1921 Dick Redding
NNL associate Bacharach Giants

W-14
L-11
SV-2
TRA-4.44 (NeL 5.20)
G-29
GS-23* (led league)
CG-19
SHO-1
IP-198.7
H-203
HR-12
R-98
BB-48
K-120*
HP-1
SH-12
SB-26
DP-11
OOAVE-.257 (NeL .263)
OOBA-.300 (NeL .324)
OSLG-.368 (NeL .361)

Team record: 25-25

Are there any rough Playing time estimates(MLEs I mean) for Redding? Games or IPs MLES?

Carl,

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

www.i9s.org

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.

Thanks Chris, I'm going to be doing more analysis on Redding, Lundy, and Fournier before we vote in '51. This will help.

That looks like a cool project. I wish someone were doing that for Diamondmind!

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...

'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.

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....

http://www.sportplanet.com/sbb/apfas/dbs.htm

They've got an All-time NegL disk and the 1935 Negroleagues if you want those.

DMB told me a couple years ago that they might eventually add Negroleaguers to their all-time great players disk.

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.

DICK REDDING'S PLACEMENT ON NGL CAREER LEADERBOARDS, 1920-1948

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

WINNING PCT .494
(50 Decisions Minimum) 85th
(25 Decisions Minimum) 128th
(10 Decisions Minimum) 191st

ADJ PCT OF TEAM DECISIONS .287
(50 Decisions Minimum) 6th
(25 Decisions Minimum) 10th
(10 Decisions Minimum) 22nd

WAT 34th at 7.0

WAT PER DECISION .082
(50 Decisions Minimum) 26th
(25 Decisions Minimum) 43rd
(10 Decisions Minimum) 72nd

YEARLY WINS LEADERBOARDS

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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'.

:-)

Joe,

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?

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?

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!

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*

Hmmm, I guess I was suppose to use instead of

these

?

Just incase someone wants to actually be able to understand the numbers. . . .

Eh, that'll have to do. Sorry about the mess. . . .

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?

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.

>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.

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.

> 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.

I think he's clearly better than Jesse Haines though.

Talk about damning him with faint praise. :-)

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.

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".

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.

Equally tacky, but actually true, the sports page reference I found for him in the Baltimore Afro-American was:

BIG DICK REDDING

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

Dick Redding and
Cannon Ball Dick Redding (Cannon Ball ALWAYS 2 words)

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+.

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.

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.

Dick Redding Batting

1916
27 PA's
.222/.222/.296

1921
85 PA's
.143/.153/.226

1928
4 PA's
.250/.250/.250

Stats compiled by Gary A.

I have heard that there are new Dick redding numbers, can someone post them in this thread? Thanks.

From the "All Time Negro Leagues All-Stars" thread:

NAME INN RA LGRA RA+
--------------------------------------
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.

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?

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.

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.

In the seasonal win share estimates above I'd rearrange so 1922 looks worse, 1923 looks better and he stops accumulating in 1925

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Forgot the link for 1922 NNL-only stats.

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.

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.

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.

Kenn,

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!

Chris,

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.

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.

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.

Kenn,

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.

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.

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.

Isn't part of the gulf due simply to a reduction in the number of teams? From 30-32 to 16 as the NgLs collapse? What I mean is that to say 16-17 black players in the 22-39 period is apples/oranges to the 41-59 period since we're talking about two leagues instead of four.

1.
no, not simply.
That is a matter of debate.

I believe it's true that JoeD and other heavy lifters five years ago foresaw and welcomed a Hall of Merit with representation gradually increasing along the time line: more HOMers on the playing field in 1970 than in 1920 and more in 1920 than in 1870. Everyone here knows that is correlated with the numbers of major league teams, and with the 1:2:3 increase in numbers elected to the HOM each year. But there is no simple relation of cause and effect, or premise and consequence.

Should the number of HOMers on the field 1892-1899 be about 3/4 of the number on the field previously and thereafter? Should the number of HOMers on the field in the third quarter of the 20th century increase over time roughly in proportion to 16:20:24, the numbers of major league teams? That is a matter of debate.

When someone writes of league leaders that the Top 7 in Eddie Murray's AL is equivalent to the Top 4 in Ted Kluszewski's NL, or Roger Connor's NL, that is debatable.

According to Jim Riley, Ernie Banks played in the major Negro Leagues one season, 1950 only. Accepting that date, 1951-1960 is the 16-team period. Fifty years earlier the number is about 20 teams (as about four black teams are considered major). I don't know the particular years when the number is 32 (two eight-team Negro Leagues) or 33 (because the independent Homestead Grays are considered major).

It is challenging and controversial to put those counts to good use.
the 22-39 period is apples/oranges to the 41-59 period since we're talking about two leagues instead of four.

Some say it's apples and oranges, some say apples and pears, some say merely Red Delicious and Golden Delicious apples.

Now "2." isn't worth writing out, not to mention thinking through

>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.

Kenn, thanks for looking at this. I've been saying this for many many years.

The "number of teams" is indeed relevant but the fall off that we're talking about is the fall off to *zero* NgL teams in the '50s. In theory this was balanced by the integration of black players into the MLs but we all know that this happened much much much more slowly than simple *talent* would have dictated.

So uniquely among ball players after about the time of WWI, blacks whose peaks coulda/woulda/shoulda been in the period from 1945-1955 had nowhere to show their stuff.

It takes a little imagination to decide about how many HoMers there should be from the various time periods in history as Paul discusses. (I lean more toward the belief that as long as there is one world championship available that the number of HoMers should be approximately equal from all times, but others have different valid opinions.)

But it takes a lot of imagination to provide black players 1945-1955 with a fair chance at immortality. I personally don't think Bus Clarkson is the answer though I don't object to his candidacy. I think that Elston Howard and Don Newcombe are the answer though as Kenn shows, as many as 8-10 more black players from this period should perhaps be honored. That isn't going to happen. But something should happen.

off that we're talking about is the fall off to *zero* NgL teams in the '50s.

This isn't really true. Negro League teams existed thru the late 50's/early 60's IIRC. They just were no longer in a 'formal' league in some cases (back to pre-1920 conditions) and the level of competition was decreasing rapidly.

I think my point holds true despite what is essentially a nit. Players of consequence did not play in the NgL after the latter '40s. Black players moved into "organized baseball" where there was the illusion that they were having "normal" careers when, because of quotas and etc., they (other than an elite few) did not have the opportunity for normal careers.

So unlike earlier generations of black players, they didn't really have the chance to fashion a "career" in the NgLs. And unlike the following generations, they were limited in their opportunity to play in the MLs. That is why the number of blacks in the HoM falls off a cliff relative to before and after, which is of course what matters, though it helps to know why in order to know what to do about it. It is my belief that "what to do" is some type of "adjustment," analogous to WWII credit for MLers, in order for pretty much an entire cohort to have a fair chance at immortality.

But of course as a group we (the HoM) has not really elected any MLers with the help of WWII credit that would not have made it without that credit, so even more so with this "cause" I am sure I am pissing into the breeze.

Ignoring the black players, mainly in ignorance,
Joe Gordon
Charlie Keller
Enos Slaughter probably
Pee Wee Reese maybe; it's hard to say without the debate

The three NeL HoMers for whom war credit may have mattered are

Monte Irvin
Larry Doby
Willard Brown

War credit might help Buck O'Neil. I mean not really, but what if he had won a couple more NNL (or NAL?) batting titles instead of going to Guam? Two batting titles is impressive, but four? hmm.

I can't say for sure what other voters were thinking though I vaguely remember the debates:

Gordon played only 11 years and so credit for the 2 years he was in the service, for a MLE total of 13, may have been a help. Of course he was OPS+ 79 the year he got back and I think some voters figured the 2 war years, therefore, might not have been stellar. To me he was a peak candidate and so 11 years or 13 didn't make a difference.

Keller was purely a peak candidate though I remember that a year's worth of MiL MLE credit seemed to be important to some people, so I guess MLE credit for the 1.5 years he missed during the war would also help.

Slaughter was a career candidate so he might be a case in point, but he played 15 years of >100 games anyway and we've elected career candidates with no more than that.

Reese played a stellar SS for 14 years without war credit so, yes, maybe is probably the best we can say.

Then there was Doerr, whom Paul might have mentioned, but what is interesting is that adding Doerr to the list, 3 of the 5 missed 2 years or less (1, 1.5 and 2). Only Slaughter and Reese, who had long-enough careers anyway, missed the full 3 years.

Doby was a prime candidate based on the ML career he actually had; he might become a career candidate with NgL and military credit. It's hard for me to believe war credit was decisive.

Ditto Willard Brown whose NgL career was eminently qualified with or without war credit. Besides, in his case, his NgL MLE translations are just as "theoretical" or rather "hypothetical" anyway, if you know what I mean.

Irvin is a harder guy to pigeon-hole. Given the speculation involved in his case, too, it is hard to believe that military credit was much of a factor.

I mean, your point is taken, Chris and Paul. You'd probably have to go back and look at who voted for them and what they said in their ballot comments or what they have to say about it now to really have a firm hypothesis. I guess from where I sit, however, it really looks like all of these 7 guys had very strong cases without war credit. I supported all of the players mentioned and while I do give war credit, it to some degree doesn't really matter. (Though I understand that a career voter might not agree.)

But even as a peak voter, I see some guys for whom war credit is absolutely essential--Rizzuto and Pesky, to me, are the poster boys for WWII, along with Dom DiMaggio. Dom would absolutely need that credit--he's at 220 WS without it, but at best he could be 292 with. Those are guys for whom significant support would be better evidence that war credit is making a difference.

For Korea, it's Don Newcombe and maybe Elston Howard.

I guess from where I sit, however, it really looks like all of these 7 guys had very strong cases without war credit. I supported all of the players mentioned and while I do give war credit, it to some degree doesn't really matter. (Though I understand that a career voter might not agree.)

It's my impression generally that voters are more willing to extrapolate war credit in career value terms than in peak terms. Irvin, Doby, Brown, Gordon, Keller, and Slaughter all have at least five peak seasons in their playing records. For peak voters, these players didn't need war credit. For career voters, they may have needed war credit, but the kind of credit they needed was the kind voters are more likely to extend.

Pesky and Rizzuto need extrapolated peak and career credit, and voters have been less willing to give peak.

For Newcombe and Howard, it's more that they need war credit and MiL credit, though in Newcombe's case he probably needs a bit more peak credit from both sources. I'd be very curious to know what sort of credit voters are giving these two beyond their major-league careers, but they would probably have to break the top 10 for that to be revealed. I give both MiL credit and war credit to both, and they still fall a little short for me. Newcombe is very close to my in-out line, however. I could imagine supporting him, and he's close enough that I ought to revisit my numbers for him at some point. Howard is harder for me to imagine supporting.

Hank Greenberg and Johnny Mize probably both benefited from War credit. Not in the "in versus out" way, but I suspect they both moveed up in some people's 1B rankings because the war credit established a bigger career basis for them. This is perhaps more true for Greenberg than Mize?

Rabbit Maranville's case, such as it is, could be helped by a year or more of war credit.

This same idea could, however, be used to a lesser extent with a player such as Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Ozzie Smith, Andre Dawson---fellows who missed about 120 games due to strikes. Not to the same degree as with the war, since they missed but 3/4 of a year, of course.

For a peak voter, of course, the strikes are non-issues--at least, for me and, I would guess, for others, anyway. And even for career voters I would guess that Raines, Trammell and Ozzie don't/didn't need another 3/4 of a year. Dawson might, however, so I'll just ask--is everybody adjusting him for that? Who else is on the borderline who could possibly use another 120 games?

Dawson juuuuust makes my ballot from his 'prime credit' I give for '81.

Just in case anyone wonders about Dick Redding. He was in military service sometime 1918-19 (bold below).

Gary A later provided some data from Cuba and from the Hall of Fame project that persuaded many to knock Redding down a level or two.

Chris Cobb #23
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.

David Foss, "2004 Ballot"
6. Dick Redding -- Great fireballer of the 1910s. His weak 1920s NeL numbers should not take away from his fine early play. I don't know why his support hasn't held up.

One point, WWI service immediately followed his very best seasons rather than intervening, so no one routinely grants him any extra time (credit) as a top star.

By the way, did John Donaldson face many of the same teams Redding faced?
Apparently Bullet Rogan did not. Riley has him in the military 1911-1919, although shortstop with the 1917 All Nations team; major career otherwise from the 1920 Kansas City Monarchs where Mendez was shortstop.

Although Mendez essentially preceded Rogan as a pitcher (shades of Rusie and McGinnity) Williams, Mendez, Rogan, Redding, and Donaldson were contemporary, born 1885, 87, 89, 91, 92. Foster and Paige 1904 and 1906.

Are seasonal IP and ERA+ available for Redding, or just career totals?

Back to the comment on 30 being too many Negro Leaguers - we've now elected everyone but Redding (that's 29) plus Larry Doby and we're going crazy for Dick Lundy and Bus Clarkson. Ben Taylor is finding his way onto ballots. That would be 32+.

Pitching Data for Eric C:



Observations on pitchers:

1. The George Scales of this group looks to be Hilton Smith. Smith doesn't have much data because there is less of the 40's data than 1920's & 30's.

2. Williams, Mendez, Redding and Donaldson have missing prime years.

3. Again, karlmagnus should love Bullet Rogan.

4. Satchel was as awesome on the pitching side as Gibson was on the hitting side.

bump for discussion

Although Mendez essentially preceded Rogan as a pitcher (shades of Rusie and McGinnity) Williams, Mendez, Rogan, Redding, and Donaldson were contemporary, born 1885, 87, 89, 91, 92. Foster and Paige 1904 and 1906.

That is Willie Foster, of course. Martin Dihigo, born 1905. Rube Foster, 1879.

At hand I have birth years for these eleven "1920s debut" pitchers in the Negro Leagues (column one). Column two is the numerical difference between NeL debut year (column three) and birth year.

1885 35 1920 Williams [missing missing]
1887 33 1920 Mendez [missing missing missing]
1889 31 1920 Rogan [missing]
1891 29 1920 Redding [missing missing]
1892 28 1920 Donaldson [missing missing]
1896 24 1920 Cooper
1897 26 1923 Bell William (the second of three generations?)
1905 18 1923 Dihigo
1906 17 1923 Foster
1907 18 1925 Brewer
1904 23 1927 Paige

Andy Cooper impinges on the gap in ages, but he is not in the Hall of Merit.

In "2009 Results", DL from MN #129 is one of several contributors who tries to get going on 2010 Discussion.

DL #129 on Dick Redding
The one candidate who seems to be getting the flakiest support is Cannonball Dick Redding. A plurality of voters saw him as the 2nd best player available but he was on the fewest ballots.

That is, fewest ballots among the top ten in 2009 Results, the top seven who carry over to next year. Redding appears on second fewest ballots among the top fifteen candidates, only ahead of Rick Reuschel, rank 13, who is on 12 ballots.

I'm thoroughly convinced that Redding's top 3 seasons compare favorably to Dean and Gooden. New voters expressed frustration about not understanding Redding's qualifications. There's a year to go until the next election and really no excuse about not having "figured out" Dick Redding by the next election.
. . .
I'm not sure why sunnyday can't get Redding on ballot with his noted support for Dean and Newcombe.

The comparisons with Dean and Gooden seem apt; with Newcombe, no, not comparison based on peak seasons which Newk Notably Needs. On the other hand I do think that the main point by Marc S. in favor of Newcombe and Elston Howard (as the leading advocate of both) pertain to Redding also. He played in the 1920s, the Negro Leagues proper, and he was only 29 years old in 1920. So it appears that Dick Redding had his chance. Rogan was 31 years old and he accomplished plenty in the Leagues, enough to make him a "no-brainer" for the HOF and any shadow hall. Redding doesn't stand out like Rube Foster or Jose Mendez as someone who played too soon. (compare Newcombe v Ray Brown or Satchel Paige in the major leagues).

. . . Some of these voters are supporting pitchers commonly suggested as comparable (Doc Gooden, Wilbur Cooper)

Redding and Cooper comparable? Their major timespans match almost perfectly. They were pitchers. They pitched a lot of innings in some seasons, probably more than good for their careers.

continuing the quotation from "2009 Results",
130. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 19, 2008 at 01:09 PM (#3034032)
Are there (somewhat) reliable seasonal MLE's for Redding? And where is he reputationally/ anecdotally placed in the NgL pantheon? The latter factor was a big reason I backed Lundy so strongly.

It will help to continue #121, by covering the 1930s debuts.
(Together with #121 this matches the scope of #119 except Cool Papa Bell.)

1903 23 1931 Ray Brown
1907 25 1932 Hilton Smith
1907 26 1933 Byrd
1916 18 1934 Leon Day

This puts Leon Day (hof) in a quartet with Dihigo, Foster, and Brewer. They played in the Negro major leagues during their teens, from age 18 or 19. For one reason or another, none of the others played in the major NeL before age 23. ==> correction, age 21 (Paige)

correction, part of #121: Willie Foster and Satchel Paige, columns one and two
1905 18 1923 Dihigo
1904 19 1923 Foster (corrected)
1907 18 1925 Brewer
1906 21 1927 Paige (corrected)

131. DL from MN Posted: December 19, 2008 at 01:39 PM (#3034077)
Unlike Clarkson, Redding made the final cut of HoF candidates the last time around. He's consensus the 6th-8th best Negro League pitcher.

I am inclined to say 7th to 11th after Williams, Mendez, Rogan, Foster, Paige, Brown.
Of courses some people probably including the Cmte on Afri-Am. Baseball, rank him behind the four other Hall of Fame largely-pitchers Rube Foster, Martin Dihigo, Hilton Smith, Leon Day.

Here are the largely-pitchers among the other finalists in 2006. (perhaps the source for ronw #119)
William Bell
Chet Brewer
Bill Byrd
John Donaldson
Dick Redding

During 2006 and 2007 (between the semifinals elections and his death), Dick Thompson raised the profile of Will Jackman. How far, I don't know.

--
Who were the best pitchers with debuts in the late 1930s and the 1940s?
"1934, Leon Day" points to a missing wartime generation in the Negro Leagues. Even to the usually uncounted Don Newcombe, that is a ten-year gap.

Pittsburgh Courier readers put Dick Redding on the second team in 1952, behind
"(P) Joe Williams, (P) Satchel Paige, (P) Bullet Rogan, (P) John Dondaldson, (P) Bill Foster, (Utility) Martin Dihigo"
and behind
second team, "P) Dave Brown"

--quotation from Bill Burgess's Pittsburgh Courier 1952 reader survey results. I don't know whether that is a transcript from PC.

Chris Fluit joins DL (quoted just above) as one of Dick Redding's best friends, in "2010 Hall of Merit Ballot".

29. Chris Fluit Posted: November 11, 2009 at 08:41 PM (#3385749)
3. Cannonball Dick Redding, P. Those who are judging Redding primarily on his '20s numbers are making a gross mistake. Redding had an outstanding rookie year in 1911 with 17 straight wins. He had huge peak seasons throughout the teens (such as a 43-12 record in 1912 and a 23-2 in 1915). He had an extended prime that saw him pitch at a high level into the early '20s (17-12 in 1921). He was considered the second best pitcher of his era next to Smoky Joe Williams and was compared favorably to Walter Johnson. With war credit for missing a half season in each of 1918 and 1919, Redding has 12 solid seasons of top play before the start of an organized league in the East. His MLEs- converting those gaudy barnstorming numbers to expected performance in the major leagues- are still 234-174, putting him in the same territory as HoM contemporaries Stan Coveleski, Red Faber and Eppa Rixey.

Redding was made player-manager of Brooklyn Royal Giants in 1923 and was still considered a top ace in 1924. In 1925, Redding's skills were diminishing and, as manager, he reduced himself to a part-time role as a relief pitcher. Over the next several seasons, he would sporadically give himself the ball in order to spare his best pitchers. If you're looking predominantly at his league stats, you're only looking at 2 of his 14 seasons as a top starter on top teams. Judging him by his relief record while he was a manager would be akin to judging John McGraw based on his pinch-hitting while manager of the New York Giants from 1902-1905.


Someone approved following the lead of the 2006 Negro Leagues Committee, meaning vote "No" on Redding.
Chris Fluit #39
then why aren't you voting for Andy Cooper, Leon Day and Hilton Smith. It seems inconsistent that you would accept the HoF's negative opinion on one Negro League player but not their positive opinion on three others. On the other hand, if it's possible that the HoF was mistaken in including Andy Cooper, isn't it also possible that they were mistaken in excluding Dick Redding?

Here's some corroborating testimonies that Redding was among the all-time great players:

Redding was named to the Negro League Baseball All-Time team by McNeil, the only pitcher to be honored by neither the HoF or the HoM (6 others are in both, Leon Day in the HoF)

Redding was 21st on the official SABR rankings of Negro League candidates in 1999, ahead of future HoMers Santop, Wilson, Lundy, Mendez, Beckwith and Trouppe

Redding was one of 29 players given his own side-bar in Lawrence Hogan's book Shades of Glory (published in 2006, the same year as the HoF vote), 23 are in both the HoF and HoM; 5 are in one Hall (Home Run Johnson and John Beckwith in HoM; Judy Johnson, Ray Dandrige and Leon Day in the HoF); Redding is the only one honored by neither even though Hogan specifically mentions that Redding should be in the Hall of Fame (every other player given such a specific push was elected later that year)

The Hall of Fame vote of 2006 should only be one piece of the puzzle. The Hall of Merit ignored it in terms of Home Run Johnson (who also played before the established leagues) and John Beckwith (who also played in the east). We certainly have the ability and the authority to disagree with them regarding Dick Redding as well. Isn't that kind of our purpose in the first place- to correct the mistakes of the Hall of Fame?

From the 2010 ballot comment quoted in full just above,
Chris Fluit #29:
Those who are judging Redding primarily on his '20s numbers are making a gross mistake. Redding had an outstanding rookie year in 1911 with 17 straight wins. He had huge peak seasons throughout the teens (such as a 43-12 record in 1912 and a 23-2 in 1915). He had an extended prime that saw him pitch at a high level into the early '20s (17-12 in 1921). He was considered the second best pitcher of his era next to Smoky Joe Williams and was compared favorably to Walter Johnson. With war credit for missing a half season in each of 1918 and 1919, Redding has 12 solid seasons of top play before the start of an organized league in the East.

I believe Redding is commonly credited with great work 1911-17 and the negative judgment relies heavily on 1920-22, literally "his '20s numbers" not from "the start of an organized league in the East" (1923).


From the opening of this thread,
1. Chris Cobb Posted: October 11, 2004 at 09:51 AM (#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.
...
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
...
[#2.]
P.S. GSA = George Stovey Award, Holway's Negro-League Cy Young award

Someone approved following the lead of the 2006 Negro Leagues Committee, meaning vote "No" on Redding.

Who? Who suggested that instead of doing our own work, we should follow the lead of the Hall of Fame's special committee? Who approved it? And why was I unaware of this despite having been a voter at the time?

If it's true, then why did we ignore that consensus on four other occasions? We elected Dobie Moore, Quincy Trouppe, Alejandro Oms and Dick Lundy- 4 Negro League players not in the Hall of Fame- to the Hall of Merit after the special committee publicized their votes and after the 2006 summer induction ceremony (Moore, 1991, Dec. 2006; Trouppe, 1995, Mar. 2007; Oms, 2006, Oct. 2007; Lundy, 2008, Dec. 2007). And we're still ignoring that consensus by not voting for six Negro League players who are in the Hall of Fame, four of whom were elected by earlier Veterans Committees but two of whom, Andy Cooper and Sol White, were elected by the special committee of 2006. How come all of the Dick Redding detractors aren't voting for Andy Cooper if the rationale is that we all agreed to follow the lead of the 2006 committee?

I'm sorry, but it sounds like a cop-out to me. The Hall of Merit was founded, in part, on the idea that the Hall of Fame makes mistakes and that with careful study and consistent rules, we can correct many of those mistakes. The 2006 Committee did an admirable job. They corrected many of the mistakes of the past. However, I suggest that they committed a new one by electing Andy Cooper as "the greatest left-handed pitcher in the Negro Leagues" instead of Dick Redding who is rated more highly by almost every other expert and measurement. And I would suggest that our hands are not tied by their results.

Pittsburgh Courier readers put Dick Redding on the second team in 1952, behind
"(P) Joe Williams, (P) Satchel Paige, (P) Bullet Rogan, (P) John Dondaldson, (P) Bill Foster, (Utility) Martin Dihigo"
and behind
second team, "P) Dave Brown"

--quotation from Bill Burgess's Pittsburgh Courier 1952 reader survey results. I don't know whether that is a transcript from PC.

That's true. The Pittsburgh Courier had Redding 8th. That readers' survey is one piece of evidence of their perceived greatness. However, we've already elected 8 pitchers to the Hall of Merit and three of them weren't even on that list (Ray Brown, Rube Foster and Jose Mendez). I would take that list as corroborating evidence of Redding's greatness- he did finish in the top eight after all- but I wouldn't necessarily follow that order as canon.

Dave Brown was considered great because of his three seasons pitching for the Chicago American Giants (1920-22) when they won the pennant. However, Brown had a very short career and left baseball early because he was wanted for murder. He played less than 10 seasons. And we don't give out bonuses for being on great teams or for postseason play (Brown did beat Redding head-to-head in a New York City championship in 1923). Brown's peak was great, but it wasn't better than Redding's entire career.

John Donaldson is closer. He was certainly one of the top four pitchers of the teens, behind Williams, Redding and Mendez. However, if you're concerned about Redding's drop-off in the '20s, then you should be really alarmed by Donaldson's decline. He started two years later (joining a top team in 1913 instead of 1911) and had a dead arm several years earlier (by 1920, instead of '23 or '24). He continued his career as a centerfielder and a first baseman. He did pitch again later but with minor league teams in Minnesota and Canada rather than the top professional Negro League teams. So Donaldson has a slightly lower peak and a slightly shorter prime, though he does have several seasons as a hitter to his credit that Redding doesn't.

I believe Redding is commonly credited with great work 1911-17 and the negative judgment relies heavily on 1920-22, literally "his '20s numbers" not from "the start of an organized league in the East" (1923).

From the opening of this thread,
1. Chris Cobb Posted: October 11, 2004 at 09:51 AM (#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.
...
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
...
[#2.]
P.S. GSA = George Stovey Award, Holway's Negro-League Cy Young award

Your evidence doesn't support your point. You're saying that the negative judgment relies heavily on his 1920-22 but look at those numbers again. Granted, those years aren't as good as his 1915-1917 peak. But he's still an above average pitcher. He's got a plus won-loss record, even though his team had losing record in two out of three years. He's still considered an All-Star in 1922 and in two of those years, John Holway considered him the best pitcher in the East (that's what the George Stovey Awards for those years indicate). It's kind of impressive that a pitcher would still be an All-Star and multiple Stovey winner in what are widely regarded as his 5th, 6th and 7th best seasons (not counting war credit).

I'm not debating that Redding had a precipitous decline in '24 or '25. But his numbers are still well above average from '20 to '22.

Chris Fluit joins DL (quoted just above) as one of Dick Redding's best friends, in "2010 Hall of Merit Ballot".

I'm delighted to share that honor.

#128
>>I believe Redding is commonly credited with great work 1911-17 and the negative judgment relies heavily on 1920-22, literally "his '20s numbers" not from "the start of an organized league in the East" (1923).

From the opening of this thread,
1. Chris Cobb ...
<<

Your evidence doesn't support your point. You're saying that the negative judgment relies heavily on his 1920-22 but look at those numbers again.

The quotation from Cobb #1 wasn't intended as evidence for the first line. It's a reference to one presentation of Redding's season records (maybe the most influential). The evidence can only be in the rest of this thread and scattered in the annual discussion and ballot threads. How did voters interpret Redding's record? Was the occasionally expressed disappointment a response to what he achieved during the 1920s (or after his 1918-1919 military service)? Or strictly 1923 and after?

The first line states what I recall. I haven't reread even this thread, only #1 and #122-23.

Quite a bit of Negro league data have become available during the last three or four years since the HoM began its analysis of Redding earlier on this thread. I've posted all the that data I'm aware of on his Wikipedia page.

A few comments:

- While Redding had a long career, it seems to me that most of his value came during 1911-21 (ages 21-31). During 1922-32, I interpret his record as equivalent to a spot starter/reliever in the majors. On the other hand, he was with a relatively poor-performing team that didn't get the press coverage that some other teams did, so it's possible that I may be misreading his record.

- Looking at the first half of his career, I find it useful to go to Gary Ashwill's spreadsheets where we can compare him directly with other NeLg pitchers for the seasons that Gary has tabulated. For example, for 1916 there were 18 pitchers with at least 35 IP. Redding's 4.28 total run average ranks 12th in that group. However, looking at component statistics Redding does better--in K/9 his 6.2 ranks third--the top five are: (1) Juan Padrón (7.0), (2) Dick Whitworth (6.5), (3) Redding (6.2), (4) José Muñoz (5.8), and (5) Dicta Johnson (5.4). In K/BB, Redding also ranks third--the top five are: (1) Lee Wade (3.4), Padrón (2.6), (3) Redding (2.4), (4) Andrew Williams (2.1), and (5) José Junco (1.9). I'd select Juan Padrón as the best pitcher in black baseball that season, but Redding looks better than his TRA.

Similarly, for 1921, Gary lists 52 pitchers with at least 35 IP. Redding's 4.44 TRA is 16th, with the list led by Ed Rile (1.35), Dave Brown (2.35), Bullet Rogan (3.24), Dick Whitworth (3.39) and Connie Rector (3.71). Again, Redding does somewhat better when looking at component statistics: he ranks sixth in K/9 with 5.4, behind (1) Pud Fluornoy (7.8), (2) Dave Brown (6.6), (3) Jimmy Oldham (6.3), (4) Bill Holland (5.6), and (5) George Britt (5.5). In K/BB he ranks ninth, behind Charles Corbett, Dick Whitworth, Dave Brown, Jeff Tesreau (not really a Negro leaguer, but included in Gary's data), John Taylor, Connie Rector, Bill Holland, and Phil Cockrell.

- It's unfortunate that we don't have detailed data for some of his bigger seasons like 1917.

- Comparing Gary's data for 1921-22 with the data from the HoF study raises some red flags. Obviously they don't cover exactly the same games, but I don't think that can explain the huge difference in strikeout rates. Since I trust Gary's work, this suggests that there were still some pretty serious gaps in the data that the HoF released for the 2006 special election. I hope they've been using the time since then to clean up the data.

- I think the data generally confirm that Dick Redding was a very good pitcher, but so were his contemporaries Willis, Cicotte, Grimes, and Cooper. How sure are we that he was better than them?

what a shocker

Comparing Gary's data for 1921-22 with the data from the HoF study raises some red flags. Obviously they don't cover exactly the same games, but I don't think that can explain the huge difference in strikeout rates. Since I trust Gary's work, this suggests that there were still some pretty serious gaps in the data that the HoF released for the 2006 special election. I hope they've been using the time since then to clean up the data.

There must be problems going forward with exhaustion of the grant (long ago) and long delay in taking first public steps with what was completed.

Thanks, Brent.
Those are good-looking tables at wikipedia "Dick Redding" and "Hilton Smith". On the current model, I understand, wikipedia hosts copies of every past version of every page (select "history"). I wonder whether that will continue: "Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you." That banner is ominous and I'll read more about it. Anyway, do you think the content is fairly secure in the sense that so many tables are accepted in the "biographies" of pro ballplayers?

Paul - I decided to put the data on Wikipedia because it serves a larger audience and can be easier to find than some of the HoM threads. I plan to "watch" the pages there to be aware if anyone tries to remove the information. Although there's been some controversy on Wikipedia about adding tables that simply replicate information that's readily available from bb-ref or mlb.com, no one has questioned my posting tables on Negro leaguers--frankly those pages need all the help they can get.

Another comment I meant to make about the Redding data is to note his significantly lower K/BB ratios in Cuban play. It raises a question whether Cuban umpires were calling a smaller strikezone than NeLg umpires. I'm aware that some of the major league teams that visited Cuba brought along their own umpires, which suggests to me that American players must have thought there were problems with Cuban umpiring.

A few comments:

-Keep in mind that most of Redding's games against top black competition from 1920 and after were on the road. Considering that in the Negro leagues the umpire was usually hired by the home team, this is a significant handicap. Even with the Bacharachs from 1920 to 1922, the majority of the games counted in Negro league stats were from a few long road trips to the west. And the Brooklyn Royal Giants basically functioned as a road team throughout their time in the ECL. Nat Strong didn't take the league schedule very seriously, often sending the team on long barnstorming trips through upstate New York and elsewhere in the Northeast. And when they did play league games they didn't get to use Dexter Park, which he controlled, as their home park (he preferred to schedule the Bushwicks there)--they had to play in their opponents' parks. They did occasionally play league games at Dexter Park over the years, and I suppose you could count those as home games; but they amounted to little more than a handful per year.

--For many games played in Atlantic City and Philadelphia in the 1920s, the box scores lacked summary sections, so no walks or strikeouts are recorded. Traditionally Negro league stats count the innings pitched for those games, but do nothing to adjust for the missing walks and strikeouts. This is something to keep in mind when you see very low walk or strikeout rates. There are ways to adjust for the missing data for these games. For example, you can estimate strikeouts extremely reliably using catchers' putouts. I don't, however, think this method was used in the HoF project (except by me and probably Patrick Rock) until very late, so my guess is that most of the pitchers' stats from the east are underestimating both walks and strikeouts. (Generally speaking, this caveat doesn't apply to western games, or to games played in Baltimore, DC, New York, or other eastern cities.)

I am trying to estimate Redding's WAR, and I need an estimate of his innings pitched. i9s.org seems to no longer exist--does anyone have Redding's season-by-season IP estimates?
Thanks.

Dick Redding's Real Stats

Seamheads has only completed 7 seven seasons so far (1916-1922) plus a few winters of Cuban ball, but Redding really stands out. He's missing some of his best years- like his great rookie season in 1911 (which Chris Cobb had at 27 Win Shares), 1915 when he was arguably the best pitcher in baseball (a Cobb estimate of 40 Win Shares) and his last good season in 1923. We'll eventually see if the actual numbers match up to the earlier MLEs for those seasons.

However, with the seasons we have, we can already see that Redding was a great- and occasionally dominant- pitcher. He was the best pitcher in 1917. His 27.3 Win Shares are 9 better than second place (fellow pitcher Tom Williams with 18.0) and double the top position player (Pete Hill with 13.4). He led the Negro Leagues in ERA+ (371, second place was 204), innings pitched (153 to 133), opponents batting average (.164), strikeouts (111 to 74) and strikeout percentage (tied with John Donaldson at 18.9%). He was also second in WHIP behind Tom Williams.

For his career numbers (partial), Redding packed a lot into a short time. His 1042 innings are almost 200 ahead of the second highest (Jim Jeffries with 866) and 300 above HoMers Mendez and Williams.
He's third in Runs Avoided behind the two aforementioned HoMers. He has the highest WAR of any non-HoMer (his 18.7 puts him in a virtual tie with John Henry Lloyd, 18.6). He has the most Win Shares of any non-HoMer (his 95.9 tie him with Pete Hill). He also has big leads on the guy behind him (4.5 WAR ahead of Jimmy Lyons and 22.4 Win Shares ahead of Dick Whitworth). We don't know if those career ranks will hold up when other seasons are completed but it's notable that he not only beats out the also-rans, he also compares favorably with those we already elected.