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

Thursday, August 28, 2003

New Eligibles Year by Year

Here we go, if someone can post them for the next 5-10 years, and then maintain this that would be great.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 28, 2003 at 04:20 PM | 962 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 10 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 28, 2003 at 05:49 PM (#516946)
Outside of '98, this is easily the strongest group so far.

However, Delahanty is going to smoke 'em next "year."
   2. DanG Posted: August 29, 2003 at 04:42 AM (#516948)
Our default rule is eligibility after five years from the first time a player appears in less than ten games or pitches in less than five. This is not a strict rule, but a general guideline.

The spirit of the rule is really more important, along the lines of eligibility five years after "regular" play ends, such that subsequent appearances do not significantly alter an assessment of his career.

McGraw played 12 games in 1903, so 1904 was his first year <10 games. Add five years, he's eligible in 1909.

We've established enough precedent with borderline cases, that the only player I'm currently unsure about is Bobby Wallace. IMO, he should be eligible for the election in 1922, although 1920 might also be OK.
   3. DanG Posted: August 29, 2003 at 04:50 AM (#516949)
Here's an abbreviated list of eligibles, as I have it, from 1909-1920. Players with 230 win shares or 60 WARP3 are listed.

***1909 (September 14)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
355 114.7 1888 Ed Delahanty-LF (1903)
344 79.6 1887 George VanHaltren-CF (1945)
316 84.5 1886 Jimmy Ryan-CF (1923)
265 73.1 1889 Herman Long-SS (1909)
207 62.9 1891 John McGraw-3b (1934)
(Negro) 1886 Frank Grant-2b (1937)

***1910 (September 28)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

***1911 (October 12)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
478 93.3 1890 Kid Nichols-P (1953)
389 93.5 1890 Jesse Burkett-LF (1953)

***1912 (October 26)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
273 62.6 1891 Clark Griffith-P (1955)
215 71.0 1894 Kip Selbach-LF (1956)

***1913 (November 9)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
318 75.8 1888 Jake Beckley-1b (1918)
278 80.9 1887 Lave Cross-3b (1927)
294 53.9 1888 Kid Gleason-2b/P (1933)
188 63.2 1890 Bobby Lowe-2b (1951)

***1914 (November 23)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
305 85.9 1892 Joe Kelley-LF (1943)
290 81.0 1896 Fielder Jones-CF (1934)
274 83.0 1895 Jimmy Collins-3b (1943)
269 52.6 1899 Joe McGinnity-P (1929)

***1915 (December 7)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
398 126.7 1890 George Davis-SS/3b (1940)
394 126.8 1891 Bill Dahlen-SS (1950)
207 67.5 1899 Jimmy Williams-2b (1965)
243 53.5 1895 Al Orth-P (1948)
233 50.8 1897 Jesse Tannehill-P (1956)

***1916 (December 21)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
333 96.3 1893 Willie Keeler-RF
291 82.8 1898 Elmer Flick-RF
272 57.7 1896 Cy Seymour-CF
240 67.8 1899 Rube Waddell-P
293 49.9 1898 Vic Willis-P

***1917 (January 4)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
634 164.3 1890 Cy Young-P
400 105.1 1894 Fred Clarke-LF
260 80.5 1899 Roy Thomas-CF
249 69.6 1894 Fred Tenney-1b
238 46.7 1896 Harry Davis-1b
237 46.0 1898 Frank Chance-1b

***1918 (January 18)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
287 60.6 1897 Jack Powell-P

***1919 (February 1)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
339 86.0 1898 Jimmy Sheckard-LF
235 50.8 1901 Doc White-P

***1920 (February 15)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
265 68.9 1904 Ed Walsh-P
215 60.8 1901 Danny Murphy-2b/RF
   4. DanG Posted: August 29, 2003 at 06:01 AM (#516950)
More complete listings for 1909-1914:

***1909 (September 14)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
355 114.7 1888 Ed Delahanty-LF (1903)
344 79.6 1887 George VanHaltren-CF (1945)
316 84.5 1886 Jimmy Ryan-CF (1923)
265 73.1 1889 Herman Long-SS (1909)
207 62.9 1891 John McGraw-3b (1934)
215 59.0 1887 Tom Daly-2b (1938)
208 38.4 1892 Brickyard Kennedy-P (1915)
153 53.0 1887 Chief Zimmer-C (1949)
129 29.8 1889 Bill Hallman-2b (1920)
107 30.2 1896 Gene DeMontreville-2b (1935)
(Negro) 1886 Frank Grant-2b (1937)

***1910 (September 28)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
201 46.4 1890 Patsy Donovan-RF (1953)
183 47.3 1888 Duke Farrell-C (1925)
176 32.4 1890 Jack Doyle-1b (1958)
104 30.4 1899 Emmet Heidrick (1916)

***1911 (October 12)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
478 93.3 1890 Kid Nichols-P (1953)
389 93.5 1890 Jesse Burkett-LF (1953)
144 38.0 1898 Danny Green-RF (1914)
144 30.6 1893 Duff Cooley-LF (1937)
111 21.3 1894 Candy LaChance-1b (1932)
(Negro) Billy Holland
(Negro) George Wilson

***1912 (October 26)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
273 62.6 1891 Clark Griffith-P (1955)
215 71.0 1894 Kip Selbach-LF (1956)
211 57.0 1897 Chick Stahl-CF (1907)
189 44.4 1884 Deacon McGuire-C (1936)
161 46.5 1899 Noodles Hahn-P (1960)
180 34.4 1896 Sam Mertes-LF (1945)
160 31.6 1898 Buck Freeman-RF (1949)
124 36.3 1893 Heinie Peitz-C (1943)
165 23.3 1896 Red Donahue-P (1913)
120 23.5 1894 Mike Grady-C (1943)
074 21.9 1890 Malachi Kittridge-C (1928)

***1913 (November 9)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
318 75.8 1888 Jake Beckley-1b (1918)
278 80.9 1887 Lave Cross-3b (1927)
294 53.9 1888 Kid Gleason-2b/P (1933)
214 56.7 1890 Tommy Corcoran-SS (1960)
188 63.2 1890 Bobby Lowe-2b (1951)
183 33.5 1899 Jack W. Taylor-P (1938)
153 38.3 1895 Monte Cross-SS (1934)
135 39.6 1899 Jimmy Barrett-CF (1921)
140 22.8 1898 Frank Kitson-P (1930)
124 21.2 1888 Jack O’Connor-C (1937)
115 24.5 1893 Jack McCarthy-LF (1931)

***1914 (November 23)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
305 85.9 1892 Joe Kelley-LF (1943)
290 81.0 1896 Fielder Jones-CF (1934)
274 83.0 1895 Jimmy Collins-3b (1943)
269 52.6 1899 Joe McGinnity-P (1929)
209 47.9 1895 John Anderson-LF/1b (1949)
183 43.1 1896 Dan McGann-1b (1910)
149 41.9 1901 Socks Seybold-RF (1921)
177 32.6 1899 Jimmy Slagle-CF (1956)
155 30.2 1899 Charlie Hickman-1b (1934)
126 22.4 1900 Sammy Strang-3b/2b (1932)
164 14.9 1896 Chick Fraser-P (1940)
119 22.8 1903 Jake Weimer (1928)
098 25.1 1899 Ossee Schreckengost-C (1914)
113 15.1 1900 Luther Dummy Taylor-P (1958)

   5. DanG Posted: August 29, 2003 at 06:02 AM (#516951)
Oops. That list has the old election schedule.
   6. DanG Posted: September 12, 2003 at 07:00 PM (#516952)
Just wanted to repost the list of new eligibles for 1910, a group about as nondescript as the 1906 newbies.

***1910 (September 28)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

201 46.4 1890 Patsy Donovan-RF (1953)
183 47.3 1888 Duke Farrell-C (1925)
176 32.4 1890 Jack Doyle-1b (1958)
104 30.4 1899 Emmet Heidrick-CF (1916)
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 12, 2003 at 07:15 PM (#516953)
I was under the impression there was no viable candidates for next year, but Farrell is a good one. Not a top-five guy, but ballot worthy.
   8. Jeff M Posted: September 12, 2003 at 07:27 PM (#516954)
John, you've got catchers on the brain. :) You aren't really putting Farrell on your ballot, are you?
   9. Chris Cobb Posted: September 12, 2003 at 08:35 PM (#516955)
Jeff, if you want to get on John's case about catchers, get on him about the fact that Chief Zimmer's on his ballot now!! Duke Farrell's a good sight better than Zimmer, so I might have some questions for John if Zimmer stays and Farrell doesn't appear . . .

I don't think either of them is ballot-worthy, myself, but Farrell's got an argument at least: I have him ranked with John McGraw and Mike Griffin, both of whom have some arguments, and he's the best new candidate for 1910.
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 13, 2003 at 05:15 AM (#516956)
Jeff, if you want to get on John's case about catchers, get on him about the fact that Chief Zimmer's on his ballot now!! Duke Farrell's a good sight better than Zimmer, so I might have some questions for John if Zimmer stays and Farrell doesn't appear . . .

Actually, I might have Farrell ahead of Bennett. Clement should be gone next "year."

Am I giving too much of a positional bonus for catchers? Are you giving too little a positional bonus for catchers? You got me. Hey, I'm working with what I'm comfortable with now.
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 13, 2003 at 06:11 AM (#516957)
BTW, considering he was ranking players from 1876, Bill James had Bennett, Farrell, Clement, Zimmer (and later McGuire) very close.
   12. Chris Cobb Posted: September 13, 2003 at 06:36 AM (#516958)
John, how much positional bonus are you giving to catchers, and what's your rationale for it?

For pre-1900 catchers, I increase their career WS by 30% and figure their seasonal peaks off of an average value of 14 WS rather than 23 WS, since it looks like starting catchers in this period, over the course of their careers, can catch an average of 60% of their team's games. By that measure, Bennett looks like a HoMer to me, Farrell looks maybe ballot-worthy, Clement and Zimmer look like very good players, but no more than that.

BTW, considering he was ranking players from 1876, Bill James had Bennett, Farrell, Clement, Zimmer (and later McGuire) very close.

Given that Bennett is the earliest of the lot, and thus doing more of his catching when catching defense is more important and more difficult, and that James is time-lining adjusting against him and is not adjusting for season length, the fact that Bennett is right in the middle of the group as James ranks them seems to me pretty good evidence that he was a superior player.

His career WS/162 is _significantly_ higher than that of the other catchers we're comparing him to:

Bennett 23.95
Clements 20.44
Zimmer 19.36
Farrell 18.37
McGuire 17.19
   13. Jeff M Posted: September 13, 2003 at 02:42 PM (#516959)
Duke Farrell's a good sight better than Zimmer, so I might have some questions for John if Zimmer stays and Farrell doesn't appear . . .

I'll take another look at Farrell, but Zimmer was nowhere near my ballot.

John, how much positional bonus are you giving to catchers, and what's your rationale for it?

You didn't really ask me, but I'll weigh in. I consistently keep track of my personal "mock election" -- that is, the players that would be in the HOM if everyone voted exactly like me. I try to be about 15 years ahead of the actual ballot so I can test this over a long period of time. I'm not trying for a perfect positional balance from year to year. I just want to look at chunks of time, like 20 years, to see if I'm off track.

Last I tested this, I was up to 42 electees for the testing period. That's 4 or 5 for each position (if you count outfielders as three positions). I've got a fairly balanced HOM from a positional representation point-of-view, except: I've got a couple extra pitchers, 1-2 extra shortstops, and I need to add at least one catcher. I'm actually a little short on outfielders and first basemen too, but I expect that to work itself out.

So, I gave Bennett whatever bonuses I could, in good conscience, give him so that he would be elected in my mock election sometime in that testing period. It worked out to an approximate 20% bonus. By so doing, he bumps a pitcher out of my mock HOM (Clark Griffith, at least temporarily), so my mock HOM looks fairly balanced with that adjustment. I then give similar bonuses to the other catchers under consideration during that period (Clements, McGuire, Zimmer, Bresnahan, Kling). Even with the bonuses, only Bresnahan will make my ballot. But that still balances out nicely. As catchers' duties become less important as the game evolves, the bonuses for catchers will be smaller.

What I expressly do not do is adjust my ballot based on who the voters have actually elected. So if in my current system I think Bennett ought to be elected in 1918 in the mock HOM, but he hasn't been elected in the real HOM, I will not give him an additional bonus to get him elected in the real HOM. To me, that's strategic voting. I've given him a sort of intrinsic value, rather than a market value that changes based on voting exigencies of the group.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 13, 2003 at 03:22 PM (#516960)
His career WS/162 is _significantly_ higher than that of the other catchers we're comparing him to:

Bennett 23.95
Clements 20.44
Zimmer 19.36
Farrell 18.37
McGuire 17.19


But Bennett's competition wasn't as good as the other guys (I know some of them played in the eighties). Thus, the difference in rates between those catchers is not that great when you factor that in.

There's a big difference having 23 WS per Game in the 80s than in the 90s.

John, how much positional bonus are you giving to catchers, and what's your rationale for it?

Until I get hard data, it's more of an eyeball approach. I compare what the player did compared to other players at the same position for their whole career. I acknowledge I may be off with my positional bonus. However, I'm convinced some type of bonus needs to be made.

The '90s had many terrific catchers, but I don't see any "of course they belong in the HoM, stupid" candidates (such as White and Ewing).

For pre-1900 catchers, I increase their career WS by 30% and figure their seasonal peaks off of an average value of 14 WS rather than 23 WS, since it looks like starting catchers in this period, over the course of their careers, can catch an average of 60% of their team's games

When you say career WS, are you using adjusted ones? If so, Bennett is going to be seriously overrated. He wouldn't have played the same percentage of scheduled games that he did during his peak if he had played during the nineties, IMO.

Try using adjusted WS with Deacon White. He played a high % of his scheduled games as a catcher compared to the nineties guys. It wasn't so hard when the schedule was short. White has projected seasons as if he would have played every game. Ain't gonna happen.
   15. Chris Cobb Posted: September 13, 2003 at 06:00 PM (#516961)
When you say career WS, are you using adjusted ones? If so, Bennett is going to be seriously overrated. He wouldn't have played the same percentage of scheduled games that he did during his peak if he had played during the nineties, IMO.

John, I disagree. If you look at the games played for other catchers from this period, you'll find a few peak seasons early in their careers in which they caught 80-100% of their team's games. After that peak, they trail off.

See McGuire, 94-98; Zimmer, 90-92; Bennett's 81-85 stretch is comparable, but a little bit better. Farrell needs graded adjustments because he played a lot of games at third base early in his career.

Clements and Robinson never show this kind of durability.

Try using adjusted WS with Deacon White. He played a high % of his scheduled games as a catcher compared to the nineties guys. It wasn't so hard when the schedule was short. White has projected seasons as if he would have played every game. Ain't gonna happen.

Sure it could have happened, for a few years. See Deacon McGuire! White and Ewing have a different career path from the other catchers because they shifted to other positions rather than continuing as catchers with reduced playing time.

A key factor for me in deciding that "short-season" catchers deserve the same durability bonus as longer-season ones is that "short season" doesn't mean they were playing many fewer games. They were playing fewer _league_ (or to use the contemporary phrase, "championship" games), but when they were not playing league games, they were playing other games against teams not in the league, and they didn't have a cadre of second-stringers to run out in those games. So the players had a full season of wear and tear, but only a part-season of statistics.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 13, 2003 at 07:04 PM (#516962)
Sure it could have happened, for a few years. See Deacon McGuire!

Chris, all of the catchers were playing vast amounts of their scheduled games in the seventies compared with later decades. You can't just give me an outlier such as McGuire to state your case. Figure out the percentage of games played for catchers and compare to see that I'm right about this.

Adjusted WS distorts the durability of those early catchers. Bennett is not affected to the same level, granted, but his stats are still affected by it.

A key factor for me in deciding that "short-season" catchers deserve the same durability bonus as longer-season ones is that "short season" doesn't mean they were playing many fewer games. They were playing fewer _league_ (or to use the contemporary phrase, "championship" games), but when they were not playing league games, they were playing other games against teams not in the league, and they didn't have a cadre of second-stringers to run out in those games. So the players had a full season of wear and tear, but only a part-season of statistics.

Since I compare each player to his contemporaries at the same position, I indirectly take all of that into account.

Farrell needs graded adjustments because he played a lot of games at third base early in his career

I take that into account.
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 13, 2003 at 07:48 PM (#516963)
Percentage of scheduled games played as catcher (1871-1880): 77%

Percentage of scheduled games played as catcher (1891-1900): 57%

Big difference.
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: September 14, 2003 at 05:19 AM (#516964)
Percentage of scheduled games played as catcher (1871-1880): 77%

Percentage of scheduled games played as catcher (1891-1900): 57%

Big difference.


Point conceded on the difference between the 1870s and 1890s.

Are those percentages you have given based on actual games or season-adjusted games?

The truly relevant decade for evaluating Bennett in relation to 1890s catchers is the 1880s, however, where things are changing rapidly, year to year. Percentages are certainly higher in the early 80s (peaking at 72% in 82), but there's a deep trough in 86-87 (46% and 47%), perhaps because pitchers are throwing harder and catching equipment is not yet available, because percentages start rising again after that despite the further lengthening of the playing season, peaking at 60% in 1890. For the decade, the overall percentage is 57%, same as for the 1890s. If one season adjusts first, thereby giving equal weight to all seasons, the percentage rises to 59%.

Given those numbers, I really don't think that I am significantly overrating Bennett by adjusting his career at the same rate I have used for adjusting the other catchers. I'm going to go through, however, and run adjustments for all of them, based on three-year averages centered on each year, and see if that makes any significant difference for any of them.
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 14, 2003 at 03:44 PM (#516965)
Given those numbers, I really don't think that I am significantly overrating Bennett by adjusting his career at the same rate I have used for adjusting the other catchers.

His peak looks much more impressive compared to the '90s guys, however. If a voter is more peak oriented, Bennett will be somewhat overrated.

I hope I'm not sounding like an EOCB, which I'm certainly not. He's been in my top ten for a long time. I just think Farrell might be a tad better, though I haven't decided for sure.

There was just so much change in the game for those few years that more analysis needs to be done.

Are those percentages you have given based on actual games or season-adjusted games?

Actual games.
   20. DanG Posted: September 19, 2003 at 03:46 AM (#516966)
I thought I'd give the new candidates list a different order this time, the top 40. The 1910 election is our 13th, so I'll list the leading candidates for the next 13 elections. The order was determined by combining Win Shares and WARP3 career ratings. It would be great if someone could take this list and reorder it according to highest peaks.

After 1923, the new candidates dip in quality for the next nine elections.

Top 40 New Candidates 1911-1923
WS W3 Eligible
655 175.3 1923 Honus Wagner-SS
634 164.3 1917 Cy Young-P
496 166.2 1922 Nap Lajoie-2b
398 126.7 1915 George Davis-SS/3b
394 126.8 1915 Bill Dahlen-SS
446 112.4 1923 Sam Crawford-RF
426 109.3 1922 Christy Mathewson-P
478 93.3 1911 Kid Nichols-P
400 105.1 1917 Fred Clarke-LF
345 110.0 1920 Bobby Wallace-SS

389 93.5 1911 Jesse Burkett-LF
361 93.2 1923 Ed Plank-P
333 96.3 1916 Willie Keeler-RF
339 86.0 1919 Jimmy Sheckard-LF
305 85.9 1914 Joe Kelley-LF
328 76.0 1921 Tommy Leach-CF/3b
291 82.8 1916 Elmer Flick-RF
318 75.8 1913 Jake Beckley-1b
290 81.0 1914 Fielder Jones-CF
274 83.0 1914 Jimmy Collins-3b

278 80.9 1913 Lave Cross-3b
260 80.5 1917 Roy Thomas-CF
258 79.2 1921 Joe Tinker-SS
268 75.1 1923 Johnny Evers-2b
265 68.9 1920 Ed Walsh-P
287 60.6 1918 Jack Powell-P
249 69.6 1917 Fred Tenney-1b
273 62.6 1912 Clark Griffith-P
240 67.8 1916 Rube Waddell-P
294 53.9 1913 Kid Gleason-2b/P

296 52.1 1922 Mordecai Brown-P
272 57.7 1916 Cy Seymour-CF
215 71.0 1912 Kip Selbach-LF
293 49.9 1916 Vic Willis-P
269 52.6 1914 Joe McGinnity-P
222 64.2 1922 Miller Huggins-2b
207 67.5 1915 Jimmy Williams-2b
215 60.8 1920 Danny Murphy-2b/RF
243 53.5 1915 Al Orth-P
231 56.5 1921 Roger Bresnahan-C

   21. DanG Posted: September 25, 2003 at 04:18 PM (#516967)
Just to recap who's new for 1911. RobC generated this list:

1911:
JESSE BURKETT,1905
BOILERYARD CLARKE,1905
DUFF COOLEY,1905
DANNY GREEN,1905
DUCKY HOLMES,1905
CANDY LACHANCE,1905
DICK PADDEN,1905
JOE SUGDEN,1905,1912 -> 1
HARRY WOLVERTON,1905,1912 -> 34
KID NICHOLS,1905,1906 -> 4

I condensed it to these candidates:
***1911 (October 12)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

478 93.3 1890 Kid Nichols-P (1953)
389 93.5 1890 Jesse Burkett-LF (1953)
144 38.0 1898 Danny Green-RF (1914)
144 30.6 1893 Duff Cooley-LF (1937)
111 21.3 1894 Candy LaChance-1b (1932)
(Negro). Billy Holland-P
(Negro). George Wilson

The negro leaguers were picked up off another thread here. I was unable to come up with any data or justification for them.

   22. Carl Goetz Posted: September 25, 2003 at 05:51 PM (#516968)
I would condense it to just Kid Nichols and Jesse Burkett.
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 25, 2003 at 06:06 PM (#516969)
(Negro). Billy Holland-P
(Negro). George Wilson


Good players, but nothing great. To my mind, Stovey, Fowler and certainly Grant were better.

I would condense it to just Kid Nichols and Jesse Burkett.

Yup.

   24. DanG Posted: October 06, 2003 at 06:04 PM (#516970)
Long before the HoM began elections, I've warned of the "candidate gap" we will deal with 1924-32. There is not one slam-dunk new candidate coming on the ballot in those nine years. Just eyeballing it, of the 17 we elect in those years, about 13 or 14 will come from the backlog. In a previous post I showed the top 40 newbies over 13 years from 1911-23. (There are also good Negro league candidates coming on in that span: Rube Foster, Grant Johnson, Bill Monroe, Sol White and Clarence Williams.) In the next nine years, there are only 16 new candidates who meet the minimum standards of that list, with no viable Negro leaguers that I know of. Again, it would be helpful if someone did a peak analysis of these candidates.

Top 16 New Candidates 1924-32
WS W3 Eligible
321 100.6 1931 Harry Hooper-RF
354 77.1 1925 Sherry Magee-LF
301 77.7 1928 Frank Baker-3b
294 75.8 1926 Joe Jackson-LF/RF
265 82.0 1931 Bobby Veach-LF
287 66.5 1927 Ed Konetchy-1b
242 75.1 1930 Del Pratt-2b
290 62.5 1931 George J. Burns-LF
289 59.2 1926 Larry Doyle-2b
232 73.1 1929 Donie Bush-SS
258 65.2 1930 Larry Gardner-3b
218 72.7 1928 Art Fletcher-SS
266 59.5 1928 Clyde Milan-CF
247 62.4 1926 Eddie Cicotte-P
266 50.8 1932 Wilbur Cooper-P
263 50.4 1930 Jake Daubert-1b
   25. Chris Cobb Posted: October 06, 2003 at 06:24 PM (#516971)
What's the cause of this "candidate gap"?

--The "lively ball" extending the careers of hitters and curtailing those of pitchers, 1919-1927?
--Gambling expulsions cutting off promising careers?
--Random variations in the number of truly outstanding players?
   26. Chris Cobb Posted: October 06, 2003 at 06:29 PM (#516972)
What's the cause of this "candidate gap"?

--The "lively ball" extending the careers of hitters and curtailing those of pitchers, 1919-1927?
--Gambling expulsions cutting off promising careers?
--Random variations in the number of truly outstanding players?
   27. DanG Posted: October 06, 2003 at 06:33 PM (#516973)
Another important factor is WW-I. The interruption in development probably curtailed a number of potentially great careers. We will also need a good list of just how much time candidates lost to military service.
   28. Marc Posted: October 06, 2003 at 07:41 PM (#516974)
I once made a list of all 1000 G ML SSs, and found that generally you would get about 1 new SS of that caliber per year beginning around 1890 (fewer than that earlier and more than that more recently to be sure; but through 3/4 of a century of MLB, about 1 new 1000 G SS becoming a regular per year). From 1916 through 1927 there were only four:

Wally Gerber
Joe Sewell
Travis Jackson
Glenn Wright

Two gloves, one bat, and one guy who did both reasonably well and made the HoF.

Then from 1928-33 there were 10. I think what happened was you had more new SSs from 1916-27 than usual because of Chapman, Buck Weaver, Chick Galloway, but that by 1927 or so, managers wanted more offense out of every position, so some of the new SSs of '16-'27 ended up with unusual short positions because the model had changed. So then you got these guys from '28-'33:

Joe Cronin
Dick Bartell
Leo Durocher
Lyn Lary
Billy Jurges
Billy Rogell
Arky Vaughan
Luke Appling
Frankie Crosetti

Not all of them big bats (maybe 3?), obviously, some famously weak bats, in fact--there was some "normal" turnover. But you did get a couple of guys who might be called new prototypes in Cronin and Vaughan, guys whose descendants include Vern Stephens, Ernie Banks, Ripken and ARod and who have no real predecessors, Honus Wagner being one of a kind. Then there was not a single new SS from 1934 to '39 who went on to play 1000 games. The result of that, though, was mass turnover in 1940-41-42:

Lou Boudreau
Marty Marion
Eddie Miller
Eddie Joost
Pee Wee Reese
Phil Rizzuto
Johnny Pesky
Vern Stephens

Then of course nobody else the rest of the decade except Buddy Kerr and Al Dark. I don't believe any of these fluctuations to be totally "random," but the dearth of the later '30s is mystifying. The others seem explainable.

   29. DanG Posted: October 06, 2003 at 09:02 PM (#516976)
Babe Adams is 19th (243 WS, 47.1 W3).
Joe Wood is 26th (193 WS, 47.2 W3).
Gavvy Cravath is 29th (202 WS, 42.2 W3).
Rube Marquard is 32nd (208 WS, 34.1 W3).

Again these are essentially measures of career value. A consideration of peak value probably raises their standing somewhat.

   30. DanG Posted: October 09, 2003 at 05:34 PM (#516977)
Just to recap who's new for 1912. RobC generated this list:

1912:
COZY DOLAN,1906
BUCK FREEMAN,1906,1907 -> 4
MIKE GRADY,1906
MALACHI KITTRIDGE,1906
DEACON MCGUIRE,1906,1907 -> 7,1908 -> 2,1910 -> 1,1912 -> 1
SAM MERTES,1906
HEINIE PEITZ,1906,1913 -> 3
KIP SELBACH,1906
CHICK STAHL,1906
RED DONAHUE,1906
CLARK GRIFFITH,1906,1907 -> 4,1909 -> 1,1912 -> 1,1913 -> 1,1914 -> 1
NOODLES HAHN,1906
WILLIE SUDHOFF,1906
BOB WICKER,1906

I condensed it to these candidates:

***1912 (October 26)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
273 62.6 1891 Clark Griffith-P (1955)
215 71.0 1894 Kip Selbach-LF (1956)
211 57.0 1897 Chick Stahl-CF (1907)
189 44.4 1884 Deacon McGuire-C (1936)
161 46.5 1899 Noodles Hahn-P (1960)
180 34.4 1896 Sam Mertes-LF (1945)
160 31.6 1898 Buck Freeman-RF (1949)
124 36.3 1893 Heinie Peitz-C (1943)
165 23.3 1896 Red Donahue-P (1913)
120 23.5 1894 Mike Grady-C (1943)
074 21.9 1890 Malachi Kittridge-C (1928)

When I do these, I look for players with at least 100 win shares and 20 WARP3. I go a bit lower for catchers and victims of sudden death.

   31. Marc Posted: October 09, 2003 at 06:27 PM (#516978)
Off the top, I am going to say that along with Cal Griffith's adopted dad, Buck Freeman and Sam Mertes had the highest peaks among these players. I will try (I know, for all you Jedi nuts out there, "is no try, only do and not do") to provide some peak info, Dan and all.
   32. MattB Posted: October 09, 2003 at 08:42 PM (#516979)
Not to get ahead of ourselves, but having already voted . . .Clark Griffith doesn't impress me at all. A direct comparison to Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick put Griffith a fairly solid third.
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 09, 2003 at 09:30 PM (#516980)
,i> Not to get ahead of ourselves, but having already voted . . .Clark Griffith doesn't impress me at all. A direct comparison to Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick put Griffith a fairly solid third.</i>

I don't know. I have Griffith a little higher than Welch and McCormick, but Griffith was playing under different conditions than the latter two, so you might be right. At any rate, all three fall short, IMO.
   34. KJOK Posted: October 13, 2003 at 07:30 PM (#516981)
I don't have exact eligibility dates, but I believe Spotwood Poles, Joe Mendez and Dave Brown all fall in the "Candidate Gap" time period, although I guess none of them are "slam dunk" candidates...
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 13, 2003 at 07:45 PM (#516982)
KJOK:

Poles will be eligible in '29. Mendez in '32 and Brown in '31.
   36. Marc Posted: October 13, 2003 at 08:00 PM (#516983)
Maybe somebody already mentioned this, but the first Negro Leaguers who were rated highly on the Negro League thread who become eligible are both 2Bs like Grant: Bill Monroe (eligible 1920) and HR Johnson (eligible 1922). Poles probably rates more highly than either.
   37. MattB Posted: October 15, 2003 at 02:35 PM (#516984)
Just received a new reference source that clearly indicates that Sol White's playing career ended on July 4, 1911 when the New York Lincoln Giants disbanded mid-season. That should make him eligible for the 1917 ballot, unless there is any conflicting information out there.

Not sure where on the ballot he will go, but he does have many positive points in his favor that I will post closer to the date of the 1917 ballot.
   38. Marc Posted: October 23, 2003 at 02:52 AM (#516986)
Clint, I come up with 62.33 for Hughie Jennings, same as Rube Waddell but (shockingly) just behind Jesse Burkett.

I have been adding up the raw numbers rather than the averages to get a similar peak rating. Following are some of those numbers (top 10 only):

1923 Honus Wagner-SS (97.40) 387
1911 Kid Nichols-P (86.60) 343
1917 Cy Young-P (82.33) 327
1922 Nap Lajoie-2b (77.53) 301
1920 Ed Walsh-P (76.73) 301
1914 Joe McGinnity-P (71.40) 279
1922 Christy Mathewson-P (70.53) 276
1922 Mordecai Brown-P (67.60) 268
1923 Sam Crawford-RF (66.47) 263
1916 Elmer Flick-RF (63.73) 252

I wasn't sure if the results would be the same since my method emphasizes the 5 year peak more and the 3 less than Clint's method (I think). And it's too soon to say there won't be some differences down the list. But this is a good method both intuitively and in terms of the results.

   39. RobC Posted: October 27, 2003 at 02:11 PM (#516988)
Here is 1913-1916

1913:
JIMMY BARRETT,1907,1908 -> 3
JAKE BECKLEY,1907
DOC CASEY,1907
TOMMY CORCORAN,1907
LAVE CROSS,1907
MONTE CROSS,1907
KID GLEASON,1907,1908 -> 2,1912 -> 1
BOBBY LOWE,1907
JACK MCCARTHY,1907
JACK O'CONNOR,1907,1910 -> 1
BILL BERNHARD,1907
BILL DUGGLEBY,1907
FRANK KITSON,1907
TOGIE PITTINGER,1907
JACK TAYLOR,1907

1914:
JOHN ANDERSON,1908
SHAD BARRY,1908
JIMMY COLLINS,1908
BILL COUGHLIN,1908
CHARLIE HICKMAN,1908
FIELDER JONES,1908,1914 -> 5,1915 -> 7
JOE KELLEY,1908
ED MCFARLAND,1908
DAN MCGANN,1908
OLLIE PICKERING,1908
OSSEE SCHRECKENGOST,1908
SOCKS SEYBOLD,1908
JIMMY SLAGLE,1908
SAMMY STRANG,1908
JOHN WARNER,1908
PATSY FLAHERTY,1908,1910 -> 1,1911 -> 4
CHICK FRASER,1908,1909 -> 1
JOE MCGINNITY,1908
AL ORTH,1908,1909 -> 1
CASE PATTEN,1908
ED SIEVER,1908
JESSE TANNEHILL,1908,1909 -> 3,1911 -> 1
DUMMY TAYLOR,1908
GEORGE WINTER,1908

1915:
FRANK BOWERMAN,1909
BILL DAHLEN,1909,1910 -> 3,1911 -> 1
GEORGE DAVIS,1909
JIGGS DONAHUE,1909
HOBE FERRIS,1909
BILLY GILBERT,1909
FRANK ISBELL,1909
CLAUDE RITCHEY,1909
JIMMY WILLIAMS,1909
NICK ALTROCK,1909,1912 -> 1,1913 -> 4,1914 -> 1,1915 -> 1,1918->5, 1919 -> 1,1924 -> 1
JACK CHESBRO,1909
BILL DINNEEN,1909
HARRY HOWELL,1909,1910 -> 1
BOB RHOADS,1909
TULLY SPARKS,1909,1910 -> 3

1916:
ED ABBATICCHIO,1910
GINGER BEAUMONT,1910
GEORGE BROWNE,1910,1911 -> 8,1912 -> 6
LOU CRIGER,1910,1912 -> 1
ELMER FLICK,1910
TOM JONES,1910
WILLIE KEELER,1910
FREDDY PARENT,1910,1911 -> 3
CY SEYMOUR,1910,1913 -> 39
GEORGE STONE,1910
BOB EWING,1910,1911 -> 4,1912 -> 1
ADDIE JOSS,1910
ED KILLIAN,1910
SAM LEEVER,1910
ORVAL OVERALL,1910,1913 -> 11
DEACON PHILLIPPE,1910,1911 -> 3
RUBE WADDELL,1910
VIC WILLIS,1910

   40. RobC Posted: October 27, 2003 at 02:16 PM (#516989)
1917-1920:

1917:
BILL BERGEN,1911
KITTY BRANSFIELD,1911
FRANK CHANCE,1911,1912 -> 2,1913 -> 12,1914 -> 1
FRED CLARKE,1911,1913 -> 9,1914 -> 2,1915 -> 1
WID CONROY,1911
HARRY DAVIS,1911,1912 -> 2,1913 -> 7,1914 -> 5,1915 -> 5,1916 -> 1,1917 -> 1
PATSY DOUGHERTY,1911
KID ELBERFELD,1911,1914 -> 30
DOC GESSLER,1911
TOPSY HARTSEL,1911
CHARLIE HEMPHILL,1911
DANNY HOFFMAN,1911
HARRY STEINFELDT,1911
LEE TANNEHILL,1911,1912 -> 4
FRED TENNEY,1911
ROY THOMAS,1911
BILL DONOVAN,1911,1912 -> 3,1915 -> 9,1916 -> 1,1918 -> 2
HARRY MCINTIRE,1911,1912 -> 4,1913 -> 1
CY YOUNG,1911
IRV YOUNG,1911

1918:
NIXEY CALLAHAN,1912,1913 -> 6
MIKE DONLIN,1912,1914 -> 35
MATTY MCINTYRE,1912
PAT MORAN,1912,1913 -> 1,1914 -> 1
JAKE STAHL,1912,1913 -> 2
BILLY SULLIVAN,1912,1914 -> 1,1916 -> 1
BUSTER BROWN,1912,1913 -> 2
CY MORGAN,1912,1913 -> 1
BARNEY PELTY,1912
JACK POWELL,1912

1919:
ART DEVLIN,1913
JOHNNY KLING,1913
JOHN KNIGHT,1913
CHARLEY O'LEARY,1913,1934 -> 1
JIMMY SHECKARD,1913
JOHN TITUS,1913
TOM HUGHES,1913
JOE LAKE,1913
LEFTY LEIFIELD,1913,1918 -> 15,1919 -> 19,1920 -> 4
LEW RICHIE,1913
DOC WHITE,1913

1920:
JOHNNY BATES,1914
JOE BIRMINGHAM,1914
MIKE MITCHELL,1914
DANNY MURPHY,1914,1915 -> 5
BILL SWEENEY,1914
BOBBY WALLACE,1914,1915 -> 9,1916 -> 14,1917 -> 8,1918 -> 32
HOWIE CAMNITZ,1914,1915 -> 4
ART FROMME,1914,1915 -> 4
EARL MOORE,1914
CHARLIE SMITH,1914
ED WALSH,1914,1915 -> 3,1916 -> 2,1917 -> 4

   41. DanG Posted: October 29, 2003 at 04:21 PM (#516991)
I appreciate RobC giving us the lists from his database queries. It helps me to check and tweak the lists I compile. I found four differences between us:
Al Orth - As we found in the past, the database searches only the pitching stats for pitchers. Because Orth was such a good hitter (92 OPS+) he played 73 games in the field during his career. In 1909 he played 22 games overall, so he is elgible in 1915.
Jesse Tannehill - Same as Orth, Tannehill had an OPS+ of 89 and played 87 games in the OF in his career. In 1909 he played 16 games overall, so he is eligible in 1915.
Bill Bradley - Borderline as to when he is eligible. Retired in 1910, he resurfaced in the Federal League, playing sparingly in 1914 (7 G) and semi-regular in 1915 (66 G). I think he should be eligible in 1916 (rather than 1921), because his post-career play was in a "minor" league where he was awful (40 OPS+ in 1915). Plus he is nearly age 38 for the 1916 vote.
Lefty Leifield - Similar to Bradley, but I think he should wait until 1925 (rather than 1919) to be eligible. He retired after pitching 6 games in 1913, then came back in the player shortage of 1918 and pitched very well (107 ERA+, 15 GP, 67 IP). He was still only age 35 that year. In 1919 he pitched even better, before petering out in 1920.
I also have some doubts about the eligibility dates I have for the Negro leaguers. Someone should try to verify those.

***1914 (November 23)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
305 85.9 1892 Joe Kelley-LF (1943)
290 81.0 1896 Fielder Jones-CF (1934)
274 83.0 1895 Jimmy Collins-3b (1943)
269 52.6 1899 Joe McGinnity-P (1929)
209 47.9 1895 John Anderson-LF/1b (1949)
183 43.1 1896 Dan McGann-1b (1910)
149 41.9 1901 Socks Seybold-RF (1921)
177 32.6 1899 Jimmy Slagle-CF (1956)
155 30.2 1899 Charlie Hickman-1b (1934)
126 22.4 1900 Sammy Strang-3b/2b (1932)
164 14.9 1896 Chick Fraser-P (1940)
119 22.8 1903 Jake Weimer-P (1928)
098 25.1 1899 Ossee Schreckengost-C (1914)
***1915 (December 7)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
398 126.7 1890 George Davis-SS/3b (1940)
394 126.8 1891 Bill Dahlen-SS (1950)
207 67.5 1899 Jimmy Williams-2b (1965)
243 53.5 1895 Al Orth-P (1948)
205 57.0 1897 Claude Ritchey-2b (1951)
233 50.8 1897 Jesse Tannehill-P (1956)
209 43.4 1899 Jack Chesbro-P (1931)
200 43.1 1898 Bill Dinneen-P (1955)
172 34.3 1899 Harry Howell-P (1956)
113 35.1 1901 Hobe Ferris-2b (1938)
131 17.3 1899 Tully Sparks-P (1937)
***1916 (December 21)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
333 96.3 1893 Willie Keeler-RF (1923)
291 82.8 1898 Elmer Flick-RF (1971)
272 57.7 1896 Cy Seymour-CF (1919)
240 67.8 1899 Rube Waddell-P (1914)
293 49.9 1898 Vic Willis-P (1947)
229 49.2 1899 Ginger Beaumont-CF (1956)
191 55.0 1899 Bill Bradley-3b (1954)
191 48.2 1902 Addie Joss-P (1911)
212 40.0 1899 Sam Leever-P (1953)
168 51.0 1901 Freddy Parent-SS (1972)
206 32.4 1899 Deacon Phillippe-P (1952)
146 39.3 1905 George Stone-LF (1945)
148 25.2 1902 Bob Ewing-P (1947)
126 22.5 1905 Orval Overall-P (1947)
***1917 (January 4)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
634 164.3 1890 Cy Young-P (1955)
400 105.1 1894 Fred Clarke-LF (1960)
260 80.5 1899 Roy Thomas-CF (1959)
249 69.6 1894 Fred Tenney-1b (1952)
223 51.1 1899 Topsy Hartsel-LF (1944)
238 46.7 1896 Harry Davis-1b (1947)
237 46.0 1898 Frank Chance-1b (1924)
208 46.6 1898 Harry Steinfeldt-3b (1914)
184 49.9 1899 Kid Elberfeld-SS (1944)
202 43.1 1898 Bill Donovan-P (1923)
153 38.3 1901 Wid Conroy-3b (1959)
187 23.4 1902 Patsy Dougherty-LF (1940)
146 27.7 1899 Charlie Hemphill-CF (1953)
120 10.4 1901 Kitty Bransfield-1b (1947)
***1918 (January 18)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
287 60.6 1897 Jack Powell-P (1944)
174 33.3 1899 Mike Donlin-CF (1933)
148 44.5 1901 Matty McIntyre-LF (1920)
185 30.5 1897 Nixey Callahan-P/LF (1934)
127 20.5 1903 Jake Stahl-1b (1922)
(Negro). 1887 Sol White-2b/3b (1955)
(Negro). 1890 Clarence Williams-C
***1919 (February 1)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
339 86.0 1898 Jimmy Sheckard-LF (1947)
235 50.8 1901 Doc White-P (1969)
198 50.7 1904 Art Devlin-3b (1948)
201 46.4 1903 John Titus-RF (1943)
155 41.7 1901 Johnny Kling-C (1947)
***1920 (February 15)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
345 110.0 1895 Bobby Wallace-SS
265 68.9 1904 Ed Walsh-P (1959)
215 60.8 1901 Danny Murphy-2b/RF (1955)
169 29.7 1901 Earl Moore-P (1961)
145 37.3 1907 Mike Mitchell-RF (1961)
147 30.1 1906 Johnny Bates-CF (1949)
133 14.7 1907 Howie Camnitz-P (1960)
(Negro). 1896 Bill Monroe-2b (1915)

   42. RobC Posted: October 29, 2003 at 04:38 PM (#516992)
Dan,

Thanks for the corrections. Based on arguments of past players, I dont think Orth and Tannehill should move. 22 and 16 games in the field have generally been considered token, especially since they are both primarily pitchers.

I think you are correct on Bradley and Leifield.
   43. Marc Posted: October 29, 2003 at 05:52 PM (#516993)
I agree with Rob. 22 and 16 games in the OF will have nothing to do with the evaluation of Orth and Tannehill, much less even than Bradley's play in 1915 since at least that was at his primary position.
   44. DanG Posted: October 29, 2003 at 06:00 PM (#516994)
For Orth and Tannehill I was going by the precedent set with Bob Caruthers, where his play in the field delayed his eligiblity by a year. OTOH, neither man actually play ten games "in the field"; most of their appearances were as pinch hitters. Looking at it, Caruthers did play more than ten games in the field in his "extra" year. And he was still young when he hit the ballot in 1899 (age 35). Orth and Tannehill are 41 and 39, respectively for the 1914 balloting. Indeed, it would be good to put them up against McGinnity in 1914.

Yeah, let's do that. If there are no objections, here the newly eligible in 1914:
***1914 (November 23)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
305 85.9 1892 Joe Kelley-LF (1943)
290 81.0 1896 Fielder Jones-CF (1934)
274 83.0 1895 Jimmy Collins-3b (1943)
269 52.6 1899 Joe McGinnity-P (1929)
243 53.5 1895 Al Orth-P (1948)
233 50.8 1897 Jesse Tannehill-P (1956)
209 47.9 1895 John Anderson-LF/1b (1949)
183 43.1 1896 Dan McGann-1b (1910)
149 41.9 1901 Socks Seybold-RF (1921)
177 32.6 1899 Jimmy Slagle-CF (1956)
155 30.2 1899 Charlie Hickman-1b (1934)
126 22.4 1900 Sammy Strang-3b/2b (1932)
164 14.9 1896 Chick Fraser-P (1940)
119 22.8 1903 Jake Weimer-P (1928)
098 25.1 1899 Ossee Schreckengost-C (1914)
   45. DanG Posted: October 29, 2003 at 09:00 PM (#516995)
The short-career pitcher glut 1914-1916. Any HoMers here?:

WS W3 Eligible
240 67.8 1916 Rube Waddell-P
293 49.9 1916 Vic Willis-P
269 52.6 1914 Joe McGinnity-P
243 53.5 1914 Al Orth-P
233 50.8 1914 Jesse Tannehill-P
191 48.2 1916 Addie Joss-P
209 43.4 1915 Jack Chesbro-P
200 43.1 1915 Bill Dinneen-P
212 40.0 1916 Sam Leever-P
206 32.4 1916 Deacon Phillippe-P
To these we'll add:
202 43.1 1917 Bill Donovan-P
287 60.6 1918 Jack Powell-P
235 50.8 1919 Doc White-P
265 68.9 1920 Ed Walsh-P
255 44.2 1921 George Mullin-P
   46. MattB Posted: October 30, 2003 at 04:57 PM (#516996)
At first eyeball, McGinnity looks like the cream. When you look at his black ink/grey ink, he was absolutely dominant every year from 1899 to 1904, but the actual numbers are probably depressed by about 1/5. He doesn't get any "ink credit" for 1902 due to a mid-season inter-league trade that split his stats in half.

Best pitcher in league every year for five years straight looks like a tough standard to beat.
   47. DanG Posted: October 30, 2003 at 05:04 PM (#516997)
As a study aide for the pitchers, I put together a list for the first quarter century of the 60?6? pitching distance. Each of these 26 also topped 2700 IP. ERA+ is for their entire career; most of these pitchers had their entire career in the time frame.
315+ Games Started 1893-1917

GS CG% ERA+
704 91.2 138 Cy Young
551 78.8 135 Christy Mathewson
529 77.5 122 Eddie Plank
516 81.8 106 Jack Powell
471 82.4 118 Vic Willis
428 82.5 101 George Mullin
415 94.0 139 Kid Nichols
394 82.2 100 Al Orth
388 88.1 092 Chick Fraser
381 82.4 121 Joe McGinnity

381 87.1 146 Walter Johnson
363 72.2 112 Doc White
352 86.9 107 Bill Dinneen
351 91.7 121 Clark Griffith
341 91.8 096 Red Donahue
340 76.8 134 Rube Waddell
336 56.5 108 Red Ames
334 76.9 112 Chief Bender
332 81.6 138 Mordecai Brown
332 78.3 110 Jack Chesbro

332 82.8 102 Brickyard Kennedy
326 88.7 106 Bill Donovan
326 70.6 111 Earl Moore
324 86.1 107 Pink Hawley
319 82.4 114 Jesse Tannehill
315 79.4 145 Ed Walsh
Others
300 66.7 123 Ed Reulbach
299 80.6 123 Sam Leever
286 97.2 115 Jack W. Taylor
272 68.4 119 Nap Rucker
260 90.0 142 Addie Joss
231 91.8 132 Noodles Hahn
   48. RobC Posted: October 31, 2003 at 07:45 PM (#516999)
Ive been putting together some numbers for future eligibles. Can anybody tell me why I have never heard of Jimmy Sheckard until now?
   49. Marc Posted: October 31, 2003 at 08:10 PM (#517000)
I doubt if there has been a 339 WS player who has been as forgotten to baseball history as Jimmy Sheckard. I think he is a fine candidate.

Except perhaps Sherry Magee, all 354 WS of him. And wouldn't you know, in keeping with his undeserved obscurity, that when Clint did his list of the best peaks, he went through 1923. Magee becomes eligible in '24.

Another guy who lacks the career weight of these guys but who had a monster peak during this period was Larry Doyle.
   50. DanG Posted: October 31, 2003 at 08:27 PM (#517001)
Marc:

Magee and Doyle are among the leading "Gap" candidates in #26 above. Maybe you or Clint could do a peak study of that list.

Sheckard shows as the equal of hall of famers Willie Keeler and Joe Kelley. He's 14th on the career list for 1911-23 candidates (#22) and 18th on Clint's peak list (#41). He's overlooked because he just missed out on the big offense years 1893-97 and because left fielders don't turn many double plays and become immortalized because of it.
   51. Paul Wendt Posted: November 04, 2003 at 05:54 AM (#517002)
Regarding 1924-1932. That's interesting.

Note that 1918 did not keep 40-something stars on the field (Wagner, Plank) or bring them out of retirement (Lajoie).

Lajoie (younger than Wagner, Clarke, J.Collins) was born in 1874; Cobb (older than E.Collins, Speaker, Johnson) was born in 1886.

If Cobb, et al, had each played "only 20 seasons", the gap would still be 1924-1929. Those years intrigue me more than 1930-32. The number of MLB players jumped in 1901; I suppose that both turnover and opportunity were high during that and following seasons. But no career superstar, even Sam Crawford's magnitude, arrived on the scene before Cobb (30 Aug 1905). Is that right?
   52. DanG Posted: November 04, 2003 at 02:29 PM (#517003)
Paul wrote: But no career superstar, even Sam Crawford's magnitude, arrived on the scene before Cobb (30 Aug 1905). Is that right?
Presuming we're talking of the period from July 1900 when Mathewson debuted to August 1905, the biggest star to debut in the five year span was probably pitcher (pick one) Walsh, Brown or Plank. Probably all were no better than Crawford.

Surely, World War I had the effect to cut short some careers. Do you know of a compilation available anywhere that estimates lost playing time?

   53. Paul Wendt Posted: November 04, 2003 at 06:51 PM (#517004)
Ah, I was overlooking all the pitchers. Actually, the relevant cohort is probably defined by birthday: people born in the early 1880s (narrow view), or in the late 1870s and the 1880s (broad view).

I don't know any compilation of playing time lost, or quality seasons lost. The direct impact was nearly limited to 1918. Neft & Cohen includes notations "MS" and "WW" for military service war work. I count only three players so marked in 1917: Lou Guisto (Cle, 73g, age 22), Hank Gowdy (BosN, 49g, age 27), Duster Mails (Bro, 0g, age 21). And only 12 players so marked in 1919, including Gowdy again (78g). Eppa Rixey is the most famous (PhiN, 18gs, age 28); indeed, I recognize only a few of the 1919 names. Maybe Rixey and Faber each lost two years of quality pitching, 1918-1919, but neither one retired any time soon.
   54. Marc Posted: November 06, 2003 at 06:46 AM (#517005)
Here's that peak analysis you've all been waiting for...position players coming eligible 1924-1932.

adjWARP1 3 consecutive years
Fletcher 39.0
Jackson 38.4
Baker 36.8
Veach 33.7
Bush 31.7
Konetchy 31.6
Magee 31.0
Burns 30.4

adjWS 3 consecutive seasons
Jackson and Baker 115
Magee 100
Burns 97
Veach 91
Hooper 84
Doyle 83
Konetchy 80

adjWARP1 any 5 years (not nec. consecutive)
Fletcher 59.8
Jackson 58.7
Baker 57.3
Veach 56.0
Bush 51.9
Magee 50.8

adjWS any 5 years (not nec. consecutive)
Jackson 187
Magee 182
Baker 178
Veach 152
Doyle 147
Burns 144

If you prefer one measure or another you already know how you would rank them. If you average the various rankings, all with equal weight, however, you end up with this.

1. Jackson--tops or very close on all measures
2. Baker--top 3 on all measures
3. Fletcher--adjWARP1 (adjusted for season length but not for difficulty) shockingly prefers his peak to Jackson's; Art clearly deserves a very loooong look as a dark horse HoMer
4. Veach--in the mix on all the measures
5. Magee--rates highly on WS but not on WARP, I'm surprised he's behind Veach overall
6. Bush--WARP likes Donie a lot

They also ran: Burns, Doyle, Hooper, Konetchy
Virtual non-starters: Pratt, Gardner, Daubert

Prime Cuts

Longest Prime by my judgement
Hooper 15 years
Daubert 13
Gardner 12
Magee, Burns, Pratt 11
Fletcher 10

Total WARP for Prime
Hooper 116
Fletcher 100
Magee 93
Baker (9 years) 92
Veach (9 years) 92

Total WS for Prime
Hooper 321
Magee 300
Burns 296
Jackson (9 years) 292
Baker 273

WARP/Prime Season
Baker and Veach 10.2
Fletcher 10.0
Jackson 9.7
Bush (9 years) 9.1
Konetchy (9 years) 8.6

WS/Prime Season
Jackson 33
Baker 30
Magee and Burns 27
Veach 26
Doyle (9 years) 25

Again, if you prefer one measure or another, and if you prefer career or rate measures, you already know who you like. If you aggregate all the prime numbers, weighted equally, you get something like this.

1. Baker--played at such a high level that even with a short (9 year) prime he still accumulated high totals for the prime period as a whole, plus (obviously) the high rates
2. Jackson--had more years below his peak level than you might think, just an eyelash behind Baker, however
3. Hooper--all for longevity, didn't play at a high rate
4. Fletcher--see Baker
5. Magee--11 years at a fairly high average or rate
6. Veach--9 years at an even higher level

They also ran: Pratt, Gardner, Daubert had long primes at a low level
Not strong: Doyle, Konetchy, Bush had neither a long prime nor a high rate though WS kind of likes Doyle and WARP kind of likes Donie
   55. MattB Posted: November 06, 2003 at 02:18 PM (#517006)
"3. Fletcher--adjWARP1 (adjusted for season length but not for difficulty) shockingly prefers his peak to Jackson's; Art clearly deserves a very loooong look as a dark horse HoMer"

I don't know. I try not to look ahead, but I'd be surprised if anyone got to HBP themselves into the HoM.
   56. OCF Posted: November 06, 2003 at 03:44 PM (#517007)
but I'd be surprised if anyone got to HBP themselves into the HoM.

On the HBP front, Fletcher is a piker compared to Hughie Jennings. Not that we look particularly likely to elect Jennings.
   57. OCF Posted: November 06, 2003 at 03:49 PM (#517008)
but I'd be surprised if anyone got to HBP themselves into the HoM.

On the HBP front, Fletcher is a piker compared to Hughie Jennings. Not that we look particularly likely to elect Jennings.
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 06, 2003 at 04:17 PM (#517009)
Does anyone know why Fielder Jones ended his career in 1908 (I'm not including the few games he played for the Federal League)? I have him as the best major league centerfielder for that year so it wasn't that he couldn't play anymore. If he had played a few more years, he might have made the HoF.
   59. Howie Menckel Posted: November 06, 2003 at 04:35 PM (#517010)
re player-manager Fielder Jones..

"He quit the White Sox after a controversy. He lost the final game of the 1908 season and the pennant when he started a weary Doc White in place of a rested Frank Smith. Personal motives may have been involved: Jones and Smith despised each other. Coaxed back to baseball by a fat Federal League contract in 1914, he guided a last-place St. Louis team to within a percentage point of the pennant the next year. Named manager of the Browns, he had three also-ran finishes with them."

So I guess he got canned as both manager AND player in 1908. A little weird that no one picked him up.
   60. Chris Cobb Posted: November 06, 2003 at 04:40 PM (#517011)
Does anyone know why Fielder Jones ended his career in 1908 (I'm not including the few games he played for the Federal League)?

I have wondered the same thing. The bio on baseballlibrary.com and other bits I have read suggest that he quit the game, perhaps in disgust, after losing the 1908 pennant on the final day of the season. He was managing the White Sox then with a good deal of success (having led the famous Hitless Wonders to the world championship in 1906), and there was controversy over his choice of starting pitcher for the final, decisive game (does that sound familiar?). He had been feuding with Charlie Comiskey over salary for years (there's a theme that will become familiar!) and was an active proponent of a players' union (hence his return for the Federal League), so he had a lot of reasons to decide to get out, I guess. There's surely more to this story, but that's what I've learned, so far.

With a few more years, he might well have made the HoF. He may yet make the HoM, though I don't think that will be clear for another twenty years.

The best thing about Fielder Jones, though, is that Fielder was his given name!
   61. Chris Cobb Posted: November 06, 2003 at 04:46 PM (#517012)
Does anyone know why Fielder Jones ended his career in 1908 (I'm not including the few games he played for the Federal League)?

I have wondered the same thing. The bio on baseballlibrary.com and other bits I have read suggest that he quit the game, perhaps in disgust, after losing the 1908 pennant on the final day of the season. He was managing the White Sox then with a good deal of success (having led the famous Hitless Wonders to the world championship in 1906), and there was controversy over his choice of starting pitcher for the final, decisive game (does that sound familiar?). He had been feuding with Charlie Comiskey over salary for years (there's a theme that will become familiar!) and was an active proponent of a players' union (hence his return for the Federal League), so he had a lot of reasons to decide to get out, I guess. There's surely more to this story, but that's what I've learned, so far.

With a few more years, he might well have made the HoF. He may yet make the HoM, though I don't think that will be clear for another twenty years.

The best thing about Fielder Jones, though, is that Fielder was his given name!
   62. Paul Wendt Posted: November 06, 2003 at 05:22 PM (#517013)
Given the rankings of Art Fletcher, I surmise that Clay Davenport(WARP) rates fielding much as Pete Palmer (TPR) does; ie, both in the Range Factor family.
   63. Paul Wendt Posted: November 06, 2003 at 05:28 PM (#517014)
Given the rankings of Art Fletcher, I surmise that Clay Davenport(WARP) rates fielding much as Pete Palmer (TPR) does; ie, both in the Range Factor family.
Was Art Fletcher was the Marty Marion of the Deadball Era? I doubt that WARP can rate him so highly unless it answers Yes, like TPR.

Larry Doyle, who played 2B beside Fletcher for several years, is roughly the opposite case. So I will stretch my inference from the ratings a little further and surmise that the new Bill James (WS) has reallocated much of the fielding credit from Fletcher to Doyle.

... let me check TB ... That is only part of it. I suspect that is true of Fletcher and his predecessors, 1907-14. But Doyle was gone during 3 of the 5 seasons that make Fletcher a TPR superstar in the field, 1915-19 & age 30-34.

   64. Paul Wendt Posted: November 06, 2003 at 07:54 PM (#517015)
One cause of duplicate messages.

I received an error message, host server not found (that is common). Evidently, that reported an error in returning a revised copy of the entire page to me, after my message had been appended. But I posted it again (certainly not the first time I have done so).
   65. Paul Wendt Posted: November 06, 2003 at 11:47 PM (#517016)
Fielder Jones was covered by the 'deadball' egroup (SABR Deadball Era Committee) in January.

Combining tidbits from Mark Armour (Corvallis OR):
Jones left in a dispute with owner Charles Comiskey. J felt that C had offered a stake in the club, and reneged. J had timber interests in Oregon and moved there. Beginning in 1910, he coached baseball at Oregon Agricultural, now Oregon State; managed in the Northwestern League; served as Northwestern League commissioner.

(Does anyone here know his offense:defense Win Shares in 1908?)

From Dick Thompson:
Burkett and Hamilton were player-owner-managers in the New England League. MLB-star players were gate attractions in the minor leagues. (No comment on FJ in the Northwestern League.)

   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 07, 2003 at 12:16 AM (#517017)
(Does anyone here know his offense:defense Win Shares in 1908?)

He had 32 WS (25 Batting and 6.8 Fielding)

Besides being the best major league centerfielder for 1908, it was also the best season for his career.
   67. DanG Posted: November 07, 2003 at 06:53 PM (#517018)
Along with the revised list of new eligibles for 1914 (post #50), here are revised lists for 1915-1917.

***1915 (December 7)-- elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

398 126.7 1890 George Davis-SS/3b (1940)
394 126.8 1891 Bill Dahlen-SS (1950)
207 67.5 1899 Jimmy Williams-2b (1965)
205 57.0 1897 Claude Ritchey-2b (1951)
209 43.4 1899 Jack Chesbro-P (1931)
200 43.1 1898 Bill Dinneen-P (1955)
172 34.3 1899 Harry Howell-P (1956)
113 35.1 1901 Hobe Ferris-2b (1938)
119 22.3 1898 Frank Isbell-1B (1941)
131 17.3 1899 Tully Sparks-P (1937)
***1916 (December 21)-- elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
333 96.3 1893 Willie Keeler-RF (1923)
291 82.8 1898 Elmer Flick-RF (1971)
272 57.7 1896 Cy Seymour-CF (1919)
240 67.8 1899 Rube Waddell-P (1914)
293 49.9 1898 Vic Willis-P (1947)
229 49.2 1899 Ginger Beaumont-CF (1956)
191 55.0 1899 Bill Bradley-3b (1954)
191 48.2 1902 Addie Joss-P (1911)
212 40.0 1899 Sam Leever-P (1953)
168 51.0 1901 Freddy Parent-SS (1972)
206 32.4 1899 Deacon Phillippe-P (1952)
146 39.3 1905 George Stone-LF (1945)
148 25.2 1902 Bob Ewing-P (1947)
115 25.8 1903 Ed Killian-P (1928)
126 22.5 1905 Orval Overall-P (1947)
***1917 (January 4)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
634 164.3 1890 Cy Young-P (1955)
400 105.1 1894 Fred Clarke-LF (1960)
260 80.5 1899 Roy Thomas-CF (1959)
249 69.6 1894 Fred Tenney-1b (1952)
223 51.1 1899 Topsy Hartsel-LF (1944)
238 46.7 1896 Harry Davis-1b (1947)
237 46.0 1898 Frank Chance-1b (1924)
208 46.6 1898 Harry Steinfeldt-3b (1914)
184 49.9 1899 Kid Elberfeld-SS (1944)
202 43.1 1898 Bill Donovan-P (1923)
153 38.3 1901 Wid Conroy-3b (1959)
187 23.4 1902 Patsy Dougherty-LF (1940)
146 27.7 1899 Charlie Hemphill-CF (1953)
099 32.8 1903 Lee Tannehill-3B (1938)
119 24.6 1903 Doc Gessler-RF (1924)
120 10.4 1901 Kitty Bransfield-1b (1947)
(Negro). 1887 Sol White-2b/3b (1955)
   68. OCF Posted: November 07, 2003 at 08:22 PM (#517019)
Davis and Dahlen first eligible in the same year. Now that's going to be a good week of debate! Even if we decide to elect them both (it's an elect-2 year), we'll still all have to rank them against each other.

The first time I ever really heard of either was when I got my ('92 or '93, I think) edition of Total Baseball in which they shared (as a near-tie) the distinction of being the two highest-rated (by TPR) eligible players not in the Hall of Fame. Since then, Davis has been elected, but not Dahlen.
   69. Chris Cobb Posted: November 07, 2003 at 08:56 PM (#517021)
Davis and Dahlen first eligible in the same year. Now that's going to be a good week of debate! Even if we decide to elect them both (it's an elect-2 year), we'll still all have to rank them against each other.

I'm not much of one for predicting what the voters will do, but in this case I will venture: there's no predicting who will be first, but we're going to elect them both in 1915. They are head-and-shoulders above anyone else who will be eligible in that year. They'll pick up a few third, fourth, or even fifth-place votes, I expect, but they'll go in easily.
   70. ronw Posted: November 07, 2003 at 09:44 PM (#517024)
It's not really going out on a limb with this prediction, but after a few years of electing holdovers, it seems that 1915-1917 we will be electing newbies (Davis & Dahlen in '15, Keeler in '16 and Young & Clarke in '17.) 1918 and 1919 returns the holdovers, along with Fielder Jones, Jimmy Collins, Joe Kelley, and it appears Elmer Flick.
   71. Marc Posted: November 07, 2003 at 10:30 PM (#517025)
Posted 4:07 p.m., November 7, 2003 (#78) - George Davis
Do you suppose that Gabor woman would care I told her about the time I ran into a burning building to rescue
women and children? I didn't think so.

Heck, it could have been her daughter.

   72. Marc Posted: November 08, 2003 at 02:02 AM (#517027)
Best peaks eligible 1914:

3 consecutive years adjWS: Pike 149 Bennett 133 McVey 132. OK so the seasonal and fielding adjustments give these guys too much of an advantage, we we'll keep going: O'Neill 125 Long 120 Clapp 118 Ryan 117 Jennings 115 Van Haltren 114 Duffy 112. New guys: Kelley 101 Collins and F. Jones <90. Take it for what it's worth.

3 consecutive years adjWARP1 (but using the *2/3 WARP adjustment): Jennings 47.0 Kelley 38.9 Bennett 38.3 C. Jones 38.2 O'Neill 37.6 Williamson 36.8 McVey 36.1 Stovey 35.4. Other new guys: Collins 33.4 (middle of OF glut) F. Jones 27.3.

5 non-consecutive years adjWS: Pike and McVey >200 Williamson 192 (!) Bennett 190 O'Neill 189 C. Jones 182 Jennings and Ryan 181. New guys: Kelley 162.

5 non-consecutive years adjWARP1: Jennings 71.9 C. Jones 66.5 Bennett 61.7 Thompson 60.9 Kelley 60.6 Williamson 60.0. Other new guys: Collins 52.6 F. Jones 45.4 (below the OF glut)

So pick your measure. If you simply add the two WARP measures, which double-counts the player's very very top years (and why not, if you like peak):

Jennings 118.9
C. Jones 103.7
Bennett 100.0
Kelley 99.5
Williamson 96.8
Stovey 94.2
Thompson 93.9
Duffy 92.6
McVey 92.2
O'Neill 90.0
^^^^^^^^^^
Collins 86.0 below McPhee, McGraw, Griffin, Tiernan
F. Jones 72.7 below Childs, Dunlap, Long, McKean (!), Pike, Ryan, Van Haltren, York, Lyons, Browning, and undoubtedly many others...but ahead of Lave Cross and Jake Beckley.

This last would be my list ranking these guys by peak. Jennings, C. Jones, Bennett, Kelley, Williamson. Except that the real early guys like Pike and McVey get shorted a bit by the *2/3. I'd move them up significantly.

   73. Marc Posted: November 08, 2003 at 02:11 AM (#517028)
Here's a new one. Part of my post, right in the middle, is lost. The beginning is there, the end is there, but part of the middle is gone. Ever happen to anybody?

So the part that looks like gibberish, well, it is now.
   74. Chris Cobb Posted: November 08, 2003 at 02:43 PM (#517029)
It's not really going out on a limb with this prediction, but after a few years of electing holdovers, it seems that 1915-1917 we will be electing newbies (Davis & Dahlen in '15, Keeler in '16 and Young & Clarke in '17.) 1918 and 1919 returns the holdovers, along with Fielder Jones, Jimmy Collins, Joe Kelley, and it appears Elmer Flick.

I'd agree that newbies will almost certainly be elected in 1915 and 1917, but I don't think Keeler is a lock for 1916. He's a strong candidate, for sure, but he'll be tossed into the roiling mass of the outfield glut, and he may not float right to the top. However, I think a newcomer could possibly be elected in 1914. That depends in part on how this year's election comes out, but Kelley and Collins will be in the mix for the top 5 spots, I expect. 1914 is going to be very interesting year. . .
   75. Paul Wendt Posted: November 11, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#517031)
[By mistake moments ago, I posted this to "1914". It belongs here.]
In #58, I wrote:
The number of MLB players jumped in 1901; I suppose that both turnover and opportunity were high during that and following seasons.

If so, few young players were able to take advantage of the opportunities.

Here are the regular 8-position players identified by Neft & Cohen ("N&C-regular", for short), 22 years old or younger, 1901-1904. Subject to my clerical limitations, of course.

Age Name (note; * marks a player's first N&C-regular season)
National League
1900
21 Sam Crawford (first N&C-regular season: 1900, age 20)
22 Jimmy Sheckard (first N&C-regular seasons: 1898, age 19)

That's all, folks! Here are the 23-year olds, for NL1901 only.
23 Frank Chance (second catcher from 1898, age 20)
23 Tommy Leach (1899, 21)
23 Harry Steinfeldt (1898, 20)

So Frank Chance was the only newly N&C-regular player under age 24, in NL1901. (BTW, he played only 69 games in that season; 53 64 56 69 75 games each season, 1898-1902.)

1902
21 Joe Tinker (*)
22 Davy Jones (*)
22 Sam Crawford (1900, 20)

1903
21 Johnny Evers (*)
21 Jimmy Sebring (*)
22 Harry Aubrey (* his only ML season)
22 Joe Tinker (1902, 21)

1904
19 Sherry Magee (*)
21 Mike McCormick (* his only ML season)
22 Johnny Evers (1903, 21)
22 Jimmy Sebring (1903, 21)

American League
1901
21 Matty McIntyre (*)
22 Erve Beck (*)
22 Roger Bresnahan (*)
22 Billy Coughlin (*)

1902
22 Watty Lee (*)

1903
22 Lee Tannehill (*)

1904
21 Charley O'Leary (*)
21 Joe Cassidy (*)

Summary tally
Number of players with first N&C-regular season at age 19-22, both major leagues, 1901-1904.
DDDD 19 20 21 22
1901 : 0 0 1 3
1902 : 0 0 1 2
1903 : 0 0 2 2
1904 : 1 0 3 0

Total, 15 players in 8 league-seasons. Only one under age 21.


P.S. Among the players named in this article:

Crawford, Sheckard, Chance, Steinfeldt, Tinker, Jones, Evers, McIntyre, Coughlin, and O'Leary were members of the Cubs or Tigers in 1907-1908.

Leach, Sebring, Magee, Bresnahan, and Tannehill were members of other MLB teams in 1907-1908.

Aubrey, McCormick, Beck, Lee, and Cassidy did not appear in MLB after 1905.

   76. Paul Wendt Posted: November 11, 2003 at 10:18 PM (#517032)
(sigh) The first header should be "National League 1901" (not 1900).
   77. Paul Wendt Posted: November 12, 2003 at 06:58 PM (#517033)
OCF replied regarding the young players in NL1901 (in "1914 Ballot Discussion" #37):
So it's only 5 players, but man, is that a good bunch of players!
Leach (multiposition) 2156 G 109 OPS+
Steinfeldt (3B) 1646 G 102 OPS+
Chance (1B) 1287 G 135 OPS+ HOF
Crawford (OF) 2517 G 144 OPS+ HOF
Sheckard (OF) 2122 G 120 OPS+


Yes, that is a quintet of good to great players.
But
(a) only Crawford and Sheckard were under 23 (I included the 23-year-olds for NL1901 only among the eight league-seasons covered);
(b) only Chance, age 23, was newly an N&C-regular player in 1901, the others in 1898-1900;
(c) Chance did not play much more in 1901 than he did in 1898-1900 at age 20-22, although N&C name him one of the 8 regular players for Chicago in 1901.

In other words, at most one of those five young players (and he was 23) arguably "arrived" in 1901. Evidently, the regular roles created by AL entry were filled by older players, some new to the majors and some previously role players.

   78. OCF Posted: November 17, 2003 at 08:03 AM (#517035)
I was flipping through my NBJHBA, and happened upon the "all-decade" teams he chooses. He put 10 players on the 1870's team, and 11 each on the 1880's, 1890's, and 1900's team. Mostly that's 8 position players and 3 pitchers, although for the 1880's it was 9 position players (with King Kelly's position given as "U") and 2 pitchers. How do these teams match up to what we've done so far?

From the 1870's team (which for James is the 1876-1879 NL team only), we have chosen 7 and omitted 3. The 3 we've omitted are SS John Peters, OF Charlie Jones, and P Tommy Bond.

From the 1880's team, we have chosen 8 and omitted 3. The 3 we've omitted are Pete Browning, Harry Stovey, and Sam Thompson.

From the 1890's we have chosen 5, omitted 4, and not yet considered 2. The 4 omitted are Chief Zimmer, Cupid Childs, John McGraw, and Hughie Jennings. The 2 not yet considered are Willie Keeler and Cy Young.

From the 1900's, Jimmy Collins is up for election for the first time this year, and the other 10 are not yet eligible.

We have chosen 6 people who never made one of these all-decade teams, all for reasons which aren't hard to explain. These 6 are Jesse Burkett, Pud Galvin, Hoss Radbourn, Al Spalding, Ezra Sutton, and George Wright.
   79. Howie Menckel Posted: November 17, 2003 at 12:43 PM (#517036)
yest,
no credit for managing, but the fact that he's a player-manager lends credence to a sense that he helped the team win with his smarts. no formal credit, but it don't hurt.
wait for Joe Dimino's OFFICIAL response, though..
   80. Marc Posted: November 17, 2003 at 02:57 PM (#517037)
Howie, you are a generous man. My sense is the answer to yest's question is:

No.
   81. DanG Posted: November 17, 2003 at 03:16 PM (#517038)
Marc, I think the answer is more like, "No, but."

That is to say, we are supposed to evaluate all evidence about a player's contribution to his team's success or lack thereof. This includes intangible leadership contributions (for good or bad).

This makes Frank Chance a conundrum. Where lies the line separating his managing of the team and his leadership as a player? Or can a player-manager even GET any credit for "extra leadership" apart from managing?
   82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 17, 2003 at 03:41 PM (#517039)
We have chosen 6 people who never made one of these all-decade teams, all for reasons which aren't hard to explain. These 6 are Jesse Burkett, Pud Galvin, Hoss Radbourn, Al Spalding, Ezra Sutton, and George Wright.

Actually, it's extremely easy to figure out. According to WS, they weren't the best at their positions for any one whole decade. So? That shouldn't be the criteria. Bert Campaneris or Dave Concepcion were the best shortstops of the 1970s, but were they better than Robin Yount (who would miss the 1970s list and Ripken would probably own the '80s list)?

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that James totally ignored the NA; Spalding, Sutton and Wright would have had top honors for the 1870s easily. As for Burkett, he couldn't have been that far off for the '90s.
   83. Marc Posted: November 17, 2003 at 04:00 PM (#517040)
Dan, I don't disagree with you in spirit. Any of us, being honest with ourselves, has what Bill James calls the bulls**t dump, and Chance's alleged leadership goes in the dump. "But" his W-L record as a manager is no more relevant (as a player-manager) than John McGraw's (as a post-playing career manager). I'm not comfortable leaving the same level of ambiguity to yest's question that you are.

Further I would say that your comment about "evaluate all evidence" means to me that we consider Dickey Pearce and Frank Grant even though we don't have statistical/numerical evidence. Taking a player whose complete statistical record is available and then adding other stuff to that is different, and the "other stuff" in that case shouldn't get too much weight.

But of course Joe is da boss.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 17, 2003 at 04:05 PM (#517041)
OCF:

Sorry if my last post sounds like I'm disagreeing with your post. I wasn't.
   85. DanG Posted: November 17, 2003 at 04:11 PM (#517042)
Marc wrote:

Further I would say that your comment about "evaluate all evidence" means to me that we consider Dickey Pearce and Frank Grant even though we don't have statistical/numerical evidence. Taking a player whose complete statistical record is available and then adding other stuff to that is different, and the "other stuff" in that case shouldn't get too much weight.

I very much agree. That's why Dick Allen is a deserving hall of famer, even getting a cut a bit for the BS. OTOH, on a ballot where small differences separate players, the "other stuff" can somtimes be enough to give a guy a bump up.
   86. OCF Posted: November 17, 2003 at 04:39 PM (#517043)
John,

Don't worry, I knew you weren't disagreeing because I hadn't said anything to agree or disagree with, other than to point out how much our choices and these all-decade teams do have in common, with 20 players on both. When I said "reasons which aren't too hard to explain" I was already thinking about everything you said in #95. I will add that James may have done a little tweaking of decades and positions to get a more pleasing result. Hence, he had Anson as 3B for the 70's, Brouthers as 1B for the 80's, and Connor as 1B for the 90's. He put Browning on the 80's team at 3B (!) and created "U" just to have a spot for Kelly. Sometimes one can't avoid a head-to-head comparison, so Bennett lost out to Ewing, Radbourn and Galvin lost out to Keefe and Clarkson, and Burkett lost out to Delahanty (with Keeler given the RF spot.)

I was a little surprised that he picked Jennings as the 90's SS over Dahlen.

I did feel the need to look up John Peters just to make sure we weren't neglecting someone I never heard of. We're not - brief peak, short career overall, kind of fell of a cliff between '78 and '79.
   87. OCF Posted: November 17, 2003 at 04:44 PM (#517044)
John,

Don't worry, I knew you weren't disagreeing because I hadn't said anything to agree or disagree with, other than to point out how much our choices and these all-decade teams do have in common, with 20 players on both. When I said "reasons which aren't too hard to explain" I was already thinking about everything you said in #95. I will add that James may have done a little tweaking of decades and positions to get a more pleasing result. Hence, he had Anson as 3B for the 70's, Brouthers as 1B for the 80's, and Connor as 1B for the 90's. He put Browning on the 80's team at 3B (!) and created "U" just to have a spot for Kelly. Sometimes one can't avoid a head-to-head comparison, so Bennett lost out to Ewing, Radbourn and Galvin lost out to Keefe and Clarkson, and Burkett lost out to Delahanty (with Keeler given the RF spot.)

I was a little surprised that he picked Jennings as the 90's SS over Dahlen.

I did feel the need to look up John Peters just to make sure we weren't neglecting someone I never heard of. We're not - brief peak, short career overall, kind of fell of a cliff between '78 and '79.
   88. OCF Posted: November 17, 2003 at 05:53 PM (#517045)
One other thing that James mentions is that the listed heights and weights of 19th century players, especially the weights, are unreliable, often laughbably so. John Peters, a shortstop, is listed as 5'7", 180 lbs. I sincerly doubt the accuracy of that weight.
   89. RobC Posted: November 20, 2003 at 10:07 PM (#517046)
I decided to look at some of the upcoming eligible players and elections do to the discussion on the 1914 ballot thread about splitting of votes.
For the purpose of this discussion I divide players into 3 classes:

A-guys who should be unanimous or near unanimous HoMers (in my opinion - Ive been surprised - but I shouldnt be by these guys)
B-guys who should be on nearly everyones ballot, and near the top of most, will probably get elected almost immediately
C-guys who are causing the chaos. This is a big class :).

Based on this, this is how I see the upcoming elections (I wont be using in player names):

1914- 1 electee, 1 class C (this is a split/chaos causing year)
1915- 2 electees, 2 new class A (I wont mention new class C players because for the purpose of this "study", they are interchangeable and we have more than enough of them already)
1916- 1 electee, 1 new class B
1917- 2 electees, 1 new A + 1 new B
1918- 1 electee, 1 class C
1919- 2 electees, complete chaos year, 2 class C
1920- 1 electee, 1 new B
1921- 2 electees, like 1919, 2 class C
1922- 2 electees, 2 new A
1923- 1 electee, 1 new A : another A + a B get held over
1924- 2 electees, a heldover A + a heldover B
1925- 2 electees, back to the pool of C

Basically in 1914,1918,1919, 1921, and 1925 we will elect 8 players from our current backlog and additional players of that approximate levels. We have a current pool of maybe 10-15 guys, plus 5-10 that will be added on that these 8 will come from. I dont think we will be anymore "split" come 1925 than now, but we will be electing guys without as much widespread support as we have so far. I think the hard part of the HoM is about to start.

   90. Paul Wendt Posted: November 20, 2003 at 11:33 PM (#517047)
Bill James All Stars for the 1870s-1890s, including both 1871-75 and 1876-79. From BJHBA, 2d ed (1988). http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/decadestars.html
   91. RobC Posted: November 21, 2003 at 03:56 PM (#517048)
Anyone willing to be editor for my posts? Ugh, #102 reads bad.
   92. OCF Posted: November 21, 2003 at 04:55 PM (#517049)
Sorry, Rob, I doubt that any of us would be willing to volunteer. We've got enough problems editing our own. Once you hit the "Post This Comment" button, you have to live with what you said. Many of us (including me) have let some howlers slip through.

You said, "Basically in 1914,1918,1919, 1921, and 1925 we will elect 8 players from our current backlog and additional players of that approximate level." (Emphasis mine.) That's where the work will come in. We've been talking about pretty much the same bunch of guys for a long time, but there will be many more good ones. What's the right pecking order among McGinnity, Willis, Joss, Walsh, Waddell, Wood, Brown? Is Johnny Evers worthy of consideration? What about Mike Donlin? Quite a few of you are probably already thinking, "Ah, but does OCF know about ______?" No one should assume that our current backlog will always be at the front of the line.
   93. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2003 at 05:15 PM (#517050)
Some of this will come down to "Do we have enough...?"
If McVey gets elected this time - or even if he doesn't - I'll post some lists of active HOMers per year, HOM leaders in games played by position, most HOMers on one team in one year, top 'also-rans' by position, etc.
With a series of borderline candidates, position and representation come into play. Not to enforce any rigid quotas, but to make sure we consider if we're underrepresenting any particular area - position, league, era, etc.
Clearly we had three contemporary 1Bs in the 1880s, and it didn't deter us from electing all three quite quickly. We also added an 8th pitcher fairly 'quickly,' and we may get to where we aren't afraid to pile up some OFs, too.
Overall we've done very well, although I would LOVE to have seen Rusie forced to compete against his true contemporaries - and McGinnity. I'd like to see Kelley and Collins run the whole gauntlet, too...
   94. DanG Posted: November 21, 2003 at 05:56 PM (#517051)
although I would LOVE to have seen Rusie forced to compete against his true contemporaries -

In addition to the five years after retirement, we probably should've had a minimum age for eligibility, say, 40 years old. That would've delayed Rusie's eligibility eight years, until 1912, when he would've been in against his true contemporaries.

I did suggest we do this prior to our first election, but nobody thought it was necessary.


   95. DanG Posted: November 21, 2003 at 06:11 PM (#517053)
<i>Rusie and McGinnity were born the same year, but Rusie was retired before McGinnity threw his first major league pitch.<i>

That's a fascinating fact. Splice the two together and you almost get Cy Young:

Cy Young 511-316 7355 IP
Joemas McGrustie 491-316 7211 IP

   96. jimd Posted: November 24, 2003 at 05:53 PM (#517054)
As human beings, they were contemporaries. As baseball players, they were of different generations.

And not the first example of this either. Old Hoss Radbourn was sixteen months older than Tommy Bond.
   97. MattB Posted: November 26, 2003 at 02:56 PM (#517056)
Here's 1921-1925. I'm still unsure of our rules for eligibility, so some may be off by a year or so. I'm not too concerned about a "candidate gap" after 1923, because only 3 of about 10 reasonable candidates will be inducted in 1922 and 1923. The following are ranked by WARP-1.

1921 (ELECT 2)
Joe Tinker 116.9
Tommy Leach 103.7
Roger Bresnahan 76.8
George Mullin 63.5
Joe Wood 57.8
Al Bridwell 55.9
Hooks Wiltse 46.6
Frank LaPorte 47.6
Jim Delahanty 39.9
Germany Schaefer39.4
George Stovall 39.1

1922 ELECT 2
Nap Lajoie 187.1
Christy Mathewson141.7
Miller Huggins 83.6
Mordechai Brown 77.3
Nap Rucker 60.4
Chief Wilson 50.8
Otto Knabe 49.1
Solly Hofman 47.0
Bobby Byrne 43.5
Roy Hartzell 37.9

1923 ELECT 1
Honus Wagner 221
Sam Crawford 133.9
Ed Plank 116.3
Johnny Evers 97.0
Chief Bender 67.7
Ed Reulbach 54.4
Red Murray 47.9
Mike Mowrey 45.5
Hans Lobert 41.5

1924 ELECT 2
Mickey Doolan 76.4
Frank Schulte 66.3
Bill Donovan 58.8
Bob Bescher 48.6
Jeff Tesreau 40.4
Dick Hoblitzel 39.6
Rube Oldring 35.1

1925 ELECT 2
Sherry Magee 106.4
Terry Turner 81.7
Hal Chase 67.1
Jack Barry 55.5
Red Ames 53.9
Heinie Zimmerman53.8
Fred Luderus 45.2

   98. MattB Posted: November 26, 2003 at 04:28 PM (#517058)
Here's the next five years, also by WARP-1. 2 Electees per year.

1926
Joe Jackson 86.6
Larry Doyle 77.7
Eddie Cicotte 73.9
George McBride 73.5
Buck Herzog 65.6
Fred Merkle 55.4
Gavvy Cravath 55.3
Ray Chapman 54.0
Claude Hendrix 47.8
Buck Weaver 47.3

1927
Ed Konetchy 101.1
Dode Paskert 71.9
Hippo Vaughn 62.1
Dots Miller 57.4
Slim Sallee 55.1
Duffy Lewis 51.1
Ray Caldwell 48.4

1928
Frank Baker 99.4
Art Fletcher 97.5
Clyde Milan 73.3
Burt Shotton 41.5
Jack Graney 36.6

1929
Donie Bush 97.9
George Cutshaw 55.5
Tilly Walker 54.0
Eddie Foster 46.1
Ivy Olson 43.1
Fred Toney 42.4
Jim Bagby 37.7

1930
Del Pratt 86.5
Jake Daubert 80.3
Larry Gardner 77.1
Amos Strunk 64.2
Jeff Pfeffer 52.9
Casey Stengel 48.8
Shano Collins 47.1
Hy Myers 46.4
Earl Hamilton 35.0

   99. MattB Posted: November 26, 2003 at 05:02 PM (#517059)
When do the next group of Negro League players become eligible?

Well, "next group" implies that there was a "first group", but so far the first group is only Frank Grant, who is languishing in the bottom half of the Top 10, getting bumped out by players who might or might not have been good "out west".

Nonetheless, here's the next couple that should be seriously considered, with their year of eligibility:

Sol White, 1917
Clarence Williams, 1918
Bill Monroe, 1920
Grant "Home Run" Johnson, 1927
Spotswood Poles, 1929
*Pete Hill, 1931
Bruce Petway, 1931
*Rube Foster, 1932
Jose Mendez, 1932
*Christobel Torriente, 1934

The three asterisked players are the ones who will debut as #1 on my ballot. (Not saying none of the others will, but I haven't done lots of research on lots of these other guys.)

   100. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 26, 2003 at 05:33 PM (#517060)
Well, "next group" implies that there was a "first group", but so far the first group is only Frank Grant, who is languishing in the bottom half of the Top 10, getting bumped out by players who might or might not have been good "out west".

Matt, if you're referring to Cal McVey, it's an unfair swipe. The vast majority of us didn't put too much (or any) weight on the Western years. Speaking for myself, I only gave him credit for one season that we have info about. Besides, we do have ten times the amount of documented info on McVey, while we're trying to extrapolate a whole career on Grant's one IA season.

If I can get a handle on the IA at that time, then I might be able to put Grant back on my ballot (and possibly high). However, I have serious doubts about the IA as equivalent to the early AA so I don't buy the Grant/McPhee comparison as of right now.
Page 1 of 10 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(112 - 3:44pm, Dec 22)
Last: Esteban Rivera

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(118 - 3:02pm, Dec 22)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0183 seconds
43 querie(s) executed