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

Monday, July 15, 2002

Center Fielders

Here are the center fielders. A much better bunch than the LF’s.

280 - 36, 28, 27 - 112 - Tom Brown - 14.1 sea. - 229 batting - 51 fielding.
CF 58%, RF 37%, LF 5%
notes: 1882-98. 5-year peak from age 21-25. Played entire career in NL, except for his peak, from 1882-86 (AA); 1890 (PL) 23 WS, 1891 (AA) 36 WS.

307 - 41, 41, 35 - 169 - Pete Browning - 9.5 sea. - 268 batting - 39 fielding.
CF 39%, LF 37%, 3B 8%, 2B 6%, SS 5%, RF 3%, 1B 2%.
notes: 1882-94. 5-year peak from age 21-25. Played entire career in AA, except 1890 (PL) 29 WS, 1891-94 (NL) 20, 16, 14, 1 WS respectively.

370 - 45, 43, 37 - 169 - George Gore - 11.6 sea. - 294 batting - 76 fielding.
CF 90%, LF 6%, RF 2%, 1B 2%.
notes: 1879-92. 5-year peak from age 25-29. Played entire career in NL, except 1890 (PL) 22 WS.

419 - 42, 40, 39 - 181 - Paul Hines - 18.7 sea. - 346 batting - 73 fielding.
CF 71%, 1B 12%, LF 7%, 2B 6%, 3B 2%, SS 1%, RF 1%, C 1%.
notes: 1872-91. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played 4.0 seasons in NA (not included here). Played rest of career in NL, except 1891 (AA) 6 WS.

156 - 27, 24, 24 - 118 - Bug Holliday - 6.7 sea. - 127 batting - 30 fielding.
CF 65%, LF 24%, RF 9%, 1B 1%, SS 1%.
notes: 1889-98. 5-year peak from age 22-26. Played entire career in NL, except 1889 (AA) 24 WS.

106 - 29, 17, 17 - 77 - Dick Johnston - 6.5 sea. - 69 batting - 38 fielding.
CF 97%, LF 1%, SS 1%.
notes: 1884-91. 5-year peak from age 21-25. Played entire career in NL, except 1884 (AA) 17 WS, 1890 (PL) 7 WS, 1891 (AA) 10 WS.

163 - 35, 30, 24 - 131 - Bill Lange - 5.9 sea. - 128 batting - 35 fielding.
CF 85%, 2B 8%, 1B 2%, LF 2%, SS 1%, 3B 1%, C 1%.
notes: 1893- 99. 5-year peak from age 24-28. Played entire career in NL.

68 - 27, 15, 14 - 68 - Fred Lewis - 2.9 sea. - 57 batting - 11 fielding.
CF 87%, RF 10%, LF 3%.
notes: 1881, 1883-86. 5-year peak from age 22-27 (DNP in majors at age 23). Career split all over the place. Best year was 1884, was mostly in the AA (73 G, 8 in UA).

76 - 34, 25, 17 - 76 - John O’Rourke - 2.6 sea. - 64 batting - 12 fielding.
CF 97%, LF 1%, RF 1%.
notes: 1879-80, 1883. 5-year peak from age 29-33. Played 1879-80 in NL (59 WS) and 1883 in AA (17 WS).

113 - 30, 28, 15 - 93 - Chief Roseman - 6.0 sea. - 94 batting - 19 fielding.
CF 49%, RF 32%, LF 15%, 1B 4%
notes: 1882-87, 1890. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played entire career in AA, except 1882 (NL) 11 WS.

150 - 34, 29, 29 - 132 - Jake Stenzel - 5.6 sea. - 126 batting - 24 fielding.
CF 90%, RF 4%, C 3%, LF 2%.
notes: 1890, 1892-99. 5-year peak from age 27-31. Played entire career in NL.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 03:34 AM | 106 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 04:43 AM (#510441)
Hines had a very weird career... he broke in in Washington playing for a couple of truly sh*t teams, some real stinkers. Then to Chicago with some more bad teams in both the NA and then with the White Stockings (the Cubs franchise), who dominated in 1876 and were awful in 1877 - Cap Anson was with that team. This was "act one", as it were, of Hines's career. He was good-but-not-great in this period, playing for bad teams and generally being one of the better players.

Then in 1878 he wound up with the new Providence Grays, and played there for the duration of that franchise. He played in 95% of the games in the history of that franchise, and he was utterly magnificent. This was an excellent team; early on they had Monte Ward and in the 1880s they had Hoss Radbourn, and Hines was their best hitter for mose of that time. In the eight years of the team's existence, they won two pennants, and also finished second three times running from 1880-1882, all three times ironically to Hines's former teammates in Chicago. One bad year, 1885, was enough to finish off the Grays - Providence was a pretty small market.

This was the second act of his career, and it was tremendously successful. His OPS+ figures during that time : 177/180/148/124/151/120/151/112. A fine run... in the meantime he was playing the outfield well.

The third act was back to Washington, back to the awful teams, and a definite decline phase...
   2. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 06:07 AM (#510442)
Here are some more:

81 - 44, 23, 16 - 81 - Lip Pike - 7.5 sea. - 73 batting - 8 fielding.
CF 47%, RF 23%, 2B 18%, SS 5%, 3B 3%, 1B 2%, LF 1%.
notes: 1871-78, 1881, 1887. His career is not fully represented because his NA stats have not been prorated yet. Played for all five years of the NA's existence; played the rest of his career in the NL (except for 1887).

31 - 9, 7, 7 - 31 - Dave Eggler - 8.5 sea. - 15 batting - 15 fielding.
CF 97%, LF 2%.
notes: 1871-77, 1879, 1883-1885. His career is not fully represented because his NA stats have not been prorated yet. Played for all five years of the NA's existence; played the rest of his career in the NL (except for part of 1883).

   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 06:56 AM (#510443)
206 - 32, 30, 28
- 132 - Curt Welch - 8.5 sea. - 145 batting - 62 fielding.
CF 95%, 2B 3%, LF 2%.
notes: 1884-93. 5-year peak from age 23-27. Played entire career in AA (except for 1892-93 in the NL).

290 - 36, 27, 27
- 128 - Mike Griffin - 10.9 sea. - 233 batting - 57 fielding.
CF 96%, SS 2%, RF 1%.
notes: 1887-98. 5-year peak from age 28-32. Played in the AA 1887-89, 1890(PL), and the rest in the NL.

WS per 162 games played (NA not included):

Tom Brown: 19.77
Pete Browning: 30.81
Dave Eggler: 7.84
George Gore: 30.91
Mike Griffin: 26.26
Paul Hines: 27.23
Bug Holliday: 23.39
Dick Johnston: 16.07
Bill Lange: 27.76
Fred Lewis: 24.53
John O'Rourke: 28.17
Lip Pike: 30.82
Chief Roseman: 19.27
Jake Stenzel: 26.64
Curt Welch: 24.15

WS per 162 games played (NA not included):

Tom Brown: 19.77
Pete Browning: 30.81
Dave Eggler: 7.84
George Gore: 30.91
Paul Hines: 27.23
Bug Holliday: 23.39
Dick Johnston: 16.07
Bill Lange: 27.76
Fred Lewis: 24.53
John O'Rourke: 28.17
Lip Pike: 30.82
Chief Roseman: 19.27
Jake Stenzel: 26.64
Curt Welch:

   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 07:02 AM (#510444)
</b>
Oops! :-)
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 07:03 AM (#510445)
Let's see if the bold is gone.
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 07:05 AM (#510446)
</b></b>
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 07:05 AM (#510447)
How about now?
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 07:06 AM (#510448)
Now?
   9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 07:07 AM (#510449)
</b>Sorry Scruff</b>
   10. MattB Posted: July 15, 2002 at 12:44 PM (#510450)
Paul Hines demonstrates one of the problems with applying the Win Share methodology to short seasons. In 1872, he played for the 0-11 Washington Nationals. Granted, it was his first season, he was 20, and his play was mediocre, but he played all of his teams 11 games, and had he played for any other team (or that team, if it matched it's pythagorean W-L of 2-9), he'd likely have earned at least half a win share with those stats. Multiply by 15 to get to a 162 game season, and that's 7.5 win shares lost for Hines.

Bill James claims that WS is accurate to within 1 WS. I'd be more comfortable saying it's within 6 for the extreme best and worst. If I'm right, then in a short season (say, 40 games in the NA), multiplying by four to get a 162 game comparison increases the margin of error to 24 WS. That hardly makes WS a precise enough tool when comparing early players to each other (or modern players).
   11. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 03:54 PM (#510451)
We'll try this</b> to get rid of the bold.
   12. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 03:54 PM (#510452)
Hey, it worked!
   13. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 03:56 PM (#510453)
To shut off rampant bold or italics, you need to use a bold or italics tag in your message, then use the end-bold or end-italics tag twice...
   14. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 04:01 PM (#510454)
Thinking some more about the Providence Grays...

That team, so successful for so long (7 very good years), must have essentially operated on a knife-edge... in a little place like Providence, before the days when people came from a long way to see baseball, it must have been a source of tremendous civic pride to have a winning team. At the same time, though, you can see the problem; as long as you're winning, good crowds by the 1880s standards would have been fairly easy to draw. But begin to lose, and you're in deep trouble.

Once they slipped below .500, the franchise melted away. These were the days before big bankrolled owners, of course, and I'm sure the league had little or no concept of developing fan bases through franchise stability. Once it went wrong, it went wrong in a big way...
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2002 at 04:29 PM (#510455)
Craig: Thanks for the HTML info!

Your analysis of the Grays makes sense, BTW.

Matt: Bill James claims that WS is accurate to within 1 WS.

Could it be that the margin of error of 1 WS is more for the 150 or more game seasons? In other words, for the NA and early NL seasons, could the margin of error be much less than one? I haven't looked at it, so I might be totally off base here.
   16. MattB Posted: July 15, 2002 at 06:32 PM (#510456)
John,

I think it would be the opposite. Small distortions balance each other out over time.

Take a look at the 1872 Washington Nationals. They are clearly the most extreme case of this type of distortion.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NAT/1872.shtml

Pitcher Bill Stearns pitched well enough to earn a 2-9 record in his 11 games. That would have been 6 win shares, of which Stearns would have earned about a third (2 win shares). Multiply that number by 15 to get a 165 game season, and Stearns would have earned about 30 Win Shares over a current length season, since he pitched every inning for the Nationals.

As it happened, the Nationals had some bad luck, and deviated from their pythagorean w/l record by 2. They finished 0-11. As a result, no one earned any win shares. It, of course, could have gone the othe way. They Nationals could have just as easily gone 4-7, and Stearns would have ended up with 4 win shares, times 15 = 60.

What's the difference between 30 and 0? Well, 30 win shares would be in the Top 3 seasons of many position players on these lists. Zero is, well, zero.

This is, as I said, likely the most extreme swing possible. And it only shows one problem with Win Shares, at least as used in this context -- the use of actual records rather than pythagorean records. Win Shares are divided between hitters and pitchers/defenders based on runs scored/ runs allowed, but wins often vary from that model. In an extreme case, a player scores runs, or prevents runs from scoring, but the team doesn't win any games. A more likely scenario is that a team underperforms pythagrorus by 4 or 5 wins over a full season, and every major player is penalized a win share or two.

Win Shares attempts to define how much a player contributed to his team's wins. Not how good the player was.
   17. DanG Posted: July 16, 2002 at 03:35 AM (#510457)
Good, you caught Welch and Griffin. That still leaves three centerfielders who may deserve a closer look:

Pop Corkhill 1883-92
Ned Hanlon 1880-92 (HoF manager)
Jimmy McAleer 1889-98 (token appearances in 01-02-07)

DG

   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 16, 2002 at 07:08 AM (#510458)
Matt:
I understand what you're saying now.
   19. MattB Posted: July 16, 2002 at 02:12 PM (#510459)
Besides leading the WS/162, Lip Pike's best years were in the NA, which is not included. His OPS+ in 1871 was 195 and in 1875 was 202. He was 26 in 1871, so likely lost at least a couple of years to the pre-major league era. He should be a serious candidate.

Pike was also the first known Jewish baseball player.
   20. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 16, 2002 at 02:43 PM (#510460)
Matt:
I like Pike too. I don't know where he fits on the ballot, though.

Scruff:
Dan mentioned McAleer: would he be eligible now?

Dan:
I noticed Hanlon, but I figured he would go in as a manager, so I left . I missed Corkhill completely.

   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 16, 2002 at 05:32 PM (#510461)
151 - 25, 23, 23 - 103 - Pop Corkhill - 8.4 sea. - 91 batting - 55 fielding.
CF 52%, RF 42%, 1B 2%, SS 2%, 3B 1%.
notes: 1883-92. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played in AA 1883-1889, part of 1891; NL 1890 and part of 1891.

Win Shares per 162 games played: 17.90

206 - 22, 21, 21 - 89 - Ned Hanlon - 11.2 sea. - 160 batting - 47 fielding.
CF 87%, LF 11%, SS 1%%, 2B 1%.
notes: 1880-92. 5-year peak from age 23-27. Played his whole career in NL (except in the PL in 1890).

Win Shares per 162 games played: 18.68

   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2002 at 06:46 AM (#510462)
113 - 23, 17, 15 - 71 - Jimmy McAleer - 7.4 sea. - 60 batting - 53 fielding.
CF 87%, LF 12%.
notes: 1889-98 (played in a few token games in 1901, 1902, and 1907). 5-year peak from age 27-31. Played in NL 1889, 1891-1898; PL (1890) and the AL 1901, 1902 and 1907.

Win Shares per 162 games played: 15.41

   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 29, 2002 at 01:59 AM (#510463)
My top five selections for CF would be (in this order):
Paul Hines
George Gore (has the best post NA numbers)
Pete Browning
Mike Griffin
Tom Brown

I still have no idea where Lip Pike belongs. I figure somewhere behind Gore.

   24. Marc Posted: October 15, 2002 at 09:18 PM (#510464)
Not to disagree with John's analysis but it is interesting that not one of his five (or six) mentions got a single vote in the HOF veteran's ballot of 1936 while Bill Lange got 6 votes. Bill James ranks him a generous 64th considering his career total of only 139 WS, which puts him ahead of at least 29 CFs with more career WS. His peak numbers of 29-24-21-114 are not that great but he only played (1893-99) an average of 115 games per year; his team played about 130 each year until his final two years, 1898-99, when they hit the 150 mark; so his adjWS peak would be 34. He played for Anson in Chicago when the White Stockings were not particularly successful, but he made a tremendous impression. He was exceptionally popular, including with the ladies apparently, and was remembered as an exceptionally handsome man and spectacular all-around athlete. He was, in James' words, the 19th century Mickey Mantle. James also calls him one of the best fielding outfielders of the century and gives him an A+. His career OPS+ is 123 with a peak of 155, he stole 399 bases in just 813 career games. James notes over and over that he walked away from the game still at his peak but does not say why.

His showing in the 1936 vote, unlike Denny's but like Radbourn's, supports my contention that aside from the very top vote getters (Anson and Ewing), 19th century players were largely remembered in 1936 for their peak rather than career value. Albert Spalding picked Lange as his all-time centerfielder ahead of Cobb and Speaker; Tim Murnane picked Cobb, Jackson and Lange in his all-time outfield. None of this could possibly be for his career value. But there it is, 6 votes to Billy Hamilton's 2.
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 16, 2002 at 07:24 AM (#510465)
Marc:
I think you're right about the 19th century players on the 1936 ballot. Since compiled statistics were scarce for the average person (and the Baseball Hall of Fame was yet to be created for baseball research), one can understand this.
   26. Paul Wendt Posted: April 17, 2004 at 12:52 PM (#510467)
Marc, 18 months ago:
   27. Paul Wendt Posted: April 19, 2004 at 04:17 PM (#510468)
Ed Delahanty was elected in a 1909 landslide. This rearrangement of that result shows the standing of the Top 20 incumbents forwarded from 1909 to 1910, outfielders bold. The gap between Griffin (121 points) and John McGraw (85) was relatively large, as between Van Haltren and Jennings. The first six 1910 incumbents have been elected and the others have not, but the 15-yr change in standing among the others is remarkable.

1015 43.0 Ed Delahanty
   28. Paul Wendt Posted: April 19, 2004 at 04:22 PM (#510469)
Ed Delahanty was elected in a 1909 landslide. This rearrangement of that result shows the standing of the Top 20 incumbents forwarded from 1909 to 1910, outfielders bold. The gap between Griffin (121 points) and John McGraw (85) was relatively large, as between Van Haltren and Jennings. The first six 1910 incumbents have been elected and the others have not, but the 15-yr change in standing among the others is remarkable.

1015 43.0 Ed Delahanty
   29. Marc Posted: April 19, 2004 at 06:56 PM (#510470)
Paul, is this a "conspiracy theory" of CFers in/not in the HoM?

There is an obvious problem at work here, it seems to me, and that is that the CFers are splitting up their votes. No one was obviously better than the rest. This further suggests that the basic model of "greatness" or "merit" is being the best at your position.

Or IOW, a backlog/glut is a self-perpetuating condition.
   30. PhillyBooster Posted: April 19, 2004 at 07:23 PM (#510471)
The probably looks much more like a problem in the voting order in 1909, rather than a problem now. Otherwise 8 out of the top 14 would be outfielders, and only 1 1/2 would be a pitcher.

Ryan and van Haltren were new in 1909, and experiencing the new-candidate bonus that we tend to dole out -- either through irrational exuberance or steep timelining. Within the next few years, we would induct Burkett and Kelley and Flick and Keeler. With each induction, yet another outfielder seems less appealing.

That said, as a original opponent of the outfielder glut, I'm wondering if we are starting to swing the other way. Sam Crawford's upcoming election will be the first outfielder out of the last seven. If not exactly a shortage, I'm thinking that outfield representation is about right.
   31. Paul Wendt Posted: April 20, 2004 at 08:03 PM (#510472)
MattB
   32. Chris Cobb Posted: April 20, 2004 at 08:20 PM (#510473)
Thompson and Pike have electoral endurance, ballot persistence, whatever.

Voters dig the long ball :-) .
   33. PhillyBooster Posted: April 20, 2004 at 08:33 PM (#510474)
Paul wrote:

"But note, the 15-yr change in standing among the outfielders is equally remarkable."

The players with "staying power" tend to be those who -- at the time -- had been around the longest. Timeliners had already discounted Thompson and Pike, while the voters who voted for the new guys are more often heavy timeliners who will discount the player the next time a similar player who played more recently comes by.

I think you will find that if you look at any ballot, the players who retain their positions best from year to year will be the ones who arrived on the ballot first. Even in this most recent election we have full results for (1923) with the Top 3 going to newcomers, Lip Pike and Dickey Pearce climbed up the ballots while relative newcomers Waddell and Bresnahan plummetted.

Of course, it is not a hard-and-fast rule, but if I had to pick the players who would stick around the longest, I'd look first at players who had already been on 6 or 7 ballots and had shaken off the steep timeliners.
   34. PhillyBooster Posted: April 21, 2004 at 03:51 PM (#510475)
Forget everything you've read about the outfield glut. I'm here to tell you that there's a centerfield HoM shortage.

By my count, these are the least represented position on the diamond.

2 1/2 third baseman (Collins, Sutton, and half of Deacon White).
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 03:59 PM (#510476)
If you have to place Jim O'Rourke in one outfield slot, then centerfield should be it. He had more value to his teams there than in left field (plus having the greater peak there).
   36. PhillyBooster Posted: April 21, 2004 at 04:17 PM (#510477)
Debatable, since he had over 50% more games in left. Even in the handful of seasons in which he played the most games in center, he'd play 20-40% of his games at other positions. He had more games at "Other" (C+1B+3B) than he did in Center. In any event, including O'Rourke as 1/4 of a centerfielder (only 22% of his games were there) doesn't do much to alleviate the shortage.
   37. PhillyBooster Posted: April 21, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#510478)
In any event, due to the similarity of their positions, it likely makes sense to combine this list with the left fielders and create some sort of European "center-left coalition" where the Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists get together and decide whether Sherry Magee or George van Haltren should be prime minister.
   38. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 04:24 PM (#510479)
Debatable, since he had over 50% more games in left.

Except he was playing center when the schedule was much shorter.

Damn these multi-positional guys! :-)
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 04:28 PM (#510480)
In any event, due to the similarity of their positions, it likely makes sense to combine this list with the left fielders and create some sort of European "center-left coalition" where the Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists get together and decide whether Sherry Magee or George van Haltren should be prime minister.

It can't be any worse than how the Veterans Committee is set up now. :-(
   40. Marc Posted: April 21, 2004 at 04:42 PM (#510481)
Philly,this time you beat me to it. I am almost done with CF. Among that set I think I agree with #1 and #5. In between...???
   41. Max Parkinson Posted: April 21, 2004 at 05:20 PM (#510482)
Based on BP's Adjusted Games played, here's the current breakdown of the HoM by position. (I'm going out on a limb and including Crawford and Plank.) For example, Ross Barnes played 345.6 of his 505 games at second, so he counts for 0.68 of a 2B. He played 139.8 games at short, so he counts for 0.28 of a SS. So on and so forth...

P. 10.4 24%
   42. Marc Posted: April 21, 2004 at 05:44 PM (#510483)
It's still a little early to worry too much about positional balance, I think. The day Babe Ruth is elected, we will be embarking on a new generation that will to some degree put our backlog out of the picture. That will be the day, maybe, to look at where we are and where we're going and to decide what *few* among the backlog at that time should come forward on a positional basis.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 05:47 PM (#510484)
Van Haltren leads in WS/162 as well as WS, and Duffy's best season was only 3 WS better than George's.

The problem is Van Haltren gets a superficial WS boost from his pitching days when he was a "nothing special" hurler. If WS didn't overstate Van Haltren's mound contributions, he would fall behind Duffy.
   44. Al Peterson Posted: April 21, 2004 at 05:49 PM (#510485)
Nice list Philly. Two things to bring to others attention.

Hugh Duffy is CF by definition but played all three OF slots to a degree where he can't be classified easily.

I'd probably have Fielder Jones fall in somewhere in the Mike Griffin territory. Bill James for some reason has him ranked #41 in RF while Jones did get most of his work done in centerfield.
   45. Jim Sp Posted: April 21, 2004 at 06:11 PM (#510486)
Tommy Leach is kind of a CF as well.
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 06:23 PM (#510487)
Bill James for some reason has him ranked #41 in RF while Jones did get most of his work done in centerfield.

Jones would place higher up on the centerfield list than he did on the rightfield list, so that mistake by James didn't help his cause.
   47. PhillyBooster Posted: April 21, 2004 at 06:37 PM (#510488)
"The problem is Van Haltren gets a superficial WS boost from his pitching days when he was a "nothing special" hurler. If WS didn't overstate Van Haltren's mound contributions, he would fall behind Duffy."

WARP, if anything, understates van Haltren's pitching contribution (see, e.g., -9 pitching runs for 23 innings of 73 ERA+ pitched in 1891), and Duffy is still left in the dust. The three years of 100 ERA+, 125 OPS+ play certainly had a lot of value, even if the pitching side of it was marginal.

When van Haltren has 1100 more plate appearances than Duffy -- with an identical OPS+ -- as well as a similar FRAA (marginally positive over their careers), I'm not giving a demerit to van Haltren because he also helped his team by pitching at least at an average level while putting up some of those offensive numbers.
   48. Marc Posted: April 21, 2004 at 06:39 PM (#510489)
John, Cy Seymour is not much of a comp for Van Haltren but, hey, at least they both pitched a little. Cy pitched a lot better but Van chased flies a lot longer. Anyway, how did you view Cy in terms of his pitching contribution to his total value? IOW, did you treat Cy and Van differently and if so, why?
   49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 06:57 PM (#510490)
Anyway, how did you view Cy in terms of his pitching contribution to his total value? IOW, did you treat Cy and Van differently and if so, why?

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but here goes nothing: I have Van Haltren's pitching at 6% of his total value, while I have Seymour's at 13%. However, I have Van Haltren comfortably ahead as an overall player compared to Seymour.

For both players, I compared their seasons where they were the pitcher a majority or plurality of the time compared to other pitchers for those seasons. It's not perfect for seasons where they split time in the outfield, but I don't think it necessarily hurts or helps them in that regard.

Is that what you wanted, Marc?
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 07:03 PM (#510491)
WARP, if anything, understates van Haltren's pitching contribution (see, e.g., -9 pitching runs for 23 innings of 73 ERA+ pitched in 1891), and Duffy is still left in the dust. The three years of 100 ERA+, 125 OPS+ play certainly had a lot of value, even if the pitching side of it was marginal.

Well, we're going to have to disagree about WARP or how pitchers are compared to other positions in any system that is out there.

Duffy also was a much, much better stolen base artist than Van Haltren (which doesn't show up in OPS+). Not to mention Duffy's better fielding, IMO

Also, Duffy's peak was unquestionably better than George's.
   51. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 07:04 PM (#510492)
Let me try this line again:

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree about WARP or how pitchers are compared to other positions in any system that is out there.
   52. Marc Posted: April 21, 2004 at 07:28 PM (#510493)
John, I was just curious. It sounded like Van's pitching doesn't add anything to his resume for you. I wondered if Cy's pitching is a plus or a neutral. They're not particularly comparable of course in terms of total career value, but it is interesting any time you come across a guy who had a ML career as a pitcher, however short or (un)successful, and then one as a position player.

In a way you answered my question. It sounds like you don't give either of them very much pitching credit. WS has Van's as 12 percent of his total and Cy's as 22 percent. So I guess my question was whether you discount their pitching because it is not their prime attribute.
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 07:44 PM (#510494)
So I guess my question was whether you discount their pitching because it is not their prime attribute.

I'm not discounting or giving either one a demerit. What I'm doing is comparing Van Haltren and Seymour's pitching seasons to their peers. I don't leave out anything for them. If anything, the offense helps them.

It's the same reason that I have Bob Caruthers as a quality player with a nice peak, but nowhere near Ruthian levels. I seriously doubt the Parisian One's contemporaries were that bowled over by his stats as some of us here in our time are.
   54. Marc Posted: April 21, 2004 at 08:06 PM (#510495)
John, I am not being critical of how you rate Van or Cy, just curious. I had overlooked Van's pitching earlier, now I do give him a little credit. Cy always did get credit for his hurling.

Since you brought Bob up (What About Bob?): I have no idea whether people were bowled over by his *stats.* I doubt if stats had as wide a circulation then as they do now. But they were bowled over by Bob. He was the star of stars.
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#510496)
John, I am not being critical of how you rate Van or Cy, just curious.

I wasn't annoyed in any way by your questions. I just wanted to explain myself a little further.

Since you brought Bob up (What About Bob?): I have no idea whether people were bowled over by his *stats.* I doubt if stats had as wide a circulation then as they do now. But they were bowled over by Bob. He was the star of stars.

What I meant by "stats" was the overall contribution that his peers felt that Caruthers made compared to his contemporaries. From my reading, I don't get the sense that everyone was in awe of him in the same way Ruth's peers (or Bond's peers) felt about him.
   56. Marc Posted: April 21, 2004 at 08:59 PM (#510497)
And now the moment you've all been waiting for. CFers eligible through 1939.

1. Harry Wright--the 3rd best player of his lifetime, which would be very similar to the position of, say, Anson, Brouthers, CONNOR or Young, Nichols, RUSIE or Wagner, Lajoie, CRAWFORD or Cobb, Speaker, COLLINS or...Mantle, Mays, SNIDER in later generations.

2. Lip Pike--#2 peak, #4 prime, #7 career without counting 1866-70. Has been slipping on my ballot but I am back on board. I am satisfied that his 1871-77 peak is a fair representation, but his prime and career could both be as high as #1 and no lower than #4 and about #5 if 1866-70 were included.

3. Cristobal Torriente--only the #3 Negro League CF but sometimes ranked as highly as the #3 or #4 OFer. KJOK's MLE's have him at .335 and .504 SA, which is somewhere between Burkett and Delahanty. I would discount that a bit, but still.... He and Oscar Charleston were teammates for awhile and Charleston moved to left field because Torriente had a better arm! A lefty line drive hitter with power to all fields. Built like Ruth and Charleston with a big barrel chest and skinny legs. Born the same year as the Babe (not the pig).

4. Pete Browning--#1 peak, #3 peak, #2 career. WARP likes him a lot but WS and LWTS do, too, just not so much. #1 adjWARP1 peak at 37.3 for 3 consecutive years and 59.3 for 5 non-consecutive.

5. Max Carey--#6 peak, #1 prime, #1 career. I had sorta lumped Carey among the medium level HoFers--not Cobb, Speaker, Mantle or Mays. But guess what? He's not Edd Roush or Earle Combs either. #1 in adjWARP1 career at 143 (to Van Haltren's 130) and a 15 year WARP prime worth 133.2 to Van's 125. Apparently a great glove, and a great and today almost unsung player. He was Roy Thomas for twice as long as Thomas was.

6. Spot Poles--generally regarded as the #4 Negro League CF after Charleston, Bell and Torriente. We happen to have some data from 1910-1913. Poles, age 20-23, hit .435. Pop Lloyd, age 26-29, hit .408. Pete Hill, age 30-33, hit .371. 'Nuff sed.

The HoM in/out line might be about here, and then again it might not. I would expect all of these guys to be on my ballot for many, many years to come. As long as it takes.

7. Edd Roush--#5 peak, #6 prime, #3 career. His highest ranking among the 21 items I track is a 15 year prime acc. to adjWARP1. But even there he had a low rate of 7.15 WARP/year. An erratic career, not unlike Sheckard (his peaks spread out) or Duffy (the range from peak to trough during what should have been his prime was unusually large). But a star on some very good teams. The 1919 Reds have been vastly underestimated by history, for obvious but not fair or accurate reasons.

8. George Van Haltren--#9 peak, #2 prime, #4 career.
   57. jimd Posted: April 21, 2004 at 10:23 PM (#510498)
I seriously doubt the Parisian One's contemporaries were that bowled over by his stats as some of us here in our time are.

But they were bowled over by Bob. He was the star of stars.

The link is to a long post posted on the wrong thread. I won't repost it here.

The gist was that the sale of Bob Caruthers to Brooklyn was the highest price ever paid for a player in the AA, at $8250 not far behind the benchmarks sales of Kelly and Clarkson for $10000 and comparable to sales of Richardson and Brouthers for $8000.

Parisian Bob Caruthers was considered a top-rank star during that time.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 21, 2004 at 11:17 PM (#510502)
jimd:

Going over your ballot from 1924, it's perfectly reasonable to have Caruthers as your #2 guy. Your ballot is obviously weighted toward peak, which is perfectly legitimate and defensible. Since Caruthers had a nice peak, I have no objection (as if it mattered :-) to your placement of him.

As for me, though I do place peak (roughly) at 50% for ballot selection, I also use more of an extended peak. which hurts Caruthers because his peak was truly outstanding for only two years. Since his career also wasn't particularly long for his era, that's why he's off my ballot.
   59. jimd Posted: April 22, 2004 at 12:40 AM (#510503)
As for me, though I do place peak (roughly) at 50% for ballot selection,

I think I do too. (!?) There are so many peak players on my ballot because we've already elected almost all of the good careers.

I also use more of an extended peak.

Same here. In addition to 3 best and 5 consecutive, I also use a 9-year "prime" (5 consecutive plus 4 best additional years).
   60. Chris Cobb Posted: April 22, 2004 at 01:38 AM (#510504)
Quick responses to Marc's rankings:

1) I assume you've left Cobb and Speaker off the top because it's not worth discussing where to rank them? But to see where the rest rank, it is useful to remember where the top really is . . .

2) Re Torriente's arm: according to John Holway, Oscar Charleston had a weak arm (I guess his one failing as a player) so it wouldn't mean much for Torriente to have a better one. Here's what Holway says under the heading of Oscar Charleston in the Outfield: "ABC rightfielder Dave Malarcher said he and George Shively fielded only foul balls, that Oscar Charleston caught everything else. Charleston had a weak arm, thus played a shallow centerfield, as did Tris Speaker of the Red Sox. But no one remembered seeing a fly ball hit over his head" (p. 117).

3) Max Carey is a good 'un.
   61. Marc Posted: April 22, 2004 at 02:07 AM (#510505)
Doh!

I am going to have to quit the HoM after this one. I forgot Speaker and Cobb, plain and simple. But you are right, I guess I could pretend that it wasn't worth the effort to consider them since we know where they'll be.

But, no, that wouldn't be it. I do have to be sure whether it's Cobb, then Speaker, and I have to be sure they both rate ahead of Steady Eddie (no, not the M's new closer).
   62. Paul Wendt Posted: April 22, 2004 at 08:08 PM (#510506)
See a presentation of 1910 incumbents in same format.
   63. Paul Wendt Posted: April 22, 2004 at 08:43 PM (#510507)
My earlier presentation of the 1910 incumbents http://baseballprimer.com/hom/archives/00000020.shtml#29 does not include tail end outfielders. Here they are.

-------------------------------- other incumbent outfielders forwarded from 1909 to 1910
   64. Marc Posted: April 22, 2004 at 08:45 PM (#510508)
No, really, Chris, I left them out just to see if you were reading these posts or not (nobody else would care).

Among the big 3 of that day--Cobb, Speaker and Collins (a 2B not a CFer, I admit):

Cobb wins every adjWS measure--3 yrs consecutive, 5 yrs non-cons, prime, career, everything

Speaker however leads on adjWARP1 for 3 yrs, Cobb on the other WARP measures--oddly, he leads fairly easily on 5 yrs while their primes are basically a dead heat. Cobb 18 yrs 215.9 adjWARP1, Speaker 18 yrs 215.4 adjWARP1.

Speaker leads on LSTS for 3 yrs and 5 yrs. Cobb leads on prime because his works out to 20 yrs to Tris' 18 yrs but Speaker had the higher prime rate, 5.0-4.6.

On career Cobb leads on all 3: adjWS 736-641, adjWARP1 245-225, LWTS 94.6-90.9

Collins stands out on two measures. His adjWARP1 5 yr non-cons peak is the best of all 3--83.5 to 79.3 to 74.4. And his career adjWARP1 of 234 is better than's Speaker's 225 but not better than Cobb's 245. But WARP also truncates his prime to just 9 years--i.e. it sees a quick enough decline to separate out his prime years fairly early on. As a result, however, he ends up with a better prime rate than Cobb or Speaker--15.2 to 12 to 12. Cobb and Speaker declined so slowly that it is not perceptible to WARP, and in fact all 3 had 17 to 20 year primes by all methods other than Collins on WARP. Not that Eddie didn't have some of what would be peak or prime years for almost anybody else after those 9 years, just that for him they represented a decline.

IOW I can't find any way to vote other than 1) Cobb, 2) Speaker, 3) Collins in 1934 with the very unlikely exception of somebody else at #3.
   65. Marc Posted: April 22, 2004 at 11:32 PM (#510510)
Pops, yes, you bet. #4.

But you were who I was thinking of when I said there was a possibility (however unlikely) of somebody else at #3. But any other year, you're #1.

So Pops, you tell me, do you see yourself #1, #2, #2 or #4 in this company??? And why?
   66. Marc Posted: April 23, 2004 at 03:30 AM (#510512)
TomH, well, I'd be surprised...but no, it doesn't matter a lot. All 3 are easily among the top 10 eligible yet all-time in '34, probably all 3 top 5 among position players.
   67. ronw Posted: April 23, 2004 at 07:54 PM (#510513)
I was the JH Lloyd poster above.

I am considering naming JH Lloyd #1 in 1934, for 2 reasons.

1. The allegations of the Cobb/Speaker/Wood/Leonard 1919 fixed game.

2. The allegations of the 1917 White Sox paying the Tigers, some say to lose a game, some say to "reward" them for beating the Red Sox earlier in the season. At a 1925 hearing, Eddie Collins allegedly waved a cancelled check he wrote to somehow "prove" that since the check was written after the season was over, it couldn't be for fixing a game, but had to be a "reward."

See the link next to my name for more.
   68. Jim Sp Posted: April 23, 2004 at 08:44 PM (#510514)
Ron,
   69. karlmagnus Posted: April 23, 2004 at 09:16 PM (#510515)
A doubtful source. Cobb's retirement from the Tigers in '26 was not inexplicable; he'd had 6 mediocre seasons as manager, was subject to incessant whining from his players, and had fallen out seriously with Phil Nevin, the Tigers' owner. His reputation today, IMHO, would be entirely different if he'd come up in '05 with Mack's A's, with whom he had a very happy 1927-28.

In 1919 Cobb didn't need $1400; he deserves to be in the Investment Hall of Fame as well as the baseball one, as the only investor in the pre-IPO stages of both General Motors (in 1908) and Coca Cola (in 1919.) He died a very rich man, and it wasn't primarily from his salary as a ballplayer.
   70. ronw Posted: April 23, 2004 at 10:16 PM (#510516)
karl:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "doubtful source." I am skeptical unsourced material as well, but Mark Alvarez has written numerous times for SABR and elsewhere (I don't know him personally) and I would not generally assume he posted this without some level of research.

I still don't know what to make of the allegations referred to in the article. After hearing the 1917 White Sox story I generally don't trust anyone from the period (especially if "reward" payments were made).

Another interesting sidelight: In the audio Glory of Their Times after admitting his part in the 1919 betting scandal and implicating Speaker, Cobb and Leonard, Joe Wood states (in paraphrase) that "Cobb and Speaker got together with this big time lawyer, typed up a list of facts and put it in a safe deposit box. All of this would have come out if they went down."

I don't remember the city where the safe deposit box was located, but wouldn't that be a find.
   71. karlmagnus Posted: April 23, 2004 at 10:51 PM (#510517)
Yes, to be fair as my post in the 1920 thread set out (which I will repeat when we get to '26) everybody seems to have been doing it from about 1914 on, so it's not quite impossible that Cobb got involved in some dodgy dealing.

There is however no question that Cobb, as stiff-necked an individual as you can hope to find, was well towards the non-crooked end of the 10s ballplayer spectrum -- everybody except Dutch Leonard seems to have agreed on this and Cobb's own snobbery about his fellow ballplayers would make it likely (there's no question he regarded himself as the epitome of the Southern gentleman, whatever the reality, and his personal tragedy with Pa shooting Ma seems to have made him both more stiff-necked and more concerned not to besmirch the family name.) However, the atmosphere in 1919 was such that, in a game that had no effect, even Cobb possibly got sucked into behavior that would not have been acceptable at any other time -- sort of like a virtuous 90s VP Finance cheating the stockholders by not expensing his stock options.

I think it's unfair to leave Cobb off the ballot for this; it's wholly unproven and even if partially true was as much a product of its era as Walsh's spitball.

I am also much more inclined not only not to deduct 1919 and 1920 from the records of Jackson and Cicotte, but to give at least a little credit for what they would have achieved if they hadn't been victimised by Comiskey and singled out by Landis.

Jackson doesn't need this; even as he stands he's a much better Elmer Flick, who should get in easily.

Cicotte, however, may be the missing HOM 200 game winner born in the 1880s -- if you look at his record and realise that as a knuckleballer he could presumably have been effective into his 40s, there is a very good chance he'd have won 300. He will start at about #10 on my ballot, just below Grant, and almost certainly make my PHOM by 1932; his chances with the general electorate are however heavily dependent on how much of a moral discount people apply.
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:02 PM (#510518)
I am also much more inclined not only not to deduct 1919 and 1920 from the records of Jackson and Cicotte, but to give at least a little credit for what they would have achieved if they hadn't been victimised by Comiskey and singled out by Landis.

I wouldn't deduct 1919 and 1920 (though I can understand doing so), but giving them any credit for being crooks? If I'm going to give any credit for seasons that never happened, I'd rather give credit to Thurman Munson, Ross Youngs or Addie Joss than for any of the Blacksox. Jackson and Cicotte deserved what they got.

BTW, we should all have been victimzed by Comiskey. :-)
   73. karlmagnus Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:20 PM (#510519)
John, "crooks" is a word I'm not sure I'd apply. They broke the rules of baseball, but they were never convicted in court and I'm not sure they could have been. Of course, the whole structure of baseball falls down if people bet on games, so an example had to be made, and they were it.

But I don't think putting them into the HOM, at this late stage, will encourage people to bet on baseball -- I really don't think that there are players out there who might think "It doesn't matter if I bet on baseball, because although I'll lose my livelihood and end as a drunk in a roadhouse bar, 50 years after I die sabermetricians will realise how good I was."

They were basically damn unlucky -- yes, like Munson, or like Ted Williams (who became a hero in Korea, but didn't want to be). I certainly don't advocate giving much credit for seasons that never happened -- but as Cicotte (unlike Walsh or Waddell) got over the magic 200 level I'm inclined to round just a little upwards.

The reality, is that if he'd played 10 years earlier or later, Cicotte would probably have won 300 and would be in the HOF and the HOM. To me, that counts for something, maybe 25% of what's missing.
   74. OCF Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:21 PM (#510520)
Thurman Munson, Ross Youngs, Addie Joss, Ray Chapman, Dickie Thon, Tony Conigliaro, Charlie Keller, Herb Score, J.R. Richard, Lyman Bostock, ...

It's a long, long list.
   75. Paul Wendt Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:23 PM (#510521)
Ron Wargo #76
   76. Paul Wendt Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:28 PM (#510522)
Ron Wargo #76
   77. karlmagnus Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:34 PM (#510523)
As a Red Sox fan from way back, there is NO QUESTION in my mind that Tony C. is HOM-worthy. I may have to invent several new metrics to prove it though! :))
   78. ronw Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:39 PM (#510524)
"Reward" payments

Paul - Nope, not a typo. The practice of rewarding players and teams who played well against competition is highly questionable, and it seems inevitably leads to much worse.

It comes down to the '17 White Sox dilemma. What is the reward payment actually for? Is it for beating another team, losing to your team, playing well, playing poorly? It is too hard to pin down, and I think is anything but innocuous.
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2004 at 11:43 PM (#510525)
Other than the one-year boycott, I'll vote for Jackson and probably Cicotte (I'm not finished with him yet), but I refuse to extrapolate their careers. If you do it for them, then you have to do it for everyone on OCF's list (which is very small).
   80. Marc Posted: April 24, 2004 at 03:19 AM (#510526)
If you're going to extrapolate, please consider the case of Chino Smith. He played in the Negro Leagues from 1925-1930, 5 seasons, and died at the age of 29, acc. to Bill James, though I have also seen a birthdate of 1893 which would make him 27 in 1930.

He hit .428 over 5 years (.728 SA), which even in the Negro Leagues is a fairly imposing career average. Satchel Paige said he was the best hitter he ever saw not named Gibson. The Courier all-time team of 1952 had him as the #2 RF, despite his truncated career. I don't know how to compare him to Munson or Joss, but whatever kind of discount you apply he was better than Youngs, though even more briefly.
   81. Paul Wendt Posted: April 25, 2004 at 05:25 PM (#510528)
What is the reward payment actually for? Is it for beating another team, losing to your team, playing well, playing poorly? It is too hard to pin down, and I think is anything but innocuous.

Mere after-the-fact payment,whether a reward for winning or losing, is small potatoes here, where the focus is on throwing games and fixing games, measuring the moral distance between Cicotte and Jackson or between Jackson and Cobb/Speaker (as charged by Wood). It is relatively innocuous, as it would be relatively innocuous for Ivan Rodriguez, Jack McKeon, or Jeffrey Loria (Florida Marlins) to pay Steve Barkman (regretful Cubs fan). Sure, such payments merit a fine or a short suspension . . .
   82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 06, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#781099)
I couldn't reconstrust any of the problem posts on this thread. Sorry.
   83. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2004 at 10:17 PM (#838361)
Posts have been reconstructed up to #26.
   84. Paul Wendt Posted: May 28, 2005 at 02:22 PM (#1367933)
I recall several discussions of the CF position, compare and contrast with LF or RF. I recall that some of that was in a CF thread but I don't find it. Maybe a Win Shares thread.

Anyway, 1952 Ballot Discussion #80-83 includes items on that general subject by TomH and by me.

Win Shares includes a reference list of the three leading outfielders by defensive win shares for each league-season, or WS Gold Gloves for short. There I expected to find three CFs for almost every league-season. Au contraire.

In order to place a floor under the number of LF-RF winners, skim for two winners from the same team. That is common, maybe more common than a uniform random distribution would yield (1/8 frequency of teammate winners if no one played for two teams in one season). Paul Waner wins three times in the outfield with bro' Lloyd. Washington wins all three GGs in 1913.

Premier corner OFs Jimmy Sheckard and Fred Clarke have 5 and 4 WSGGs.
   85. Paul Wendt Posted: May 28, 2005 at 09:25 PM (#1368501)
How many outfielders can be assigned to one of the three positions using the one of the criteria 50% and 90% OF games played?

At least 100 OF games played thru 1995
1658 players

500 LF 134
417 CF _97
479 RF 104

That is, 500 played at least 50% of OF games in left; 134 played at least 90% of OF games in left. About 84% of the 100-game outfielders surpass 50% of OF games played at one position and about 20% surpass 90%.

At least 500 OF games played thru 1995
748 players

213 LF 62
235 CF 71
208 RF 53

Almost half of the 100-game outfielders played at least 500 games. Among them, about 88% and 29% surpass the 50% and 90% criteria at one of the three OF positions.

At least 2000 OF games played thru 1995
37 players

11 LF 5
10 CF 5
15 RF 7

Everyone but Stan Musial 47-16-37 clears 50% and almost half clear 90%. Next to Musial LF 47%, Ruth RF 50% and Robinson RF 58% also played mainly in the corners. Al Simmons 64-36-0 is closest to 50-50 among parttime CFs.

The CFs are Tris Speaker 100%, Willie Mays 99, Willie Davis 96, Doc Cramer 95, Richie Ashburn 94, Mickey Mantle 86, Ty Cobb 75, Vada Pinson 68, Max Carey 67, Willie Wilson 66 (that's 10), followed by Al Simmons 36%.

BTW the 2000-game qualifiers in order of last year are Burkett, Keeler, Sheckard, Clarke, Crawford (that's 5), Hooper, Wheat, Cobb, Speaker, Carey (10 thru 1929), Rice, Ruth, Goslin, Waner, Simmons (15), Ott, Cramer (that's 17 thru 1948 of whom 14 are HOM members).

Ted Williams is the only among the 37 played 0 games at one OF position, center.
   86. Paul Wendt Posted: May 29, 2005 at 02:30 PM (#1369610)
This presentation of the same data shows the notable 100- to 499-game population separately. It is slightly more elaborate and it corrects the 2000+ table by including three people active in 1995.

How many outfielders qualify as LF CF or RF by
<u>50%</u> or <u>90%</u> of outfield games played?


>=100 outfield games played (1658 players)
500 LF 134
417 CF _97 ( 25%, 6% )
479 RF 104
262 no 1323

>=500 outfield games played (748 players)
213 LF _62
235 CF _71 ( 31+%, 9+% )
208 RF _53
_92 no 532

>=2000 outfield games played (40 players)
12 LF _5
11 CF _6 ( 27+%, 15% )
16 RF _7
_1 no 22

The latter table now includes Dawson, Henderson and Butler, active in 1995.

Now subtract the second table from the first.

100-499 outfield games played (910 players)
287 LF _72
182 CF _26 ( 20%, 3%)
271 RF _51
170 no 791


The shortage of centerfielders is so extreme that I doublechecked it by selecting this group explicitly. No error.

The 10- to 99-game group shows practically the same low share of CFs.

10-99 outfield games played (1577 players)
568 LF 174
310 CF _75 ( 19+%, 5% )
565 RF 157
134 no

--
Data source: the 'FieldingOF' table in the 'lahman52' database (baseball1.com), whose scope is 1871-1995. Beginning 1996, LF-CF-RF fielding data is available in a different format and I judge that the value of incorporating those recent years is nil.
   87. Paul Wendt Posted: May 29, 2005 at 03:05 PM (#1369657)
1500+ games approximates the HOM-relevant population better than does 2000 games (and reasonably well since about 1890?). There is a clear surplus of centerfielders.

1500+ outfield games played (125 players)
30 LF 10
45 CF 18 ( 36%, 14+% )
36 RF 11
14 no 86

Here is a list ordered by share of OF games played in center beginning with Curt Flood 1693/1697.

Flood, Speaker, Bruton, Mays, MaddoxG 98.5
Virdon, DavisW, <u>Hoy</u>, Blair, DiMaggioJ 95.1
<u>Roush</u>, Cramer, Otis, Ashburn, Butler 93.0
<u>Averill, West, WanerL, Paskert</u>, Monday 86.6
Mantle, ManningR, Moseby, <u>Milan</u>, Lynn 85.0
CedenoC, Puckett, Snider, McGee, Lemon 76.4
<u>WilliamsC, Van Haltren</u>, Cobb, Piersall, Van Slyke 73.4
<u>JonesF</u>, Pinson, Carey, WilsonW, Wynn 64.4
ThomsonB, Hamilton, GonzalezT, <u>BrownT</u>, MurphyDa 55.2
--
Pafko*, BellGu*, <u>RyanJ</u>*, SmithR, Murcer 46.9
Cardenal*, Dawson, <u>Duffy</u>*, Hendricks, Philly 39.1
<u>Cuyler, ChapmanB</u>*, Simmons, McReynolds, AlouF 29.3
<u>WalkerGee</u>, CarterJ, <u>RiceS</u>, BakerD 25.1

That is 64 players. Rice 26.1% is the median of 125. Crawford 20.8% is alone above 20%. * means plurality CF.
   88. Paul Wendt Posted: May 29, 2005 at 03:28 PM (#1369678)
Count CFs by criteria 50%, 90% of OF games
Share of CFs by criteria 50%, 90% of OF games

Count CFs all OFs (share CFs) selection
_11 CF __6 of __40 (27%, 15%) >=2000 outfield games played
_45 CF _18 of _125 (36%, 14%) >=1500 games
118 CF _44 of _356 (33%, 12%) >=1000 games
235 CF _71 of _748 (31%, _9%) >=_500 games
417 CF _97 of 1653 (25%, _6%) >=_100 games
727 CF 172 of 3230 (23%, _5%) >=__10 games

_11 CF __6 of __40 (27%, 15%) 2000+ games
_34 CF _12 of __85 (40%, 14%) 1500-1999 games
_73 CF _26 of _231 (32%, 11%) 1000-1499 games
117 CF _27 of _392 (30%, _7%) _500-999 games
182 CF _26 of _910 (20%, _3%) _100-499 games
310 CF _75 of 1577 (19%, _5%) __10-99 games
   89. Paul Wendt Posted: June 01, 2005 at 11:29 PM (#1375068)
Here "games" means fielding position games, which is 0 to 9 for each player in each game, usually 0 (dh,ph,pr), 1 or 2 (one in-game position change).
The data source is lahman52.

The population is 100-game careers 1871-2004
7052 of 16024 players qualify.
Here is the distribution of players by fielding position
where fielding position is defined by thresholds
<u>100%</u> <u>90%</u> & <u>50%</u> of games
215 578 _C 732 (10% of players; 16% of non-pitchers)
_68 222 1B 412 (6% of players; 9% of non-pitchers)
_21 190 2B 478
_15 172 3B 437
_22 180 SS 470
__2 _73 LF 391
__4 _94 CF 415
__1 _56 RF 397
2231 2417 _P 2497 ;2908 at least 1 game pitched

36.6 46.5 88.3 percent players with a fielding position

Among the 7052 players, 4555 pitched less than half time and no one pitched precisely half time.

_7.6 34.4 81.9 percent non-pitchers (by 50% defn) with a fielding position


Miscellany
Consider the three outfield positions as one
379 977 OF 1383

Consider the one pitcher position as two
__20 _224 SP 1273 ; 2427 at least 1 starting pitcher game
_211 _590 RP 1225 ; 2876 at least 1 relief pitcher game
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: July 14, 2005 at 02:44 PM (#1471055)
This is probably the toughest position right now other than pitcher. Our voting is very spread out. As of 1955:

11. Averill 22 ballots-255 points-high of 4th (2 votes)
16. Bell 18-202-2nd
17T. Van Haltren 15-186-4th
22. Browning 10-132-3rd
23. Duffy 11-128-5th
(28. Leach 10-112-5th)
33. Roush 8-79-3rd
(34. Bresnahan 7-76-4th)
47. Berger 2-22-9th
50. H. Wilson 2-13-14th
52T. F. Jones 1-12-9th
57T, Poles 1-8-13th

Two notables did not receive votes in 1955: Jimmy Ryan, who did receive votes for, oh, 45 years and used to be paired with his peer GVH. I guess it became a question of either-or.

And Alejandro Oms, eligible for (guessing) a dozen years or more now, but suddenly of interest as more info came available and we also learned that he played more CF and less RF. Now looking a lot like Cristobal Torriente.

We know we'll be elected another CF soon, too, in Joe DiMaggio (1957). 'Nuff sed.

Also upcoming are candidates whose strength is as yet unknown: Doby in about 1965 and Ashburn 1968. So lots and lots of choices.

The key question before us is, after DiMaggio, just who is the most HoM-worthy CF of the next decade or so. Current consensus is Earl Averill, but he appears on less than half of ballots now so he is not a shoo-in. Not to disparage his defense, but I would characterize Averill is representing the more offensive wing of CF candidacy. Might supporters of the following swing to Averill some day? Or maybe coalesce around Alejandro Oms.

GVH
Browning
Roush--as a Roush supporter, I also have Browning and Averill among my top 5
Berger
Wilson

And then there's the more defensively oriented wing. Might supporters of the following coalesce around Bell or Duffy someday?

Bell
Duffy
Leach
F. Jones
Poles

Maybe not. But if not, then Joe D. could be our only additional CF until Mantle in 1974. And that doesn't seem right, given the incredible array of talent listed above.
   91. sunnyday2 Posted: July 15, 2005 at 12:18 PM (#1473954)
Looking at Bill James, I am struck by the fact that his highest rated ML CF (eligible 1956) is Wally Berger! The HoM voting consensus right now favors Earl Averill, while I've had Edd Roush as my top ML CF for some time now. Here are James rankings:

13. Berger
14. Averill
15. Roush

Career WS--Berger 241 Averill 280 Roush 314
Top 3--Berger 36-33-31 Averill 33-30-30 Roush 33-33-30
Top 5--Berger 152 Averill 143 Roush 136
WS/162--Berger 28.9 Averill 27.2 Roush 25.9

Here his ratings follow top 5 and rate, not career.

But note also that he has Cool Papa Bell at #76 in his hot 100, That is between Ken Griffey Jr at #73 and Kirby Puckett at #98, and Griffey is #7 and Puckett #8 among his ML CFs. So that puts Cool Papa well ahead of Berger, Averill and Roush, with Billy Hamilton, Jimmy Wynn, Larry Doby and Dale Murphy also in between there.

Foir the record, Berger, Averill and Roush are followed byt Ashburn, Lynn, Pinson, Hack Wilson and Hugh Duffy int he top 20. Doppelganger Max Carey is #23 between Amos Otis and Dom DiMaggio (ouch). Then Brett Butler and Jimmy Ryan at #26 with GVHY at #28.

Timeline city. (Paul Hines is #54 behind Chick Stahl and Ray Lankford.)
   92. Chris Cobb Posted: July 15, 2005 at 06:14 PM (#1474722)
Also upcoming are candidates whose strength is as yet unknown: Doby in about 1965 and Ashburn 1968. So lots and lots of choices.

Doby will be a fairly easy choice when his time comes. He's borderline without any NeL credit, and he was outstanding in the NeL in both 1946 and 1947.

But if not, then Joe D. could be our only additional CF until Mantle in 1974. And that doesn't seem right, given the incredible array of talent listed above.

Don't forget The Duke, who'll be eligible, and probably also elected, in 1970! (I agree, though, that we should be electing a couple or three or four of the centerfielders now in the backlog.)
   93. jimd Posted: July 16, 2005 at 02:59 AM (#1476210)
Best CF 1871-1940 by WARP

Lexicographic key:
Upper Case -- A TOP star; one of top N players in MLB
Lower Case -- a 2nd tier star; one top 2N players in MLB
(in parentheses) -- nearly a 2nd tier star (withing 10%)
<in angle brackets> -- best at position; not an all-star season
Note: N is approximate number of teams:
9 from 1871-1881; 12 from 1882-1900; 16 from 1901-1960
Note: All TOP stars are listed, even if not best at position
This represents a level of play where one might expect the player
to be the best on his team, except for uneven talent distribution.

1871 daveeggler
1872 DAVEEGGLER
1873 daveeggler
1874 LIPPIKE
1875 LIPPIKE
1876 PAULHINES          LIPPIKE
1877 JIMO'ROURKE
1878 paulhines
1879 PAULHINES          JOHNO'ROURKE
1880 GEORGEGORE         PAULHINES
1881 HARDYRICHARDSON    GEORGEGORE
1882 GEORGEGORE         PAULHINES
1883 GEORGEGORE
1884 paulhines
1885 GEORGEGORE         PETEBROWNING HENRYLARKIN
1886 curtwelch
1887 petebrowning
1888 DICKJOHNSTON       JIMMYRYAN
1889 JIMMYRYAN
1890 miketiernan
1891 MIKEGRIFFIN
1892 mikegriffin
1893 hughduffy
1894 BILLYHAMILTON      HUGHDUFFY
1895 MIKEGRIFFIN        BILLLANGE JAKESTENZEL BILLYHAMILTON
1896 GEORGEVANHALTREN
1897 GEORGEVANHALTREN
1898 dummyhoy
1899 ROYTHOMAS
1900 BILLYHAMILTON      ROYTHOMAS
1901 gingerbeaumont
1902 FIELDERJONES       GINGERBEAUMONT JIMMYBARRETT
1903 JIMMYBARRETT       ROYTHOMAS
1904 ROYTHOMAS
1905 MIKEDONLIN         CYSEYMOUR FIELDERJONES ROYTHOMAS
1906 ELMERFLICK         FIELDERJONES
1907 FIELDERJONES       TOMMYLEACH SAMCRAWFORD GINGERBEAUMONT
1908 FIELDERJONES
1909 TRISSPEAKER        SAMCRAWFORD
1910 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER
1911 TYCOBB             FREDSNODGRASS TRISSPEAKER
1912 TRISSPEAKER        TYCOBB
1913 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER
1914 TRISSPEAKER
1915 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER BENNYKAUFF
1916 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER MAXCAREY AMOSSTRUNK
1917 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER MAXCAREY
1918 TRISSPEAKER        TYCOBB
1919 TRISSPEAKER        TYCOBB EDDROUSH
1920 TRISSPEAKER        EDDROUSH HAPPYFELSCH BABYDOLLJACOBSON
1921 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER
1922 TYCOBB             TRISSPEAKER MAXCAREY
1923 TRISSPEAKER        JOHNNYMOSTIL
1924 TYCOBB
1925 ALSIMMONS          TRISSPEAKER JOHNNYMOSTIL MAXCAREY
1926 JOHNNYMOSTIL       TRISSPEAKER HACKWILSON ALSIMMONS
1927 EARLECOMBS         HACKWILSON
1928 TAYLORDOUTHIT
1929 HACKWILSON         LLOYDWANER
1930 HACKWILSON         JOHNNYFREDERICK
1931 WALLYBERGER        EARLAVERILL
1932 earlaverill
1933 WALLYBERGER
1934 EARLAVERILL
1935 HANKLEIBER         WALLYBERGER
1936 EARLAVERILL
1937 JOEDIMAGGIO
1938 JOEDIMAGGIO
1939 JOEDIMAGGIO
1940 JOEDIMAGGIO
   94. sunnyday2 Posted: July 26, 2005 at 12:57 PM (#1498762)
Edd Roush has been my top CF for, oh, about 15 years or so, but with Joe D. (DiMaggio, not Dimino) on the ballot I thought it would be a good year to take a fresh look what with methods continuing to evolve.

First I rated a set of 13 CFers across 19 measures including various derivations of WS, WARP, OPS, fielding, etc., and came up with this rank order and composite rating (e.g. 19 1st place ratings = 19 points). This rating is slightly skewed toward career (about 12 items) versus peak (about 7), and the positioning of the NeLers is based on only about half of the 19 data points. All 19C data was normalized to 154.

1. DiMaggio 29 gets some WWII credit
2. Duffy 84
3. Browning 84.5 even with AA discount
4. Averill 100.5 gets one year of MLE from PCL
5. Ryan 102
6. Van Haltren 108 one year of AA discount
7. Bell --
8. Oms --
9. Roush 116 FL discount offset by WWI bonus
10. Berger 118.5
11. Wilson 124
12. Poles --
13. Seymour 130

Then I looked more closely at WS and OPS+ since I have those numbers for the NeLers and they are the two things I generally use anyway.

For WS I used a formula something like James' own, averaging the rankings on career, peak, etc.

1. DiMaggio
2. Duffy
3. Browning--short on career, very high peak
4. Ryan--more career than peak
5. Berger--nice peak
6. Poles
7. Van Haltren--great career, no peak
8. Oms
9. Averill--Mr. In Between
10. Bell--great career, no peak
11. Seymour--nice peak
12. Wilson--obviously, nice peak but low career total
13. Roush--also Mr. In Between

OPS+ analysis--here again a composite of career, peak, prime rankings

1. Browning
2. DiMaggio
3. Berger
4. Wilson--short career, short prime, but sky high peak
5. Oms
6. Roush
7. Averill
8. Ryan
9. Van Haltren--low peak again
10. Duffy
11. Seymour
12. Poles
13. Bell

Simple average of the three rankings

1. DiMaggio
2. Browning
3. Duffy--despite weak OPS+ performance
4. Ryan
5. Berger--OPS especially plays to his strengths
6. Averill
7. Oms
8. Van Haltren
9. Wilson--OPS also plays to his strength
10. Roush--WS not crazy about him
11. Bell and Poles (ite)--WS likes Poles, Bell does well in the composite
13. Seymout

But of course it is apparent that this analysis skews toward the 19C and who knows whether it treats the NeLers fairly. So continuing to think this through in a manner that is analagous to James' WS method, there is then the bullshirt dump, which I am going to think about.

But for the moment:

• Hard to remember now how I got Roush to the head of this list. He has been on my ballot for many years now, but never made PHoM. He will drop.,

• Even adjusting for 19C bias, Browning and Duffy will continue to be in the mix, with one of them as my #1 CF after Joe D. gets elected in '57.

• I'm thinking now that Averill and Oms will probably leapfrog Berger (pretty one-dimensional rating based on OPS peak) and Ryan (only 3rd among the 19C guys).

• IOW the new backlog looks like Duffy, Browning, Averill and Oms. One or more could be on-ballot but it is not unlikely that none of them will make it in '57.
   95. ronw Posted: October 15, 2005 at 06:04 PM (#1685227)
Center Fielders

Again, eligible through 1980. Total is Career/10 + BWS/162.

CF              Career  Games   BWS/162 Total   Fielding
*Cobb, T        639.4   3035    34.1    98.1    B+
Mantle, M       507.0   2401    34.2    84.9    B+
Mays, W         538.0   2992    29.1    82.9    A+
*Speaker, T     511.7   2789    29.7    80.9    A+
*DiMaggio, J    325.8   1736    30.4    63.0    A+
*Hamilton, B    287.5   1591    29.3    58.0    A-
Snider, D       296.8   2143    22.4    52.1    A-
Brown, W        274.6   2034    21.9    49.3    n/r
Oms, A          276.5   2178    20.6    48.2    n/r
Browning, P     198.0   1183    27.1    46.9    C+
Roush, E        255.7   1967    21.1    46.6    A-
Van Haltren, G  256.4   1984    20.9    46.6    B
Doby, L         222.0   1533    23.5    45.7    A
Ryan, J         252.2   2012    20.3    45.5    B+
Thomas, R       215.7   1470    23.8    45.3    A-
Duffy, H        234.5   1737    21.9    45.3    A+
*Gore, G        199.5   1310    24.7    44.6    A+
Ashburn, R      255.9   2189    18.9    44.5    A+
*Averill, E     223.9   1668    21.7    44.1    A+
Berger, W       200.5   1350    24.1    44.1    A-
*Hines, P       207.7   1481    22.7    43.5    A-
Bell, C         277.2   2907    15.4    43.2    n/r
Wilson, H       195.8   1348    23.5    43.1    C+
Kauff, B        148.4    859    28.0    42.8    A-
Jones, F        222.3   1788    20.1    42.4    A+
*Carey, M       254.0   2476    16.6    42.0    A+
Combs, E        194.9   1455    21.7    41.2    C+
Griffin, M      197.9   1511    21.2    41.0    A
Leach, T        232.5   2156    17.5    40.7    A+
Beaumont, G     188.9   1463    20.9    39.8    B+
Hoy, D          206.1   1796    18.6    39.2    B+
Milan, C        210.0   1982    17.2    38.2    B+
Stahl, C        169.6   1304    21.1    38.0    A-
Chapman, B      186.3   1717    17.6    36.2    B
Spence, S       143.9   1112    21.0    35.4    B-
DiMaggio, D     162.5   1399    18.8    35.1    A+
Seymour, C      168.0   1528    17.8    34.6    A
Williams, C     188.4   2002    15.2    34.1    B
Paskert, D      172.3   1716    16.3    33.5    A-
Brown, T        175.1   1786    15.9    33.4    C+
Pafko, A        177.0   1852    15.5    33.2    B
Stenzel, J      105.3    766    22.3    32.8    B+
Lange, B        109.1    811    21.8    32.7    A+
Waner, L        175.8   1993    14.3    31.9    A+
Bates, J        128.2   1154    18.0    30.8    C-
Thomson, B      159.8   1779    14.6    30.5    B
Barrett, J      106.2    866    19.9    30.5    A
*Pike, L         27.8    163    27.6    30.4    n/r
Strunk, A       144.1   1512    15.4    29.8    C+
Holliday, B     108.4    928    18.9    29.8    B+
Reiser, P       101.7    861    19.1    29.3    A+
Alou, M         146.0   1667    14.2    28.8    B-
Welch, C        115.9   1107    17.0    28.6    A+
Jacobson, B     134.8   1472    14.8    28.3    A-
Bruton, B       139.2   1610    14.0    27.9    A-
Flood, C        145.2   1759    13.4    27.9    A+
Hofman, S       117.4   1194    15.9    27.7    A+
Bell, G         142.3   1741    13.2    27.5    C-
Hemphill, C     117.9   1242    15.4    27.2    C
McCosky, B      112.5   1170    15.6    26.8    A
West, S         135.2   1753    12.5    26.0    A+
Hanlon, N       112.2   1267    14.3    25.6    B-
Cramer, D       146.6   2239    10.6    25.3    A
DiMaggio, V     102.7   1110    15.0    25.3    A+
Oldring, R      109.2   1239    14.3    25.2    C+
Brodie, S       117.6   1437    13.3    25.0    A+
Landis, J       110.7   1346    13.3    24.4    A
Chapman, S      109.9   1368    13.0    24.0    B+
Moore, T        106.4   1298    13.3    23.9    A+
Smith, J        103.4   1406    11.9    22.3    D+
Virdon, B       102.8   1583    10.5    20.8    A+
Piersall, J     101.7   1734     9.5    19.7    A+


Thanks to the Babe's pitching, Cobb has more career BWS than anyone else. Mantle, Mays and Snider will have no issues getting elected. Brown and Oms are from Doc's short-form numbers, and may need adjustment. Browning has AA issues which I tend to offset by schedule length adjustments.

Look at the similarity in raw numbers between Van Haltren and Roush. Roush could field a bit better, but Van Haltren gets a bump for short schedules. Ryan and Thomas seem a cut below. With a little Negro League credit, Doby is probably in.

CF is harder to extrapolate, because the guys at the top are so much better for so much longer than everyone else. In fact, not only do they have the most career BWS, but their rates did not decline substantially, as the top five also have the top 6 BWS/162.

Now that Averill has been elected Duffy, Fielder Jones (and soon Ashburn) are our only A+ CF over Max Carey. A+ CF Tommy Leach (also of the A+ 3B fielding) is just behind Max on the offensive rating. Cool Papa Bell was also probably an A+ dielder, with better adjusted MLE batting stats than Carey.

Berger and Wilson are indistinguishable. Wilson had the big year, but Berger was a much better fielder. I remember Dimino was going to vote for Kauff, but he never did, to my knowledge. Kauff is a great candidate for karl.

Carey is probably the absolute lowest we will go here.
   96. karlmagnus Posted: October 15, 2005 at 08:42 PM (#1685391)
Sincer Kauff fenced stolen cars, I gave his points to Sam Leever, who was a churchwarden :-)
   97. KJOK Posted: October 16, 2005 at 06:19 AM (#1686175)
Player Overall Wins - CF:

Pete Browning - 28
Duke Snider - 23
Roy Thomas - 23
Wally Berger - 21
Mike Griffin - 18
Hack Wilson - 18
Lary Doby - 18
Earl Averill - 17
Cy Seymour - 15
Paul Hines - 14
   98. Kelly in SD Posted: October 16, 2005 at 07:49 AM (#1686225)
My turn: See previous positional threads / Catchers #128 specifically.
*Ty Cobb             104.4%
*Tris Speaker         95.9%
Mickey Mantle         95.6%
Willie Mays           93.1%
*Joe DiMaggio         79.0%
*Cristobal Torriente  72.8%
*Paul Hines           71.9%
*Billy Hamilton       71.7%
Duke Snider           69.2%
*George Gore          68.2%
Pete Browning         65.6%
Hugh Duffy            63.6%
*Earl Averill         61.6%
Larry Doby            61.0%
George Van Haltren    60.4%
Edd Roush             60.4%
Jimmy Wynn            60.0%
Spots Poles           59.9% (if the MLES are valid)
Jimmy Ryan            58.9%
Cool Papa Bell        58.8%
Dale Murphy           58.5%
Cy Seymour            58.4%
Wally Berger          57.9%
*Max Carey            56.8%
Hack Wilson           56.7%
Roy Thomas            56.7%
Richie Ashburn        56.5%
Kirby Puckett         55.4%
Cesar Cedeno          55.0%
Vada Pinson           53.1%
Clyde Milan           51.6%
Fred Lynn             51.3%
Amos Otis             51.3%
Dom Dimaggio          50.9%
Brett Butler          50.2%
Earle Combs           50.1%
Dummy Hoy             49.6%
Willie Davis          49.3%
Al Oliver             47.3%
Lloyd Waner           47.3%
Andy Pafko            44.0%
Ben Chapman           43.5%
Cy Williams           40.1%
Doc Cramer            35.4%


Max Carey, huh? I wish I had not been moving last year when he was being elected...
   99. Kelly in SD Posted: October 16, 2005 at 07:59 AM (#1686229)
Oscar Charleston is not listed because I do not believe there were ever any MLEs run for him. I assume he would be over the 90% mark though. I have Willard Brown, Alejandro Ohms, and Fielder Jones in right and Leach at 3rd. We never ran MLEs for Turkey Stearnes, but I would guess he would be top 10-ish.
   100. KJOK Posted: October 17, 2005 at 06:08 AM (#1688294)
Oscar Charleston is not listed because I do not believe there were ever any MLEs run for him.

Actually, there were. They are still posted in the HOM Yahoo egroup files section....
Page 1 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
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2316 seconds
68 querie(s) executed