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 | 959 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 10 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. ronw Posted: November 26, 2003 at 06:34 PM (#517061)
MattB, I like Torriente too, but there are a couple of other newly eligible centerfielders you should consider placing #1 in 1934.
   102. MattB Posted: November 26, 2003 at 07:18 PM (#517062)
What? You mean the White Spotswood Poles? I'll consider him.
   103. ronw Posted: November 26, 2003 at 07:28 PM (#517063)
You also may want to consider the White Oscar Charleston, also newly eligible in 1934.
   104. MattB Posted: November 26, 2003 at 08:28 PM (#517064)
Yes, I'm considering using the "Cap Anson" clause of the Constitution to avoid voting for him.
   105. Chris Cobb Posted: November 26, 2003 at 09:09 PM (#517065)
To Matt's list, I'd add, if the retirement date I have is accurate:

Louis Santop, 1932
   106. Marc Posted: November 27, 2003 at 12:57 AM (#517066)
John, don't take MattB's rant too seriously, here is his 1914 ballot. Here is the top of his 1914 ballot. He also bumps Frank Grant for a player whose league may or may not have been as good as McVey's.
-----------------------

1. Harry Stovey – AA may have been weaker overall, but that doesn't mean it didn't have any stars.
McPhee is a start, but the best hitter of the league should be in too.

2. Charlie Bennett – far and away the best catcher available. If what he did weren’t that valuable, there’d
be more like him. But there aren’t.

3. Frank Grant – might have him below Caruthers and McVey if I could trust Cal and Parisian Bob’s
defensive statistics, league discounts, and league replacement values. Without any hard numbers I can trust
for Caruthers and McVey, though, I’m more comfortable with case for Grant, which is more straightforward,
and where I have to make fewer assumptions.

4. Bob Caruthers -- been up, down, and now back up. Higher WARP-1 than anyone except Mullane, who
earned lots of his in 1882 and 1883 AA.

5. Cal McVey – Information about what he did “out West” about as fleshed out as Huck Finn’s “lighting
out for the territories” at the end of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

   107. MattB Posted: November 27, 2003 at 12:50 PM (#517067)
My point was certainly not to say that McVey was un-worthy (he was in my personal HoM before Grant was ever on the ballot). Just that Grant should get the same "subjective" points that McVey and Start did.
   108. DanG Posted: December 08, 2003 at 05:31 PM (#517068)
In (#112) - MattB wrote:
I'm still unsure of our rules for eligibility, so some may be off by a year or so…The following are ranked by WARP-1.

Before commenting on his lists of 1921-30 (#112, #114), let me do an update. In (#74) I updated 1915-17. I’ll leave that as is, only noting that those are the “old” WARP3 numbers. Here is 1918-20, updated with new WARP3:

***1918 (January 18)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
287 63.1 1897 Jack Powell-P (1944)
174 45.1 1899 Mike Donlin-CF (1933)
148 41.3 1901 Matty McIntyre-LF (1920)
185 40.9 1897 Nixey Callahan-P/LF (1934)
127 31.1 1903 Jake Stahl-1b (1922)
(Negro). 1890 Clarence Williams-C
***1919 (February 1)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
339 93.5 1898 Jimmy Sheckard-LF (1947)
235 67.3 1901 Doc White-P (1969)
198 45.9 1904 Art Devlin-3b (1948)
201 49.8 1903 John Titus-RF (1943)
155 34.7 1901 Johnny Kling-C (1947)
***1920 (February 15)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
345 108.0 1895 Bobby Wallace-SS
265 88.3 1904 Ed Walsh-P (1959)
215 66.0 1901 Danny Murphy-2b/RF (1955)
169 30.7 1901 Earl Moore-P (1961)
145 36.3 1907 Mike Mitchell-RF (1961)
147 35.9 1906 Johnny Bates-CF (1949)
133 23.4 1907 Howie Camnitz-P (1960)
103 29.3 1907 Bill Sweeney-2b (1948)
(Negro). 1896 Bill Monroe-2b (1915)

As for Matt’s inquiry, there is ample discussion clarifying eligibility in the thread “Discussion of Token Appearances”. While our Constitution specifies eligibility rules, there is some gray area where the intent of the rule comes into play. Specific examples from Matt’s list will serve to illustrate some of the points to consider.

1921: Matt shows Joe Wood as eligible. Actually, Wood is not eligible until 1928, taking into account his “second career” as a rightfielder. In addition, Wood is only age 31 for the 1921 election; our preference is for candidates to be at least in their late 30’s. Red Murray is also newly eligible this year, not in 1923 as shown. After regular play in 1915, Red did not play in 1916. In 1917 his play was far from even semi-regular (22 G, 12 in the field), so his eligibility clock does not restart.
1922: Bobby Byrne is shown as eligible, but in 1917 he played 14 G, 5 in the field. Here, the letter of the law rules, Byrne is eligible in 1923.
1923: Our rule currently reads, “Less than ten games played or less than five games pitched.” I suggest a slight modification, which IMO is more in line with the rule’s intent. I think it should read, “Ten games played or less, or five games pitched or less.” This would mean a year earlier eligibility for several 1920’s candidates: E. Reulbach 1922 not 1923; D. Bush 1928 not 1929; I. Olson 1929 not 1930; S. O’Neill 1933 not 1934. OTOH it’s not a big deal.
1924: Bill Donovan is eligible in 1917 (at age 40). In 1912 he had 3 GP, he did not play 1913-14, in 1915 his play was far from semi-regular (9 GP, 1 GS, 34 IP), so his eligibility clock is not restarted. Token appearances in 1916 and 1918 are ignored.
1925: Fred Luderus is shown as eligible, but in 1920 he played 16 G, 7 in the field. As for Byrne, the letter of the law makes him eligible in 1926.
1930: Casey Stengel is shown as eligible, but in 1925 he played 12 G, 1 in the field. The letter of the law makes him eligible in 1931.

   109. Marc Posted: December 08, 2003 at 06:02 PM (#517069)
Thanks, Dan. Two guys who have not been highly regarded by reputation or by history really stand out and are very intriguing. It will be interesting to see how people evaluate (especially) Jimmy Sheckard and also Bobby Wallace.

Re. 1916, Willie Keeler rates ahead of Elmer Flick on both (career) WS and (career) "old" WARP (I don't know about the "new" WARP). But let the record show that upon consideration of peak and rate (and timeline [which would of course be virtual zero] and bullshit) that James rates Flick as the #23 RF and Keeler #35. And I'm pretty darn sure that he's got that right.

Sheckard is the #24 LF while Wallace is only the #36 SS.
   110. DanG Posted: December 12, 2003 at 08:19 PM (#517070)
Upcoming new pitcher candidate 1917-23. WARP3 has been updated. Together with #53 above, that should tell you all the pitchers you need to be looking at for now.

WS W3 Eligible Name-Pos (Died)
634 176.2 1917 Cy Young-P (1955)
202 42.5 1917 Bill Donovan-P (1923)
287 63.1 1918 Jack Powell-P (1944)
185 40.9 1918 Nixey Callahan-P/LF (1934)
235 67.3 1919 Doc White-P (1969)
265 88.3 1920 Ed Walsh-P (1959)
255 56.4 1921 George Mullin-P (1944)
426 128.8 1922 Christy Mathewson-P (1925)
296 70.3 1922 Mordecai Brown-P (1948)
177 54.3 1922 Nap Rucker-P (1970)
361 100.1 1923 Ed Plank-P (1926)
231 58.6 1923 Chief Bender-P (1954)
206 48.3 1923 Ed Reulbach-P (1961)
   111. Howie Menckel Posted: December 12, 2003 at 08:50 PM (#517071)
***1918 (January 18)?elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
(Negro). 1890 Clarence Williams-C

Anyone else love his grandson's work in "The Mod Squad?" ;)

   112. DanG Posted: January 08, 2004 at 06:04 AM (#517072)
This thread is due for an update. Here are the new eligibles as I have them for 1921-26. Not completely sure about Homerun Johnson's eligibility, but even with the 1922 start he's already 47 years old when he comes on.

<b>***1921 (March 7)?elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
328 74.8 1899 Tommy Leach-CF/3b (1969)
258 65.6 1902 Joe Tinker-SS (1948)
255 56.4 1902 George Mullin-P (1944)
231 53.7 1901 Roger Bresnahan-C (1944)
163 39.1 1904 Hooks Wiltse-P (1959)
151 37.8 1904 Frank Smith-P (1952)
149 34.8 1904 Jim Delahanty-2b (1953)
138 34.1 1906 Frank LaPorte-2b (1939)
140 31.7 1906 Red Murray-RF (1958)
138 30.3 1905 Al Bridwell-SS (1969)
125 33.9 1910 Russ Ford-P (1960)
118 31.0 1902 Germany Schaefer-2b (1919)
126 25.1 1909 Steve Evans-RF (1943)
111 25.4 1904 George Stovall-1b (1951)

***1922 (March 21) —elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
496 176.4 1896 Nap Lajoie-2b (1959)
426 128.8 1901 Christy Mathewson-P (1925)
296 70.3 1903 Mordecai Brown-P (1948)
222 70.8 1904 Miller Huggins-2b (1929)
177 54.3 1907 Nap Rucker-P (1970)
158 30.9 1905 Solly Hofman-CF (1956)
138 34.6 1908 Chief Wilson-RF (1954)
120 31.9 1907 Otto Knabe-2b (1961)
135 28.8 1908 Doc Crandall-P (1951)
114 30.2 1906 Roy Hartzell-RF/3b (1961)
091 14.4 1902 Red Dooin-C (1952)
(Negro). 1895 Grant “Home Run” Johnson-SS/2b (1964)

***1923 (April 4) —elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
655 180.1 1897 Honus Wagner-SS (1955)
446 115.2 1899 Sam Crawford-RF (1968)
361 100.1 1901 Ed Plank-P (1926)
268 70.8 1903 Johnny Evers-2b (1947)
231 58.6 1903 Chief Bender-P (1954)
206 48.3 1905 Ed Reulbach-P (1961)
157 28.7 1906 Hans Lobert-3b (1968)
124 35.0 1909 Jim Scott-P (1957)
129 32.9 1909 Chief Meyers-C (1971)
139 25.1 1907 Mike Mowrey-3b (1947)
137 23.4 1907 Bobby Byrne-3b (1964)
128 26.8 1903 Cy Falkenberg-P (1961)
113 26.0 1905 George Gibson-C (1967)
(Negro). 1901 Rube Foster-P (1930)

***1924 (April 18) –elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
239 49.3 1905 Frank “Wildfire” Schulte-RF (1949)
161 37.6 1905 Mickey Doolan-SS (1951)
160 37.1 1906 Jack Coombs-P (1957)
154 32.7 1908 Bob Bescher-LF (1942)
149 31.5 1908 Dick Hoblitzel-1b (1962)
140 29.9 1906 Rube Oldring-CF (1961)
119 34.3 1912 Jeff Tesreau-P (1946)
110 28.2 1906 Bill Hinchman-RF/LF (1963)
103 25.5 1911 Vean Gregg-P (1964)

***1925 (May 2)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
354 77.5 1904 Sherry Magee-LF (1929)
231 43.0 1905 Hal Chase-1b (1947)
214 42.1 1908 Heinie Zimmerman-3b (1969)
171 50.7 1904 Terry Turner-SS/3b (1960)
198 41.9 1904 Red Ames-P (1936)
161 31.8 1911 Red Smith-3b (1966)
132 34.5 1908 Jack Barry-SS (1961)
130 32.2 1910 Chick Gandil-1b (1970)
132 30.6 1905 Lefty Leifield-P (1970)
125 26.6 1912 Larry Cheney-P (1969)
104 27.6 1912 Lee Magee-CF/2b (1966)
110 24.0 1911 Vic Saier-1b (1967)

***1926 (May 16)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
294 80.3 1910 Joe Jackson-LF/RF (1951)
247 73.1 1908 Eddie Cicotte-P (1969)
289 59.0 1907 Larry Doyle-2b (1974)
202 51.8 1908 Gavvy Cravath-RF (1963)
174 43.1 1911 Claude Hendrix-P (1944)
171 43.1 1908 Buck Herzog-2b/3b/SS (1953)
148 51.6 1912 Ray Chapman-SS (1920)
191 35.7 1908 Fred Merkle-1b (1956)
127 46.5 1905 George McBride-SS (1973)
175 36.6 1914 Benny Kauff-CF (1961)
160 34.4 1910 Fred Luderus-1b (1961)
152 33.4 1912 Buck Weaver-SS/3b (1956)
123 36.4 1915 Happy Felsch-CF (1964)
129 35.8 1913 Dick Rudolph-P (1949)
089 19.5 1910 Bill Rariden-C (1942)

   113. MattB Posted: January 08, 2004 at 03:00 PM (#517073)
<i>***1923 (April 4) ?elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
655 180.1 1897 Honus Wagner-SS (1955)
446 115.2 1899 Sam Crawford-RF (1968)
361 100.1 1901 Ed Plank-P (1926)

So, will 1923 win the award for the year containing the best player to NOT be elected on his first ballot?

   114. Chris Cobb Posted: January 08, 2004 at 03:17 PM (#517074)
So, will 1923 win the award for the year containing the best player to NOT be elected on his first ballot?

I don't think it beats 1911, when we elected Kid Nichols over Jesse Burkett.

And then there will be 1934, when Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Eddie Collins enter the ballot together (unless Collins' token appearences in 1929 are enough to push him back a year). If that happens, then I think 1934 will almost certainly win the all-time award, since we'll have to leave out one of the top twenty-five players all time . . .
   115. RobC Posted: January 08, 2004 at 04:08 PM (#517075)
Since they made the end of the list, I figured I would discuss my plan for handling Jackson, et al. to make sure it is constitutional.

The only adjustments I plan to make is to my baseline number. For my baseline, I use Warp3 - I make peak and other adjustments off of it, which I plan to make the same. Anyway, to the base Warp3, I plan to subtract an amount for how much the on-field actions of throwing the world series is worth. My theory is that the 7 players' actions (Buck Weaver is getting a pass) invalidated the White Sox and opponents season, so I am giving them a 154 game penalty. 154/7=22 per man banned. So, Jackson's base will drop from 80.3 to 58.3 and Cicotte's will drop from 73.1 to 51.1.

My first line calculation says that with his full peak adjustment, Jackson will end up in the 20th-25th area on my ballot (or off my ballot). Works for me.

Anyone see anything unconsititional about my adjustment?
   116. Marc Posted: January 08, 2004 at 05:13 PM (#517078)
This is not a defense of Joe Jackson whom I will boycott for one year, then slot in wherever he belongs, though I don't have Jackson rated particularly highly anyway. He did have a short career. He is a fair comp for Elmer Flick.

But anyway, no, I don't see how you can penalize anybody 22 WARP for a single season. WS maybe. But a penalty of 22 WARP doesn't seem to me to have any relation to the kind of value a guy could possibly have had in the first place, unless his team had won all 154 games. Rather that is a good 2-2 1/2 years worth of value. I mean, I don't care how much of a penalty he gets, but the logic of saying 22 WARP is a penalty for one season's play escapes me.
   117. Paul Wendt Posted: January 08, 2004 at 06:31 PM (#517079)
DanG #128
This thread is due for an update. Here are the new eligibles as I have them for 1921-26. Not completely sure about Homerun Johnson's eligibility, but even with the 1922 start he's already 47 years old when he comes on.

Thanks, Dan. Is the WARP3 (W3) data now from the revised edition. Do you (or anyone here?) have access to old WARP3?

I loaded Dan's tables for 1918-1920 into a spreadsheet and rearranged. Here is part of the combined table, sorted by the difference between old and new WARP3 (W3diff=W3new-W3old). Sweeney did not gain 29.3; probably some number greater than 9.3, since he newly qualified for the listing under W3new. Walsh and White both pitched for the Chicago White Stockings.

Leading MLB players newly eligible 1918-1920 (from DanG #124)
sorted by the effect of recent WARP3 revision

W3diff WS W3old W3new Fname Lname Pos
29.3 103 0.0 29.3 Bill Sweeney 2b (not really 29.3; probably greater than 9.3)
19.4 265 68.9 88.3 Ed Walsh P
16.5 235 50.8 67.3 Doc White P
11.8 174 33.3 45.1 Mike Donlin CF
10.6 127 20.5 31.1 Jake Stahl 1b
10.4 185 30.5 40.9 Nixey Callahan P/LF
8.7 133 14.7 23.4 Howie Camnitz P
7.5 339 86.0 93.5 Jimmy Sheckard LF
5.8 147 30.1 35.9 Johnny Bates CF
5.2 215 60.8 66.0 Danny Murphy 2b/RF
3.4 201 46.4 49.8 John Titus RF
2.5 287 60.6 63.1 Jack Powell P
1.0 169 29.7 30.7 Earl Moore P
-1.0 145 37.3 36.3 Mike Mitchell RF
-2.0 345 110.0 108.0 Bobby Wallace SS
-3.2 148 44.5 41.3 Matty McIntyre LF
-4.8 198 50.7 45.9 Art Devlin 3b
-7.0 155 41.7 34.7 Johnny Kling C

   118. Marc Posted: January 08, 2004 at 06:44 PM (#517081)
It's only the logic, not the constitutionality, that I wondered about.
   119. Paul Wendt Posted: January 08, 2004 at 06:45 PM (#517082)
DanG #128
This thread is due for an update. Here are the new eligibles as I have them for 1921-26. Not completely sure about Homerun Johnson's eligibility, but even with the 1922 start he's already 47 years old when he comes on.

Thanks, Dan. Is the WARP3 (W3) data now from the revised edition. Do you (or anyone here?) have access to old WARP3?

I loaded Dan's tables for 1918-1920 into a spreadsheet and rearranged. Here is part of the combined table, sorted by the difference between old and new WARP3 (W3diff=W3new-W3old). Sweeney did not gain 29.3; probably some number greater than 9.3, since he newly qualified for the listing under W3new. Walsh and White both pitched for the Chicago White Stockings.

Leading MLB players newly eligible 1918-1920 (from DanG #124)
sorted by the effect of recent WARP3 revision

W3diff WS W3old W3new Fname Lname Pos
29.3 103 0.0 29.3 Bill Sweeney 2b (not really 29.3; probably greater than 9.3)
19.4 265 68.9 88.3 Ed Walsh P
16.5 235 50.8 67.3 Doc White P
11.8 174 33.3 45.1 Mike Donlin CF
10.6 127 20.5 31.1 Jake Stahl 1b
10.4 185 30.5 40.9 Nixey Callahan P/LF
8.7 133 14.7 23.4 Howie Camnitz P
7.5 339 86.0 93.5 Jimmy Sheckard LF
5.8 147 30.1 35.9 Johnny Bates CF
5.2 215 60.8 66.0 Danny Murphy 2b/RF
3.4 201 46.4 49.8 John Titus RF
2.5 287 60.6 63.1 Jack Powell P
1.0 169 29.7 30.7 Earl Moore P
-1.0 145 37.3 36.3 Mike Mitchell RF
-2.0 345 110.0 108.0 Bobby Wallace SS
-3.2 148 44.5 41.3 Matty McIntyre LF
-4.8 198 50.7 45.9 Art Devlin 3b
-7.0 155 41.7 34.7 Johnny Kling C

   120. Marc Posted: January 08, 2004 at 06:46 PM (#517083)
It's only the logic, not the constitutionality, that I wondered about. And BTW even if they had won all 154 it still took 25 (?) guys, not 7, to do that. ie. 154/25 not 154/7.
   121. RobC Posted: January 08, 2004 at 07:10 PM (#517084)
I will explain my logic a little more. Note that I give full credit to the guys for what they did in actually winning the 1919 pennant. The reason I chose 154 [although I guess I should be using 162, since warp3 includes the expansion, or actually 154*((162/154)^2/3)] was because they invalidated not just the White Sox change at winning the world series, but the AL chance as a whole. I could use the number of games the White Sox won but I dont think the regular season has anything to do with this decision (yes that is sorta contradictory to the 154 number). Anyway, while it took 25 guys to get them there, it only took 7 guys to lose it. Oh, and as an aside, the Reds would have won anyway. Actually, that is part of the point, as a Reds fan, I like to think they would have won anyway (should events that occured 50 years before I was born really affect me?) but were denied the chance to show they were better. Thus, the whole NL got screwed too. Hmmm... Maybe my penalty is too small (just kidding).

Anyway, Im glad to hear it is constitutional, I was actually considering a different penalty at one time but decided this one made the most sense to me. I dont have a problem with people having a lesser penalty, I would have problem with people giving Jackson approximate credit for the years he would have played if he hadnt been banned. Ugh.
   122. RobC Posted: January 08, 2004 at 07:15 PM (#517085)
Marc,

good point on the 154 in warp3 being wrong. 21 wins is about warp replacement level (plus easy math). 154-21=133. Dividing by 7 gives a penalty of 19. Thanks, thats much better.
   123. Paul Wendt Posted: January 08, 2004 at 07:39 PM (#517086)
DanG #128
This thread is due for an update. Here are the new eligibles as I have them for 1921-26. Not completely sure about Homerun Johnson's eligibility, but even with the 1922 start he's already 47 years old when he comes on.

Thanks, Dan. Is the WARP3 (W3) data now from the revised edition. Do you (or anyone here?) have access to old WARP3?

I loaded Dan's tables for 1918-1920 into a spreadsheet and rearranged. Here is part of the combined table, sorted by the difference between old and new WARP3 (W3diff=W3new-W3old).
Sweeney did not gain 29.3; probably some number greater than 9.3, since he newly qualified for the listing under W3new. Walsh and White both pitched for the Chicago White Stockings.

Leading MLB players newly eligible 1918-1920 (from DanG #124)
sorted by the effect of recent WARP3 revision

W3diff WS W3old W3new Fname Lname Pos
29.3 103 0.0 29.3 Bill Sweeney 2b (not really 29.3; probably greater than 9.3)
19.4 265 68.9 88.3 Ed Walsh P
16.5 235 50.8 67.3 Doc White P
11.8 174 33.3 45.1 Mike Donlin CF
10.6 127 20.5 31.1 Jake Stahl 1b
10.4 185 30.5 40.9 Nixey Callahan P/LF
8.7 133 14.7 23.4 Howie Camnitz P
7.5 339 86.0 93.5 Jimmy Sheckard LF
5.8 147 30.1 35.9 Johnny Bates CF
5.2 215 60.8 66.0 Danny Murphy 2b/RF
3.4 201 46.4 49.8 John Titus RF
2.5 287 60.6 63.1 Jack Powell P
1.0 169 29.7 30.7 Earl Moore P
-1.0 145 37.3 36.3 Mike Mitchell RF
-2.0 345 110.0 108.0 Bobby Wallace SS
-3.2 148 44.5 41.3 Matty McIntyre LF
-4.8 198 50.7 45.9 Art Devlin 3b
-7.0 155 41.7 34.7 Johnny Kling C

   124. RobC Posted: January 08, 2004 at 10:48 PM (#517089)
DanG

I have Bill Bradley on my list of 1921 eligibles, do you have him earlier? I guess who could be considered 1916 or would that be 1917?

Just checked, see he is on the 1916 list. Was there no adjustment (not even to 1917) for his 1915 fed league play? It was 66 games.
   125. Howie Menckel Posted: January 08, 2004 at 10:52 PM (#517090)
Well, I guess I'm the MERIT guy.
If Jackson is good enough, I'll put him in the HOM.
I won't 'reward' Jackson for extrapolated seasons, but obviously his peak rocks.

Same goes for Rose.

   126. karlmagnus Posted: January 08, 2004 at 11:33 PM (#517091)
"Regardless of the verdict of juries" I intend to extrapolate both Jackson (almost certainly HOM) Cicotte (probably on my ballot at bottom end) Weaver and indeed Ray Chapman (both probably not) to conservatively estimated full careers. Jackson batted .375 in the Series and in my view was railroaded by Landis and Comiskey, both of whom were thoroughly unattractive characters.

We're supposed to be ignoring character; in any case all 3 of these Black Sox appear to have had distinctly superior characters to several we've elected e.g. Pebbly Jack. Gandil would be a different matter.
   127. Rick A. Posted: January 08, 2004 at 11:50 PM (#517092)
I can't see a penalty of more than zeroing out their 1919 seasons

Another problem is their(the Black Sox) 1920 season. I'm currently rereading 'Eight Men Out'. I'm a few chapters ahead and I don't have the book in front of me, but it does say that they also threw games in 1920, not for money but because they were afraid of being exposed by the gamblers for throwing the 1919 Series. Thus, they were also throwing games in 1920.

I'll probably just zero out Jackson's 1919 season, but it is some food for thought.
   128. Howie Menckel Posted: January 08, 2004 at 11:55 PM (#517093)
karl,
I think Bill James has a pretty devastating inning by inning look at Jackson - when he got his hits, when he made his errors, etc.
I'd prefer the 'railroaded' theory myself, but unfortunately the way he played the Series doesn't seem to exonerate him even with the .375 average (which is amazing, but that's why Bill James is Bill James - on a good day, anyway).
   129. karlmagnus Posted: January 09, 2004 at 12:00 AM (#517094)
Cicotte's ERA+ in 1919 was 175; his postseason ERA+ in 1917-19 was about 140. If he and Shoeless Joe put up the numbers they did while throwing games, we should make an ADDITIONAL positive adjustment to reflect how good they really were. I've always been a big booster of Jackson, but having looked at the numbers I'm becoming an FO Cicotte, too. He'd have won 300 or very close if Landis hadn't stopped him.
   130. Rick A. Posted: January 09, 2004 at 12:25 AM (#517095)
Karl,

He'd have won 300 or very close if Landis hadn't stopped him.

I believe that should be parsed as:

He'd have won 300 or very close if he had been honest and didn't throw the Series.
   131. Rick A. Posted: January 09, 2004 at 12:28 AM (#517096)
Karl,

He'd have won 300 or very close if Landis hadn't stopped him.

I believe that should be parsed as:

He'd have won 300 or very close if he had been honest and didn't throw the Series.
   132. OCF Posted: January 09, 2004 at 12:29 AM (#517097)
karlmagnus, you're heading in a dangerous direction. Ray Chapman suffered a career-ending injury. How many good and possibly great baseball players ever suffered career-ending or career-altering injuries or illnesses? Many. Too many. I would draw a hard line with all of them: no extrapolation, no asking "what if". I don't ever want to ask "How good a player might he have been?" I will ask, "How good a player was he?" It is quite fair to claim that Lefty Grove was a great player in 1923 and that Ted Williams was a great player in 1943. It's fair game to argue that Frank Grant was a great player in 1893. That sort of claim is subject to interpretation of the evidence, and it has been thoroughly argued on both sides. How good a player was Ray Chapman in 1921? Exactly as good as Addie Joss in 1911.

No extrapolation for Chapman, for Joss, for Flick, for Dizzy Dean, for Dickie Thon, for Eric Davis - for any of them. Flick is a candidate for what he did accomplish; no more.

So was Joe Jackson a great player in 1921? I would have to say that he was not. He may have had the physical skills, but he was incapable of playing the game at the highest level, for reasons that he did have control over. If I won't extrapolate Ray Chapman, I certainly won't extrapolate Joe Jackson.
   133. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2004 at 12:55 AM (#517098)
I'm in total agreement with OCF.

I think we are in need of Commissioner Joe.

I think Bill James has a pretty devastating inning by inning look at Jackson - when he got his hits, when he made his errors, etc.

Not just James, but Hugh Fullerton and Ring Lardner (who were actually at the Series).
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2004 at 01:03 AM (#517099)
We're supposed to be ignoring character; in any case all 3 of these Black Sox appear to have had distinctly superior characters to several we've elected e.g. Pebbly Jack.

Glasscock didn't hurt the game. The Black Sox did.
   135. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2004 at 02:02 AM (#517100)
I apologize for the triplicate message in the noons and ones this afternoon. Again, I forgot that the server error message usually or always means a problem displaying the revised page.

Factual question: Is old WARP3 available to this group, for players under consideration here? (That would include, say, a complete list for all players with 1000 games or 1000 innings pitched.)
   136. Rick A. Posted: January 09, 2004 at 05:04 AM (#517101)
Here is some excerpts, for those that are interested, of 'Eight Men Out' in regards to the Sox's play in the 1920 season that I referenced in #148 above.

"Rumors had remained rumors over the winter. There was, however, one important difference: the gamblers had something big to hold over the seven players. If there was any doubt as to the extent of their power, that doubt was quickly dispelled. Their persistent aim was to control key ball games at the most advantageous odds. Their weapon was blackmail."

"At this point, the good gentlemen from St. Louis seized the moment and took control. Joe Pesch and Carl Zork, Atell's partners of the year before, made contact. The contact man was Fred McMullen. The instructions were familiar enough: they were to lose the first game at Cleveland. Immediately, the odds shifted, just as they had before the opening game of the past World Series. And once again, the betting skyrocketed, the odds ending at 6-5, with Cleveland favored.
   137. Rick A. Posted: January 09, 2004 at 05:09 AM (#517102)
Here is some excerpts, for those that are interested, of 'Eight Men Out' in regards to the Sox's play in the 1920 season that I referenced in #148 above.

"Rumors had remained rumors over the winter. There was, however, one important difference: the gamblers had something big to hold over the seven players. If there was any doubt as to the extent of their power, that doubt was quickly dispelled. Their persistent aim was to control key ball games at the most advantageous odds. Their weapon was blackmail."

"At this point, the good gentlemen from St. Louis seized the moment and took control. Joe Pesch and Carl Zork, Atell's partners of the year before, made contact. The contact man was Fred McMullen. The instructions were familiar enough: they were to lose the first game at Cleveland. Immediately, the odds shifted, just as they had before the opening game of the past World Series. And once again, the betting skyrocketed, the odds ending at 6-5, with Cleveland favored.
"It was a close ball game, with Chicago leading 2-1. White Sox pitcher Red Faber was having a great day. He seemed unbeatable; it was going to be up to the fielders to take his victory away from him, They did, in the eighth inning. A fly ball was hit over Jackson's head in left. Swede Risberg went out to receive Jackson's throw and make the relay throw in. Risberg threw so badly that neither Buck Weaver nor Red Faber, who was backing up, could get their hands on the ball. The run scored, tying the game, which Cleveland went on to win in the ninth."
"The pattern was repeated periodically thoughout the summer. The ballplayers accepted the action as a matter of course. They were paid off in small sums on no definite basis...If they remained loyal to these commitments, it was less out of greed than out of fear. Gamblers had an ominous way of keeping their victims in line by emphasizing the need for allegiance and silence. In a way, this simplified the problem for the ballplayers; it was a lot easier to accept dirty money if you were going to be butchered for turning it down."

Again this shows that it merely wasn't in the 1919 series that the Black Sox were throwing games, but also in the 1920 season in order to keep things quiet. As I said, I'll probably just zero out their 1919 season, but I'd have no problem if anyone didn't want to count their 1920 season also.

   138. Rick A. Posted: January 09, 2004 at 05:25 AM (#517103)
Damn, sorry for the double post.
   139. OCF Posted: January 09, 2004 at 07:06 PM (#517105)
One thing we're going to have to start looking at: how much credit do we give for post-season performances? It's not something we've been paying much attention to so far, and I don't see any reason to take things like the Temple Cup particularly seriously. But starting in 1903, we do have the World Series, and we do have the records of performances in those games. There are some players I can think of for whom considering their post-season performances will help their arguments - Lou Brock and John Smoltz, to name two. But is that fair to someone like Harlond Clift or Ernie Banks? The 1919 White Sox did win the pennant, and several of them contributed quite a bit to that success. Perhaps all the crooks have negative post-season value?
   140. Marc Posted: January 09, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#517106)
Ah, the achilles heel of sabermetrics. No acknowledgement of post-season play! To a large degree the "history" of MLB is the history of post-season play, and yet....
   141. OCF Posted: January 09, 2004 at 08:00 PM (#517107)
Yeah, Marc. One example: In the 1871 NA season, Lip Pike played 28 games, in which his team went 13-15 in a 10-run environment. Pike's percentages are .377/.400/.654 in those 28 games. Those of you who are putting Pike on the ballot must think this is pretty significant.

Lou Brock played in 21 World Series games, in which his team went 11-10 in a 4-run environment. Brock's percentages are .391/.424/.655, plus 14-2 as a base stealer, in those 21 games. Of course Brock's performance in those 21 games was not typical of his career performance, but if you ignore the post-season, you don't see it at all.
   142. Marc Posted: January 09, 2004 at 08:11 PM (#517108)
O, I'm 100% in agreement with the second half of your post!

As to Pike in '71, you talk as if those 28 games were the sum total of Lip Pike's participation in the game! Those 28 games are exactly as relevant (and much more typical) to Pike's career as those 21 games are to Brock's. (As a percent, of course, they're much more significant, but that would be hair splitting. And of course as a part of "baseball 'lore'" [choosing the term "lore" rather than the term "history" very selectively] then Brock's achievement is more significant, but statistically that would be hair splitting, too.)

If you want me to choose between thinking about Pike's 1871 season and Brock's 21 WS games, well, don't make me chose!
   143. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2004 at 08:27 PM (#517110)
Post-season play should be included, but mainly as a tie-breaker. It has value, but shouldn't be overstated, IMO.
   144. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#517111)
Post-season play should be included, but mainly as a tie-breaker. It has value, but shouldn't be overstated, IMO.
   145. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2004 at 08:33 PM (#517112)
I didn't hit the button twice, BTW.
   146. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2004 at 08:34 PM (#517114)
I didn't hit the button twice, BTW.
   147. Paul Wendt Posted: January 09, 2004 at 10:14 PM (#517115)
One thing we're going to have to start looking at: how much credit do we give for post-season performances? It's not something we've been paying much attention to so far, and I don't see any reason to take things like the Temple Cup particularly seriously. But starting in 1903, we do have the World Series,

You have world championship series in 1884-1890 and 1903 before they were institutionalized in 1905. You might exclude the meaningless games played after the "world champion" was determined, in 1887 (4 games) and 1888 (2).

You also have the NL championship series in 1892, between first-half and second-half winners as in each 1981 division.

Yes, there is a consensus against the Temple Cup series, 1894-1898, as well as the Chronicle-Telegraph Cup series, 1900, and other games played after the close of the "championship season".
   148. DanG Posted: January 10, 2004 at 02:05 AM (#517116)
RobC asked:

I have Bill Bradley on my list of 1921 eligibles, do you have him earlier? I guess who could be considered 1916 or would that be 1917?

Just checked, see he is on the 1916 list. Was there no adjustment (not even to 1917) for his 1915 fed league play? It was 66 games.


See #47 above for reasoning on Bradley's eligibility.

As for the post-season play issue, I give it very little weight, for two main reasons:

1) Inequality of opportunity. Wes Ferrell or Ernie Banks may have been the greatest postseason performer ever, but they never got a chance to show it.

2) Small sample size.

Having said that, I would give a slight nudge for great postseason performance, since it tends to be highly leveraged play. But like saves, you have to look at the context of the performance: did his team win, did he play a majot role in any of the wins, etc.
   149. DanG Posted: January 10, 2004 at 05:08 AM (#517117)
Paul Wendt wrote:

Is the WARP3 (W3) data now from the revised edition. Do you (or anyone here?) have access to old WARP3?

I never tried to systematically compile everyone's old WARP3. Those I do have are on older files of the eligibles list (through 1932). For Bill Sweeney, his old W3 was something like 19.8, IIRC, so he gained less than 10.

The new W3 seems to be more consistent with win shares numbers, but that's just my impression.
   150. Carl Goetz Posted: January 10, 2004 at 04:05 PM (#517118)
Does anyone know what the Translated statistics on BaseballProspectus.com represent. I can't find an explanation anywhere on their site.
   151. DanG Posted: January 28, 2004 at 04:29 PM (#517120)
Another way I find useful is to arrange the candidates in three approximately equal classes: 1-Pitchers, 2-Catchers and infielders, 3-Firstbasemen and outfielders. Kind of a condensed defensive spectrum. It's good to compare players in these larger classes, as limiting analysis to only one position can lead to distorted conclusions. Willie Keeler comes to mind.

For our next 14 elections, 1919-1932, here are the top 70 careers arranged into these three classes:

<b>Pitchers
WS W3 Eligible Rookie
426 128.8 1922 1901 Christy Mathewson-P (1925)
361 100.1 1923 1901 Ed Plank-P (1926)
265 88.3 1920 1904 Ed Walsh-P (1959)
296 70.3 1922 1903 Mordecai Brown-P (1948)
247 73.1 1926 1908 Eddie Cicotte-P (1969)
266 61.7 1932 1913 Wilbur Cooper-P (1973)
235 67.3 1919 1901 Doc White-P (1969)
215 68.5 1932 1913 Hooks Dauss-P (1963)
243 60.0 1932 1909 Babe Adams-P (1968)
255 56.4 1921 1902 George Mullin-P (1944)
231 58.6 1923 1903 Chief Bender-P (1954)
193 55.6 1928 1909 Joe Wood-P/RF (1985)
205 50.7 1927 1910 Hippo Vaughn-P (1966)
206 48.3 1923 1905 Ed Reulbach-P (1961)
177 54.3 1922 1907 Nap Rucker-P (1970)
189 48.4 1927 1908 Slim Sallee-P (1950)
208 43.6 1931 1909 Rube Marquard-P (1980)
198 41.9 1925 1904 Red Ames-P (1936)
178 44.8 1930 1914 Jeff Pfeffer-P (1972)
174 43.1 1926 1911 Claude Hendrix-P (1944)
160 46.6 1931 1913 Dutch Leonard-P (1952)
161 44.9 1927 1911 Ray Caldwell-P (1967)
163 39.1 1921 1904 Hooks Wiltse-P (1959)

Catchers and infielders
WS W3 Eligible Rookie
655 180.1 1923 1897 Honus Wagner-SS (1955)
496 176.4 1922 1896 Nap Lajoie-2b (1959)
345 108.0 1920 1895 Bobby Wallace-SS (1960)
328 74.8 1921 1899 Tommy Leach-CF/3b (1969)
301 80.9 1928 1909 Frank Baker-3b (1963)
242 79.2 1930 1912 Del Pratt-2b (1977)
268 70.8 1923 1903 Johnny Evers-2b (1947)
289 59.0 1926 1907 Larry Doyle-2b (1974)
258 65.6 1921 1902 Joe Tinker-SS (1948)
258 64.6 1930 1910 Larry Gardner-3b (1976)
222 70.8 1922 1904 Miller Huggins-2b (1929)
232 68.0 1928 1909 Donie Bush-SS (1972)
215 66.0 1920 1901 Danny Murphy-2b/RF (1955)
218 57.5 1928 1909 Art Fletcher-SS (1950)
231 53.7 1921 1901 Roger Bresnahan-C (1944)
214 42.1 1925 1908 Heinie Zimmerman-3b (1969)
198 45.9 1919 1904 Art Devlin-3b (1948)
171 50.7 1925 1904 Terry Turner-SS/3b (1960)
148 51.6 1926 1912 Ray Chapman-SS (1920)
171 43.1 1926 1908 Buck Herzog-2b/3b/SS (1953)
140 49.7 1929 1912 George Cutshaw-2b (1973)
171 40.1 1929 1912 Eddie Foster-3b (1937)
127 46.5 1926 1905 George McBride-SS (1973)
161 37.6 1924 1905 Mickey Doolan-SS (1951)

Firstbasemen and outfielders
WS W3 Eligible Rookie
446 115.2 1923 1899 Sam Crawford-RF (1968)
339 93.5 1919 1898 Jimmy Sheckard-LF (1947)
321 96.8 1931 1909 Harry Hooper-RF (1974)
354 77.5 1925 1904 Sherry Magee-LF (1929)
294 80.3 1926 1910 Joe Jackson-LF/RF (1951)
265 82.1 1931 1913 Bobby Veach-LF (1945)
287 73.1 1927 1907 Ed Konetchy-1b (1947)
290 63.3 1931 1913 George J. Burns-LF (1966)
266 66.1 1928 1907 Clyde Milan-CF (1953)
263 56.4 1930 1910 Jake Daubert-1b (1924)
227 55.9 1932 1910 Stuffy McInnis-1B (1960)
227 52.6 1927 1908 Dode Paskert-CF (1959)
239 49.3 1924 1905 Frank “Wildfire” Schulte-RF (1949)
202 51.8 1926 1908 Gavvy Cravath-RF (1963)
206 50.1 1932 1918 Ross Youngs-RF (1927)
231 43.0 1925 1905 Hal Chase-1b (1947)
201 49.8 1919 1903 John Titus-RF (1943)
174 49.2 1930 1910 Amos Strunk-CF (1979)
164 50.4 1929 1911 Tilly Walker-LF/CF (1959)
180 42.2 1927 1910 Duffy Lewis-LF (1979)
191 35.7 1926 1908 Fred Merkle-1b (1956)
161 41.9 1928 1911 Burt Shotton-CF/LF (1962)
175 36.6 1926 1914 Benny Kauff-CF (1961)

New eligibles for 1919-20 are in #124 above. New eligibles for 1921-26 are in #128. New eligibles for 1927-32 I have not yet posted, but will if anyone wants to see what I have.

   152. MattB Posted: January 28, 2004 at 04:57 PM (#517121)
I have found Dan's presentation of new eligibles very helpful in organizing my ballots. I, for one, would like to see 1927-1932.
   153. DanG Posted: January 28, 2004 at 05:20 PM (#517122)
Thanks for the positive feedback, Matt. Here are new eligibles 1927-32 as I currently have them:

<b>***1927 (May 30)?elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
287 73.1 1907 Ed Konetchy-1b (1947)
227 52.6 1908 Dode Paskert-CF (1959)
205 50.7 1910 Hippo Vaughn-P (1966)
189 48.4 1908 Slim Sallee-P (1950)
180 42.2 1910 Duffy Lewis-LF (1979)
161 44.9 1911 Ray Caldwell-P (1967)
155 38.0 1909 Dots Miller-1b/2b (1923)
143 37.9 1911 Lefty Tyler-P (1953)
106 28.8 1914 Braggo Roth-RF (1936)
087 14.4 1910 Bill Killefer-C (1960)
***1928 (June 13)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
301 80.9 1909 Frank Baker-3b (1963)
266 66.1 1907 Clyde Milan-CF (1953)
232 68.0 1909 Donie Bush-SS (1972)
218 57.5 1909 Art Fletcher-SS (1950)
193 55.6 1909 Joe Wood-P/RF (1985)
161 41.9 1911 Burt Shotton-CF/LF (1962)
143 40.9 1909 Jimmy Austin-3B (1965)
137 33.4 1910 Jack Graney-LF (1978)
066 14.7 1918 Austin McHenry-LF (1922)
***1929 (June 27)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
164 50.4 1911 Tilly Walker-LF/CF (1959)
140 49.7 1912 George Cutshaw-2b (1973)
171 40.1 1912 Eddie Foster-3b (1937)
139 37.1 1916 Jim Bagby-P (1954)
144 34.2 1911 Fred Toney-P (1953)
124 32.7 1913 Reb Russell-P/RF (1973)
134 30.1 1911 Earl Hamilton-P (1968)
(Negro). 1909 Spotswood Poles-CF (1962)
***1930 (July 11)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
242 79.2 1912 Del Pratt-2b (1977)
258 64.6 1910 Larry Gardner-3b (1976)
263 56.4 1910 Jake Daubert-1b (1924)
174 49.2 1910 Amos Strunk-CF (1979)
178 44.8 1914 Jeff Pfeffer-P (1972)
149 35.5 1910 Shano Collins-RF (1955)
148 25.4 1914 Hy Myers-CF (1965)
113 25.3 1918 Charlie Hollocher-SS (1940)
125 16.5 1911 Ivy Olson-SS (1965)
***1931 (July 25)—elect 1
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
321 96.8 1909 Harry Hooper-RF (1974)
265 82.1 1913 Bobby Veach-LF (1945)
290 63.3 1913 George J. Burns-LF (1966)
208 43.6 1909 Rube Marquard-P (1980)
160 46.6 1913 Dutch Leonard-P (1952)
188 30.2 1914 Milt Stock-3b (1977)
159 34.8 1913 Casey Stengel-RF (1975)
142 31.1 1911 Rube Benton-P (1937)
156 25.4 1914 Max Flack-RF (1975)
134 30.2 1912 Howie Shanks-LF/3b (1941)
117 31.1 1913 Nemo Leibold-CF/RF (1977)
118 29.5 1911 Hank Gowdy-C (1966)
134 23.7 1913 Tommy Griffith-RF (1967)
115 27.3 1912 Ivy Wingo-C (1941)
101 24.8 1915 Elmer J. Smith-RF (1984)
(Negro). 1918 Dave Brown-P (1925)
***1932 (August 8)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
266 61.7 1913 Wilbur Cooper-P (1973)
215 68.5 1913 Hooks Dauss-P (1963)
243 60.0 1909 Babe Adams-P (1968)
227 55.9 1910 Stuffy McInnis-1B (1960)
206 50.1 1918 Ross Youngs-RF (1927)
142 36.4 1914 Everett Scott-SS (1960)
134 33.1 1912 Hank Severeid-C (1968)
157 25.3 1914 Jimmy Johnston-3B/RF (1967)
106 31.2 1914 Bill Wambsganss-2B (1985)
105 27.4 1916 Whitey Witt-CF/SS (1988)
120 23.0 1916 Carson Bigbee-LF (1964)
(Negro). 1908 Jose Mendez-P (1928)
   154. Paul Wendt Posted: January 29, 2004 at 12:09 AM (#517124)
DanG,
Thanks. Now we have 1918-1932 in the same format, using new WARP3.

Rick A. #157 on Chicago White Sox 1920
Here is some excerpts, for those that are interested, of 'Eight Men Out' in regards to the Sox's play in the 1920 season that I referenced in #148 above.

Rick,
That's interesting. If you provide a page number, I will ask the Deadball Era Cmtee for opinion.

   155. favre Posted: January 29, 2004 at 12:21 AM (#517125)
I think Louis Santop will also be eligible in 1932.

That will be interesting--Hill in 1931, Santop in 1932, after a long dry spell of quality new eligibles.
   156. DanG Posted: January 29, 2004 at 05:28 PM (#517126)
Thanks for the word on Hill and Santop. I always need a little help with the Negro leaguers. The sources I checked agree with those years for eligibility.
   157. DanG Posted: January 29, 2004 at 06:39 PM (#517127)
Searching for other Negro candidates I came up with a couple more. Catcher Bruce Petway is eligible in 1931 and shortstop Dobie Moore comes on in 1932 (although his career was short, partly due to WW-I). Jimmy Lyons is another possibility, but he seems to be regarded as less than the others.

Of the Negro newbies in 1931-32, Santop looks like the cream, the only likely HoMer.
   158. MattB Posted: January 29, 2004 at 08:35 PM (#517128)
What was our decision mechanism for determining that Bobby Wallace is eligible next year (1920)?

He had 160 plate appearances after 1914, including over 100 PAs (and 30 games in the field) in 1918 alone. If 100 PAs isn't enough to re-start the eligibility clock, then where are we drawing the line?
   159. DanG Posted: January 29, 2004 at 09:22 PM (#517129)
Bobby Wallace is one of those borderline, ballot committee decision type players. IMO, there are more elements to consider in determining eligibility--you need to consider individual circumstances.

The first year Wallace goes under 10 games is 1915. Token appearances that year and in 1916 and 1917 don't restart the clock, obviously. In 1918, the player shortage caused by WW-I grants him (and others) more playing time (108 PA, 32 G of, which 30 are in the field). He never plays after that.

Here we are in late fall of 1919 putting together the ballot for the 1920 election. Wallace has just turned 46, plenty old enough, and did not play in 1919. The first question we ask is did he ever contribute significantly in any one season since 1914? No, his runs created were 2-1-0-3 from 1915-18. He never returned to even semiregular (more than ~25% of a season) play. The second question we ask is, is there much chance his play from 1920-on will alter our image of his career? No. Moreover, his play after 1914 amounted to less than 2% of his career PA.

So, sure, 108 PA in 1918 is a lot. But he is so old and that year is so far removed from his period of regular play, and he played poorly, and it occured during a year of a player shortage, that I think we can dismiss it.

It's not any one of the above, it's all of them taken together. Considering all these aspects, I see him as eligible in 1920. The final determination is Joe's, of course.
   160. RobC Posted: January 29, 2004 at 10:39 PM (#517130)
Dan and I disagree on when some guys should be eligible, but I have Wallace as 1920 also. Mine is more mechanical than Dan's, but seems to represent the consensus opinion on the subject (see the token appearances threads for me overarguing the issue). As Dan said, the final decision is Joe's, until we actually have a ballot committee.

I need to post my new eligibles lists for comparison.
   161. Rick A. Posted: January 30, 2004 at 04:48 PM (#517131)
Paul,

It's on pages 144-145 of the First Owl Books Editon 1987.
   162. Rick A. Posted: January 30, 2004 at 04:51 PM (#517132)
Paul,

It's on pages 144-145 of the First Owl Books Editon 1987.
   163. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 30, 2004 at 06:52 PM (#517133)
Of the Negro newbies in 1931-32, Santop looks like the cream, the only likely HoMer.

Top is certainly the best candidate, but I am likely to give serious consideration to Bruce Petway as well, particularly since I believe both were considerably better than their major league counterparts during their active period.
   164. Marc Posted: January 30, 2004 at 07:17 PM (#517134)
Speaking of Wallace, like Elmer Flick, he was regarded as a questionable choice for Cooperstown when selected. But he looks solid, much closer to Davis and Dahlen than to Tinker or other very rough contemporaries. Among IFers, I have him ahead of Collins and even ahead of my personal fave, Ed Williamson. (No, not ahead of Wagner or Lajoie.) But virtually a no-brainer. Very impressive.
   165. OCF Posted: January 30, 2004 at 07:38 PM (#517135)
Marc - a couple of things about Wallace.

If he'd retired when it made sense to retire, we'd be considering him now. Those last few years aren't doing much for his case.

He does have a pitching career, which at first glance looks like about half of Van Haltren's. But I'm going to repeat something I said about Cy Seymour. There are players (like Van Haltren) who pitched from 45' or 50' before 1893 and then became full time players. As an oversimplification, it looks like they were roughly the same hitters before and after the position change. But the post-1893 players who started out pitching from 60'6", like Seymour and Wallace (and even the Babe), tended to improve sharply as hitters when they stopped pitching.
   166. Marc Posted: January 30, 2004 at 08:26 PM (#517136)
I think Wallace came back in 1918 not because of WWI, but because he knew that the HoM would be entering into a drought period in the early '20s.
   167. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 08, 2004 at 06:45 PM (#517137)
I think Wallace came back in 1918 not because of WWI, but because he knew that the HoM would be entering into a drought period in the early '20s.

I'm still not having him anywhere near my ballot (though he was a very good player).
   168. Chris Cobb Posted: February 09, 2004 at 12:07 AM (#517138)
John, what was your position on Bid McPhee? I ask because Wallace looks to me to be a very similar sort of player. Superior defensive player who was a pretty good hitter and played at that level for a long time.
   169. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 09, 2004 at 06:25 AM (#517139)
John, what was your position on Bid McPhee?

I'm assuming that was a rhetorical question. :-)

Here's a few differences:

1) Wallace only had 200 more PAs than McPhee, even though Bid played when the schedule was much shorter than Rhody. McPhee was a much more durable player.

2) I think McPhee (including most infielders of the 19th century) would have had an easier time during the Deadball Era with a glove and a less rowdy environment. IMO, an infielder at the beginning of the 20th century had an easier time sustaining their peak than their 19th century counterparts.

3) All players at every position were playing a little longer during the Deadball Era than during the 19th century. I factor that in, too.

I overstated the "chasm" that exists between Wallace and my ballot. He's not that far off, but it's not enough for me to place him on my ballot.
   170. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 14, 2004 at 07:14 AM (#517140)
<i>karl,
   171. MattB Posted: February 16, 2004 at 02:45 AM (#517141)
The problem with looking at inning-by-inning hits and outs is it seems to assume that if Jackson had been trying ALL THE TIME, he would have hit even better than .375, despite the fact that he only hit .351 in the regular season.

Jackson had 12 hits in the 1919 World Series, the All-time record for hits in a world series is 13 (tie, Bobby Richardson, Lou Brock, and Marty Barrett).

The assumption that if Jackson had just been TRYING, he would have easily set the record strikes me as a little far-fetched. Players can certainly make outs on purpose, but they can't make up for it by getting extra hits other times. Jackson simply was not good enough t

The .375 simply proves the issue for me. Assuming he made outs on purpose requires the assumption that he was hitting even higher than .375 in the at bats in which he was trying. That is certainly the less likely answer.
   172. jimd Posted: March 02, 2004 at 02:05 AM (#517144)
Read some of the lowlights here. The big one (that I know of) was how he behaved during the Brotherwood war, which earned him the nickname "Judas".
   173. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 02, 2004 at 06:39 PM (#517145)
Read some of the lowlights here. The big one (that I know of) was how he behaved during the Brotherwood war, which earned him the nickname "Judas".

Ward felt Ewing did far more damage to the Players League than anything Glasscock ever did.
   174. jimd Posted: March 02, 2004 at 09:01 PM (#517146)
I'm not familiar with what Ewing did. Glasscock I read about when I was a kid.
   175. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 02, 2004 at 09:24 PM (#517147)
Ewing was the one that brokered the meeting between the principal owners of the Players League with the Spalding and others from the NL after the season was over. After Spalding offered to take in some of the strong teams from the Players League, it was over for Ward and company. If Ewing hadn't made his non-approved action, the Players League may have had a chance since they had the most prosperous season between the three leagues.

If there was a Judas for John M. Ward, it was Ewing.

As for Glasscock, I don't know why he receives so much abuse from some corners when there were others (Welch and Mullane come to mind) who changed their minds as he did.
   176. jimd Posted: March 02, 2004 at 10:36 PM (#517148)
Ah. I'd heard about that owners meeting, just not who arranged it.
   177. Marc Posted: March 10, 2004 at 03:14 AM (#517149)
The answer is:

1922--Lajoie, Mathewson
   178. MattB Posted: March 22, 2004 at 10:48 PM (#517150)
In post #22 DanG has a great list of the Top 40 new eligibles for the "next 13 Elections." Since this election (1923) is the last of the "next 13", and since the Electee seems pretty well fore-ordained (due to unanimity in sample ballots) I thought I'd look back at those 13 elections, assuming that Wagner is this year's inductee.

In those 13 years, we've elected 19 persons.

We've elected only 8 of the top 10 (not #6 Crawford or #10 Wallace)
   179. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 30, 2004 at 09:04 PM (#517151)
Are there any top-tier Negro League players eligible for 1924?
   180. DanG Posted: April 01, 2004 at 04:26 AM (#517152)
Upcoming top-tier Negro League candidates, as I have it:

1927 Pete Hill-LF
   181. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 01, 2004 at 08:18 AM (#517153)
Thanks, Dan!

<i>1922--Lajoie, Mathewson
   182. Marc Posted: April 01, 2004 at 06:28 PM (#517154)
John, well, I'm not so sure either but it was fun to think about. From this list, though, you could infer 1923 results of:

1. Wagner
   183. Howie Menckel Posted: April 02, 2004 at 01:47 PM (#517156)
Just snarfing DanG's list from higher in the ballot, for those who would be looking for it. Your mileage (and Negro Laguers) may vary..

***1924 (April 18) ?elect 2
   184. Jim Sp Posted: April 02, 2004 at 07:00 PM (#517157)
Is 1924 the weakest set of candidates ever? I would guess only Schulte even has an argument to be in the top 1000 players of all time.
   185. MattB Posted: April 02, 2004 at 07:28 PM (#517158)
Check out 1929. I don't know how Spotswood Poles will fare, but besides him, we've got a whole lot of nothing.
   186. OCF Posted: April 02, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#517160)
Schulte at least won one MVP award, in 1911. His case for that MVP isn't a slam dunk, but it's not goofy, either, and the year wasn't that far out of line with his career. How many players are there who had a career of reasonably normal shape and won, or could have won, an MVP in their best year? That doesn't put you in the HoM, but it's still a nice, if not too terribly exlusive, club to belong to.

The voting in 1911 is something you can point to in other years and leagues: there's a strong desire to honor someone on the pennant-winning team, but if the writers can't agree on which member of that team to back, the votes split and someone else slips in. In this case, they split between Christy Mathewson and Larry Doyle, so Schulte won, Mathewson was second, and Pete Alexander, Doyle, and Honus Wagner tied for third. Schulte, Doyle, and Wagner all had the same OPS+: 154 or 156. Schulte played 154 games, Doyle 143, and Wagner 130. My RA+-pythagorean sheet has Alexander (a rookie) at 27-13 and Mathewson at 23-11 for that year. WARP-3 has it as Mathewson 10.0, Alexander 8.6, Wagner 8.2, Schulte 7.4, Doyle 6.0.
   187. Marc Posted: April 02, 2004 at 09:53 PM (#517161)
O, I would think Berra's MVP in '54 would be a case in point. There were 3-4 Indians who could have won it.
   188. OCF Posted: April 02, 2004 at 10:38 PM (#517162)
Marc, I was thinking of that very case when I wrote that, and I think we're at least going to have some conversations about Doby, Avila, Lemon, and Garcia when the time comes. Neither Schulte in 1911 nor Berra in 1954 were particularly bad choices, as MVP votes go.

I'm not saying that Schulte belongs on anyone's ballot. I've got him behind Ryan, Duffy, Van Haltren, Thompson, Browning, Thomas, Hartsel, and probably some others, so he won't be on mine. But he was a very good player.
   189. Marc Posted: April 03, 2004 at 01:28 AM (#517163)
PS. WS had Alexander 34, Matty 32, Schulte 31, Wagner 30, Doyle 28. Nowadays they would refuse to give the MVP to a pitcher anyway and either go with the RBI leader (tied), Schulte, or maybe the middle IF from the pennant winning team, Doyle. No way would they give it to the old guy who had won it (who knows?) two-three times before ;-)

PPS. TPR had Matty 6.7, Wagner 4.4, Sheckard 3.9, Alex 3.5, Babe Adams 3.5 (and a respectable 25 WS), and Herzog, Tinker and Sweeney ahead of Schulte with a respectable 2.7 and Doyle with an insulting 1.4.

Put the three measures together and Matty sure looks like the right choice.
   190. OCF Posted: April 03, 2004 at 02:03 AM (#517164)
No way would they give it to the old guy who had won it (who knows?) two-three times before ;-)

Except as it actually happened, there was no voted award before 1911, and Wagner, although he had gotten some awards for being batting champion, didn't have those 2-3 (or 6-7) previous MVP's. He never would win an MVP/Chalmers/League award. I can see passing him over in 1911, when he missed significant time and played some first base. In 1912 he was back to full-time and back to full-time SS. His batting stats (.324/.395/.496) were the same or better than Doyle's (.330/.393/.471), his playing time was the same, and according to FRAA or FRAR, his fielding blew Doyle away. But Doyle played for the winning team and that's who they gave it to.
   191. Marc Posted: April 03, 2004 at 03:01 AM (#517166)
O, I was talking from the perspective of if they had had an official MVP starting in '00 or '01 or before, and assuming it was voted by the writers. Thus, the idea that Hans would have 2-3 ;-) MVPs was just a little dig at the writers' choices over the years.

For the record in 1912 WS were Wagner 35, Zimmerman 34, Matty 31, Doyle 29.

In 1913 Matty 30, Cravath 29...Daubert 17. Daubert won the BA title at .350 but otherwise I am clueless to understand that vote. Cravath finished second, followed by Maranville (also 17 WS), Matty, Chief Meyers (20 WS but 9th on his team), Vic Saier (a respectable 26), etc. etc. It's tempting to say the Giants just had too many candidates this year also. In addition to Matty and Meyers, Fletcher, Doyle, Shafer, Murray and Burns also got votes. Matty is my pick, certainly. But Doyle--and also Art Fletcher, BTW--have been criminally under-remembered. Both were great, great players in their prime.

And at least I can say that Larry was a better choice in 1912 than Daubert in '13.

In 1915 there was no award and Doyle racked up 33 WS that year. Of course Pete Alexander earned 43, Cravath 35 and Kauff 34, and the Phils won the pennant so it is unlikely Leapin' Larry would have won a second award.

And just to conclude this quick trip around the Chalmers Award, in 1914 they gave it to Evers, and it is easy to understand that they would give it to one of the Miracle Braves. The Chalmers voting was Evers (25 WS, tied for 3rd but tied for 1st position player on the team), Maranville also of Boston (24), Bill James (no, not the sabermetrician, the old spitballer, 36 WS, tops in the league), B. Burns who got 31 votes (and 31 WS, the only player besides James with 30), Dots Miller (21), Jeff Tesreau (21), Dick Rudolph, Boston pitcher (24) and Sherry Magee (29) and Zack Wheat (26).

Along with Larry Doyle and Art Fletcher, Magee is of course one of the great forgotten players of the deadball era. His misfortunes (plural) include, perhaps, that in 1914 he was with the Phillies and the Miracle Braves won it all. In '15 he was with the Braves who finished 2nd to--you guess it--the Phillies. But in '14 he led the league in RBI with 103 in a low-run environment (G. Burns led with 100 runs scored). Magee also scored 96 times and hit .314 (Daubert won his second straight batting title at .329). But in addition to this Sherry, a career LF, was pressed into service as a SS for 39 games, fielding .934 with 9 errors. Among his other misfortunes was that there was no MVP award in 1910 when he easily led the league in WS with 36, not that that's any guarantee of course, nor in 1907-08 when he also earned more than 30. And also, he had the misfortune of sharing his surname with one Lee, who was banned from the game for his involvement with gamblers. There has been speculation that some have confused Lee and Sherry through the years.
   192. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 03, 2004 at 07:39 AM (#517167)
Is he the Cupid Childs of the teens, or will he get more HOM support?

He's not the Cupid Childs of the teens because he wasn't the best second baseman for that decade (Collins obviously was).

Doyle won't be on my ballot, though he was a fine, fine player.
   193. Jim Sp Posted: April 07, 2004 at 10:53 PM (#517168)
I'm hopelessly confused on the eligibility dates for the Negro league players, where can I find the correct list?
   194. Marc Posted: April 08, 2004 at 02:01 AM (#517169)
Jim, I do not claim this (the first list) to be official but I cut and pasted it from somewhere in HoM to a doc I keep on my desktop here.

1927 Pete Hill-LF
   195. DanG Posted: April 09, 2004 at 02:13 AM (#517170)
That first list of NL eligibles through 1934 was posted by me, right here in #208. I think it's pretty accurte. I purposely omitted Jimmy Lyons, who doesn't get near the raves of the other candidates listed.

A point to remember is a thread entitled "Should we change eligibility for Negro Leaguers?" that was started 2/15/04. There, Joe decided that HR Johnson and others to follow would be eligible at age 45, provided they were inactive at least one year. That rule makes Pete Hill eligible earlier, as well as Pop Lloyd. According to most sources, Lloyd last played in 1932, well past age 45. He has to wait a year so he's eligible in 1934. I only figured eligibility to that year, I usually am working about ten years ahead of where we are.

Hope this helps.
   196. Marc Posted: April 09, 2004 at 02:35 AM (#517171)
DanG, I am more than happy to have somebody (not me) make those decisions. I have no complaints. But I did want to get a headstart on evaluating all of the guys through the end of the '30s.
   197. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: April 09, 2004 at 04:30 AM (#517172)
Re: Negro Leaguers entry dates.

As I understand it, the rule is 5 year wait, eligible 6th year after retirement, (like MLB players) or when they turn 25 - whichever comes first. Using those rules, & the info on birthdates & final years listed in the Negro league hitting & pitching stat files in the yahoo groups, the following players should be eligble before 1940 (note: not looking at above lists nor at if the person barely played in their last year/s):

Pete Hill, OF - 1925
   198. Thok Posted: April 09, 2004 at 07:34 AM (#517173)
Will a list of candidates up to say 1945 be going up soon? It would be nice to get a feel for how the future elections will go (and to get a feel for how long Caruthers, Pearce and the outfield glut will be kicking around).
   199. Howie Menckel Posted: April 17, 2004 at 05:52 PM (#517174)
from DanG, and then Matt B, from above, for future reference...........

1925 (May 2)?elect 2
   200. Marc Posted: April 17, 2004 at 09:48 PM (#517175)
Howie and all, don't forget:

1925--Pete Hill and Spot Poles
Page 2 of 10 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9154 seconds
49 querie(s) executed