think you have Redding placed right with respect to other pitchers, but aren't you being a bit harsh on them overall?

Remember that in win shares, an average pitcher is going to earn about 6 win shares less than an average position player, so when a pitcher has a 30-win share season, he's adding quite a bit more value above average (and above replacement) than a 30-win share position player is.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 18, 2004 at 04:02 AM (#922126)
I think you have Redding placed right with respect to other pitchers, but aren't you being a bit harsh on them overall?

Since I had seven pitchers on my ballot last "year," it appears the answer is no. :-)
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 18, 2004 at 04:06 AM (#922159)
...and I'll have five on my new ballot.
   33. KJOK Posted: October 20, 2004 at 02:07 AM (#927218)
Rick Reuschel

IP - 3548 (Redding Proj. 3556)
Sup Neut Wins - 230 (Redding Proj. 230)
Sup Neut Losses - 175 (Redding Proj. 177)
ERA+ - 114 (Redding Proj. 114!)

That's soo close it's scary...
   34. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 16, 2004 at 02:18 AM (#967486)
A lurker sent me this in an email . . . I think it certainly adds to the discussion . . . I'll post my respone to him as well.

"Posted by Daryn on November 15, 2004 at 11:33 AM (#966564)
"I’m a big Redding fan. I think it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to only have 5 blackball pitchers in the HoM."

Hmm, Let's say the Negro Leagues era was 1900 to 1950, so roughly about the same length of time since 1950 to 2004. How many black pichers would you say are clearly Hall of Merit pitchers in the '50 to '04 period?

Well, I took the Win shares from 1950 to 2004, and sorted the pitchers.

The first Black is Fergie Jenkins at 10th, clear HOMer.

Bob Gibson is 12th, again slam dunk.

20th is Juan Marichal - here is a tough one, not if he is a HOMer, but whether he would "pass". Does he count as a Black or Latin?

25th Luis Tiant - since his dad didn't pass we will assume he won't. But is he a HOMer? 256 Win Shares, couple monster seasons, but no Cy Youngs. Weird thing, 5th in MVP voting in 1968, no votes in the Cy Young. I guess you only listed one back then.

34th Dennis Martinez - 233 Win Shares, with a max of 18. Not a HOMer I'd bet.

38th Pedro Martinez - 224 Win Shares, but a HOMer. That makes 3 for sure plus Marichal.

50th Vida Blue - 202 Win Shares, if Waddell isn't going in, I strongly doubt he will have much momentum.

53rd Lee Smith - 198 WS - Doubt he goes in.
66th Gooden - 187 WS - One big year! 33 Win Shares.

The Next two obviously black pitchers are Don Newcombe (176 WS) and Tom Gordon, who has been a favorite of mine for years.

So, anyway.

The fact that there may be five (or more) worthy canidates from 1900-1950 doesn't clearly mean there would be just as many in the next half of the century, and the fact that there are 3.5 worthy canidates doesn't mean that 5 are too many"
   35. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 16, 2004 at 02:22 AM (#967492)
My respone . . .

Thanks for the note. I pretty much agree with you. Doesn't mean there couldn't have been more before 1950 - blacks could have been steered out of pitching in the early days of integration (like some say with QBs) at lower levels, etc.. But yeah, I think you are most likely right on this one.

I think a 'reasonable' quota system - meaning a wide one, as few as X, as high as X+15? is entirely reasonable. How else can you decide where to draw the line with the Negro Leaguers?

I'd set X at 15. If we don't get at least 15 Negro Leaguers, it's too few. If we get more than 30 it's probably too many (that would be 1/7 of all HoMers). So what you are saying is reasonable. If we add 20-25 Negro Leaguers, should more than 5-6 be pitchers - I don't know . . .
   36. Howie Menckel Posted: November 18, 2004 at 02:37 AM (#971425)
Joe, I think the "top 3" Cy voting started after the tie between Cuellar and McLain in 1969...
   37. PhillyBooster Posted: November 18, 2004 at 02:10 PM (#971856)
I think a 'reasonable' quota system - meaning a wide one, as few as X, as high as X+15? is entirely reasonable. How else can you decide where to draw the line with the Negro Leaguers?

As a point of information, there are currently more Negro Leaguers than National Leaguers in the HoM for almost every year since 1914. Some of that is the earlier eligibility, but a lot is that downgrading of the quality of National League play.

I don't say this to imply that there are "too many" Negro Leaguers. I still have many on my ballot -- and more in my PHoM than in the HoM. When we look back when we are done and determine who the 10 worst players in the HoM are, I wouldn't be suprised if 8 or 9 of them are pre-integration and white.

Maybe the Negro League players was really of the second-highest quality, behind the leading American League, and ahead of the National League's third best players. It is certainly not obviously false, although I would certainly be surprised if it turned out that way.
   38. Gary A Posted: December 08, 2004 at 04:58 AM (#1005195)
Dick Redding's Cuban League record (from Jorge Figueredo), also including "American Series" record (games between Cuban teams and barnstorming North American teams):

1912 Fe 4-8, .333 (team 14-18, .438; w/o Redding, 10-10, .500)
1912 Lincoln Gts 2-1 (team 4-8; w/o Redding, 2-7)
1913 Fe 7-2, .778 (team 21-11, .656; w/o Redding, 14-9, .609)
1914 Lincoln Gts 2-3-1 (team 5-8-1; w/o Redding, 3-5)
1914-15 Fe 2-6, .250 (team 5-28, .152; w/o Redding, 3-22, .120)
1915 Indianapolis 6-5, .545 (team 8-11, .421; w/o Redding , 2-6, .250)
1920 Bacharach Gts 1-1 (team 1-3)
1920-21 Bacharach Gts 2-6, .250 (team 4-11 , .267; w/o Redding, 2-5, .286)
1922-23 Habana 3-1, .750 (team 20-22, .476; w/o Redding, 17-21, .447)

TOTALS 29-33-1, .468 (teams 82-120-1, .406; w/o Redding 53-87, .379)
   39. Gary A Posted: December 18, 2004 at 06:57 AM (#1028841)
1921 Dick Redding
NNL associate Bacharach Giants

TRA-4.44 (NeL 5.20)
GS-23* (led league)
OOAVE-.257 (NeL .263)
OOBA-.300 (NeL .324)
OSLG-.368 (NeL .361)

Team record: 25-25
   40. Carl G Posted: April 28, 2005 at 01:37 PM (#1295038)
Are there any rough Playing time estimates(MLEs I mean) for Redding? Games or IPs MLES?
   41. Chris Cobb Posted: April 28, 2005 at 02:15 PM (#1295092)

The estimates that I've done for win shares are based on the playing time estimates worked out by the Integrated 9s project:

You can follow the links from the homepage to find their projections of individual players.

When Redding became eligible, I didn't know enough about estimating playing time (especially for pitchers) to make my own estimate, but I thought their estimate looked good.
   42. Carl G Posted: April 29, 2005 at 12:04 AM (#1296553)
Thanks Chris, I'm going to be doing more analysis on Redding, Lundy, and Fournier before we vote in '51. This will help.
   43. Carl G Posted: April 29, 2005 at 12:18 AM (#1296600)
That looks like a cool project. I wish someone were doing that for Diamondmind!
   44. KJOK Posted: April 29, 2005 at 02:30 AM (#1297017)
That looks like a cool project. I wish someone were doing that for Diamondmind!

Actually, someone is....but probably not going to be completed this year...
   45. Carl Goetz Posted: April 29, 2005 at 02:57 AM (#1297054)
'Actually, someone is....but probably not going to be completed this year...'

What do you mean? Is there a league forming that you know of? Or is DMB making a Negro League disk? You've peaked my interest.
   46. KJOK Posted: April 29, 2005 at 07:14 AM (#1297265)
No league forming that I know of, or DMB making a Negro League disk (actually, they've pretty much told me they're NOT doing Negro League players).

However, I am putting together my own All-time Negro League disk, and probably a 1928 Negro Leagues disk....
   47. Carl Goetz Posted: April 29, 2005 at 11:41 AM (#1297387)

They've got an All-time NegL disk and the 1935 Negroleagues if you want those.
   48. Carl Goetz Posted: April 29, 2005 at 11:42 AM (#1297388)
DMB told me a couple years ago that they might eventually add Negroleaguers to their all-time great players disk.
   49. KJOK Posted: April 30, 2005 at 01:39 AM (#1299370)
Carl - Thanks, already have them. The 1935 disk stats are somewhat out of whack, and the all-time disk is OK, but can certainly be improved upon since more stats and info are now available.

DMB did say a couple of years ago that they might add Negro League players to the update of the all-time great players disk, but they have now confirmed that the next version will NOT have Negro League players.
   50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 22, 2005 at 10:05 PM (#1354983)

Basically this is the second-half or final two-fifths of Redding's career as I understand it.

WINS t-65th with 42

LOSSES t-51st with 43

DECISIONS t-57th with 85

(50 Decisions Minimum) 85th
(25 Decisions Minimum) 128th
(10 Decisions Minimum) 191st

(50 Decisions Minimum) 6th
(25 Decisions Minimum) 10th
(10 Decisions Minimum) 22nd

WAT 34th at 7.0

(50 Decisions Minimum) 26th
(25 Decisions Minimum) 43rd
(10 Decisions Minimum) 72nd


1920 led East in wins with 8, 8th in NgLs.

1921 led East in wins with 15, t-3rd in NgLs.

1922 led East in wins with 9.
   51. DL from MN Posted: January 27, 2006 at 11:03 PM (#1840985)
Interesting comment in this thread about 15 being too few and 30 being too many Negro Leaguers. Right now I count 21 pure Negro Leaguers (no MLB). Mackey, Bell, Mendez, Redding, Willard Brown, Dobie Moore, Trouppe and Oms all have strong support which would put the number at 29. Is 30 still "too many".
   52. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 27, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#1840996)
I dont' know if 30 is too many but I do know that 23 is not because both Dick Redding and Dobie Moore are HOMers in my book.
   53. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#1841123)
There was a lot of discussion of how many NeLers we "should" elect, with lots of references to the population pool--e.g. if blacks made up 10 percent of US population then they should be 10 percent of the HoM (for the period when the NeL was in operation).

This is a reasonable guideline, but...

1. HoMers are outliers and the population pool is not decisive.

2. It comes down to cases--e.g. Dick Redding or Early Wynn? Jose Mendez or Dizzy Dean? And then you just gotta crunch the cases and make the best sense of them that you can. The population is pretty useless at that level.
   54. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 28, 2006 at 06:00 AM (#1841351)
Also, Gadfly gave a pretty convincing argument that NeL players were more likely to become baseball players because of their particular economic situation, which was generally below that of a white person. However, he seened to take the argument to an extreme that most of use weren't ready to believe at that point.
   55. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2006 at 10:18 AM (#1841446)
DL - from that group, I could see Mackey, Bell, Redding, Moore - though I don't actively support them, their election wouldn't bother me much. I'm not a big fan of the others. So that will put it at 25 for me personally. I think there are serious questions about Mendez, Brown, Trouppe and Oms. I can't see anyone else getting in, so yeah, I'd say 30 is still 'too many'.

   56. Chris Cobb Posted: January 28, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#1841530)

For Brown, there's the question of walks.

For Trouppe, there's the question of playing time and competition quality.

For Mendez, there's the question of career length and maybe competition quality, but we've homed in on the latter a good deal recently.

What are the serious questions about Oms?
   57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 28, 2006 at 04:30 PM (#1841598)
I have Oms just off ballot, putting him in a category where he wouldn't be a bad selection but isn't a terribly good one either (like Ashburn). I am not sure there are necessarily any questions about him so much as I jsut can't see how he is definitely better than GVH, Ashburn (who will probalby notmake my PHOM), etc. Yes he has a long, good prime, but so do those guys.

Then again, comaring him to Ashburn probably isn't a good way to make a case against him being in the HOM huh?
   58. Paul Wendt Posted: January 28, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#1841613)
I have Oms just off ballot, putting him in a category where he wouldn't be a bad selection but isn't a terribly good one either (like Ashburn). I am not sure there are necessarily any questions about him so much as I jsut can't see how he is definitely better than GVH . . . . Then again, comparing him to Ashburn probably isn't a good way to make a case against him being in the HOM huh?

Right, there are no benchmarks. Such usage commonly say as much about one's evaluation of the referent, here GVH or Ashburn, as about the object of discussion, Oms.

Very few reasonably fixed benchmarks. Ty Cobb was a reasonably fixed benchmark for Oscar Charleston in 1934.

Contrary to occasional remarks, it doesn't help much to use a modern player. A Hall of Merit without Dobie Moore is like a Hall of Merit without Alan Trammell!
   59. Tiboreau Posted: January 28, 2006 at 06:18 PM (#1841653)
There may be no benchmarks, but since the comparison has already been made. . . .
         <u>   g  tpa h+bb  ops+  WS  /162  top5      ops+        WS   </u>
Ashburn  2189 9736 3772  111  329 24.34   137  142 136 122  29 28 28
Oms      2178 9056 3556  125  341 25.36   140  147 144 144  31 29 29
Yeah, their peaks are pretty close--and neither was fantastic. However, I think that Oms was better, especially offensively; not only are both his career OPS+ and WS estimates better, but his peak numbers are a touch higher, too. Especially when one remembers that they are regressed numbers

*Now crosses fingers, hopes this post works*
   60. Tiboreau Posted: January 28, 2006 at 06:24 PM (#1841655)
Hmmm, I guess I was suppose to use
instead of
   61. Tiboreau Posted: January 28, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1841664)
Just incase someone wants to actually be able to understand the numbers. . . .

<u>   g  tpa h+bb  ops+  WS  /162</u>
Ashburn   2189 9736 3772  111  329 24.34
Oms       2178 9056 3556  125  341 25.36

<u>top5      ops+       WS   </u>   
Ashburn    137  142 136 122 29 28 28
Oms        140  147 144 144 31 29 29 
   62. Tiboreau Posted: January 28, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#1841669)
Eh, that'll have to do. Sorry about the mess. . . .
   63. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 28, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#1841709)
I wasn't around for the discussions of how many slots should go to NgL players, but I did a little checking recently.

-There's about 16000 players in MLB history, give or take.
-Of them about 600 are "real" candidates having accumulated 200+ WS, 3.75% of the whole
-Dividing the number of players elected by 600 yields about 35% of all "real" candidates from MLB

So take it over to the Negro Leagues, and we can do a little estimating by applying the same percentages as above.

-There's about 4250 or so players in NgL history (perhaps more)
-Of which 160 would be likely "real" candidates
-Of which 35% is 56 HOFs.

You can take that 160 total up or down based on all kinds of information or hypotheses, but if 160 is close to the number of "real" candidates, suggesting that 30 is the right number is applying a heavy discount from the major league rate. One cavaet I would make is that Campy, Robinson, Doby, and players from their era should be counted toward the Negro Leagues or as half/half electees for the sake of maintaining continuity. So perhaps 50 is a better total. That's still a lot more than 30.

Or I could be smoking something, what's anyone else think?
   64. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 28, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#1841722)
Well in order for that to work you would have to believe that the NeL's were equal to MLB, which I don't agree with, though this varies with time.

How would the theoretical shape of the league as one filled with guys who would be NeL superstars and gusy who wouldn't be terribly successful in AA effect this? There may not be 160 'real' candidates due to the distribution of talent in the league.

25-30 sounds about right. However we are also electing guys like Campanella, Robinson, Doby, Aaron, and maybe someone like Minoso that have strong MLB credentials as well. They probably figure into this if you are taking into account all NeL players in history.
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2006 at 09:19 PM (#1841784)
>For Mendez, there's the question of career length and maybe competition quality, but we've homed in on the latter a good deal recently.

Mendez pitched superbly against ML all-star and pennant-winning teams, mostly. The fact that his competition was not terrific otherwise is a result of racism. When given the opportunity, he played like a ML all-star.

If we had a more or less complete record for him, yes, we would be trying to calibrate how much MLE value the record represented. Here there is no quantitative record to calibrate or to discount. In his case it's just a question of how good was he, really? If he had the ability, and I think he did, it doesn't make any sense to apply a discount to that.
   66. Chris Cobb Posted: January 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#1841917)
If we had a more or less complete record for him, yes, we would be trying to calibrate how much MLE value the record represented. Here there is no quantitative record to calibrate or to discount. In his case it's just a question of how good was he, really? If he had the ability, and I think he did, it doesn't make any sense to apply a discount to that.

We have a quite complete record of his CWL play, actually. What needs doing, and what I am totally unable to attempt it at the moment and probably for the next month at least, is apply carefully what we have learned from Brent and Gary A.'s research into the CWL data and the CWL vs. ML games to Mendez's record.

I'm not saying that I don't, at present, consider Mendez worthy on the basis of our current understanding of his record. His numbers in competition against ML competition in Cuba show a performance comparable to what we would expect from a top ML pitcher of the era. I think that's pretty good data to judge by.

He's right in the middle of my ballot, and were he elected before he receives further study, I think we'd be making a good choice. I am saying, though, that our current understanding could be improved, based on the data we now have available to us that we didn't 38 or so "years" ago when Mendez first became eligible.
   67. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2006 at 05:29 PM (#1872564)
> Support Neutral MLE projected record: 230-177
> ERA+ 114 (DERA 3.95)

For me that slots him below Vic Willis. I think he's clearly better than Jesse Haines though.
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 23, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#1872583)
I think he's clearly better than Jesse Haines though.

Talk about damning him with faint praise. :-)
   69. Daryn Posted: February 23, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#1872751)
Interesting comment in this thread about 15 being too few and 30 being too many Negro Leaguers. Right now I count 21 pure Negro Leaguers (no MLB). Mackey, Bell, Mendez, Redding, Willard Brown, Dobie Moore, Trouppe and Oms all have strong support which would put the number at 29. Is 30 still "too many".

I think 29 might be too many but the problem we have is that if 25 is the "right" number, we can't agree on which 25. Many of us would like to see 3 or 4 more NeLers get elected but there is little consensus on which three or four.
   70. Paul Wendt Posted: February 23, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#1873009)
I wonder whether this moniker is akin to
"Wee Willie" Keeler and "Wee Tommie" Leach.

Was Redding consistently called "Cannonball" or "Cannonball Dick"?

I now realize that I am inclined to take for granted that he was called "Dick" rather than "Ricky" or "Richard".
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: February 24, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#1873185)
I once made a tacky remark wondering if a woman gave him this nickname.

On a more serious note, I am quite confident that Redding belongs in the HOM. I am very nearly his best friend, and I hope newer voters take a long look. He belongs.
   72. KJOK Posted: February 24, 2006 at 05:54 AM (#1873428)
Equally tacky, but actually true, the sports page reference I found for him in the Baltimore Afro-American was:


also found, much more often, and with about equal frequency:

Dick Redding and
Cannon Ball Dick Redding (Cannon Ball ALWAYS 2 words)
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: April 29, 2006 at 12:16 PM (#1995627)
This is in reply to Chris' post on the 1975 ballot thread:

Redding dropped from #14 to 25 in my last re-eval, but he only dropped from #5 to #6 among backlog pitchers (though Ruffing and Griffith also passed him among pitchers not in my PHoM). His career 267 WS is 10th best among my consideration set of 20 pitchers, but with a high peak that is not a problem. My #1 pitcher is Rube Waddell with 240 adjWS.

And the problem is not his WS peak (top 7 vs. pitchers who I have rated ahead of him):

Waddell 33-32-27-21-21-20-18
Joss 38-28-25-23-20-20-20
Willis 39-37-32-29-25-24-21
Mendez 40-36-31-31-28-21-17
McCormick 51-40-38-33-33-33-21
Redding 40-33-27-27-21-19-19

(Ruffing 26-25-24-23-22-22-21)
(Griffith 39-35-32-32-25-25-21)

I mean, he's in the mix but not obviously better. So if he is not obviously better on WS, one problem is I don't have ERA+ for him and so I slot him back in at #10 on my ERA+ list, same as on the WS list. But it is here that Waddell, Joss, Griffith and Willis do well, along with Drysdale and Cicotte. I just can't assume that Redding is higher on the ERA+ list than he is on the WS list without some reason to do so. So he drops down a bit--actually he dropped below Willis, McCormick, (Ruffing) and (Griffith) for me, but jumped ahead of Bond.

So he remains viable, no question. I personally wish I had a feel for his ERA+.
   74. sunnyday2 Posted: April 29, 2006 at 12:21 PM (#1995628)
Let me just add to that...the fact that he pitched something like 18 years only means that he had a bunch of <10 WS seasons. He accumulated a lot of those WS in fairly empty innings and empty seasons, IOW, which is what separates him from a Rube Waddell and gives him a tinge of Early Wynn, which for me is not a good thing. I guess he is like a lot of career pitcher candidates in that respect, which is why I go more for a high peak among pitchers than among position players. Position players who play above a HoM-worthy peak more often have a normal career arc, while the pitchers don't. Or to put it another way, the normal career arc for career pitchers is often contains more <average (<100 ERA+) seasons. Given the option, I'll take a Willis or Griffith who doesn't have that over an Early Wynn who does. I had overlooked this issue with Redding but now it bothers me a bit.

If I had a reason to think he was an ERA+ 120-125 pitcher for his career that would be a countervailing influence on what is to some degree a subjective vote.
   75. DL from MN Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#2025673)
Update to the comments above: we've now elected Bell, Mackey and Brown so we're at 24. Redding and Mendez are top 10 returnees. Trouppe and Moore have strong support, Oms has some support but looks to be on the "out" side of the line. Ben Taylor, Andy Cooper and Hilton Smith may get reevaluated with more information.

What I need to know now is if Dick Redding could hit. I have estimated him at -75 RCAA for his career. Zeroing that out moves him up 9 ballot slots for me. Better information on his hitting would improve my evaluation.
   76. KJOK Posted: May 19, 2006 at 05:10 AM (#2026990)
Dick Redding Batting

27 PA's

85 PA's

4 PA's

Stats compiled by Gary A.
   77. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 15, 2006 at 03:27 PM (#2064783)
I have heard that there are new Dick redding numbers, can someone post them in this thread? Thanks.
   78. DL from MN Posted: June 15, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#2064893)
From the "All Time Negro Leagues All-Stars" thread:

ANDY COOPER 1592.6 784 815 104
BILL BYRD 1227.0 607 580 96
BULLET ROGAN 1444.3 587 726 124
CHET BREWER 1344.7 600 677 113
CP BELL 293.3 184 152 82
DICK REDDING 628.3 329 299 91
HILTON SMITH 812.3 304 382 126
JOHN DONALDSON 109.0 50 44 89
JOSE MENDEZ 337.7 169 166 98
JOSEPH WILLIAMS 565.7 286 280 98
LEON DAY 513.0 258 238 92
MARTIN DIHIGO 354.0 157 184 117
OSCAR CHARLESTON 62.0 60 31 52
RAY BROWN 1284.3 594 609 103
SATCHELL PAIGE 1506.7 554 731 132
WILLIAM BELL 1514.3 650 764 117
WILLIE FOSTER 1859.7 694 936 135

These are numbers from age 30 (1920) and on for Redding so they miss out on most of his good seasons. Dr. Chaleeko calculated the Negro League RA. Yest's post #288 links to the year-by-year numbers.

There is a big dropoff from 1922-1923 for Redding which coincides with a switch in team from the Bacharach Giants to the Brooklyn Royal Giants. I have no idea what that switch means in context to the numbers. 1927 was his last year in which he pitched more than one game and I'm pretty certain he wasn't an MLB-caliber pitcher after 1925.
   79. DL from MN Posted: June 15, 2006 at 05:12 PM (#2064910)
Looking over a little more, he was terrible in 1922 (2-8 5.4 RA) so it is possible Bacharach told him to find another team. Can someone with more detailed knowledge confirm that Brooklyn was not as competitive as Bacharach?
   80. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2064927)
Chaleeko calculated the Negro League RA.

These are best-we-can-do RA+s. Estimates based on RC but without much accounting for team defense. So they are probably a little on the low side.
   81. Ardo Posted: June 15, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#2065051)
Let me put it this way: I'm certain that Jose Mendez was an excellent pitcher, while I haven't heard anything that separates Dick Redding from Vic Willis, who was another high-inning fastball pitcher for several losing teams.

I'm still voting for him, but it's only regression to the mean (as Chris Cobb noted, we have to admit that he may have been exceptional, as well as that he may have been barely above-average) that keeps me from burying him deep in my backlog behind Bridges, Willis, Waddell, and Luque.
   82. DL from MN Posted: June 15, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#2065194)
In the seasonal win share estimates above I'd rearrange so 1922 looks worse, 1923 looks better and he stops accumulating in 1925
   83. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#2065240)
In the seasonal win share estimates above I'd rearrange so 1922 looks worse, 1923 looks better and he stops accumulating in 1925

I think Chris will have his hands full with Mendez, Redding, Cooper, and Smith's newly researched numbers. If you look at the methodology in number 23, there's quite a lot information that Chris will have to go back and rejigger. And stuff like Redding's teams' records has probably changed somewhat at this juncture, though we know not yet how.

I'm not speaking for Chris, but I'd guess he probably feels like the new data complicate a lot of things as much as they may clarify them.
   84. Chris Cobb Posted: June 15, 2006 at 08:29 PM (#2065341)
I don't have an opinion on the new data because I haven't had a chance to study it yet, partly because I have three other HoM projects that I want to get through first, partly because I haven't had much time for the HoM at all in the last few weeks. Given that we have one more backlog slot to fill before we leave the backlog to gather dust for about three months real time, my goal is to have a full review of the NeL pitching cohort completed for the 1985 election.

Once I start analyzing, I'll start posting. Until then, I will be totally agnostic about the impact of the new data!
   85. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 16, 2006 at 11:22 AM (#2065828)
So all the new Redding numbers don't cover his best seasons, including the three year peak that our old numbers show him having? I am not sure if the new numbers will affect my placement of him until I hear something more.
   86. Gary A Posted: June 18, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#2067330)
Looking over a little more, he was terrible in 1922 (2-8 5.4 RA) so it is possible Bacharach told him to find another team. Can someone with more detailed knowledge confirm that Brooklyn was not as competitive as Bacharach?

I'd suspend judgment on whether he was terrible in 1922. I'm working on that year now, and so far have the Bacharachs going 18-30-1 against NNL teams plus Hilldale, with 235 runs scored and 272 runs allowed (a 21-27 pythagorean record). They allowed 5.55 runs per team, so if the new numbers are accurate he was slightly better than his team in that respect (which included Nip Winters and Harold Treadwell as two of the other main pitchers). And Redding's W/K numbers seem pretty good. He might not have been great or even especially good, but I'm not yet sure that he was awful.

Brooklyn was an ECL team, but it certainly was not as good as the Bacharachs. Among the eastern teams, it was probably the least respected by black sportswriters, in large part because it was owned by Nat Strong, an unpopular white booking agent. It was widely thought that he neglected the Royal Giants, preferring to concentrate on white semipro baseball (notably the Bushwicks, which he also owned in this period). It is true that the Royal Giants hardly played any home games during these years (some years only two or three), for whatever reason.

Btw, Dick Redding was the playing manager of the Royal Giants, I believe for the whole time he played with them. So he was phasing himself out as pitcher, not being phased out by somebody else.
   87. Gary A Posted: June 18, 2006 at 01:10 AM (#2067342)
Something else I just noticed: the new Clark/Lester numbers for Redding's 1922 (2-8, 5.40 TRA), but John Holway, for the same season, has Redding going 9-6, with a 1.65 TRA! (The 9 wins and 1.65 TRA both lead the east.) I would definitely trust Clark/Lester over Holway, but you rarely see statistical accounts of the same player-season that are *this* different. As I dig into 1922 it'll be interesting to see what comes up for Redding.
   88. DL from MN Posted: June 18, 2006 at 03:32 PM (#2067547)
He did bounce back a little in 1923 before 2 more years of decline. From what you said about home games being non-existent, I'd guess I have little to worry about for park effects.
   89. Gary A Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:06 AM (#2195135)
I’ve done some work that might shed a little light on Dick Redding. First, stats for his performances during two visits to Cuba, by the Lincoln Stars in 1914 and the Indianapolis ABCs in 1915.
      W  L  TRA  GP GS CG ShO IP  H  HR  R  BB  K HB
1914  2  3  2.59  7  6  6  2  49  32  0 14  17 27  3
1915  6  5  5.57 12  8  7  0  76  79  7 47  37 32  2

For 1914, the series total run average was 3.21. The Lincoln Stars were overall 4-9-1. You can find full statistics posted here.

For 1915, the series total run average was 5.78, and the Indianapolis ABCs overall went 8-12. Full statistics are posted here.

Second, I’ve finally got some stats for Redding in 1922, vs. NNL teams plus Hilldale:
      W  L  TRA  GP GS CG ShO IP  H   HR R  BB K  HB
1922  5  7  4.84 15 12 11  0  106 139 6  57 26 55 2

The total run average for NNL games plus Hilldale and the Bacharachs was 5.52, and overall totals were:
 IP    H     HR    R    BB     K    HB
4522  4827  219  2772  1440  2132  160

I haven’t finished a presentation of the full statistics, but they should be coming soon. In the meantime, I do have the 1922 NNL (not including Bacharachs and Hilldales).

Here are the other Bacharachs’ pitchers, for comparison:
          W  L  TRA  GP GS CG ShO IP  H  HR   R  BB  K  HB
Treadwell 3  7  4.35 16 13 10  0 118 103  5  57  56 56  6
Winters   6  5  5.81 13  9  8  0  79  73  1  51  41 66  0
Roberts   3  2  6.75  6  5  2  0  37  43  2  28  21 12  2
Williams  0  2  5.68  3  2  0  0  13  17  0   8   4  6  1
Bach Gts 17 23  5.12 41 41 31  0 353 375 14 201 148 195 11

That’s Andrew “String Beans” Williams, not Cyclone Joe.

This compilation of Redding’s 1922 doesn’t quite match either Holway (9-6, 1.65 TRA) or the HOF study (2-8, 5.40 TRA), though it obviously comes much closer to the latter. I count only data from games with box scores, so there’s nothing from line scores here.

Btw, these games include only two appearances at home (New York Oval—this was the year the Bacharach Gts moved to NYC) for Redding, two games, 18 innings pitched. So his record is almost entirely on the road.
   90. Gary A Posted: October 03, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#2195142)
Forgot the link for 1922 NNL-only stats.
   91. Gary A Posted: October 10, 2006 at 10:03 PM (#2206001)
If anyone's interested, I've posted a new version of 1922 at my blog. It includes games involving the Bacharach Giants, Hilldale, and Baltimore Black Sox.
   92. Paul Wendt Posted: July 10, 2007 at 05:14 AM (#2435419)
from "2001 Ballot" but it anonymously represents something I have noticed.

I may be slighting Redding, but from what I know he wasn’t very peaky and there are a number of hurlers like that who are not on my ballot.

He is close to election (the boomerang --goes away and comes back) but there is great disagreement even about his type, from extreme peak candidate to extreme career candidate. A little bit like Rusty Staub where some see a fine five-year peak and others see the eternal pinch-hitter.
   93. Kenn Posted: August 06, 2007 at 12:50 PM (#2473590)
Are the MLE's for Dick Redding (for IP and ERA+) here the best to go on right now? Does anyone know if those includes military credit and Cuban League playing time? I think I'm reading Chris Cobb right that he did not, and with a little extra credit Redding is comfortably on my ballot, but without he is not, so I want to be sure. Thanks.
   94. Chris Cobb Posted: August 06, 2007 at 01:28 PM (#2473625)

Well, I don't know about the best, but I can tell you that it doesn't include military credit or Cuban Winter League play.

I would advise against giving extra credit for Cuban League play, since it's entirely extra time. For some NeL players in some seasons, winter league ball was an option, for some it wasn't. Also true of major leaguers, so the mere fact that a player was playing in Cuba doesn't make them any better as a result of that play. Eric Chalek always includes CWL data in his MLEs, but they are just averaged into the totals from which a major-league season is projected. I have generally included CWL totals only for players who are primarily Cuban stars or when the corresponding NeL season data is very sketchy. That's mostly for the sake of consistency, since when I started doing MLEs, I didn't have sufficient league-quality information to set up a conversion factor for the CWL.

(Btw, if you do decide to give extra credit for CWL play, I hope you take good look at Dolf Luque.)

I will note that the Redding MLEs were done prior to the HoF's release of some of its NeL statistics, and those statistics probably don't support as strong a view of Redding's performance in the 1920s as the MLEs show.

It's good to have you aboard!
   95. Kenn Posted: August 07, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2475380)

Thanks. Those are very useful comments. I have to figure out what to do with them, now. I'd been giving just a slight bump to playing time for CWL, but it makes a difference with Redding, who's hovering just off the edge of my ballot. Hmmm.
   96. sunnyday2 Posted: August 07, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2475453)
Redding was on my ballot for many years but has dropped back a bit as a result of the new numbers... I don't think we're missing any NgL pitchers per se. I'm not sure we're missing any NgL players per se. I mean, I see the arguments for Taylor, Monroe, Oms and others, I've voted for some, but they too have dropped back.

Where I think we've missed the boat (shown a lack of imagination) is in considering black players from the 'tweener years--after a NgL career was no longer available, but when ML opportunities were still be quota'd out to just a few black stars. We've especially missed on guys who had what could appear to be "normal" ML careers but aren't:

Don Newcombe
Elston Howard

And some who never got a ML opportunity at all:

Bus Clarkson
Marvin Williams
Silvio Garcia

And then there's the oddest case of all:

Bobby Estalella

There are undoubtedly others who fit into these categories.
   97. Kenn Posted: August 13, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2483378)
There's a lot of comparisons of Dick Redding to other pitchers in the thread. The Reuschel one seems appropriate, on average. However, his career ends up reminding me of Walters. A few years that were probably genuinely fantastic are surrounded by others that were less impressive than one might like. These seem particularly underwhelming than expected give Redding's reputation. Looks worse than Walters to me based on the stats we do have, but with so much more uncertainty. They both will be just off ballot for the moment.

Sunnyday, your rundowns of candidates in various categories are interesting to read, even though as a career voter my tastes are a bit different. Of the ones above, I personally like Clarkson the best. To vote for him, though, I'd have to justify treating him differently than the one or two negro league candidates ahead of him. That's not that hard, really, as you make clear: different leagues, different era, etc.

However, I think that he and the rest of these players probably genuinely didn't provide as much value as other candidates, wherever they were playing. It's easy to see the number of disruptions of the time preventing them from reaching that level. I may or may not be getting at the same idea you are, but I see the issue as not that people are "missing" something they did, but whether being fair to all eras means expecting a bit less from their circumstances. I haven't quite come to that conclusion, yet, but that could change. I think I'd have to look back at whether the number of black players from that era elected is consistent with before or after, which I suspect folks have done, and also at who I would have elected had I been voting through the entire project. They are certainly interesting players to consider.
   98. Chris Cobb Posted: August 13, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2483402)

I agree with your comparison of Redding to Walters. A while back, I started an attempt to make a qualitative comparison between their careers, season by season. I never got very far with it, but my sense was that Walters did quite well. That result isn't currently reflected in my rankings, but as I'm not voting for either one at present, I've put off re-working the rankings.
   99. sunnyday2 Posted: August 13, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2483467)
The number of black players elected from the period in question falls off a cliff. Anybody remember where those numbers are?

There are many, many more from the last decade proper of the NgLs and there are many, many more from the first decade of "real" (no quotas) integration, which does not begin until probably 1955. And identifying the real candidates is doubly hard because these are the same players who were affected by the war, at least some of them, like Luke Easter whom I should have included in the list. I'm talking about players whose peaks were or would normally have been in the 1940s and all the way through 1955.There is just a yawning gaping gap where black HoMers ought to be because of the war (WWII) but mostly because of the demise of the NgL coupled with the slow pace of integration.

Then add to that military service other than in WWII. Not everybody even gives WWII credit and I have hardly ever heard anybody talk about credit for military service in Korea or some other time. But Howard and Newcombe served during Korea. They should get credit for it. What's harder but still a blind spot is that they missed out on both: a) a NgL career such as the Josh Gibsons and Bill Foster had, and b) a normal ML career. Sure, it looks like they had normal ML careers, but that is just an illusion. They didn't.
   100. Kenn Posted: August 13, 2007 at 10:11 PM (#2483728)
I decided to work out the numbers myself. I went through them really fast, so I doubt they are perfect, but that's an impressive double peak. Between about 1922 and 1939, there are 12-17 black players in the HOM, then there's another smooth peak up to 15 players right around 1970. However, from 1941 to 1959 there's only 8-10 black HOM players. A smooth curve would place 6-7 more black players in that time period. The HOM on the whole has a valley as well; it also looks like a smooth curve would place 9-10 more players total in the HOM for that time period.

Of course, I wouldn't expect exactly the same number of players at all times, but that is very dramatic. I'm sure you folks have addressed this many times before, but it does look like all players from that era have a harder time measuring up to players from other time periods, with the case being even tougher for blacks. I think that earns Clarkson a place on my ballot this "year", and another look at some of the others in the list for the future.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.8956 seconds
43 querie(s) executed