Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Saturday, July 13, 2002

Catchers

Here are the catchers, I’ve updated this thread 9/19/2003. I’m going to remove anyone who isn’t a new eligible, or hasn’t received a vote from these threads; unless he has 175 WS (145 for the catchers), so these threads don’t get too cluttered.



234 - 35, 29, 29 - 131 - Charlie Bennett - 9.8 sea. - 149 batting - 85 fielding.
C 84%, 3B 5%, RF 3%, CF 3%, LF 2%, 2B 2%, SS 1%.
notes: 1878, 1880-93. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played entire career in NL.

156 - 28, 26, 24 - 114 - Fred Carroll - 5.9 sea. - 128 batting- 28 fielding.
C 51%, LF 22%, RF 11%, CF 8%, 1B 8%
notes: 1884-91. 5-year peak from age 21-25. Played first 3 years in AA (21, 13, 26 WS), rest of career in NL, except 1890 (PL) 21 WS. 4 years of 5-year peak in NL/PL.

145 - 35, 28, 25 - 129 - John Clapp - 9.0 sea. - 108 batting - 37 fielding.
C 76%, LF 10%, RF 6%, CF 3%, 1B 3%, SS 3%.
notes: 1872-81, 1883. 5-year peak from age 24-28. Played 3.1 seasons in NA, not counted above. Rest of career in NL.

183 - 22, 22, 22 - 86 - Jack Clements - 8.9 sea. - 126 batting - 57 fielding.
C 93%, RF 3%, LF 1%, CF 1%, 1B 1%.
notes: 1884-1900. Peak from age 24-28. Played entire career in NL, except about 80% of 1884 (UA) 14 WS.

327 - 32, 30, 28 - 132 - Buck Ewing - 11.0 sea. - 247 batting - 77 fielding - 3 pitching.
C 49%, 1B 17%, RF 14%, 3B 10%, 2B 4%, SS 3%, CF 3%, LF 1%.
notes: 1880-97. 5-year peak from age 22-26. Played entire career in NL, except 1890 (PL) 24 WS.

210 - 28, 20, 17 - 96 - Duke Farrell - 11.1 sea. - 132 batting - 78 fielding.
C 66%, 3B 19%, 1B 7%, LF 3%, RF 3%, CF 1%, SS 1%.
notes: 1888-1905. 5-year peak from age 22-26. Played entire career in NL, except 1890 (PL) 24 WS.

158 - 26, 17, 16 - 92 - Doggie Miller - 9.8 sea. - 118 batting - 39 fielding.
C 48%, 3B 18%, LF 11%, RF 7%, SS 6%, CF 5%, 2B 4%, 1B 2%.
notes: 1884-96. 5-year peak from age 23-27. Played entire career in NL, except 1884-86 (AA), 6, 3, 13 WS respectively.

332 - 42, 34, 32 - 145 - Deacon White - 18.1 sea. - 261 batting - 69 fielding - 1 pitching.
C 39%, 3B 32%, 1B 13%, RF 12%, 3% 2B, 1% LF.
notes: 1871-90. 5-year peak from age 28-32. Played 5.0 seasons in the NA, which are not counted above. Played rest of career in NL, except 1890 (PL), 12 WS. 5-year peak includes 1880 when he missed more than 1/2 of the season. When 1875 become part of that peak, he’ll probably be around 170 or 180 for his 5-year peak.

178 - 21, 19, 16 - 78 - Chief Zimmer - 9.3 sea. - 99 batting - 79 fielding.
C 97%, 1B 2%
notes: 1884, 1886-1903. 5-year peak from age 30-34. Played entire career in NL, except 1886-88 (AA) 12 WS.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 13, 2002 at 04:03 AM | 148 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. ronw Posted: October 13, 2005 at 04:09 PM (#1681418)
Here is my position-by-position analysis, which will be presented over then next week or so.

I did a batting win shares analysis, primarily because:

1. We generally elect the hitters, sorted by position;
2. I haven't seen too much criticism of BWS, while WARP and fielding/pitching WS receive plenty of it;
3. BWS is easily accessible.
4. With the low replacement value, I don't have to worry about negative numbers altering the career totals.

This rudimentary study uses the Win Shares Digital Update and games data from baseballreference.com.

For batting WS, I merely took the career value for all players over 100 career batting WS (70 for catchers), and calculated

career Batting WS/162. I did not adjust for short-seasons, because I think our electorate does show a slight timeline bias,

and this bias can be reflected here. I have not taken league quality into account in the lists, but rather in the notes that

follow. I have also excluded anyone with significant NA or pre-NA time, because the databases used do not include pre-1876

information. Where we have total games and MLE batting WS, I have used them for our Negro League candidates.

I also give WS fielding grades, to show some outliers.

The results show high concentrations at the top of each position, as would be expected. All people who deviate from the tops

of the lists have significant fielding value. To give some semblance of order, I have added together the WS/162 as a

representative measure of prime, plus the career WS divided by 10. I used that number rather than Bill James' harmonic mean

formula because I think that formula penalized long-career players a bit too much. I also did not add 3 year peaks and 5

year consecutive peaks because that seemed to double and triple-count high peak players, thus further skewing the lists in

that direction. Our electorate is prime-friendly, not peak-friendly. Using either of the harmonic mean or peak measures

would have given totals that do not reflect the values of the electorate as a whole.

As a preliminary conclusion, we have elected the following fielders, who would not be in the HOM had they not had a stellar

fielding reputation and some actual numbers to show that they were great fielders:

C - Charlie Bennett
1B - none
2B - Bid McPhee
3B - Jimmy Collins
SS - Hugh Jennings, Bobby Wallace, Jack Glasscock
LF - none
CF - Earl Averill, Max Carey
RF - none

Monte Ward also would not have made the HOM on his hitting alone, but he had substantial pitching value to go along with his

solid hitting and good fielding rep. One can argue that Jimmy Sheckard may fit this category, but he has a decent amount of

hitting value.

Only one hitter has made the HOM despite not being near the top of the hitters at his position and is a relatively poor

fielder for the position - Sam Thompson.


But now to the data.
   102. ronw Posted: October 13, 2005 at 04:10 PM (#1681421)
Catchers

So here are the eligible catchers through 1980.

Catcher         Career   Games   BWS/162 Total   Fielding
*Gibson, J      398.1    1930    33.4    73.2    n/r
Berra, Y        267.5    2120    20.4    47.2    A
*Dickey, B      217.9    1789    19.7    41.5    A
*Ewing, B       185.3    1315    22.8    41.4    A+
*Cochrane, M    193.6    1482    21.2    40.5    A
*Hartnett, G    215.9    1990    17.6    39.2    A+
Bresnahan, R    174.3    1446    19.5    37.0    C+
Schang, W       181.9    1842    16.0    34.2    C+
*White, D       148.9    1299    18.6    33.5    n/r
Campanella, R   137.6    1215    18.3    32.1    A
Carroll, F      101.8     754    21.9    32.1    n/r
Lombardi, E     167.3    1853    14.6    31.4    D+
Mackey, B       165.5    2255    11.9    28.4    n/r
*McVey, C        39.9     265    24.4    28.4    n/r
Grady, M         99.3     918    17.5    27.5    n/r
Haller, T       120.1    1294    15.0    27.0    B+
Howard, E       134.0    1605    13.5    26.9    A-
Romano, J        95.7     905    17.1    26.7    B+
Cooper, W       124.2    1473    13.7    26.1    C
Lollar, S       131.8    1752    12.2    25.4    B+
Burgess, S      127.6    1691    12.2    25.0    C
*Bennett, C      98.1    1062    15.0    24.8    A
Meyers, C        92.5     992    15.1    24.4    C+
Clements, J      99.4    1157    13.9    23.9    C+
Milligan, J      76.6     772    16.1    23.7    B
Farrell, D      115.0    1563    11.9    23.4    A-
Hargrave, B      80.5     852    15.3    23.4    C
Bailey, E        99.5    1212    13.3    23.2    C+
Ferrell, R      122.8    1884    10.6    22.8    B-
McGuire, D      119.3    1781    10.9    22.8    C+
Miller, D       102.0    1317    12.5    22.7    C-
Kling, J         97.7    1260    12.6    22.3    B
Lopata, S        76.0     853    14.4    22.0    C
Roseboro, J     106.6    1585    10.9    21.6    B+
Seminick, A      94.6    1304    11.8    21.2    C
Davis, S         98.8    1458    11.0    20.9    C+
Battey, E        85.6    1141    12.2    20.7    A-
O'Farrell, B     98.1    1492    10.7    20.5    B+
Triandos, G      86.8    1206    11.7    20.3    C
Crandall, D      95.6    1573     9.8    19.4    A
Zimmer, C        84.7    1280    10.7    19.2    n/r
Hayes, F         86.5    1364    10.3    18.9    D+
Gowdy, H         73.3    1050    11.3    18.6    A-
Schalk, R        94.5    1762     8.7    18.1    A
O'Neill, S       88.1    1590     9.0    17.8    C+
Ruel, M          83.1    1468     9.2    17.5    A-
Severeid, H      78.4    1390     9.1    17.0    B-
Snyder, F        77.8    1392     9.1    16.8    B+
Edwards, J       75.1    1470     8.3    15.8    A-
Lopez, A         83.7    1950     7.0    15.3    B
Mancuso, G       71.1    1460     7.9    15.0    B


Josh's MLE's show that he is miles ahead of everyone else. The big five (Berra, Dickey, Ewing, Cochrane, Hartnett) were not only the best hitting catchers of all time, but were also great fielders. Campy probably belongs with them when Negro League credit is given. You have to get down to electee Bennett to see another A fielder, which shows in part how Bennett made it.

Bresnahan and Schang still head the top of the list by 1980, with Lombardi a good measure behind. Fred Carroll has AA issues, and Mackey's MLE numbers put him below the elite. Mike Grady is something of a surprise. I don't have BWS for

Quincy Trouppe, but I think he would be somewhere in the Schang-Mackey range range.

McVey, despite only 4 seasons of data (or maybe because of it) does surprisingly well. His hitting rate probably increases with his NA play.

Upcoming eligibles other than Berra (Haller, Howard, Romano, Cooper, Lollar, Burgess) will have a difficult time. Howard has the best shot, especially with his stellar fielding. Anyone below Bennett is officially out of the running.
   103. ronw Posted: October 13, 2005 at 04:12 PM (#1681425)
Catchers

So here are the eligible catchers through 1980.

Catcher         Career   Games   BWS/162 Total   Fielding
*Gibson, J      398.1    1930    33.4    73.2    n/r
Berra, Y        267.5    2120    20.4    47.2    A
*Dickey, B      217.9    1789    19.7    41.5    A
*Ewing, B       185.3    1315    22.8    41.4    A+
*Cochrane, M    193.6    1482    21.2    40.5    A
*Hartnett, G    215.9    1990    17.6    39.2    A+
Bresnahan, R    174.3    1446    19.5    37.0    C+
Schang, W       181.9    1842    16.0    34.2    C+
*White, D       148.9    1299    18.6    33.5    n/r
Campanella, R   137.6    1215    18.3    32.1    A
Carroll, F      101.8     754    21.9    32.1    n/r
Lombardi, E     167.3    1853    14.6    31.4    D+
Mackey, B       165.5    2255    11.9    28.4    n/r
*McVey, C        39.9     265    24.4    28.4    n/r
Grady, M         99.3     918    17.5    27.5    n/r
Haller, T       120.1    1294    15.0    27.0    B+
Howard, E       134.0    1605    13.5    26.9    A-
Romano, J        95.7     905    17.1    26.7    B+
Cooper, W       124.2    1473    13.7    26.1    C
Lollar, S       131.8    1752    12.2    25.4    B+
Burgess, S      127.6    1691    12.2    25.0    C
*Bennett, C      98.1    1062    15.0    24.8    A
Meyers, C        92.5     992    15.1    24.4    C+
Clements, J      99.4    1157    13.9    23.9    C+
Milligan, J      76.6     772    16.1    23.7    B
Farrell, D      115.0    1563    11.9    23.4    A-
Hargrave, B      80.5     852    15.3    23.4    C
Bailey, E        99.5    1212    13.3    23.2    C+
Ferrell, R      122.8    1884    10.6    22.8    B-
McGuire, D      119.3    1781    10.9    22.8    C+
Miller, D       102.0    1317    12.5    22.7    C-
Kling, J         97.7    1260    12.6    22.3    B
Lopata, S        76.0     853    14.4    22.0    C
Roseboro, J     106.6    1585    10.9    21.6    B+
Seminick, A      94.6    1304    11.8    21.2    C
Davis, S         98.8    1458    11.0    20.9    C+
Battey, E        85.6    1141    12.2    20.7    A-
O'Farrell, B     98.1    1492    10.7    20.5    B+
Triandos, G      86.8    1206    11.7    20.3    C
Crandall, D      95.6    1573     9.8    19.4    A
Zimmer, C        84.7    1280    10.7    19.2    n/r
Hayes, F         86.5    1364    10.3    18.9    D+
Gowdy, H         73.3    1050    11.3    18.6    A-
Schalk, R        94.5    1762     8.7    18.1    A
O'Neill, S       88.1    1590     9.0    17.8    C+
Ruel, M          83.1    1468     9.2    17.5    A-
Severeid, H      78.4    1390     9.1    17.0    B-
Snyder, F        77.8    1392     9.1    16.8    B+
Edwards, J       75.1    1470     8.3    15.8    A-
Lopez, A         83.7    1950     7.0    15.3    B
Mancuso, G       71.1    1460     7.9    15.0    B


Josh's MLE's show that he is miles ahead of everyone else. The big five (Berra, Dickey, Ewing, Cochrane, Hartnett) were not only the best hitting catchers of all time, but were also great fielders. Campy probably belongs with them when Negro League credit is given. You have to get down to electee Bennett to see another A fielder, which shows in part how Bennett made it.

Bresnahan and Schang still head the top of the list by 1980, with Lombardi a good measure behind. Fred Carroll has AA issues, and Mackey's MLE numbers put him below the elite. Mike Grady is something of a surprise. I don't have BWS for Quincy Trouppe, but I think he would be somewhere in the Schang-Mackey range range.

McVey, despite only 4 seasons of data (or maybe because of it) does surprisingly well. His hitting rate probably increases with his NA play.

Upcoming eligibles other than Berra (Haller, Howard, Romano, Cooper, Lollar, Burgess) will have a difficult time. Howard has the best shot, especially with his stellar fielding. Anyone below Bennett is officially out of the running.
   104. ronw Posted: October 13, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1681428)
Stupid double-post. Sorry.
   105. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 13, 2005 at 06:00 PM (#1681737)
I have to say that I'm not going to be a happy camper if Campanella doesn't appear #1 on everybody's ballot next "year." AFAIAC, it's indefensible to have him lower than the top spot (though I am willing to listen to absolute peak voters).

The man has the peak, the prime, the long career, the MVPs, the All-Star selections, the pennant-winners, and even a championship. What more do you need from Campy when comparing him to the other eligible candidates?
   106. karlmagnus Posted: October 13, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1681807)
He's #9 on my preliminary ballot for '63, a little better than Schang and Lombardi. I refuse to give him MLE credit back to the age of 17 (since he wouldn't have played in the majors at that age) but only to 20-22, so his career wasn't that long, and his OPS+ of 124 is below Lombardi's. Easy HOM'er though. If Robinson, Campy and the Boys of Summer had been as good as legend now has them to be, the Dodgers would have won every world series from 1947-56. They didn't.
   107. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 13, 2005 at 07:04 PM (#1681856)
Karl,

I agree that he shouldn't be given credit all the way back. I don't think he hit enough in his teens to be a big-league player.

On the other hand, he's way better than Lombardi, Schang, and the second-tier-catcher gang. He's an easy #1 in that he's among the best five or six players ever at his position. No other candidate that will be available in 1963, newbie or backlog, can come within 100 miles of substantiating a claim like that.... That's why they're all backloggers in the first place!
   108. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 13, 2005 at 07:08 PM (#1681860)
karlmagnus, can Beckley, Welch, Sisler, Cicotte, Browning, Rixey, or C. Jones be argued as the best at their position as Campanella can? Sisler could only on peak.

As for including his teenage years, I don't disagree. However, he doesn't need them.

His career length? Definitely long for a catcher.

I'll repeat that a vote less than the top spot for '63 is indefensible.
   109. sunnyday2 Posted: October 13, 2005 at 07:18 PM (#1681884)
I don't know where Campy will be, I haven't seen his NeL record. Certainly he's a good bet for #, though he was not a slam dunk for best catcher of his own era thanks to an ugly little Italian fellow named Yoda Berra or something like that. Of course, the ugly little Italian fellow is not on the ballot that year. But the best (currently #3) backlogger on my ballot right now is Dobie Moore and he has a story to tell that is actually not unlike Campy's. Outstanding defender at a key position. One of the greatest hitters at his position ever, and among the greatest hitters of his day regardless of position. A career that was badly deformed by racism on the front, and by off-the-field injury on the back end. I am anxious to see the two of them go head to head. If he (Campy) is not number one on my ballot, it will be defensible (and defended).
   110. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 13, 2005 at 07:24 PM (#1681915)
If he (Campy) is not number one on my ballot, it will be defensible (and defended).

Marc, in my original post, I gave a caveat for peak voters as yourself.
   111. KJOK Posted: October 15, 2005 at 12:45 AM (#1684450)
New Baseball Encyclopedia Player Overall Wins for Catchers:

Roy Campanella - 24
Roger Bresnahan - 23
Ernie Lombardi - 21
Chief Zimmer - 21
Wally Schang - 20
Chief Meyers - 17
Ray Schalk - 16
Johnny Kling - 14
   112. jimd Posted: October 15, 2005 at 01:01 AM (#1684496)
New Baseball Encyclopedia Player Overall Wins

I'm not familiar with this stat. Is this Wins over "Replacement Level"? Seems too low, though. Is it Wins over Average? Something else? Thanks.
   113. jimd Posted: October 15, 2005 at 01:04 AM (#1684503)
Ah. The SS thread may give a clue to the answer. Over Average, apparently.
   114. karlmagnus Posted: October 15, 2005 at 02:02 AM (#1684633)
Given the existence ogf Josh Gibson, I don't think Campanella has the rmotest claim to be #1 at his position. Catchers are about to become much better hitters in the next 20 "years" -- I don't think Campy is anywhere close to Bench or Fisk, for example. Yogi Berra was better, too. The reason Campy ranks so high as of 1963 is because there have as of 1963 been very few great catchers. If we look at ranks as of when they retired Beckley, for example was #2 in hits behind Anson.

You haven't convinced me he's #1 and you won't, but I think on reflection he's above Rixey and Charley Jones. Above him Beckley we've talked about, Welch is one of the top 4 pitchers of the 1880s and we have too few pitchers, Sisler had a better peak and lasted longer, Cicotte gets 25% Landis credit from me for the 300 games he should have won (had he not been traded from the Red Sox in 1912...) Browning has a better peak, but OK, ahead of Browning. Sisler and Cicotte are FAVES, however, so they're not moving.

As I said, I think the Boys of Summer have been overrated by history. The 1912-18 Red Sox won four times as many championships, yet have no HOM caps at all to show for it.
   115. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2005 at 02:12 AM (#1684649)
Yes, it's the old Pete Palmer LWTS or TPR, so it is wins above average. The other dead giveaway on this is the extremely high defensive values such as Gene Alley at SS being one win better than Rizzuto or Concepcion. OTOH how to explain Alley 10 Rizutto 18 Reese 16.

Then there's Lajoie 95 Hornsby 86 E. Collins 73. All the old defensive evaluations that Bill James has spent his life trying to refute.
   116. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2005 at 02:25 AM (#1684673)
Overall Currently Eligible MLers
1. Doerr 40
2. Bancroft 36
Bob Johnson 36
4. Sewell 35
5. J. Robinson 34
6. Childs 30
7. Gordon 29
8. Bartell 28
Browning 28
Dunlap 28

11. Fletcher 27
Sisler 27
13. Clift 26
Medwick 26
   117. KJOK Posted: October 15, 2005 at 06:03 AM (#1684953)
All the old defensive evaluations that Bill James has spent his life trying to refute.

The defensive formulas underwent a rather large revision. It MAY still "overvalue" defense at 2B, and even SS, but, for example, Johnny Bench is no longer below average defensively, but quite a bit above average.
   118. Kelly in SD Posted: October 15, 2005 at 07:29 AM (#1684972)
Over the last few months, I have updated my rankings to include all retired players with at least 225 career win shares. I thought I would share my rankings in the interest of comparison. There may be some early players I missed because I didn't get started until the mid-20s elections.
My system takes into account career win shares, peak (3 consecutive seasons), prime (7 best seasons), and per season (648 PA). I weight prime the heaviest, then peak, then seasonal, then career. There are small bonuses for being an all-star - either by wins shares or STATS. I add the appearences on each list and divide by 2. Catchers get a bonus as well that decreases as we get closer to the present. All this is added up and compared to my theoretical maximum. The max is simply the highest score any player achieved for each part. It is basically Babe Ruth. I am rather liberal with War / NeL / blackballing / minor league credit.
Anyway, the comparison has been pretty consistent in predicting HoMers over the years. If a player is over 60% of the max, they get in. If they are under 60% and in, they were a great fielder or a 40s infielder.

Here is my catcher list (through retired players):
*Josh Gibson      94.7%
Yogi Berra        74.4%
*Mickey Cochrane  70.3%
Roy Campanella    69.1%
Johnny Bench      68.0%
*Bill Dickey      67.9%
*Gabby Hartnett   67.6%
*Buck Ewing       65.5%
Gary Carter       64.4%
Carlton Fisk      62.1%
Quincy Troupe     62.0%
*Charley Bennett  59.9%
Biz Mackey        59.7%
Bill Freehan      58.2%
Roger Bresnahan   58.0%
Joe Torre         57.7%
Ted Simmons       56.3%
Wally Schang      55.4%
Gene Tenace       53.0%
Ray Schalk        50.2%
Lance Parrish     50.0%
Elston Howard     50.0% (NeL credit due??)
Ernie Lombardi    49.4%
Darrell Porter    47.8%
*Louis Santop     ???  


* means HoMer
Louis Santop is not done b/c I never saw any translations. Since this is all done by hand, I didn't do the numbers for a player if I thought they had no chance to get in.
   119. Kelly in SD Posted: October 15, 2005 at 07:37 AM (#1684973)
Oh, McVey is not listed because I couldn't find (or didn't look too hard) for NA WS numbers and I have Deacon White listed as a third basemen.
   120. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2005 at 03:28 PM (#1685104)
and I have Deacon White listed as a third basemen.

Which is wrong, of course. ;-)
   121. DavidFoss Posted: October 15, 2005 at 03:55 PM (#1685123)
Yeah, the length of a season doubled after Deacon White changed positions. It's a common misconception. I'm not worried too much about how the NA guys do on these lists. There may be a few guys left getting votes, but I think we're just about done with them now.
   122. DavidFoss Posted: October 15, 2005 at 04:18 PM (#1685141)
Catchers are about to become much better hitters in the next 20 "years" -- I don't think Campy is anywhere close to Bench or Fisk, for example. Yogi Berra was better, too. The reason Campy ranks so high as of 1963 is because there have as of 1963 been very few great catchers.

Campy fares pretty well compared to Cochrane, Hartnett and Dickey, three guys that flew into the HOM with minimal resistance. He doesn't fare too badly against Berra, either. We have to wait until 1989 (Bench) to find another challenger? Doesn't sound like a deluge of great-hitting catcher candidates to me. The only thing Campy doesn't have in his MLB-only numbers is career length -- and his NeL years fix that.

As I said, I think the Boys of Summer have been overrated by history. The 1912-18 Red Sox won four times as many championships, yet have no HOM caps at all to show for it.

I agree the Boys of Summer have been way overexposed. Bookstores are flooded with books on this team. You'd think they'd have won a lot more than they actually did. But, they still dominated the NL for ten years after integration -- at time when the NL was a bit stronger than the AL due to quicker integration, too. The Yankees just had their number for many years.

Speaker & Ruth are in the HOM, so the 1910s Sox are represented. If I recall correctly, only a couple of players were on all four teams which means that the RedSox GM/Owner at the time should probably be inducted to the executives wing (unless selling Ruth negates all of that genius).

My hard-drive was salvaged, so my fractional-cap list was saved. The Red Sox do gain about another cap and a half this way due to partial credit from guys like Speaker, Cronin and Young. Ironically, its the Dodgers than fare the best relative to the winner-take-all system due to guys like Caruthers, Sheckard, Kelley and Keeler. I just finished the list and will probably post the results next week sometime.
   123. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2005 at 04:51 PM (#1685160)
I'm not worried too much about how the NA guys do on these lists. There may be a few guys left getting votes, but I think we're just about done with them now.

It's just a knee jerk reaction on my part, David. :-) The misconception that he was primarily a third baseman is probably the item that has closed the door on him for the HOF for all of these years.

He doesn't fare too badly against Berra, either.

Berra alo played 12% of his career in the OF, while Campy was all-catcher all of the time.

The reason Campy ranks so high as of 1963 is because there have as of 1963 been very few great catchers.

Actually, there were probably about the same amount, but it was much tougher to play the position as you go back in time. Do you think Fisk would have had the same amount of games played seventy years ago and with the same quality? Let's not even talk about a hundred years ago or earlier.

Context, context, context. :-)
   124. Kelly in SD Posted: October 16, 2005 at 07:06 AM (#1686201)
I have White listed as a 3rd Basemen because I used his numbers from 1876 to the end of his career. I wasn't sure how to handle the NA years. From 1876 to 1890, these were the positions at which he played the most games each year:

1876: Catcher
1877: 1st
1878: Catcher
1879: Catcher
1880: Outfield
1881: 1st / 2nd
1882: 3rd
1883: 3rd
1884: 3rd
1885: 3rd
1886: 3rd
1887: 3rd
1888: 3rd
1889: 3rd
1890: 3rd / 1st

Including the NA years, he did have 8 years as a catcher and 8 as a 3rd baseman.
   125. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 16, 2005 at 02:03 PM (#1686309)
Including the NA years, he did have 8 years as a catcher and 8 as a 3rd baseman.

But he would never have made it into the HoM strictly based on his 3B credentials, while he most likely would have based on his backstop duties anyway.
   126. sunnyday2 Posted: March 02, 2006 at 05:28 AM (#1880654)
In my macro system (Reputation Monitor), the 3 best ML catcher candidates are Bresnahan, Lombardi and W. Cooper, in that order. Cooper didn't get much attention, so I thought I'd see how he looked.

Win Shares

16. Bresnahan 231/29-27-27/116/25.9
22. Lombardi 218/24-18-17/89/19.1
33. W. Cooper 173/23-19-18/82/19.0

Advantage Bresnahan especially based on peak though his 3 years in the OF helps close the gap.

Seasonal (10+, with adjustments*)

Bresnahan 29*#-29-27-23#-19-18-14-14-13# (# not a catcher)
Lombardi 24-19-17-17-17-16*-16-14-13-12-11
W. Cooper 23-19-17-16*-16*-16-15*-10

Slight advantage Bresnahan

OPS+ in ?100 games
Bresnahan 161-39-38-36-32-28-25-16-x-x
Cooper 145-41-32-31*-22-15-15*-13-97-80
Lombardi 162-54-48-45-37-32-31-26*-20-11-7-2-96-93 (4 extra years versus Bresnahan, 2 versus Cooper)

Advantage Lombardi, but slight

WS: Bresnahan C+, Cooper C, Lombardi D+--slight advantage Cooper

Lombardi 6,285 PAs, Bresnahan about 5,200, Cooper, about 5,000 PAs. Advantage Cooper.
The final cut:

1. Bresnahan though 3 yrs in the OF closes the gap somewhat.
2. Lombardi even after discounting his war years
3. Cooper

So far I have Trouppe ahead of the pack, and Mackey between Bresnahan and Lombardi Ineed to refresh on that.
   127. sunnyday2 Posted: March 02, 2006 at 07:06 AM (#1880713)
Now add in Trouppe and Mackey.

Win Shares

Mackey 278/26-23-20/104/?
16. Bresnahan 231/29-27-27/116/25.9
22. Lombardi 218/24-18-17/89/19.1
33. W. Cooper 173/23-19-18/82/19.0
Trouppe 268/31-27-26/113/?

Now it appears to be advantage Trouppe.

Seasonal (10+, with adjustments*)

Bresnahan 29*#-29-27-23#-19-18-14-14-13# (# not a catcher)
Lombardi 24-19-17-17-17-16*-16-14-13-12-11
W. Cooper 23-19-17-16*-16*-16-15*-10
Mackey 26-23-20-19-19-19-18-18-18-17-17-15-10
Trouppe 31-27-26-26-24-22-21-18-17-12-12-10


OPS+ in ?100 games
Bresnahan 161-39-38-36-32-28-25-16 (8 years > 100 and 100 G)
Cooper 145-41-32-31*-22-15-15*-13-97-80 (10 years)
Lombardi 162-54-48-45-37-32-31-26*-20-11-7-2-96-93 (14 years)
Mackey 142-31-22-11-10-10-9-8-7-4-1 (11 years)
Trouppe 153-45-45-41-35-33-28-14 (7 years)
Advantage Lombardi but very slightly over everybody.

WS: Bresnahan C+, Cooper C, Lombardi D+--slight advantage Cooper

Lombardi 6,285 PAs, Bresnahan about 5,200, Cooper, about 5,000 PAs. Mackey 9,000 PAs, Trouppe 7,200

The final cut:
Peak—1. Trouppe, 2. Bresnahan, 3. Mackey, 4.Lombardi, 5. Cooper
Career—1, Mackey, 2. Trouppe, 3. Bresnahan, 4. Lombardi, 5. Cooper

Overall I would vote Trouppe, Brenahan, Mackey, Lombardi, Cooper.
   128. KJOK Posted: March 02, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#1881208)
Well, Win Shares certainly are not a good measure of "peak" performance due to their very low baseline. "Peak" generally means high performance, so to measure it you need something with a little higher baseline.

If you use .600 Win%, for example, Bresnahan should come out well ahead in "peak" performance.
   129. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 02, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#1881260)
I don't really see how WS can't measure peak efectively, especially with Catchers where there can be such variation in # of games played, hence higher WS totals even if there are lower rate totals. There is some value in catching 135 games in a season instead of 110. I guess it depends on what you mean by peak, I believe peak to be value in season not value over a high baseline in season. Though the two are pretty indistinguishable in most cases.

I would rank the catchers the same as sunnyday except I would be putting Wally Schang ahead of Walker Cooper. Funny thing is though I would only support Trouppe and Bresnahan for the HOM, and Bresnahan I am lukewarm toward. Catcher is a very funny position, candidates either seem to be obviously HOMers or deep backloggers. Mackey may be the only C we elect since I started (1935) that didn't go in on the first ballot (Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey, Berra, Campanella, Gibson) and that probably has a lot to do with his being an NeL player, thus having a sketchy record. Of course this is assuming he goes in.

Are there any others? Torre? Simmons? Freehan? Maybe even a guy like Elston Howard (does he deserve NeL or MiL credit?) Even thinking of active players there are two worthy guys and that seems to be about it as I don't think that Varitek or Posada will have the career length to make it.
   130. Paul Wendt Posted: May 23, 2007 at 07:34 PM (#2376142)
Chris Cobb or JTM,
Do you know your catcher workload statistic in New Eligibles #14-19?
Is it derived from games played by team leaders in catcher games?
   131. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 23, 2007 at 07:59 PM (#2376168)
Do you know your catcher workload statistic in New Eligibles #14-19?
Is it derived from games played by team leaders in catcher games?


That's a long time ago, Paul. I have revamped my system countless times since then.

But what I was doing back then with catchers (and still do) is compare each candidate against his peers on a career and season basis. Nothing real fancy or elaborate. I stated in one of my posts that I used an "eyeball approach" and I still do.
   132. Paul Wendt Posted: December 09, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2639537)
Cfinale - final major league appearance as a catcher
FSeasEq - career games played at catcher, full seasons equivalent

Single-season FSeasEq (not shown) for a player-team-year-position is player fielding games at the position divided by team games played, such as 1.00 for a player who fields the position in every team game. Given at least one in-game substitution or switch during the season, the sum of FSeasEq for any team-year-position is greater than 1.00.

Career FSeasEq is the career sum of single-season FSeasEq.

Here is the top 25 among all catchers who played that position in the majors no later than 1923.

Cfinale  FSeasEq name
1912 11.67   Deacon  McGuire
1891 10.78   Pop  Snyder
1902 9.72 Wilbert Robinson
1903 8.96 Chief   Zimmer
1893 8.61 Charlie Bennett

1889 8.57 Silver  Flint
1906 8.40 Malachi Kittridge
1900 8.14 Jack Clements
1916 7.84 Red  Dooin
1913 7.73 Johnny  Kling

1918 7.70 George  Gibson
1884 7.42 Deacon  White 
(est8.85 from 1868)
1916 7.39 Billy   Sullivan
1883 7.27 John Clapp
1905 7.19 Duke Farrell

1908 7.06 John Warner
1921 6.68 Bill Killefer
1913 6.66 Heinie  Peitz
1912 6.61 Lou  Criger
1915 6.37 Roger   Bresnahan

1920 6.24 Bill Rariden
1911 6.23 Bill Bergen
1890 6.16 Doc  Bushong
1910 6.09 Jack O
'Connor
1883 5.93 Doug Allison (est. 8.23 from 1868) 


"Estimates from 1868" based on the following notes using data from Marshall Wright's 1857-1870 book.

James White and Doug Allison were professional players in Cleveland and Cincinnati from 1868. I estimate these FSeasEq for them as catchers with those two teams 1868-1870.
1868 1869 1870
0.10 0.50 0.83 White (sum 1.43 ==> 1868-1884 career estimate 8.85
0.63 0.93 0.74 Allison (sum 2.30 ==> 1868-1883 career estimate 8.23

This may not cover all of Allison's pro career. On the other hand, no other catcher listed above is credited with any play outside the major leagues.

--
from Marshall Wright data
For 1868,
White "SS,C" with 23 games played (23 team games); teammate Eb Smith "C,SS" with 21 games played
Allison "C" with 27 games played (43 team games); "C" does not appear in the fielding position of any other player listed (ten with 22+ games). The SABR Biography by Rich Puff says Allison was "summoned to Cincinnati" from the East in August 1868.

For 1869,
White "C" 8 games; 25 team games, maximum 16 for any player (some box scores missing); John Ward "OF,2B,C" 13 games; the entire record is consistent with lineup data for 16 games only
Allison "C" 53 games; 57 team games, maximum 57 for any player;

For 1870,
White "C,P" 36 games; 41 team games, maximum 37 for any player; no "C" in fieldpos of other players
Allison "C" 55 games; 74 team games, maximum 74 for any player; tenth man Dean "OF,C" 33 games
   133. Paul Wendt Posted: December 09, 2007 at 08:59 PM (#2639550)
Here is the same top 25 list for all catchers who played that position in the majors no later than 1949.

Cfinale - final major league appearance as a catcher
FSeasEq - career games played at catcher, full seasons equivalent

finale  FullSeasE name
1947 12.41   Al   Lopez
1947 11.74   Rick Ferrell
1912 11.67   Deacon  McGuire 
(11 mlb gamesas catcherafter 1906)
1941 11.62   Gabby   Hartnett
1929 11.40   Ray  Schalk

1946 11.07   Bill Dickey
1891 10.78   Pop  Snyder
1942 10.18   Luke Sewell
1928 10.11   Steve   O
'Neill
1947 10.03   Ernie   Lombardi

1902 9.724   Wilbert Robinson
1947 9.596   Rollie  Hemsley
1937 9.489   Mickey  Cochrane
1931 9.470   Wally   Schang
1934 9.195   Muddy   Ruel

1903 8.961   Chief   Zimmer (Deacon White ~8.85 including Cle 1868-70)
1945 8.792   Gus  Mancuso
1940 8.786   Jimmie  Wilson
1935 8.764   Bob  O'
Farrell
1893 8.614   Charlie Bennett

1889 8.579   Silver  Flint
1947 8.556   Frankie Hayes
1906 8.406   Malachi Kittridge
1945 8.319   Spud Davis 
(Doug Allison ~8.23 including Cin 1868-70)
1927 8.173   Frank   Snyder 


The top 25 now includes no one with mlb catcher finale between 1912 and 1927, and Deacon McGuire (1912) essentially retired as a player after 1906. (Thereafter a field manager and coach, he appeared in three games as a catcher.)
   134. Paul Wendt Posted: December 09, 2007 at 09:14 PM (#2639554)
During the next 20 years, no one in the 1950s and only four catchers in the 1960s retired with enough full seasons equivalent at the position to make this list.

finale  FullSeasE name
1965 10.99   Yogi Berra
1960 10.49   Jim  Hegan
1963 10.08   Sherm   Lollar
1966 9.43 Del  Crandall 


Oldtimers Charlie Bennett and Silver Flint now complete the top 25 or fall just outside it depending on pre-major league credit for Deacon White and Roy Campanella.
   135. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:11 PM (#2652749)
Reposting old posts that were either chewed up or were lost during the last transition:

Posted 2:19 a.m., July 13, 2002 - Bill Barnwell (e-mail)
If John Clapp is somehow related to Stubby Clapp, he's in.

As for Deacon White - he only got 39% of his WS at catcher. If he played those 5 years in the NA at catcher, I would be more apt to further him, but I'm not sure if they were.

The only guys who I would throw my support behind would be Buck Ewing and maybe Jack Clements.

Posted 2:45 a.m., July 13, 2002 - John Murphy
What is Kid Baldwin doing on this list?

Here are the Win Shares per 162 games for the catchers (NA not included as of yet):

Kid Baldwin: 3:09
Charlie Bennett: 23.95
Lew Brown: 21.43
Fred Carroll: 26.43
John Clapp: 24.40
Jack Clements: 20.44
Buck Ewing: 29.69
Jim Keenan: 18.59
Doggie Miller: 16.61
Jocko Milligan: 22.65
Jack O'Brien: 24.81
Deacon White: 23.78
Ed Whiting: 23.40

Posted 3:04 a.m., July 13, 2002 - John Murphy
Deacon White and Buck Ewing are definite HoMers. Charlie Bennett and Jack Clements are the only others picks that I would take a look at (possibly Clapp).

Posted 12:03 p.m., July 13, 2002 - John Murphy
Oops!

Kid Baldwin's Win Shares per 162 games: 14.33

That's what I get when I do calculations at two in the morning!

Posted 8:27 p.m., July 14, 2002 - John Murphy
128 - 26, 22, 19 - 90 - Silver Flint - 8.8 sea. - 66 batting - 61 fielding.
C 90%, RF 7%, 1B 1%, 3B 1%, LF 1%.
notes: 1875;1878-88. 5-year peak from age 23-27. Played entire career in NL (except for 1875).

Win Shares per 162 games: 15.92

83 - 22, 15, 12 - 52 - Doc Bushong - 6.2 sea. - 83 batting - 30 fielding.
C 99%, 3B 1%.
notes: 1875-76;1880-90. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played in NL 1876, 1880-1884, 1890; 1885-90 in AA; 1875 in NA (except for 1875).

Win Shares per 162 games: 13.50

Posted 11:39 p.m., July 14, 2002 - scruff (e-mail)
Bill -- that doesn't mean Deacon only picked up 39% of his WS as catcher. It means he played 39% of his career as a catcher.

WS are position ignorant. What I mean is that 332 WS means the same thing whether you are a LF or a C. Catchers get a higher percentage of their WS from fielding than LF's generally, but once the final number is in, position has already been accounted for.

Deacon also did most of his catching in the NA, 4.3 of his 5.0 seasons in the NA were as a catcher. He caught the equivalent of about 7.0 seasons in his career.

Posted 8:47 a.m., July 15, 2002 - MattB
Deacon White also has the first hit in major league history: a double on opening day, May 4, 1871 off of Ft. Wayne's Bobby Mathews in the top of the first inning. He was subsequently doubled up on a line drive to second, so did not score.

Posted 11:09 p.m., July 15, 2002 - DanG (e-mail)
Catchers have short careers (duh!) I only turned up one other long-career catcher whom we might consider for our first ballot:

Jack Boyle 1886-98

DG

Posted 11:28 a.m., July 16, 2002 - John Murphy
92 - 17, 13, 11 - 56 - Jack Boyle - 7.9 sea. - 53 batting - 39 fielding.
C 48%, 1B 42%, 3B 5%, SS 4%, RF 1%, 2B 1%, LF 1%.
notes: 1886-98. 5-year peak from age 24-28. Played in AA 1886-1889,1891; NL 1892-1898; PL 1890.

Win Shares per 162 games played: 11.78
   136. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:12 PM (#2652750)
Posted 6:31 p.m., July 21, 2002 - John Murphy
- 39, 38, 29 - 132 - Cal McVey - 8.5 sea. - 97 batting - 12 fielding.
C 38%, 1B 27%, 3B 15%, RF 13%, CF 5%, 2B 1%, LF 1%, SS 1%.
notes: 1871-1879. He can't be properly evaluated because of lack of NA prorations (not to mention his pre-NA career) Played in NA for it's entire existence; NL 1876-1879.

Win Shares per 162 games played: 33.01

Scruff missed this one on the spreadsheet. Since he's doing a hundred different things for the HoM, I think Cal won't be too tough on him. :-)

One of the "Big Four", I think he definitely goes in. He accumulated 132 prorated WS after the age of 35. At this time, I don't know who was better: White, McVey or Ewing.

Posted 6:37 p.m., July 21, 2002 - John Murphy
Er, I screwed up on McVey. He was only 28 when he retired from the majors. I still think he has a good case on peak, but he still sits behind White and Ewing.

Posted 8:50 p.m., July 21, 2002 - Marc
White and McVey are an interesting pair. McVey was clearly better (a little better, but clearly) than White in the NA years even though McVey was just 20 in 1871 while White was 24. By 1879 White (already 31) had a better year and McVey (just 28) called it quits. Whether he was slipping (the numbers don't show much of a decline) or just decided to live a normal life, I don't know. But then White went on to another productive decade of play, thereby (I think) overtaking Cal. Not unlike Fisk and Munson IMO.

As a clarifiction it was White not McVey who got the 132 WS after 35.

Posted 4:47 p.m., July 22, 2002 - scruff (e-mail)
Sorry Cal :-)

Posted 4:12 p.m., July 24, 2002 - DanG (e-mail)
I turned up one more very-long-career catcher who also does well in TPR:

Pop Snyder 1873-91

He's probably worth a closer look.

DG

Posted 2:23 a.m., July 25, 2002 - John Murphy
I'll have it done in a few days, Dan (same with those extra rightfielders). Snyder was a damn good player and deserves to be on the list.

Posted 2:00 p.m., July 26, 2002 - John Murphy
155 - 27, 23, 18 - 90 - Pop Snyder - 11.2 sea. - 62 batting - 93 fielding.
C 94%, 1B 3%, CF 1%, RF 1%.
notes: 1873-1891 (except 1880). 5-year peak from age 24-29. Played in NA 1873-1875: NL 1876-1881,1889; AA 1882-1888, 1891; PL 1890.

Win Shares per 162 games played: 15.32

Posted 3:12 a.m., July 27, 2002 - John Murphy
CORRECTION

Pop Snyder
Win Shares per 162 games played: 17.89

Posted 2:42 a.m., August 7, 2002 - good_ol_gil
Ed Whiting is still alive!?

Posted 1:18 p.m., August 7, 2002 - Brian Hodes
Not possible -- he would be about 142 years old (and we would know about it). To live that long he would have to be from Georgia (near Russia not Florida) or mentioned in the "begats" section of Genesis.

Posted 8:21 p.m., September 12, 2002 - TomH (e-mail)
Ewing, thought of for many years as the best 19th cent player, is the class of catchers that I see. White's stats were in a weaker league. Ewing's WS per game are superb, and he was a utility man par excellants as they say. Bennett with his fine OWP of .570ish in the NL would be 2nd, followed by White and then Clements, another good hitting backstop with a streak of fine years in the early 1890s.
TomH
   137. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:13 PM (#2652751)
Posted 4:13 p.m., September 25, 2002 - John Murphy
I think Buck Ewing was a better player than White (if we don't include the NA numbers). With the NA numbers, it's damn close. At this time, I can't say who the winner is (looking forward to your numbers, Joe). It's probably a photo finish.

That they are both definite HoMers is one big duh!

Posted 12:11 p.m., September 29, 2002 - John Murphy
Update on the top five catchers (in order):
Buck Ewing
Deacon White (could be number one when we factor in the NA)
Charlie Bennett
Jack Clements
John Clapp
Honorable Mention: Fred Carroll (numbers are better than Clapp's post NA work)

Posted 10:33 a.m., October 18, 2002 - DanG
I was taking a look at the leaders in games caught for the 19th century, and thought others might be interested.

I'm fairly sure that Deacon White was the first man to catch 400 games, reaching that mark in 1879. He caught very little after that year.

Pop Snyder was right behind White and soon passed him. Snyder reached 800 games caught in 1888 and ended his career in 1891 as the all-time leader with 877.

The year after Snyder retired, Charlie Bennett passed him up. Bennett retired after 1893 with 954 games caught.

The top 16 in games at catcher, through 1892, with year retired:
894 C. Bennett '93
877 P. Snyder '91
743 S. Flint '89
668 D. Bushong '90
646 J. Clements '00
635 B. Ewing '97
566 K. Kelly '93
542 J. Milligan '93
538 B. Holbert '88
534 W. Robinson '02
516 C. Zimmer '03
486 C. Mack '96
472 J. Clapp '83
461 D. Miller '96
459 B. Gilligan '88
458 D. White '90

By 1900, four catchers had reached the 1000 mark.
The top 18 in games at catcher, through 1900, with year retired:
1171 D. McGuire '08
1162 W. Robinson '02
1095 C. Zimmer '03
1073 J. Clements '00
954 C. Bennett '93
877 P. Snyder '91
815 D. Farrell '05
743 S. Flint '89
739 M. Kittridge '06
668 D. Bushong '90
636 B. Ewing '97
636 D. Miller '96
630 P. Schriver '01
609 C. Mack '96
605 J. O'Connor '07
595 H. Peitz '06
585 J. Milligan '93
583 K. Kelly '93

DG

Posted 1:01 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz (e-mail)
Here's my list:

Buck Ewing
Deacon White
Charlie Bennett
John Clapp
Fred Carroll
Jack Clements
Pop Snyder
Jack O'Brien
Silver Flint
Doggie Miller

Ewing will likely be the only 1 in this group that makes my 1906 ballot. I think White and maybe Bennett will eventually get in(or at least crack into my ballot), but I don't think the rest are HoM material.

Posted 1:02 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz (e-mail)
Here's my list:

Buck Ewing
Deacon White
Charlie Bennett
John Clapp
Fred Carroll
Jack Clements
Pop Snyder
Jack O'Brien
Silver Flint
Doggie Miller

Ewing will likely be the only 1 in this group that makes my 1906 ballot. I think White and maybe Bennett will eventually get in(or at least crack into my ballot), but I don't think the rest are HoM material.

Posted 1:03 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz (e-mail)
Here's my list:

Buck Ewing
Deacon White
Charlie Bennett
John Clapp
Fred Carroll
Jack Clements
Pop Snyder
Jack O'Brien
Silver Flint
Doggie Miller

Ewing will likely be the only 1 in this group that makes my 1906 ballot. I think White and maybe Bennett will eventually get in(or at least crack into my ballot), but I don't think the rest are HoM material.
   138. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:13 PM (#2652752)
Posted 1:03 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz (e-mail)
Here's my list:

Buck Ewing
Deacon White
Charlie Bennett
John Clapp
Fred Carroll
Jack Clements
Pop Snyder
Jack O'Brien
Silver Flint
Doggie Miller

Ewing will likely be the only 1 in this group that makes my 1906 ballot. I think White and maybe Bennett will eventually get in(or at least crack into my ballot), but I don't think the rest are HoM material.

Posted 1:06 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz (e-mail)
Here's my list:

Buck Ewing
Deacon White
Charlie Bennett
John Clapp
Fred Carroll
Jack Clements
Pop Snyder
Jack O'Brien
Silver Flint
Doggie Miller

Ewing will likely be the only 1 in this group that makes my 1906 ballot. I think White and maybe Bennett will eventually get in(or at least crack into my ballot), but I don't think the rest are HoM material.

Posted 1:10 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz
Sorry,
I had some computer problems. Can an administator or somebody erase a few of those extra posts?
   139. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:14 PM (#2652754)
All posts from July 13, 2002 to November 19, 2002 have been reposted unabridged.
   140. Paul Wendt Posted: December 26, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2653478)
Posted 1:10 p.m., November 19, 2002 - Carl Goetz
Sorry,
I had some computer problems. Can an administator or somebody erase a few of those extra posts?


heh

By the way, I hope to see full seasons (my FSeasEq #132-133 or a competitor) replace games played as a career measure of playing time. But I suspect that an old-fashioned webpage is a better medium and I'm not sure when I'll work on that.
   141. Paul Wendt Posted: December 26, 2007 at 11:46 PM (#2653963)
Does anyone with a sharper eye or a WiSh database know the career win shares for Ed Sweeney of the deadball era Yankees? I am missing him, among 500-game catchers. In the print Win Shares I don't find him following page 495 or page 545.
   142. DanG Posted: December 27, 2007 at 06:29 AM (#2654122)
win shares for Ed Sweeney

The print Win Shares misnames him as Jeff Sweeney. He had 47 career win shares, with a high of 12 in 1913.
   143. Paul Wendt Posted: December 27, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2654264)
Thanks, DanG!
   144. Esteban Rivera Posted: May 23, 2008 at 09:31 PM (#2792256)
Last month, I made an attempt (mainly in the "Once We Catch Up..." thread) to bring this project to a systematic focus on Tenace and the other top non-HoMers. My suggestions were largely dismissed, as most everyone here is only interested in studying "our" HoMers.

I tossed out a list of catchers deserving of comparison to the HoM catchers:

21. Howard
22. Schang
23. Parrish
24. Munson
25. Lombardi(HOF)
26. Tenace
27. Porter
28. Petway
29. Boone
30. McGuire
-------------------------
~40. Ferrell(HOF)
~45. Schalk(HOF)


I think discussion should definitely be done on these candidates, DanG. No time like the present to at least set this up. I'd add Clarence Williams, Chief Zimmer, Chief Meyers, John Clapp, Jack Clements and Johnny Kling as discussion candidates. Any other catcher candidates that should be discussed?
   145. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: October 17, 2008 at 03:59 AM (#2985104)
OK, I'm going to try and do one of these per day, we'll see what happens. It may help the new voters get a handle on things. These are the top candidates at each position, with a link to their discussion threads. The criteria I used are 1)People who got votes in the 2008 ballot, 2)New guys for 2009 who people have talked about as possibilities, 3)People who got votes in the last 10 years of balloting, 4)People in my consideration set, and 5)Highest ranked player in the NHBA who doesn't meet the above criteria. This ma

For people who recieved votes in 2008, I'm also including the comments from their "best friend"(s). Here are the catchers:

Elston Howard (31st, 118 points, 12 votes)

1955*-1968, 1605 games played, .274/.322/.427, OPS+ 108, 203 WS, 61.4 WARP1

(*Possible Negro League/military service credit)

Mark Danielson - 5: The various extenuating circumstances of his career can’t hide the great (if short) peak. I still prefer him slightly to Bresnahan, though I admit there’s a certain amount of “what if?” going on there.

Wally Schang(41st, 80 points, 5 votes)

1913-1931, 1842 games played, .284/.393/.401, OPS+ 117, 245 WS, 80.3 WARP1

Eric C - 2: Correcting for the 154-game schedule and the WWI-shortened seasons, has as much career value as Freehan in as many games, at least by Win Shares. Schang's lesser season-by-season totals is because in-season catcher usage was lower during his time than afterwards. The Bresnahan argument applies to Schang, too. Career leader in WS among major league catchers when he retired. A case where WARP is not as flattering as WS, perhaps accounting for Schang's lack of support.

Ernie Lombardi (50th, 55 points, 4 votes)

1931-1947, 1853 games played, .306/.358/.460, OPS+ 125, 218 WS, 65.6 WARP1

karlmagnus - 3: Up a bit more; we’re forgetting him. Berra closely comparable Berra. 2137 hits, normalized to a 130 game season, and an OPS+ of 125 makes him a little better than Schang, but some of it was during the war years and he fielded badly. TB+BB/PA .492, TB+BB/Outs .719., the ratio between the two very low because of strikeouts, I assume. Plus a great nickname!

Lance Parrish (59th, 46 points, 4 votes)

1977-1995, 1988 games played, .252/.313/.440, OPS+ 106, 248 WS, 79.7 WARP1

Dr. Chaleeko - 5: Let me take a minute here to explain, since I think everyone’s going to jump my ship for this. As explained in his thread, Parrish’s two big knocks are his lack of walks and his fielding. But neither ubersystem sees Parrish as having problematic fielding—to the contrary, they LIKE his glove. We have evidence of his defensive goodness which has been largely ignored in the discussions so far: Parrish hung on for a good while as a regular and semi-regular despite a decline in his hitting—he could not have done so had his defense been as weak as has been said. Which leaves the walks. Well, catchers who play D and hit 300+ homers are still pretty rare, even in today’s HR-happy times. I won’t tell you the lack of walks is illusory, but I will say that Parrish built a lot of value despite the lack of walks, and that value is what I’m looking at. Parrish’s case begins and ends with positional dominance and career length. He was the best catcher of the AL for several years. Even after, he remained a productive regular for several seasons and a good backup even after that. He’s almost as high in my rankings at catcher as Whitaker is in my rankings of 2Bs. Not quite but almost. He’s right below Freehand and Torre. However, he’s more impressive than the guys below him at catcher, where Whitaker’s got plenty of guys breathing down his neck. I think both are HOMers, but their relative rankings are not cast in stone, and I’ll continue to monitor how I feel about it.

Thurman Munson (68th (tie), 36 points, 3 votes)

1969-1979, 1423 games played, .292/.346/.410, OPS+ 116, 206 WS, 73.2 WARP1

Got Melky? - 5: I'm sold that he was very similar to Freehan. Thurm is starting to get the support he deserves.

Brian Downing (84th, 16 points, 1 vote)

1973-1992, 2344 games played, .267/.370/.425, OPS+ 122, 298 WS, 82.3 WARP1

(Played more at DH and LF than C, but the catcher list can use some filling out)

EricC - 5: This is a vote that will raise eyebrows, I'm sure. I have double-checked the numbers, and did not find any errors or compelling reasons to change my methodology, although the subjective strangeness of the outcome makes me question most (1) whether the career value portion of DH-era players ratings should be docked because careers tended to be longer (2) whether being among the best DH in a season is worth as many peak points as I'm giving. He ends up so high from a combination of every quirk in my system breaking in his favor: catcher "bonus" for the catcher years, treatment of DH as a position in itself, population-based timelining, and consideration of league strength/affect of DH in a league.

Gene Tenace Gene Tenace (92nd (tie), 10 points, 1 vote)

1969-1983, 1555 games played, .241/.388/.429, OPS+ 136, 231 WS, 77.5 WARP1

KJOK - 11: 26 POW, 231 Win Shares, 73 WARP1, 244 RCAP & .670 OWP in 5,525 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Highly underrated. Catchers who could hit are historically rare.

Darrell Porter (Devin's consideration set)

1971-1987, 1782 games played, .247/.354/.409, OPS+ 113, 248 WS, 76.2 WARP1

Bob Boone (NHBA selection)

1972-1990, 2264 games played, .254/.315/.346, OPS+ 82, 210 WS, 67.4 WARP1
   146. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: October 17, 2008 at 04:02 AM (#2985144)
Ah, never finished the first paragraph. I meant to add that this may not be a complete list of everyone that all the voters would list as a candidate, and people are welcome to add more.
   147. Juan V Posted: October 17, 2008 at 04:50 AM (#2985415)
Great idea. Let me add Bruce Petway, who hangs out in my consideration set.
   148. Mark Donelson Posted: October 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM (#2986072)
This is fantastic, Devin. Thanks!
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8489 seconds
68 querie(s) executed