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

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Quincy Trouppe

Eligible in 1958.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 17, 2005 at 01:43 PM | 94 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 17, 2005 at 02:01 PM (#1551879)
Does anyone here know how Trouppe earned Walter Johnson's famous sobriquet "The Big Train?"
   2. The Ancient Mariner Posted: August 17, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1552996)
No, but I can tell you that his son is one heck of a poet . . .
   3. Howie Menckel Posted: August 17, 2005 at 10:22 PM (#1553289)
pronounced "troo-PAY"



baseballaddict.com, I think is where I found this:

"Originally spelled Troupe, he put an extra "p" in his name because Latin American sportswriters continually misspelled it.

His son, Quincy Troupe (one p) is Professor of Creative Writing and American and Caribbean Literature at the University of California, San Diego."
   4. The Ancient Mariner Posted: August 18, 2005 at 01:17 AM (#1553922)
Yeah, but his son pronounces it "TROOP"; iirc, he said his dad changed the pronunciation as well as the spelling.
   5. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 22, 2005 at 03:09 PM (#1563225)
Just bringing this info over from the 1958 discussion thread.

Posted by Dr. Chaleeko on August 12, 2005 at 01:31 AM (#1541022)
QUINCY TROUPE'S MEXICAN LEAGUE PERFORMANCES IN CONTEXT


MEXICAN COUNTING STATS
YEAR TEAM AGE G AB H TB 2B 3B HR BB SB
----------------------------------------------
1939 MON 26 38 137 42 71 11 3 4 24 7
1940 MON 27 76 276 93 150 25 7 6 48 9
1941 MON 28 98 363 111 171 25 4 9 66 9
1942 MEX 29 70 269 98 171 27 5 12 62 20
1943 MEX 30 76 276 83 143 18 3 12 60 5
1944 MEX 31 57 197 47 82 12 1 7 40 4
1950 JAL 37 67 206 58 92 10 0 8 55 3
1951 JAL 38 63 177 45 70 6 5 3 52 2
==============================================
TOTAL 545 1901 577 950 134 28 61 407 59

POSITIONS: Cisneros offers no defensive splits, and he lists Troupe as being a 3B-C. The Negro Leagues book that KJOK posted a page from the other day shows his positions this way:

1939 C 2B SS OF
1940 3B
1941 C 3B
1942 C
1943 C
1944 C 3B 1B OF
1950 C 3B
1951 C

The Mexican season typically lasted between 80 and 100 games, though I think that the 1939 season was probably more like 50-60 games long.

MEXICAN CAREER RELATIVE AVERAGES
LG LG LG
YEAR AVG OBP SLG AVG OBP SLG OPS+
--------------------------------------
1939 .307 .410 .518 .261 .319 .358 173
1940 .337 .435 .543 .290 .379 .420 144
1941 .306 .418 .471 .288 .390 .396 125
1942 .364 .483 .636 .289 .380 .394 189
1943 .301 .426 .518 .273 .366 .367 157
1944 .239 .367 .416 .284 .380 .387 104
1950 .282 .433 .447 .272 .361 .335 153
1951 .254 .424 .395 .279 .384 .367 118
=======================================
.304 .426 .500 .281 .374 .382 145

MEXICAN CAREER RELATIVE AVERAGES
AVG+ 108
OBP+ 114
SLG+ 131
OPS+ 145


ROUGH TRANSLATION FROM MEXICAN LEAGUE TO MLB CONTEXT
MLE AVG MLE OBP MLE SLG
-------------------------------
1939 .296 .406 .476
1940 .284 .367 .415
1941 .252 .344 .366
1942 .295 .390 .471
1943 .263 .372 .417
1944 .205 .299 .338
1950 .255 .375 .424
1951 .218 .349 .332
===============================
MEAN .259 .363 .405

NL
MEAN .268 .338 .385

NL
C ONLY
MEAN .256 .322 .364

This rough translation considers the Mexican League to have a conversion rate of .90/.82 for each season through 1951. That might not be reality, but I think it probably averages out to be around there over the full scope of the 8 and 10 years of Troupe's and Wright's careers. I arrived at it by
-first indexing Troupe's averages relative to his league (to MxL that is)
-second applying that index to the NL context
-finally applying the 10%/18% conversion rate.

I'm surprised by how well Troupe comes out in this. I've been double-checking, and I don't think it's due to any computational error, though I'm not immune to them, so I'm not guaranteeing anything....

Perhaps one thing that might explain some of this surprising result is that he had an outstanding season in 1939, which was a weaker league season than the next few; and the same goes for 1950 and 1951 versus their preceeding seasons.

On the other hand, Wild Bill Wright wasn't down there in 1939, but was there for the first and second waves of imported hitting talent (1940-1941, then again in 1946-1947). But that is counterbalanced by fewer imported hitters in the surrounding seasons, where the number averaged about ten imported players.

Troupe missed that second wave altogether, but was very much on hand for the first wave, and was, in fact, leading it with C.P. Bell and Chet Brewer.

As mentioned in the Wright comments, I'm going away for a few days, which means I won't be able to do much with Troupe at this point, but with the information supplied by KJOK and others, there's lots more to go on now than before.

I don't know at this point that he's a HOMer, but based on his Mexican performance, his (roughly) translated performance relative to his MLB positional peers, and based on the high averages that Holway reports for him, I think he deserves a full workup by Chris C.
   6. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 22, 2005 at 08:59 PM (#1563921)
OK, here's where I'm at for Quincy Trouppe. I've got gingerly drawn estimates for about 2/3s of his career.
YEAR AGE  G   PA   AB    H   TB   BB  AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS+  WS
-----------------------------------------------------------
1931 18  27  116  102   29   31   14 .284 .371 .302   83   2.8
1932 19 102  430  386  103  153   44 .268 .343 .395   98  13.4
1933 20           
1934 21         
1935 22         
1936 23         
1937 24         
1938 25 141  606  534  133  199   72 .249 .339 .372   95  16.5
1939 26 115  520  437  140  213   83 .320 .429 .487  145  26.5
1940 27 129  549  489  139  203   60 .284 .362 .415  114  18.1
1941 28 138  603  524  141  251   79 .269 .365 .479  136  25.0
1942 29 116  515  441  127  194   74 .288 .390 .440  143  21.4
1943 30 133  594  505  133  211   88 .263 .372 .417  128  21.3
1944 31 104  452  395   93  133   57 .235 .332 .337   89  10.2
1945 32 112  483  424   99  145   59 .233 .326 .343   86  11.0
1946 33 160  729  607  184  270  122 .302 .419 .444  145  31.9
1947 34 124  563  470  144  214   93 .307 .421 .454  133  25.6
1948 35 107  485  406  121  214   79 .298 .413 .529  153  25.6
1949 36 96   430  365  100  128   65 .274 .384 .351   98  12.6
1950 37 104  461  395   90  136   66 .228 .338 .344   80  10.8
1951 38 116  528  439   96  146   89 .218 .349 .332   84  11.8
1952 39 100  398  343   77  114   55 .224 .332 .332   85   9.0
============================================================
TOTALS 1921 8462 7264 1949 2954 1199 .268 .372 .407  115  277.3


This is a pretty good catcher. Trouble is there's niggling questions about what to do with his age 20-24 seasons and the end of his career.

1) In 1933-1936 he was playing high-caliber ball in North Dakota and with the Monarchs. What is the best way to apportion credit to him?

2) In 1937 he voluntarily retired to pursue a boxing career due to his association with famous black boxing figures. This seems to me to be an economic-based and racial-conditions-based decision since boxing was integrated and payed well. I lean to extending Trouppe credit for this season.

3) I suspect his MLB career would have ended around 1950, but his entre into "organized" baseball didn't happen until two years later, at which point his hitting skills were quite diminished... Hmm....

4) Looks from this like he's an example of the late-peaking catching phenomenon.

METHODOLOGY
Just like with Willard Brown, I used every available scrap of information to figure Trouppe out, increasing the sample sizes available to me and decreasing the peaks and valleys a bit. This is also why you'll see differences between the Mexican translations above and these numbers: they've got PRWL and CWL figures worked into them as well to provide a fuller picture.

PRWL, CWL, and MxL are .90/.82 conversions until the late 1940s when they go down to .87/.76 (AA-level). For PRWL, CWL, and the Canadian Provincial League (1949), I had no leaguewide numbers to go on, so I just used the NL's leaguewide numbers as my reference point. This introduces a lot of uncertainty, in particular with regard to Trouppe's SLG relative to his leagues. But without more info, I do my best with what I gots.

I used SFWS to generate the Win-Shares estimates. On defense, they allot 1 FWS per every 24 games at catcher. Trouppe played several positions, but I assumed 75% of his games were at catcher (1 FWS per 24 G) and that the other quarter of his games were combined spent between 3B (1 FWS per 38 games) and OF (1 FWS per 48 games) with a 1 FWS per 40 games fielding rate. This of course assumes that Trouppe played average-level defense.

Does this seem reasonable to everybody? And if it does, or if it doesn't, what to do with 1933-1937???
   7. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 22, 2005 at 09:04 PM (#1563934)
I neglected to mention that the TB and BB were created by generating rates for his 2B, 3B, HR, and BB from the available data (for walks, mostly from his MxL data, for the others, from a broader source). For his ABs, I used 3.8 AB/game, conforming closely to what MLB hitters were averaging. As a good hitter, he would have been higher in the lineup and likely accumulating more ABs and PAs than lesser guys lower in the order.
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: August 22, 2005 at 10:52 PM (#1564098)
Leave 1933-37 blank and take away 1951-52 and you've got a C with 256 WS and a 115 OPS+ in 1921 G.

Just on WS that puts him between (keeping it just to guys within 25 WS and 25 years either way):

Bresnahan 231
Schang 245

Freehan 267
Cochrane 275

That's it, the only C between 231 and 281 and between 1900 and 1975. With the possible exception of Biz Mackey, is he the best C candidate we have, or is there something wrong with our MLEs that the two best are both NeLers?
   9. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 23, 2005 at 02:30 AM (#1564929)
As always, I have trouble with the playing time aspect. For whatever reason, I'm a bit literal with it and I keep forgetting how differences in league quality influence it.

Anyhow, I'll eventually post up numbers for Trouppe with slightly more realistic playing time numbers, but first I'd like to hear any suggestions from the electorate on how to improve the projections or what to do with 1933-1937.
   10. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 26, 2005 at 02:51 AM (#1574304)
QUINCY TROUPPE MLEs VERSION 2.0

Not any major changes, just some playing time adjustments mostly. I lowered his G totals for several of his decline years figuring that as his bat wore down, he'd get less PT.

By this same token, I also gave him fewer AB/G in his decline.

Pre-1948 CWL conversion rates have been upped to .94/.92 at Brent's suggestion (in the Dandridge thread).

No park adjustments.

The G played estimates should be a little closer to reality since I was able to fill in some gaps in my data about how many games his teams played.

Finally, thanks to Gary A, I got the 1952 AA leaguewide numbers which enabled me to normalize Trouppe's Indianapolis season more accurately.

YEAR AGE  g   pa    ab    h   tb   bb  avg  obp  slg OPS+  WS
--------------------------------------------------------------
1938  25 141  606  534  133  199   72 .249 .339 .372  95  16.5
1939  26 115  521  438  140  212   83 .320 .429 .484 145  26.4
1940  27 129  549  489  139  203   60 .284 .362 .415 114  18.1
1941  28 131  574  499  134  237   75 .269 .365 .475 135  23.6
1942  29 125  554  475  136  207   80 .286 .388 .435 141  22.5
1943  30 133  594  505  133  211   88 .263 .372 .417 128  21.3
1944  31 105  456  398   96  143   58 .241 .338 .360  97  11.7
1945  32 112  483  424   99  145   59 .233 .326 .343  86  11.0
1946  33 154  702  585  177  260  117 .302 .419 .444 145  30.7
1947  34 124  563  470  144  214   93 .307 .421 .454 133  25.6
1948  35 107  485  406  121  214   79 .298 .413 .529 153  25.6
1949  36 104  421  365   86  119   55 .236 .337 .325  78   9.5
1950  37  76  226  194   44   67   32 .228 .338 .345  80   6.2
1951  38  76  212  176   38   58   36 .218 .349 .332  84   5.8
1952  39  90  249  215   47   80   34 .218 .324 .371  93   7.3
==============================================================
TOTAL   1721 7195 6173 1668 2568 1022 .270 .372 .407 116 262.0


As always, I'm looking for any feedback, particularly about what to do with Trouppe's 1933-1937 seasons.

As previously mentioned, he has two early NNL seasons (1931 and 1932) where we have convertable information for him, he played at a high level from 1933-1936 (in ND and touring with the Monarchs), and he retired one year to pursue boxing in 1937.

I think Trouppe would have been at least an average hitter (at least 95 to 105 OPS+ hitter) during this early stretch, and perhaps a little better than that. In other words, those seasons would, I speculate, mostly help him add bulk to his career.
   11. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 26, 2005 at 02:57 AM (#1574328)
One other interesting piece of information.

MLB Catchers from 1938-1952 (Trouppe in parenthesis)
AVG .255 (.270)
OBP .329 (.372)
SLG .358 (.407)
OPS .687 (.779)

I don't usually do a lot of by-position analysis of this sort, but because catchers are a different beast altogether, I thought ths might be worth pointing out.
   12. Brent Posted: August 26, 2005 at 06:19 AM (#1574693)
Your estimates of games played seem a bit high for MLB catchers of that era, unless you are assuming he would have regularly led the league. Maybe you are assuming he would have played another position on the days he was resting from catching? Perhaps this was a common practice in the Negro Leagues (and in 19th century baseball), but not common in 1930s and 40s MLB.

Leaders in games caught, National League
Year gms Catcher
1938 132 Todd
1939 132 Danning
1940 131 Danning
1941 128 Owen
1942 133 Owen
1943 140 Mueller
1944 155 Mueller
1945 096 Lombardi
1946 124 Masi
1947 132 Cooper

Note, the 155 games caught by Mueller set a record (actually tied by Hayes in the AL the same season); I believe it was only third or fourth time an MLB catcher had exceeded 150 games caught.
   13. Chris Cobb Posted: August 26, 2005 at 12:55 PM (#1574791)
Dr. Chaleeko,

Are there seasons at which you are projecting Trouppe as playiing a position other than catcher, or playing some games at some other position?

It would be helpful to know how you're handling the positional issue when analyzing your projections of playing time.

If these projections are accurate, btw, Trouppe is sure looking like a very serious candidate for the HoM.
   14. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 26, 2005 at 01:08 PM (#1574810)
Based on the info that KJOK provided, it seems that Trouppe played all over the place, so for most seasons I've given him 3/4s of his games at C and 1/4 at a mixture of 3B/OF. Here's the rundown of what I used:
1938 C/3B/OF
1939 C/3B/OF
1940 3B
1941 C/3B/OF
1942 C
1943 C
1944 C/3B/OF
1945 C/3B/OF
1946 C/3B/OF
1947 C/3B/OF
1948 C/3B/OF
1949 C
1950 C
1951 C
1952 C

I've been very literal in interpreting Trouppe's playing time both positionally and in terms of the number of games he played. I decided against making him just a catcher, and I used a straight-line schedule adjustment to adjust his games played, to the effect of

Player G
--------- * 154
Team G


That said Trouppe was fairly durable, and resolving the position question will lead to a better projection of playing time.

Re Trouppe's candidacy: I agree. If the current MLEs are in the ballpark, then Trouppe will have a very compelling case.
   15. Al Peterson Posted: August 26, 2005 at 03:32 PM (#1575048)
Trouppe is a good example of differing value in the Negro Leagues (or Mexican/Cuban for that matter) compared to the Majors. It's fine to say he was versatile in those leagues since he did bounce around plenty positionwise. The smaller rosters probably had something to do with that.

But put him in the Majors - no way he plays those other positions . Check out the catchers in the 40's and 50's. Did anybody play years where they got say 90 games at C, 30 games at some other position? Not that I know of.
   16. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 26, 2005 at 03:58 PM (#1575124)
Al makes a great point, and so in light of this and Chris and Brent's questions, I'm wondering how anyone thinks I should shape Trouppe's catching career. We know from the extent stats that he was pretty durable, so is it reasonable that he might appear among the league's leaders in games caught virtually every year?

Here's Brent's chart again, this time with the total G I've projected for Trouppe alongside them. (140 not included since he was a 3B that year.)
Year gms Catcher  QT gms
------------------------
1938 132 Todd     141
1939 132 Danning  115
1941 128 Owen     131
1942 133 Owen     125
1943 140 Mueller  133
1944 155 Mueller  105
1945 096 Lombardi 112
1946 124 Masi     154
1947 132 Cooper   124


1938 and 1946 stick out as the years that look like they should be ratcheted down. In most other years he's either under the leader or above by only two or three games.

Just to put an arbitrary figure on it, would 130 G for 1938 and 120 for 1946 be more likely? Or is there a better combination? Thanks!
   17. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 26, 2005 at 04:25 PM (#1575194)
If he was indeed a durable catcher, then '38 and '46 are the only years I would really fool with. I would, however, give him more time at catcher, which could change his defensive WS, probably for the positive.

Also, why not give him 130 or so games in 1946? It would have led the league yes, but he was also playing probably his best offensive ball (with 1947) so maybe he gets more games than a few other guys.

I agree that Trouppe's case is compelling. Right now I dont' know if he has Bresnahan's peak, especially with some war discount, but he seems to have more career than Roger does. Give him some credit for 33-36 and he may even make my ballot.
   18. karlmagnus Posted: August 26, 2005 at 05:07 PM (#1575290)
1658 hits at 115, he's clealy inferior to Ernie Lombardi, who's not getting much support except from me.
   19. Michael Bass Posted: August 26, 2005 at 05:16 PM (#1575311)
I may have missed this in the discussion: How was his defensive reputation? Are there any stats to look at there?

Karl mentions Lombardi, his defense is largely what's keeping him off most ballots, I believe. A below average defensive rep probably would keep Trouppe off of my serious consideration list as well, while a really positive rep might vault him onto my ballot.
   20. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 26, 2005 at 05:54 PM (#1575415)
FYI: Taking Trouppe down to 130 games in 1938 and 1946 and making him a full-time catcher only (except for the one season where he played 3B exclusively) would essentially leave him unchanged (a net loss of three win shares).

I also uncovered a small calculation error in my career totals. Career line should have read

.270/.374/.416 OPS+ 118

and with the changes mentioned would now read

.270/.374/.416 OPS+ 118.

In reference to his defense, I assumed average defense because I was using sfws. I don't recollect what Riley said about Trouppe's defense, and I don't have it with me to look it up right now. Nor do I have any defensive stats to offer.

I'll, therefore defer to others on that question, but before I do so, I'll interpret what his offensive statistical record might say about his defense. Trouppe's foot speed wasn't Lombardiesque (he hit plenty of doubles and triples and would steal a few bags a year), so I'd say QT was mobile enough to be at least average defensively, and as a part-time 3B, he probably had a pretty good arm and decent reflexes.

Since the NgLs were a running league, the fact that Trouppe continued to catch and didn't move out from behind the plate may suggest that his defense was seen as more valuable there than at another position.

But that's just one way of looking at it, and I have no definitive answers to offer, merely speculation.
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: August 27, 2005 at 02:41 PM (#1577563)
The Quincy Trouppe discussion has caused me to ask whatever happened to Biz Mackey? Right now I have Trouppe around #20 on my ballot and the highest rated catcher candidate, while Mackey languishes down around #40 behind Bresnahan.

In reviewing their cases, I find that the Mackey thread includes the standard Biz Mackey Data from Holway--ie. his raw NeL record insofar as it is documented. I find his MLEs across G, PA, BB, H, TB, BA, OBP and SA, and then I see his BA+/OB+/SA+ and OPS+ of 98.

For Mackey I don't see a WS MLE/analysis. Did that get done, did I miss it?

For Trouppe all I see is his MLEs including OPS+ (118) and WS, but I don't see his raw NeL record anywhere. I remember he was first introduced somewhere else before he had a thread. Was it the 1957 Discussion Thread or what? Can somebody point me to it or import his raw record.

Right now their ballot positions comes down to OPS+, but otherwise I can't quite do apples to apples between the two of them. So again, can someone point me to

Mackey's WS
Trouppe's raw NeL data

Thanks.
   22. Chris Cobb Posted: August 27, 2005 at 08:22 PM (#1578038)
Sunnyday2,

Mackey's win shares are in the second post on the second page of his thread.

Trouppe's NeL data, such as it is, has been posted to the Hall of Merit yahoo site by KJOK. It has not been posted on this thread.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: August 28, 2005 at 12:33 AM (#1578548)
Thx Chris. I had managed to overlook the fact that Mackey has 2, no, 3 pages, and I discovered an entire discussion on it that I had managed to miss completely the first time around.

As for Trouppe, yes, I have that to. Doh!
   24. sunnyday2 Posted: August 31, 2005 at 04:29 PM (#1587523)
Here's where I came down on Trouppe and the catchers.

Trouppe est. 7200 AB, don't have position data
Bresnahan approx. 4500 AB, about 2/3 of games at catcher
Mackey est. 8350 AB, est 85 percent catcher
Lombardi 5855 AB, 84 percent catcher
Schang about 5300 AB, 78 percent catcher

Win Shares

Trouppe 262/31-26-26/111
Bresnahan 231/29-27-27/116
Mackey 278/26-23-23/105
Lombardi 218/24-18-17/89
Schang 245/20-20-19/77

OPS+

* indicates years of less than 100 games
# indicates years not playing at catcher

Trouppe 118/153-45-45-41-35-33-28-14 (7 years > 100 OPS+ and GP at C)
Bresnahan 126/161#-46*-45*-39-38#-36-35*-32-28-25*-16#-9*-5* (4 yrs > 100 OPS+ and GP at C)
Mackey 98/142-31-22-11-10-10-9-8-7-4-1* (9 yrs)
Lombardi 126/162-54-48-42-40-37-32-31-29*-23-20-2*-2-0* (11 yrs)
Schang 117/140#-39*#-38-36-34-33-22#-22-21*-19*-11-9-4*-1* (7 yrs)

The 3 MLers' big edge is on OPS+ but it is in significantly shorter careers, and for Bresnahan in particular, but also Schang, some of their best hitting years were not spent primarily as catchers.

Mackey's edge is in longevity and career WS.

Trouppe is the only one that has a little bit of everything. Reasonably long career, reasonably high OPS+, 2nd in career WS, and then he has clearly the highest peak as well.

All of this is based on one's acceptance of the MLE analysis above. There is of course some uncertainty to them. If Trouppe or Mackey had played in the MLs, they probably would have been rested more, like most ML catchers of their respective times. So I can see how somebody might prefer Bresnahan and his nice peak on WS and OPS, or Lombardi who played a little longer. I have a hard time seeing Schang.

But factoring in a bit of uncertainty for Trouppe I still can't quite see how he isn't the best catcher around. On further review, I think #20ish on the ballot is about the right place. Given the likelihood that he might have sacrificed a few more ABs (i.e. might have had less than the MLEs suggest) I can't quite see having him in the top 15 right now.

As for Mackey, I can't quite see him ahead of Bresnahan. So it's a pretty clear pecking order:

1. Trouppe--about #20 overall
2. Bresnahan despite a pretty desparately short career
3. Mackey--Bresnahan and Mackey around #40-45
4. Lombardi--around #60
5. Schang--around #80

6. The next catcher on my list is John Clapp who is hovering down around #100.

The rest don't matter much.
   25. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2005 at 03:46 PM (#1599918)
This post is in reference to jschmeagol's question on the 1960 Ballot Discussion thread about the position assigned to Trouppe in the MLEs. I initially assigned position based on Clark/Lester's position notes in the scan of his entry provided by KJOK. But after several suggestions to do so, I also calculated his WS as if he were a full-time catcher. Here's a comparison of his WS with my initial position estimates (WS1) and with Trouppe as a full-time catcher (WS2) in all seasons but 1940, when he played 3B only.
YEAR AGE WS1   WS2
------------------
1938 25 16.5  17.1
1939 26 26.4  26.8
1940 27 18.1  18.1
1941 28 23.6  24.2
1942 29 22.5  22.5
1943 30 21.3  21.3
1944 31 11.7  12.1
1945 32 11.0  11.5
1946 33 30.7  31.4
1947 34 25.6  26.1
1948 35 25.6  26.0
1949 36 10.0  10.0
1950 37  6.5   6.5
1951 38  6.2   6.2
1952 39  7.7   7.7
==================
TOTAL  263.5 267.7

As you can see the difference is minimal, less than five S-FWS. Hopefully that addresses any concerns about the effect of position. If not, I'll be happy to add any clarification I can!
   26. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 06, 2005 at 09:34 PM (#1600620)
I just to make sure, these are 154 game seasons right?

Thanks Doc
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 07, 2005 at 12:26 AM (#1601204)
Yup, 154.
   28. Brent Posted: September 07, 2005 at 02:49 AM (#1601749)
Dr. C,

Are you assuming that he's catching 154 games in 1946?
   29. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 07, 2005 at 01:03 PM (#1602107)
Brent,

Sorry for any confusion. I had originally used 154 only because that was what the data suggested. However, I've since revised his G totals for 1938 and 1946 downward, but I haven't reposted the data yet. Here's the data with revised G totals for those seasons along with the revised career total. Just substitute this data directly into the appropriate slot in the V 2.0 MLEs above.
YEAR AGE   g   pa   ab    h   tb  bb   avg  obp  slg OPS+  WS1   WS2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1938  25 130  561  494  123  184  67  .249 .339 .372  95  15.3  15.8
1946  33 130  583  494  149  219  89  .302 .419 .444 145  25.2  25.7
====================================================================
career  1688 7036 6047 1631 2515 989  .270 .372 .416 118 256.7 260.7

   30. Mike Webber Posted: September 07, 2005 at 01:23 PM (#1602117)
Win Shares

Trouppe 256/26-26-26/105
Bresnahan 231/29-27-27/116
Mackey 278/26-23-23/105
Lombardi 218/24-18-17/89
Schang 245/20-20-19/77


Doc,

does the above show the adjustments correctly, if so does it change the assesment of the overall rankings of catchers?

Mike
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 07, 2005 at 01:37 PM (#1602122)
Using the catching-only WS he would be

I think so. What's the last column? Best five straight?
   32. Mike Webber Posted: September 07, 2005 at 01:47 PM (#1602135)
Oh, That is Sunny Days chart! Not sure if it is 5 in a row or just top 5. I like it though.

I have been voting for Bresnahan, and at one time I thought Schang was ahead of Mackey, but I have been persuaded that Mackey is ahead of Schang. Which might be important in 15 or so elections.
   33. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 07, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1602183)
Don't forget, however, that Bresnahan had a 27 WS season and a 23 WS season as a CFer and CFers are not expected to miss 20 -30 games a year. Straight up I think that Bresnahan wins, but when you factor in that he played CF a few years, including two of his top four, it gets really close.

If the MLE's are to be trusted, Trouppe ust edges him out in my system where I lower teh bar for catcher based on the fact that they play fewer games.

So currently...

Trouppe (Could make my ballot)
Bresnahan (Just off ballot, have voted for him before)
Mackey (late 20's early 30's)
Lombardi (out of top 50)
Schang (out of top 50)

I guess the question for me is, is Trouppe definitely better than Bresnahan, and if so is he better than Doerr and/or Gordon (the guys who are tentatively 14th and 15th on my ballot)?
   34. andrew siegel Posted: September 07, 2005 at 03:18 PM (#1602248)
Remember that like Ted Lyons and some others, Schang suffers from a season-by-season system, in that he had a long career and a pretty good WS/game total but split his games between more seasons. Whether you think a guy who plays 150 games per season for 10 years is worth more than a guy who performs at the same level and plays 100 games per season for 15 years is a difficult question. But, if you don't, charts like the one above will underrate the second guy (as will Bill James's rankings).
   35. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 08, 2005 at 03:20 AM (#1604128)
I just looked at my spreadsheet and I want ot mention that I actually have Schang above Lombardi, not the other way around.
   36. KJOK Posted: October 24, 2005 at 11:24 PM (#1702163)
Trouppe vs. Camapella - Overlapping NON-Major League Years:

1938 - Trouppe
1939 - Trouppe
1940 - Trouppe
1941 - Trouppe
1942 - Trouppe
1943 - Trouppe
1944 - Campanella
1945 - Campanella
1946 - Trouppe
1947 - Trouppe
1948 - Trouppe

Of course Campanella was very young in the late 1930's/early 1940's, but the point is that Trouppe was almost certainly the greater Negro League Player, and overall was probably at least very close to being just as great a player as Campanella.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: October 24, 2005 at 11:50 PM (#1702191)
Based on best info at this time, Campy and Trouppe:

WS

Campy 33-33-31-28-24-22-22-22-21-18-12-11-11-10 = 320
Trouppe 31-26-26-24-22-21-18-16-12 = 264

Campy's 14 years >10 are pretty extraordinary. This assumes a mid-season call-up in 1943, no MLE WS before that. Trouppe's MLEs show 9 years >10 WS. And Campy's top 4 seasons are significantly better than Trouppe's, Trouppe is more or less equal for #5 and #6, and then Campy pulls away again.

OPS+

Campy 158-54-53-34-30-20-20-13-4-2 (10 years >100 with ?100G)
Trouppe 153-45-45-41-35-33-29-14 (8 years > 100 with ? 100G)

Here years #4 through 8 of Trouppe are better than Campy's but #1-3 and #9-10 are all Campy. Actually Trouppe's big year (153 with 31 WS) is Campy-esque, too.

So I see Campy is significantly better on a 3-5 year peak basis, a little better for prime, and significantly better again for the career as a whole. Campy will be #1 on my ballot and Trouppe is around #20, destined to make my ballot someday, I would think.

As for the rest, it goes: Bresnahan, Mackey, Lombardi, Schang, Clapp and fugheddaboudit.
   38. Mark Donelson Posted: October 25, 2005 at 08:05 PM (#1703595)
As for the rest, it goes: Bresnahan, Mackey, Lombardi, Schang, Clapp and fugheddaboudit.

I didn't know we could vote for actors who played catchers in movies...does this apply to other positions, too? ('Cause if so, I'm voting for David Straithairn. Think that'll make karlmagnus happy?)

:)
   39. karlmagnus Posted: October 25, 2005 at 08:18 PM (#1703622)
So long as votes for the actor count as votes for the guy they played, absolutely! (dammit why haven't they done a movie with Tom Cruise playing Beckley?)
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#2096955)
Since I'd just updated Dandridge's MLEs, I thought I'd return to Trouppe as well. Quincy's MLE numbers are helped a smidge by the ability to compare him to his league, particularly in the area of his SLG.

I previously reported his career totals as .270/.372/.416/118/256.7 (see post #29).

Now those totals would be .270/.372/.420/119/259.5

It's just one OPS+ point, but I thought everyone might want to know.

There remains no accounting of his North Dakota exploits, so there's still no MLE for those seasons. But considering he returned to the NgLs at 25, it's not unlikely that his years in ND were typical growth years. So too his boxing year in 1937, if you choose to see it that way. In other words, the MLEs do not tell his full story.
   41. DL from MN Posted: July 12, 2006 at 08:40 PM (#2097053)
That's a 119 OPS+ in 7000PAs. In comparison Freehan is a 112 OPS+ in 6700PAs. Wally Schang has a 117 in 6150. Pudge Rodriguez is 115 in 7750. Ted Simmons is a dead ringer for the OPS+ but batted 2000 more times. I'll probably re-run Trouppe as a prorated Ted Simmons.

Against contemporaries (of which none are in the HoM):
Walker Cooper 116 in 5100
Ernie Lombardi 125 in 6350
Gabby Hartnett is 126 in 7300
Bill Dickey is 127 in 7050
   42. DL from MN Posted: July 12, 2006 at 08:55 PM (#2097066)
Looking at the numbers, Trouppe is more OBP heavy than Simmons and should be a more valuable hitter.

Still, I had him ranked too highly and he'll drop off my ballot into the mid 20s. That's assuming he's overall an average fielder for a catcher which I believe is a fair assumption.
   43. fra paolo Posted: July 28, 2006 at 11:32 PM (#2115956)
I'm not clear - are Dr Chaleeko's stats in post 10 equivalents or real? Do they already incorporate a quality of league adjustment?
   44. OCF Posted: July 28, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#2115970)
I'm pretty sure they're equivalents.

(Mark Donelson, #38): I didn't know we could vote for actors who played catchers in movies...

Don't forget James Earl Jones (Bingo Long ... ).
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 29, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2116138)
Yes, correct, they are MLEs.
   46. karlmagnus Posted: July 29, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#2116195)
They're very generous MLEs, which appear to be about 5% higher than Chris Cobb's NGL MLEs which are still on the high side. Very valuable information, but to be treated with caution.
   47. karlmagnus Posted: July 29, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#2116255)
I am howver generally a supporter of Trouppe, behind Lombadi and Schang, but ahead of Freehan -- he'll be on my ballot in weak years. Ahead, also of Mendez, Redding and Moore, though only just ahead of Ben Taylor
   48. Ardo Posted: July 29, 2006 at 04:32 AM (#2116432)
Three axioms:

1. There aren't enough catchers in the HoM, relative to the importance of the position.

2. Catchers before c. 1920 (the standardization of protective equipment) deserve a slight bonus.

3. Catchers, by the standards of other positions, are "short-career" players; hence, peak is more important to their HoM cases.

My rankings for 1982 (/ = big gap, -- = small gap) are Freehan (4)--Schang (6)--Trouppe (9) / Howard (20)--Lombardi (30ish)--Bresnahan (35ish).
   49. Trevor P. Posted: July 30, 2006 at 12:30 AM (#2117421)
Looking over Trouppe's MLEs again, I'm struck with a bit of an odd realization - if he'd gone away to war in 44-45 instead of posting those middling offensive numbers, he might be a HOMer already.
   50. DL from MN Posted: July 30, 2006 at 01:00 PM (#2117649)
What kind of ball was Trouppe hitting in 44-45?
   51. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:56 AM (#2284905)
I've read this thread about 10 times now, and I still don't see where the Trouppe love comes from. That he played a decent amount of 3rd and the outfield tells me his defense wasn't stellar - Was he even 75% of a Freehan with the glove? Evidence is appreciated. If his glove was in Freehan's class, then I can justify moving him into my Top-10, but for now, I just don't see it.
   52. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 23, 2007 at 04:17 AM (#2284932)
There's not a lot of evidence about QT's defense. Here's what Riley says:

-"A smart receiver and a superior handler of pitchers...."

-"During his short time with the Indians the veteran catcher proved to be a hard worker, good on blocking balls, and a very good receiver with an excellent arm who called a good game."

This isn't the glowing praise we often hear about NgLers' defense, but it is rather better than no mention at all of his glove. You have to interpret everything with NgL defense, and I don't think there's anything to suggest he was a poor defensive catcher. It's not unusual for NgL players to play multiple positions throughout their careers either, so the fact that he played elsewhere isn't suggestive of his defensive abilities by itself, except perhaps that his being stationed at 3B suggests the strength of his arm and maybe the quickness of his reflexes. Despite a lack of speed, Trouppe was a good athlete (he was a Golden Gloves boxer as well as a ballplayer), and was very likely a smart man (given his son's intelligence and the fact that he, himself, was known as a good game caller and was a successful manager too).

So I've taken the position that he was an average defensive catcher. I believe this is a reasonable position to take, neither extreme in the overrating-the-NgLs-based-on-glowing-oral-history direction, nor unduly knocking him down for a lack of glowing reports.

He was a strong offensive player, appears to have generally been durable, and had a long career. The matter of his undocumented Bismark days is not vital to his case, but credit for them could push him up a bit, especially for career voters. And I believe that the Bismark time should be credited to him because he was playing baseball professionally at the highest level available to him before Bismark---he didn't go to ND until the NgLs had collapsed under the weight of the depression.

As I said on the Simmons (I think) thread, QT and Simmons are very, very similar candidates. Without Bismark, QT's neck and neck with Simmons. With Bismark, there's an argument for placing him above Simmons by a nose. Either way, I have Simmons and Trouppe as extremely close to one another...just as I have Freehan and Simmons extremely close to one another (with Torre right there, too). And all of them are safely above my in/out line.
   53. Strat-O Fan Posted: January 23, 2007 at 05:38 AM (#2284974)
I'm doing some research on Bismarck right now... Trouppe, Paige, et al in 1933. I should have some defensive numbers for QT in a week or so. Not sure what you can learn from the competition up there, but as a quick teaser... Trouppe has a good fielding percentage in the games I've compiled and very few stolen bases against. At 20 years old, he was quite the sensation in Bismarck. As much a fan favorite as Satchel Paige, 28-ish and nearing his peak performance, who arrived a little later in the Summer, after jumping Gilkerson's Union Giants (whom he joined after jumping the Pittsburgh Crawfords). As for the stick... Quincy posted a .400+ BA, drew walks, hit for some power. The town hosted a "Quincy Trouppe Night" let him pitch and play all the infield positions. He was awful on the mound. Played every other game at C, didn't miss a game after joining the team.
   54. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 29, 2007 at 09:48 PM (#2288473)
Strat-O Fan just emailed me with some data from 1933 in Bismark. It's really interesting, and he said I could post it up. So here goes:

"Quincy Trouppe

G-24 (never missed a game once he joined ballclub)
AB-89
R- 22
H-39
2B-3
3B-5
HR-3
SAC-0
HP-0
BB-18
SB-3
AVG. .438 (league avg. .241)
OBP. .533 (lg avg. .300)
SLG. .685 (lg. avg. 330)

DEFENSE (at catcher):
G-23
DI- 207.0
PO- 247
AST- 15
E- 4 (three in one game!)
PCT.- .985 (league average .967)
Sure, he benefited from a lot of strikeouts, but it was a high strike out environment for everybody (league-wide, pitchers averaged 8.56 K/9)

SBA: 6
SB/9: 0.26 (league average 0.84)
Side note: He allowed two stolen bases in his debut game, then pretty much shut everybody down the rest of the summer- 4 in 22 games (0.18 per 9 defensive innings)

PB- 0 (!) (league avg. 0.12)
I get the impression that, even at a young age--- Trouppe was a pretty damn good defensive catcher. And a winner: Bismarck was 10-10-1 before Trouppe arrived, then rattled off an 18-2-4 mark the rest of the way. Paige arrived shortly after Trouppe and they were 14-0-3 with both stars on the ballclub. The losses and tie ballgames were against guys like Willie Foster and Barney Brown… other Negro stars.

Couple things to keep in mind… contrary to what has often been written, the competition in Bismarck was sketchy. It was akin to starting a league that had Dizzy Dean, Guy Bush, Ernie Lombardi and Dick Bartell at the top of their games, coupled with a couple AA ballplayers, some low-low-level minor league guys with alcohol problems, a couple dozen college kids and several high school players. Once in awhile (if somebody’s car got pulled over on the way to a game, for instance) they’d pull somebody out of the stands in dress pants to fill in for an inning or two. This is the honest to God truth. That being said- Bismarck WAS good. They played .500 ball against Negro League teams (KC, Chicago American Giants) who visited the Capital City, and beat the piss out of minor league all-star squads on a couple occasions."
   55. KJOK Posted: February 13, 2007 at 06:39 AM (#2296648)
Not sure if we ever had this data - don't see it in the thread:

Quincy Trouppe - 1952 Indiannapolis, American Association:
G - 84
AB - 205
H - 53
2B - 7
3B - 2
HR - 8
AVE - .259
   56. Tiboreau Posted: February 13, 2007 at 09:22 AM (#2296691)
I'm trying to condense the MLE info on Quincy Trouppe in this thread. Now, in the '95 Ballot Discussion thread Chris Cobb states that Doc C has 277 Win Shares for Trouppe and a 116 OPS+. Looking over this thread, I find several different numbers--all around the same general area, but at this point a small difference can have a pretty big impact.

The first MLEs are in post #6. According to that post, Trouppe hit .268/.372/.407 115 OPS+ with 277.3 Win Shares.

The second MLEs are in post #10. According to that post, Trouppe hit .270/.372/.416 118 OPS+* with 261.8 Win Shares.

The changes between the two are due to changes in playing time, which is why his WS drop while his rate stats go up. * - the rate stats given in post #10 are incorrect; Doc C gives the correct rates in post #20

The third MLEs are in post #25. Two different versions are given. According to the first Trouppe has 263.4 WS, according to the second he has 267.5

The changes here are purely to the estimated WS--the first version is based on the assumption that Trouppe would have spent some time at other positions. The second is if he spent the entire time at catcher. The first version (WS1) is supposed to be the same as post #10 (version 2.0). However, it is not--the WS given for Trouppe's last 4 years in WS1 (post #25) are higher than version 2.0 (post #10). No reason is given for the change.

The fourth MLEs are in post #29. Two different versions are again given. WS1: 256.7, WS2: 260.5

The changes here occur in two seasons: 1938 and 1946. the amount of playing time is downgraded to better reflect the playing time catchers in the majors recieved during Trouppe's era. What was Trouppe's best season (1946) becomes his 4th best season, dropping from 30/31 WS to 25/26 WS, leveling his peak.

The fifth MLEs are in post #40. According to this post, Trouppe hit .270/.372/.420 119 OPS+ with 259.5 WS.

These changes are made "by the ability to compare him to his league." The 4 addition SLG. points increased his OPS+ by 1 and his WS by 2.8 (which means his catching only WS would be 263.3). These are the last of the changes to Doc C's MLEs.

So, after looking through this thread, it appears to me that the final conclusion on Quincy Trouppe's MLEs are:

.270/.372/.420 // 119 OPS+ // 260/26-26-26/112 (some time spent at 3B/OF)
.270/.372/.420 // 119 OPS+ // 263/27-26-26/113 (catching exclusively)

Now, these numbers don't match the ones Chris Cobb mentioned, however, Doc C does give MLEs for 1931 & 1932 (post #6). But Trouppe was 18/19 years old; he probably wouldn't be playing in the majors then. Also, Trouppe did spend 4 years playing ball in North Dakota (1933-36), for which we have few/no numbers--post #54 is the definitive post on that subject. On Trouppe's defense and overall reputation, the latest is post #52 (also Mr. Cobb's post #18 in the 1995 Ballot Discussion thread).

I hope this helps . . . or something. I was a bit confused over all the number changes, so by working this out at least I'm a little less confused and maybe if I'm wrong somewhere it could be pointed out. . . . Also, thank you Dr. Chaleeko for the work you put in to produce these MLEs; without them Trouppe would recieve much less consideration, from me at least.
   57. Tiboreau Posted: February 13, 2007 at 09:39 AM (#2296694)
#6     #10     #25WS1  #29     #25WS2  #29
1938    16.5    16.5    16.5    15.3    17.1    15.8
1939    26.5    26.4    26.4            26.8    
1940    18.1    18.1    18.1            18.1    
1941    25      23.6    23.6            24.2    
1942    21.4    22.5    22.5            22.5    
1943    21.3    21.3    21.3            21.3    
1944    10.2    11.7    11.7            12.1    
1945    11      11      11              11.5    
1946    31.9    30.7    30.7    25.2    31.4    25.7
1947    25.6    25.6    25.6            26.1    
1948    25.6    25.6    25.6            26    
1949    12.6     9.5    10              10    
1950    10.8     6.2     6.5             6.5    
1951    11.8     5.8     6.2             6.2    
1952     9       7.3     7.7             7.7    
15 yrs 277.3   261.8   263.4   256.7   267.5   260.5
+2.8   280.1   264.6   266.2   259.5   270.3   263.3
                        
1931     2.8     2.8     2.8     2.8     2.8     2.8
1932    13.4    13.4    13.4    13.4    13.4    13.4
       296.3   280.8   282.4   275.7   286.5   279.5 

Just incase it's easier, here's a chart of the Win Shares estimates. The number above each column is the post in which they appear. The bottom section is what Trouppe's numbers would look like if MLEs given in post #6 for '31 & '32 are included.
   58. sunnyday2 Posted: February 13, 2007 at 02:07 PM (#2296728)
Isn't the really big question with Trouppe, What to do about 1933-37? I'm in agreement that the MLEs for 1931 and '32 probably ought NOT to be added in. But what about his age 20-25 seasons. His 1938 MLEs are for age 26 and he starts out in 1938 well enough to suggest he coulda/woulda done something.

And then the second really big question is the one everybody wrestles with on every MLE but which seem especially germane for a catcher. In my heart I don't believe he was any better, or probably as good as, Elston Howard. But because we're translating Trouppe he gets the benefit of the doubt on playing time. Howard, in the real world, got everything but.
   59. DL from MN Posted: February 13, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2296772)
I dunno, Elston Howard didn't walk nearly as much as Trouppe despite about the same avg and slg. Howard was a very good defensive catcher though and Trouppe was probably more average. I agree with the playing time issues but I'm giving Howard an 18% career bonus (about 2.5 seasons) along with my full catcher bonus and it gets him to 65th. Part of the reason Trouppe got more playing time is he was pretty good at third base.
   60. andrew siegel Posted: February 13, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2296833)
My view of Trouppe is quite simple:

(1) He is clearly a member of the Schang/Bresnahan/Howard/Munson cluster of catchers. (Other candidates for this cluster include, depending on your preferences, Tenace, Posada, and Lombardi.)

[That cluster is clearly below all of the catchers elected thus far with the possible exceptions of Bennett, Freehan, and Mackey. (Because of the way I value defense and peak, I have Bennett and Freehan ahead of these guys. I think Mackey was a mild mistake and have him below the four catchers named in (1) above.)]

(2) There is room in the HoM for 1-3 guys in the cluster.

(3) Trouppe is the best candidate in the cluster.

Unless someone can convince me that propositions (1), (2), or (3) is untrue, Trouppe will be in my top 5.
   61. TomH Posted: February 13, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2296888)
Thinking out loud (probably dangerous...)

The NgL have a lot of great catcher candidates.

Either
A) The NgL had a lot of great catchers
or maybe
B) NgL schedules or catcher demands or other considerations were such that allowed catchers to not face the same challenging circumstances most MLB catchers did, thus enhancing their ability to play well and long.

I have no idea why B) might be true. Workload / schedule / rest days? Responsibilities of game calling, squatting, throwing out runners?

Those who have studied NgL history more than I might be able to give insight. It sure COULD be just random chance, or maybe a greater tendency among NgL teams to allow or even push their top stars to play catcher.

But if there WAS something different, 'twould be good to unearth and analyze it before next week's vote, no?
   62. Chris Fluit Posted: February 13, 2007 at 07:28 PM (#2296917)
The answer is A. The Negro Leagues placed a higher value on Catcher and so more of the best athletes and players gravitated to that position- Santop, Gibson, Campanella and so on. A similar thing happened in the outfield. We've elected six Negro League outfielders- four centerfielders and only two cornermen.

The answer is not B. Negro League schedules were harder than MLB schedules forcing NeL catchers to face more challenging circumtances than most MLB catchers. A Negro League catcher and a Major League catcher might be expected to catch the same number of games in a season. However, while the Major League catcher was given a day off, the Negro League catcher would be expected to play a different position when he wasn't catching. That's one of the reasons why catchers like Trouppe have so many games at other positions. It wasn't because they weren't good catchers. It was because they were being given a partial day off (kind of like today's AL players being given a day at DH instead of in the field). The same thing was done with pitchers, such as Jose Mendez and Martin Dihigo who would play shortstop in between starts on the mound.

The Negro League schedule was also harder. Negro Leagues rarely had the set schedule that the Major Leagues did and they certainly weren't able to sustain three-game series before moving on to the next town. Travel in the Negro Leagues was exponentially more difficult than it was in the Major Leagues. And while the NeL teams may not have played as many league games as their MLB counterparts, they were always barnstorming in between league games in order to remain financially solvent.

As for rest days, NeL players did not make as much money as MLB players and couldn't afford to take the winter off. Most NeL players played year-round, joining American teams during the summer and heading further south in the winter.

If anything, the wear and tear on a Negro League catcher was significantly higher than it was on a MLB catcher. Yet, despite all of that, the prestige of the position continued to draw top candidates. It shouldn't be surprising or shameful in any way for us to elect more NeL catchers to the HoM than players from other positions.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 02, 2007 at 02:17 AM (#2305605)
I'm trying to figure out what cap to place on Trouppe's plaque, but I'm having a hard time doing so. I'm leaning toward the Cleveland Buckeyes, but I figured I ask for your input first.

St. Louis Stars (1930-31, 1939); Detroit Wolves (1932); Homestead Grays (1932); Kansas City Monarchs (1932, 1934-36); Chicago American Giants (1933, 1948); Indianapolis ABC’S (1938-39); Mexican League (1939-44, 1950-51); Puerto Rico (1941-42, 1944-45, 1947-50); Cleveland Buckeyes (1944-47); Venezuela (1945-47, 1951-53); New York Cubans (1949); Cuba (1950-51); Cleveland (AL) 1952; Colombia (1953-54)
   64. Chris Cobb Posted: March 02, 2007 at 03:02 AM (#2305619)
Eric's latest MLEs suggest that Trouppe has about 65 win shares with Cleveland 1945-47 plus a smidge from 1944 (I think he was mostly in Mexico that year). He had 69.1 win shares from 1939-41 in Monterey. So the choice really comes down to Cleveland vs. Monterey.

The case for Monterey would be

(1) The most win shares (depending on the 1944 split)
(2) Those were his age 26-28 seasons, and thus are more likely to represent his true playing peak.
(3) It would be cool to for the Mexican Leagues to have an official representative in the HoM.

The case for Cleveland would be

(1) Longest continuous stretch wth any one team, by half a season
(2) Possibly his most win shares with any one team
(3) Managed there
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 02, 2007 at 03:12 AM (#2305626)
How about Puerto Rico, Chris, or should we ignore that league?
   66. OCF Posted: March 02, 2007 at 03:23 AM (#2305636)
And in #63, John didn't list North Dakota. Ah, this one is complicated.
   67. Chris Cobb Posted: March 02, 2007 at 03:46 AM (#2305645)
I hope Eric will chime in on this conversation, as he has gathered the information on Trouppe. It would be good to know how Trouppe's playing time (and effectiveness) was parceled out in years where he played in multiple leagues, and what teams he played on in the Latin American leagues.

I tend to not to pay much attention to the Puerto Rico Winter League myself, partly because I don't have a good read its quality, and partly because as a winter league with short seasons it generally seems to me to be a secondary league for players. The CWL had short seasons also, but we are a lot more certain about the quality of play (which was even higher than the NeL at a few points), and it was clearly the home league for players like Mendez, Dihigo, and Oms. Trouppe was always playing summer baseball somewhere else when he was playing winters in Puerto Rico, so I tend to view his play there as secondary.

If we were to elect a player like Pancho Coimbre or Perucho Cepeda, I think it would make sense to give them a PRWL cap, because that would be their home league.

Now, if Eric chimes with evidence that Trouppe played with the same PRWL team every time he went down, or that he had a strong connection to baseball there, that might open up a different view of his play there.

I could imagine an argument for Willard Brown to have a PRWL cap. If he had moved around like Trouppe did in the rest of his career, his PRWL time where he was clearly a big star, might have been the anchor of his career. Since Brown had a long and distinguished tenure with the Monarchs, they were the obvious choice for him, of course.

So maybe we ought to consider the PRWL for Trouppe, to see if he has a steady history with a team there.

Another reason I look favorably on the Mexican cap option for Trouppe (if he is in fact elected), is that he was definitely a very well known, very big star there.
   68. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 02, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2305765)
Just looking quickly in Lester/Clark and Cisneros we get:

MxL
1939-1941 Monterrey (212 g)
1942-1944 Mexico City (203 g)

The schedules waxed and waned in this time....

NgL
1945-1947 Cleveland NNL (154 g)

Shorter skeds than the MxL.

I don't see an easy answer here. Here's another branch for the decision tree: have we honored any other player with a cap from a non-U.S. team? If not, then I'd default to Cleveland. If so, more discussion needed.
   69. Chris Cobb Posted: March 02, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2305777)
Mendez has an Almendares Blues cap; Dihigo has a Habana Reds cap.
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 02, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2305803)
Thanks, gentleman, though I'm still confused over which cap to give him. Maybe I should use my dartboard. :-)
   71. TomH Posted: March 02, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2305806)
Just now getting aronud to reading Chris Fluit's post #62 in reponse to my query.

Chris, you are probably correct. Obviously the whole NgL schedule was "rougher" than MLB. This impacted every NgL player. But it is possible that catchers were impacted more. You would think that we would find this in the data; if there were FEWER NgL catchers who lasted a long time, I would think we'd consider giving bonus credit to them. OTOH, that is not the case; there seem to be proportionately MORE great NgL catchers.

Your suggestion, shared by others, that teams and players pushed their greats to the C position more than MLB does is cetainly plausible. But let me say this: MLB catchers are valuable by measures like RCAP because so few of them hit well. If NgL catchers generally were "better", then their effective RCAP (or comparison against their colleagues who played catcher) would not be very high. Nonetheless, many argue that we ought to compare them more against their MLB counterparts (using MLEs), and in so doing, we find Trouppe more HoM worthy than say Bresnahan or Munson. But IF we give NgL catchers a bonus because more great dark-skinned baseballers played catcher, should we then not give a small penalty to the other 7 positions, since fewer of them were there? It's a small thing; but maybe the reason an OFer (Oms?) stood out among OFers was some stud player donned a mask and squatted instead, where in MLB, it's the opposite; sometimes managers saw a great bat and got him out from behind the plate so his bat could play every day.

Long and short of it: I am coming around on Trouppe. I have been pinging him too much for only being the (my estimate) 5th best NgL catcher. BUT. If he moves up 12 places on my ballot, 6 other NgLers go down 2 places each (not a hard and fast rule, but a generalization).

I may re-submit my 1995 ballot.
   72. yest Posted: March 02, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2305832)
Thanks, gentleman, though I'm still confused over which cap to give him. Maybe I should use my dartboard. :-)

that would certinaly explain how Eddie Collins got a White Sox hat
   73. Chris Cobb Posted: March 02, 2007 at 05:23 PM (#2305842)
that would certinaly explain how Eddie Collins got a White Sox hat

Oh, I don't know -- it might have had something to do with the fact that Collins played 514 more games for the White Sox . . . Just speculating.

John, in Trouppe's case, the dartboard might well be the way to go. Fortunately, there probably won't be Monterey and Cleveland Buckeye partisans itching to second-guess the result if it goes against the home team.
   74. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 02, 2007 at 07:36 PM (#2305914)
Oh, I don't know -- it might have had something to do with the fact that Collins played 514 more games for the White Sox . . . Just speculating.

:-)

Despite yest's unwarranted sarcasm, it is close, though Eddie's ChiSox years have a slight edge based on his much longer career there.
   75. DL from MN Posted: March 02, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2305938)
I'd go with the Buckeyes due to the managing and the championships. Did he win any MxL championships?
   76. DL from MN Posted: March 02, 2007 at 08:18 PM (#2305940)
I'd go with the Buckeyes due to the managing and the championships. Did he win any MxL championships?
   77. DL from MN Posted: March 02, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2305943)
I'd go with the Buckeyes due to the managing and the championships. Did he win any MxL championships?
   78. Chris Fluit Posted: March 02, 2007 at 09:20 PM (#2305980)
I'd also go with Cleveland as the only foreign caps are Cuban caps for those native to Cuba. But yeah, there's a good case to be made for Monterey.
   79. Howie Menckel Posted: March 03, 2007 at 03:34 AM (#2306089)
If and when Trouppe makes the HOM, what positional estimates would be best (I round to 5/0s because we're guesstimating anyway) for my positional charts.

I'm thinking maybe 65 pct C and either 20 pct 3B and 15 pct OF, or 25 pct 3B and 10 pct OF.

Anyone have a preference?
   80. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 03, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2306268)
If and when Trouppe makes the HOM, what positional estimates would be best (I round to 5/0s because we're guesstimating anyway) for my positional charts.

Very difficult to say. Cisneros gives no breakouts of his positional stuff. Here's what Clark and Lester say:

1930 of c
1931 c of
1932 c of
1933 c of

1938 c of
1939 mx c 2b ss of
1939 us c
1940 3b
1941 c 3b
1942 c
1943 c
1944 c 3b 1b of
1945 c of
1946 c of
1947 c of
1948 c of
1949 can c of
1949 us c
1950 c 3b
1951 c
1952 c
1953 c

all catcher in the winterball entries.
   81. Chris Fluit Posted: March 03, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2306310)
I think 20-15 3b-of would be more accurate than 25-10.
   82. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 03, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2306319)
I'd probably lean more toward 75% C/15% OF/10% 3B, but that's just unfounded speculation. I don't think he was Joe Torre because I think he was a good enough defender that people didn't mind or even wanted him behind the plate. No one was worried about his defense; if they were, he wouldn't have been able to hang on from 1950-1953 as an older catcher-only player. He made MiL/MLB as a catcher and had a fine reputation there. I suspect that the c/of years are mostly opportunities for him to rest in the OF but keep his bat in the order. But in reality, I have no idea, of course, and neither do too many other people. It seems there's less out there on his era than on the roaring 20s era. Maybe Lester and Clark or Holway know; I wish I did.
   83. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 04, 2007 at 10:44 PM (#2306666)
I think I'm going with the Buckeyes as Trouppe's cap. My next question: should I include Bismark and the Canadian Provincial League as teams that he played with? Riley has them italicized because he feels they weren't of top quality, but I felt I would see what you guys thought about it.
   84. Chris Cobb Posted: March 04, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2306685)
I would include Bismarck and the CPL. Both leagues attracted -- for limited periods of time -- a notable number of talented African-American ballplayers. Bismarck, at least was a significant stop in Trouppe's career. He played there for as long as he played for any one team, and since he went there after he had already played in the Negro Leagues, it wasn't the equivalent of minor-league play. He went where the money was better, while the Negro Leagues were in disarray because of the Depression.

I would say that Bismarck ought to be added to Satchel Paige's team's list, esp. if Satchel Paige's all-stars (which was not a league team at all) is listed.

Will Trouppe, if elected, be the first electee to have played in the CPL?
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 04, 2007 at 11:55 PM (#2306689)
I would include Bismarck and the CPL. Both leagues attracted -- for limited periods of time -- a notable number of talented African-American ballplayers. Bismarck, at least was a significant stop in Trouppe's career. He played there for as long as he played for any one team, and since he went there after he had already played in the Negro Leagues, it wasn't the equivalent of minor-league play. He went where the money was better, while the Negro Leagues were in disarray because of the Depression.


I would say that Bismarck ought to be added to Satchel Paige's team's list, esp. if Satchel Paige's all-stars (which was not a league team at all) is listed.


Thanks, Chris!


Will Trouppe, if elected, be the first electee to have played in the CPL?


I believe so, Chris.
   86. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 05, 2007 at 12:32 AM (#2306717)
No. Ray Brown was there 1950, 51, 53 according to the Clark/Lester book.

Willie Wells was a playing manager in Canada, but it's unclear from Riley whether that was in the CPL or not.
   87. Howie Menckel Posted: March 10, 2007 at 03:38 AM (#2309825)
Such a poignancy to the bb-ref page for Trouppe:

He gets in a mere 6 MLB games for the 1962 Indians, who go 93-61 and finish in 2nd place.
Trouppe is 1 for 10 with a walk at age 39, lasting from April 30 til May 10.
He does get a brief look at 36-yr-old Luke Easter putting up a 31 HR, 97 RBI, 141 OPS+ season in 437 AB, along with an All-Star season from 28-yr-old Larry Doby (32-104 with 162 OPS+, 2nd only to Mantle).
Birdie Tebbetts wrapped up his own long career that year, with 37 G C. Birdie debuted in 1936 backing up Mickey Cochrane, and watching Gehringer, Goslin, Simmons.
Trouppe would have seen a little of Pete Reiser - once the pride of Brooklyn before he ran into too many OF walls - struggle to go 6 for 44 in his last go-round with those 1952 Indians.
Trouppe happened to have been around, too, to see Snuffy Stirnweiss's last effort - a 1-G appearance at 3B without an AB for the Tribe.

Bob Feller had a bad year at 9-13, but colleagues Early Wynn, Bob Lemon, and Mike Garcia all won 20 and went a combined 67-34.

Has anyone ever asked Feller - who's still quite sharp - what he recalls of Trouppe's cup of coffee? He'd remember it well.
   88. Howie Menckel Posted: March 10, 2007 at 03:41 AM (#2309826)
1952 Indians, obvious typo....
   89. KJOK Posted: November 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM (#3010823)
Just trying to make the record complete, as I don't think we had Trouppe's 1949 Provincial League data anywhere:

Team - Drummondville
G - 82
AB - 264
R - 45
H - 73
2B - 16
3B - 0
HR - 8
RBI - 37
SB - 1
AVE - .277

Fielding (positional breakout unknown except primarily catcher)
G - 82
PO - 431
A - 63
E - 13
PB - 16

League Totals - 175 players:
AB - 20306
R - 3044
H - 5412
2B - 934
3B - 81
HR - 459
RBI - 2749
SB - 440
AVE - .267
   90. Paul Wendt Posted: November 18, 2008 at 04:45 PM (#3011487)
Where is Eric Chalek?
At "Quincey Trouppe" he is still only a few posts up from the bottom of the board.
>>
86. Eric Chalek (Dr. Chaleeko) Posted: March 04, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2306717)
No. Ray Brown was there 1950, 51, 53 according to the Clark/Lester book.

Willie Wells was a playing manager in Canada, but it's unclear from Riley whether that was in the CPL or not.
<<
That is the "Canadian Provincial League" --based in Quebec? in Quebec and other eastern provinces?
Or was there another Quebec Provincial League?


from "Willie Wells" at Wikipedia:
>>
He returned to the U.S. in 1945 and played for various Negro League teams through the 1950 season. He then went to Canada as a player-manager for the Winnipeg Buffaloes of the Western Canadian Leagues, remaining there until his retirement from playing baseball in 1954.
<<

Winnipeg is north of Bismarck.
   91. Paul Wendt Posted: November 18, 2008 at 05:06 PM (#3011502)
Was and is this socalled CPL normally called the Canadian Provincial League. As far as I know, I never read notice of the C.P.L. until this morning, only the Quebec Provincial League and the Provincial League.

The official website of the CanAm League makes some vague claim regarding this series of league names:
>>
Eastern Canada League -- 1923
Quebec-Ontario-Vermont League -- 1924
Quebec Provincial League -- 1940
CanAm League -- 1941-42, 1946-50, 2005-present
Provincial League -- 1951-55
Eastern League -- 1971-77
Northern League -- 1999-2002
Northeast League -- 2003-04
<<

I feel certain that the 1950s Provincial League was based in the east (and I suppose that all its teams were located in the east). Stepping back onto solid ground, I feel certain that Ray Brown pitching in Quebec province and Willie Wells player-managing in the Western Canada League north of Bismarck ND were working in different leagues.

--
Did people in Puerto Rico and Cuba call their winter leagues the Puerto Rican Winter League and the Cuban Winter League? Do PRWL and CWL abbreviate translations of their Spanish-language names?

I doubt that that is the case re the Provincial League in Canada, and the second reference in "Ray Brown" at wikipedia supports my guess (as does the CanAm website if it refers to the same league).
from "Ray Brown" at wikipedia
>>
But after his long solid stint with the Grays, he opted to play in Mexico and in the Canadian Provincial League in his later and final years. In those years, he continued to dominate most batters, leading Sherbrooke to a title in the Provincial League.
<<
(my emphasis on the two references)
   92. KJOK Posted: November 19, 2008 at 09:57 PM (#3012591)
Paul:

Here's a link

Quebec Provincial League

Chet Brewer was in this league. Former MLB players such as Sal Maglie and Danny Gardella played there also.
   93. KJOK Posted: November 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM (#3012596)
Terris McDuffie, Roberto Vargas, Vic Power, Tex Shirley, Ebba St. Claire and Max Lanier also.
   94. Paul Wendt Posted: November 22, 2008 at 02:40 PM (#3014209)
#93
Armed with a comprehensive list of players banned for going to Mexico in 1946, maybe we would find most of them in Quebec.

#92
Thanks, Kevin.
I won't call that league the "Canadian" one.
The CanAm League website lists Quebec Provincial League for 1940 only --now I suspect that that was the unique season for a "Q.P.L." in Organized Baseball.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9958 seconds
68 querie(s) executed