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, July 17, 2002

Right Fielders

Here are the right fielders. Jim O’Rourke should be a LF, his stats are now over there.


234 - 32, 29, 28 - 133 - Oyster Burns - 8.8 sea. - 194 batting - 29 fielding - 11 pitching.
RF 66%, SS 17%, LF 9%, 3B 5%, 2B 2%, CF 1%.
notes: 1884-85, 1887-95. 5-year peak from age 22-26. Split career between NL and AA. Played 1884-85, 1887-89 in AA (122 WS), 1890-95 in NL (112 WS).

107 - 35, 16, 15 - 74 - John Cassidy - 7.6 sea. - 85 batting - 21 fielding - 1 pitching.
RF 68%, CF 24%, 1B 4%, 3B 3%.
notes: 1875-85. 5-year peak from age 20-24. Played .6 seasons in NA (not included here). Rest of career in NL, except 1884-85 (AA), 15, 4 WS.

51 - 29, 15, 7 - 51 - Spud Johnson - 2.4 sea. - 45 batting - 6 fielding.
RF 56%, LF 29%, 3B 13%, 1B 1%.
notes: 1889-91. Played from age 29-31. Played 1889 and 1890 in the AA (15, 29 WS), 1891 in NL (7 WS).

421 - 45, 41, 35 - 167 - King Kelly - 13.6 sea. - 341 batting - 77 fielding - 3 pitching.
RF 51%, C 35%, SS 5%, 3B 5%, 2B 3%, 1B 1%.
notes: 1878-93. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played entire career in NL, except most of 1891 in AA (22 WS) and 1890 (PL) 20 WS.

202 - 30, 28, 26 - 130 - Tommy McCarthy - 9.4 sea. - 156 batting - 44 fielding - 2 pitching.
RF 48%, LF 44%, 2B 3%, 3B 3%, CF 1%, SS 1%.
notes: 1884-96. 5-year peak from age 26-30. Played entire career in NL, except 1884 (UA) 5 WS, 1888-91 (AA), 23, 22, 28, 26 WS respectively (first two years of 5 year peak).

170 - 26, 21, 21 - 95 - Paul Radford - 10.5 sea. - 122 batting - 47 fielding.
RF 60%, SS 25%, CF 8%, 3B 4%, 2B 3%.
notes: 1883-94. 5-year peak from age 25-29. Played entire career in NL, except 1887-88, 91 (AA) 21, 12, 26 WS respectively. Played 1890 in PL (21 WS).

214 - 40, 34, 26 - 118 - Orator Shaffer - 9.8 sea. - 169 batting - 45 fielding.
RF 92%, CF 3%, LF 2%, 3B 1%, 2B 1%, 1B 1%.
notes: 1874-75, 1877-86, 1890. 5-year peak from age 25-29. Played .5 seasons in NA (not included here). Played rest of career in NL, except 1884 (UA) 40 WS, 1886, 1890 (AA) 4, 17 WS.

170 - 32, 32, 27 - 130 - Ed Swartwood - 6.3 sea. - 152 batting - 17 fielding.
RF 71%, CF 14%, 1B 14%, C 1%.
notes: 1881-87, 1890, 1892. 5-year peak from age 23-27. Played entire career in AA, except 1881 and 1892 in NL (0, 2 WS).

289 - 37, 34, 27 - 135 - Sam Thompson - 10.7 sea. - 255 batting - 35 fielding.
RF 100%.
notes: 1885-98, 1906. 5-year peak from age 31-35. Played entire career in NL, except 1906 in AL (8 G).

296 - 35, 32, 31 - 147 - Mike Tiernan - 10.8 sea. - 259 batting - 37 fielding.
RF 79%, LF 11%, CF 10%.
notes: 1887-99. 5-year peak from age 21-25. Played entire career in NL.

201 - 32, 29, 23 - 113 - Chicken Wolf - 9.7 sea. - 158 batting - 43 fielding.
RF 85%, SS 5%, C 4%, 3B 2%, 2B 1%, LF 1%.
notes: 1882-92. 5-year peak from age 20-24. Played entire career in AA, except games in the NL in 1892.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 17, 2002 at 10:17 PM | 123 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. jimd Posted: November 09, 2002 at 01:45 AM (#510664)
So many comments...

Ain't it the truth.


In short, I don't think WS are scalable for pitchers until playing every day (well, six days a week) becomes the standard around 1890.

If we use the adjusted WS as an extrapolation, we're on shaky ground, particularly with the pitchers. Instead, how about using them as an impact statement, "Imagine somebody accumulating 41 WS; that's what Richardson's impact on the pennant race was like." In other words, if a guy has a peak season that's way out of his norm, and we're trying to measure his ability, it has to be discounted heavily because that pace is unlikely to be sustained, but if we're trying to measure his value/impact, well, there's the estimate.

Levi Meyerle hit .492 in 1871, in a 28 game season. We see the Player-of-the-Month do that from time to time. But those 28 games were the whole season (at least, the part that counted), so he's an outstanding candidate for MVP, even though we're positive he couldn't sustain it for even 80 games.

I have no problem thinking of the pitcher numbers in the same way.

   102. dan b Posted: November 09, 2002 at 09:49 PM (#510665)
Let me preface my opening ballot by defending my view that no more than 7 or 8 players on our 1906 ballot should be in the HoM. The title of this post could be ?A pennant is NOT a pennant is NOT a pennant? or ?All decades are not created equal?. It is my view that baseball in the 1870?s and 1880?s was blatantly inferior to major league baseball, as it has been played since that time. This view has nothing to do with equipment, genetics, conditioning, nutrition, dietary supplements or steroids. It stems from historical context ? baseball?s place in America at that time.

In 1876, the year the National League came to be, Custer shot at his last Indian, Jesse James was robbing banks and there really was a man known as Black Bart making a name holding up stagecoaches. The population of the United States was about 43 million, much of it living in rural areas. If you lived in an area not serviced by the railroad or steamboats, you had the benefits of a transportation system no more advanced than Caesar?s Roman Empire. I believe there had to be a significant number of ball players who played on their town team while working the family farm who were every bit as good as most of the professional players of the time. By 1900 the population pool had grown about 80% to 78 million, the cities were growing, rural areas were more accessible, the professional game was better organized and therefore more desirable to be a part of ? how much richer in talent must the game have been by then?

Let me call in Bill James to help make my point. On page 10 of NHBA he writes ??I think it is likely that some of the weaker teams in the National League in 1880 were really no stronger than a hundred other teams around the country.? Wait a minute ? a hundred? That is not major league baseball as we know it. If some of the teams in the NL were that bad, doesn?t that in some measure discredit the accomplishments of the stars (I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer is in a karate class with a bunch of 9 year olds). And doesn?t that mean there were countless ball players around the country every bit as good as the players in the NL?

I refer you to James? comments in NHBA about Amos Rusie and the common success of teenage pitchers in the 19th century as another reason not to give too many HoM spots to players eligible on our 1906 ballot. Scruff ? one thing I agree with you on ? Minoso, Santo and Torre belong, let?s make sure in the context of a 215 member HoM we have room for them.

In a previous post I suggested that being the best 3B in the 1870's was no more basis for induction in the HoM than being the best player in Kansas City Athletics history. I still like that analogy - being the best of a mediocre lot does not make one HoM worthy.

So when do I think a pennant is a pennant is a pennant? To pick any one year is arbitrary, but for me the standard will be 60?6?. Show me you could play the modern game and your name will be higher on my ballot than those that didn?t.

This post is probably too long, so I?ll get off my soapbox and put up my ballot another time.
   103. Rob Wood Posted: November 09, 2002 at 10:35 PM (#510666)
I try to separate the two issues. I believe a pennant is a pennant. However, I also believe that the distribution of major league talent was much sparser in the early days due to the reasons Dan espouses, so that early stars more easily dominating their time.

My solution is to adjust actual performance to reflect the degree of sparseness in the league (I previously posted my year by year adjustment factors) and then scale up these adjusted performances to account for the shorter schedules (further discounting a bit for the possible bias linear scaling introduces).

As an example, I have found that the sparseness in the 1870's was about 30% more than in the first decade of the 1900's and about 55% more than in the 1990's. Note that these factors should be used to adjust the amount that a player is above his league average. So these factors treat league average performances as being equivalent whenever they occurred.
   104. dan b Posted: November 10, 2002 at 04:54 AM (#510667)
Rob - I doubt that your sparseness factor is taking into consideration the extreme nature of Bill James' suggestion that there were 100 teams comparable to some of the NL teams in 1880. A population pool of 47 million supplying 100 teams compared to 78 million supplying 16 teams in 1901 is spread roughly 10 times further.
   105. MattB Posted: November 10, 2002 at 05:14 PM (#510668)
Dan b:

I am not at all convinced that there were 100s of teams as good as a bad NL team in the 1880's. In the 1870's, any team that thought it was as good as the top tier was free to pay 10 dollars and join the National Association. The result were the "co-op" teams that formed a literal "second division" (some newspapers kept separate standings for stock teams and co-op teams, because they weren't at the same level.) In the five years of the NA, only one stock team (the 1871 Cleveland entry) EVER finished below a co-op entry (Ft. Wayne, which finished ahead in the standing, but didn't play a complete season due to all their players quitting). Cleveland didn't last long either. The standard co-op entry was the local champion 1872 Middletown Mansfields (5-19 in the NA).

The National League was made up only of stock teams that could draw players from outside their geographic region. Local teams could, of course, win individual games (by, say throwing their best pitcher against an NL team's off-day pitcher and catching a few breaks), but to say that hundreds of teams were on par with the professional teams seems more like Jamesian hyperbole to me.
   106. dan b Posted: November 10, 2002 at 07:45 PM (#510669)
Let me try to strengthen my argument with an analogy. Let?s suppose James was exaggerating, there were only 64 teams as good or better than the weakest NL teams, such that 1/8 of the top teams were in the NL. Create now an analogous player pool by selecting 2 teams from 1960 also representing 1/8 of the top teams in America. Let?s use the Yankees to represent the best teams and the K.C. A?s. These 2 rosters represent our hypothetical era, any knowledge of Willie Mays or Ed Mathews is just a rumor ? there are some fine ball players out there in the hinterlands that for one reason or another are not able to break away from their life routine to play in our league. We have some legitimate stars to honor in Mantle, Ford and Berra, but those of us who take the ?a pennant is a pennant? approach will look at this ?era? and seek the enshrinement of Norm Siebern and Tony Kubek as the best players at their position in their era. Now it would be bad enough if we honored average players like Siebern and Kubek, but this analogy hasn?t addressed the huge population pool differences between 1880 and 1960 yet. Randomly skim off half (or more) of the top players in my hypothetical era. Will the ?a pennant is a pennant? crowd be campaigning for Pete Daley or Ken Hamlin?

Let me again call in Bill James to help my case and add a touch of irony. On a different thread Rob Wood indicates that Ed McKean is elected to his mock HoM. NHBA ranks McKean as the 64th best 2nd baseman, Siebern as the 63rd best 1st baseman.
   107. Rob Wood Posted: November 10, 2002 at 09:00 PM (#510670)
Bill James' timeline adjustment has been rightfully criticized in several forums. He downgrades 19th century players (and early 20th century players) to a very large degree.

The implications of James? time line adjustment are significant. Just to mention a few of the numerous cases, James ranks Craig Biggio ahead of Nap Lajoie, Sal Bando ahead of Jimmy Collins, Barry Larkin ahead of George Davis, Jim Fregosi ahead of Bill Dahlen, and Tim Raines ahead of Ed Delahanty. I hope that we would all seriously question these rankings.

To state the obvious, suppose 100 years from now players are much, much better than they are today. Would we think it fair that today's stars not be recognized as the best players of their era by the HOM voters 100 years from now? Of course not.

Nevertheless, Dan is raising a valid and important point about how confident we can be that the stars of the 1870's and even the 1880's were truly the best players of that era. Maybe there were players just as good (or better) playing on local teams. Well, there is validity to the question, but if you read Spink or any other contemporary historians, they are very strong in their opinion that the best players were indeed the MLB stars.

My sparseness analysis is the only way I can think of to analytically investigate the importance of this issue. If Dan or anyone else can think of other ways to look into this, we'd all be happy to hear about it.
   108. jimd Posted: November 13, 2002 at 01:04 AM (#510671)
Dan, these are very good posts, but I disagree with the main point.

I believe there had to be a significant number of ball players who played on their town team while working the family farm who were every bit as good as most of the professional players of the time.

If you say "the potential to be" then I'll agree with you. But they're unpolished gems. They can hit Sunday pitching a country mile, but can they do the same to a Tommy Bond curved-ball? Do they have a clue about backing each other up on defensive plays? (And other stuff which is being invented at various times during this period.)

I can make a similar argument about the quality of play today not reaching it's maximum potential, because at least 80% of the people on this planet have never heard of baseball, and I'm sure that they have the same relative occurence of the genetic/personality package that works for MLB as those of us in baseball-playing countries. So there's lots of untapped potential out there today.

Each decade the talent procurement process is more efficient than in the previous one. I'd say we're arguing about how steep the improvement is in these first few decades.

"...I think it is likely that some of the weaker teams in the National League in 1880 were really no stronger than a hundred other teams around the country."

Gotta disagree strongly with James there. Those potential stars are scattered all around the country, one, rarely more, on a team, not concentrated like the NA/NL teams are. The NL reached stability (of a kind) in 1882 when it put the same 8 teams on the field two years in a row. Between 1872 and 1881, 27 new teams joined the NA/NL. 10 of these teams were composed predominantly of experienced NA/NL ballplayers signed as free agents: their average WPct was .524 in their first year. 17 of these teams were composed predominantly of players new to the NA/NL: their average WPct was .181 in their first (and often only) year. The best was Indianapolis at .400 in 1878. I can't see a hundred clubs able to play .300 ball in the NL when they can only find one that can play .400 ball.

Every year, the NA had more hot-shot local teams willing to give it a try; the 1872 Brooklyn Atlantics did the best at 9-28, and that's in the Association's second season. The NL's new franchises did somewhat better, probably because they were invited in (usually, I think, from the International Association which was competing with the NL for players, though they were using the NA's business model, or lack thereof).

Is there overlap? I'd say yes, the best clubs outside of MLB can be better than the worst inside. But that's true all through MLB history. Grove's Orioles are probably better than the Red Sox and Phillies of the early 20's. The best PCL clubs are probably better than the Browns or Phillies of the 30's. Heck, the best Japanese clubs today are probably better than the D-Rays and Brewers.

   109. Marc Posted: April 24, 2004 at 03:42 AM (#510672)
You know the drill, so I'll only say that we will not have an overrepresentation of RFers in the HoM as of, say, 1940. These are players who are eligible through 1939. Couldn't even construct much of a consideration set.

1. Harry Heilmann--#2 peak, #2 prime, #1 career.
   110. PhillyBooster Posted: April 26, 2004 at 07:16 PM (#510673)
Right fielders certainly shouldn't be considered alone. It was hard enough finding 10 worthy of a Top 10 list. Luckily, I had omitted Fielder Jones from the centerfielders, where he belongs, because I was blindly following Bill James' position classifications. That beefs up the list a little.

After this, I've just got to sort through the pitchers. . .

1. Sam Thompson: 99.1 WARP-1; 236 WS; BJ Rank #37. Clearly the cream of this crop.

2. Fielder Jones: 104.6 WARP-1; 290 WS; BJ Rank #41. He would have been somewhere between 5th and 7th had he been ranked with the centerfielders.

3. Mike Tiernan: 80.3 WARP-1; 251 WS; BJ rank #49. The only other player I could imagine possibly voting for in a way down year. And then, really, not even.

4. Patsy Donovan: 61 WARP-1; 201 WS; BJ Rank #121. Inexplicably low Bill James ranking.

5. John Titus. 67.9 WARP-1; 201 WS; BJ Rank # 76. Had a strong peak for a few years.

6. Orator Shaffer. 58.2 WARP-1; 120 WS; BJ Rank #99. No comments from here on down. Why bother?

7. Wildfire Schulte. 71.4 WARP-1; 239 WS; BJ Rank #60.

8. Oyster Burns. 68.6 WARP-1; 196 WS; BJ Rank #78

9. Tommy McCarthy. 63.8 WARP-1; 170 WS; BJ Rank #88.

10. Sock Seybold. 46.4 WARP-1; 149 WS; BJ Rank #91.
   111. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2004 at 07:21 PM (#510674)
Good work the few days, Matt!
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2004 at 07:21 PM (#510675)
Good work the past few days, Matt!
   113. PhillyBooster Posted: April 26, 2004 at 07:27 PM (#510676)
Thank you.

I don't know how useful any of this is to anyone else. I am doing it primarily for myself, so that I can take the Top Player in each position and have a smaller consideration set. Then, when I put a player on my ballot, I can slide the next one up, and never have to juggle more than 10 players in my mind at once.

Pitcher is really going to be the tough one, since WS is next to useless. That's why I've saved it for the end.
   114. Marc Posted: April 26, 2004 at 07:48 PM (#510677)
Ditto plus the fact that I've got to juggle about 40 pitchers in one big set to get started. Ouch!
   115. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 06, 2004 at 04:36 PM (#781148)
The same problem as with the centerfielders: I couldn't reconstruct any of the posts.
   116. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2004 at 11:02 PM (#838396)
All posts have been reconstructed up to #143.
   117. jimd Posted: July 16, 2005 at 03:20 AM (#1476243)
Best RF 1871-1940 by WARP

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

1871 lippike
1872 lippike
1873 jimo'rourke
1874 CALMCVEY
1875 tommybond
1876 dickhigham
1877 johncassidy
1878 ORATORSHAFFER
1879 JIMO'ROURKE
1880 oratorshaffer
1881 KINGKELLY
1882 kingkelly
1883 <oratorshaffer>
1884 kingkelly
1885 kingkelly
1886 (samthompson)
1887 SAMTHOMPSON
1888 (miketiernan)
1889 MIKETIERNAN
1890 (hughduffy)
1891 HARRYSTOVEY
1892 SAMTHOMPSON
1893 SAMTHOMPSON
1894 samthompson
1895 SAMTHOMPSON
1896 williekeeler
1897 WILLIEKEELER
1898 elmerflick
1899 CHICKSTAHL
1900 HONUSWAGNER        ELMERFLICK WILLIEKEELER
1901 ELMERFLICK
1902 (samcrawford)
1903 SAMCRAWFORD
1904 ELMERFLICK
1905 elmerflick
1906 harrylumley
1907 TYCOBB             ELMERFLICK
1908 MIKEDONLIN
1909 TYCOBB
1910 (harryhooper)
1911 JOEJACKSON         FRANKSCHULTE
1912 JOEJACKSON
1913 JOEJACKSON
1914 SAMCRAWFORD
1915 GAVVYCRAVATH
1916 harryhooper
1917 (harryhooper)
1918 HARRYHOOPER
1919 rossyoungs
1920 BABERUTH           ROSSYOUNGS
1921 HARRYHEILMANN
1922 harryheilmann
1923 BABERUTH           HARRYHEILMANN
1924 BABERUTH           HARRYHEILMANN ROSSYOUNGS
1925 KIKICUYLER         HARRYHEILMANN
1926 PAULWANER
1927 BABERUTH           PAULWANER HARRYHEILMANN GEORGEHARPER
1928 BABERUTH           PAULWANER
1929 MELOTT             BABERUTH
1930 BABERUTH           CHUCKKLEIN MELOTT KIKICUYLER BABEHERMAN
1931 BABERUTH           MELOTT PAULWANER
1932 MELOTT             CHUCKKLEIN BABERUTH BABEHERMAN
1933 CHUCKKLEIN         MELOTT
1934 MELOTT             PAULWANER
1935 MELOTT             PAULWANER
1936 MELOTT
1937 MELOTT
1938 IVALGOODMAN
1939 TEDWILLIAMS        IVALGOODMAN
1940 charliekeller
   118. ronw Posted: October 15, 2005 at 06:06 PM (#1685231)
Right Fielders

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

RF              Career  Games  BWS/162 Total    Fielding
*Ruth, B        608.8   2503    39.4   100.3    C-
*Ott, M         474.0   2730    28.1    75.5    C-
*Crawford, S    398.8   2517    25.7    65.5    C
Kaline, A       382.9   2834    21.9    60.2    B-
*Waner, P       359.8   2549    22.9    58.8    B
*Jackson, J     262.8   1332    32.0    58.2    C+
*Heilmann, H    325.1   2148    24.5    57.0    D
*Flick, E       257.4   1483    28.1    53.9    C
Clemente, R     316.4   2433    21.1    52.7    B-
*Keeler, W      284.5   2123    21.7    50.2    C+
*Kelly, K       225.7   1455    25.1    47.7    B+
Slaughter, E    275.4   2380    18.7    46.3    B-
Tiernan, M      219.4   1476    24.1    46.0    C
Hooper, H       268.3   2309    18.8    45.7    C+
Cuyler, K       243.0   1879    21.0    45.3    B
Rice, S         268.7   2404    18.1    45.0    B-
*Thompson, S    207.6   1407    23.9    44.7    C-
Colavito, R     234.0   1841    20.6    44.0    C
Cravath, G      183.1   1220    24.3    42.6    D+
Youngs, R       180.8   1211    24.2    42.3    C
Herman, Ba      206.2   1552    21.5    42.1    C-
Henrich, T      182.9   1284    23.1    41.4    C+
Maris, R        194.2   1463    21.5    40.9    C+
Klein, C        208.5   1753    19.3    40.1    C-
Nicholson, B    198.5   1677    19.2    39.0    D+
Burns, O        162.6   1187    22.2    38.5    D+
Cullenbine, R   159.6   1181    21.9    37.9    C
Titus, J        174.5   1402    20.2    37.6    C-
Callison, J     198.9   1886    17.1    37.0    B-
Schulte, W      194.8   1806    17.5    37.0    B-
Alou, F         204.6   2082    15.9    36.4    C+
Murphy, D       173.6   1496    18.8    36.2    C+
Wertz, V        191.8   1862    16.7    35.9    C-
Moses, W        197.8   2012    15.9    35.7    C
Allison, B      171.7   1541    18.1    35.2    C+
Freeman, B      142.7   1126    20.5    34.8    D+
Holmes, T       153.6   1320    18.9    34.2    B+
Swartwood, E    104.7    724    23.4    33.9    C-
Green, D        121.8    923    21.4    33.6    C+
Furillo, C      174.4   1806    15.6    33.1    B
Jensen, J       155.2   1438    17.5    33.0    B-
Seybold, S      125.2    997    20.3    32.9    B-
Bauer, H        156.4   1544    16.4    32.0    C
Sauer, H        146.6   1399    17.0    31.6    C+
Donovan, P      167.1   1821    14.9    31.6    D+
Evans, S        115.6    978    19.1    30.7    D-
Wagner, L       139.6   1352    16.7    30.7    D
Gessler, D      106.0    880    19.5    30.1    D
McCarthy, T     131.8   1275    16.7    29.9    A-
Stengel, C      131.5   1277    16.7    29.8    B-
Miller, B       157.6   1820    14.0    29.8    B-
Robinson, Fl    114.0   1011    18.3    29.7    C
Mitchell, M     121.4   1124    17.5    29.6    C
Tobin, J        147.9   1619    14.8    29.6    C
Selkirk, G      100.8    846    19.3    29.4    B-
Martin, P       124.3   1189    16.9    29.4    C+
Mitchell, D     118.1   1127    17.0    28.8    C
Wolf, C         117.3   1198    15.9    27.6    B
Walker, C       123.5   1359    14.7    27.1    C+
Flack, M        125.1   1411    14.4    26.9    C+
Murray, R       117.2   1264    15.0    26.7    C
Southworth, B   112.0   1192    15.2    26.4    B-
Demaree, F      106.9   1155    15.0    25.7    C
Campbell, B     117.1   1360    13.9    25.7    D+
Reynolds, C     109.1   1222    14.5    25.4    B
Fox, P          116.7   1461    12.9    24.6    B-
Marshall, W     106.7   1246    13.9    24.5    D+
Wilson, C       105.7   1280    13.4    23.9    B+
Collins, S      111.1   1799    10.0    21.1    B-
Philley, D      104.4   1904     8.9    19.3    B



I'm sure you are shocked to see that the Babe barely has the best career total so far, 100.3 to Cobb's 98.1. (As Bill James has said, just once I'd like to have one of these lists show a different player at the top, but no.) Of course, Ruth has some pitching credit as well.

Kaline and Clemente are in, and probably Slaughter with war credit. Easy selections at the top. Tiernan, Hooper, Cuyler and Rice have gotten little support.

Tiernan is the most surprising, as his contemporary Sam Thompson, a little worse in everything, including fielding, got elected. On a peak analysis, Tiernan's top 3 BWS are 24.6, 24.5 and 23.1 (72.2). Thompson's are 26.2, 25.3 and 20.4 (71.9). Thompson has no more BWS seasons above 20, while Tiernan has 2 more. Thompson is a better than Tiernan if you rate players alphabetically, or if you use WARP (94.8-80.8 WARP 1, 78.4-63.0 WARP3). The WARP discrepancy is probably due to Tiernan's peak occurring in the multi-league 1888-1891, and Thompson having a mini-peak in the one-league 1893-95. I'm not saying Thompson is a mistake, just that under this WS based system, he sticks out more than any other player.

Cleveland fave Colavito falls short.

On extrapolation, look at Cravath and Youngs. Nearly identical BWS/162, if you add their careers together (a la Amos Rusie/Joe McGinnity), you have someone with 363.9 career WS, about a 24.3 WS/162 for a 60.69 total player. Not a good fielder, but so what at this point, this hypothetical player looks a little like Harry Heilmann.

I think you have to give each a lot of extra credit to bring them to Heilmann level. A season or two gives them King Kelly numbers, probably electable. Youngs's problem is that only karl gives "dead credit". Cravath looks electable some day.

Realistically, anyone below Cravath is out.

Hey, look at HOF whipping boy Tommy McCarthy! He is the only A- fielder among the career RF. So what if he played a lot of LF. He needs all the recognition he can get. Go Heavenly Twin!
   119. sunnyday2 Posted: October 15, 2005 at 08:37 PM (#1685385)
Well, I will say I like Ron's lists a lot more than the new baseball encyclopedia.
   120. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2005 at 09:18 PM (#1685427)
Well, I will say I like Ron's lists a lot more than the new baseball encyclopedia.

Ditto.
   121. OCF Posted: October 16, 2005 at 12:44 AM (#1685730)
Kaline looks that good? I guess I'll have to take a good look when he becomes eligible. Although he looks like an extreme longevity candidate, a career over peak case.

I never was a fan of Sam Thompson. Call him elected over my objections. Tiernan always looks good in the numbers I use, so I keep having to find reasons for saying, "Yes, but."
   122. KJOK Posted: October 16, 2005 at 06:14 AM (#1686171)
Well, I will say I like Ron's lists a lot more than the new baseball encyclopedia.

Well, at least the New Baseball Encyclopedia uses a more appropriate baseline. ;>)

Player Offensive Wins - Right Field

Sam Thompson - 30
Chuck Klein -21
Roy Cullenbine - 19
Gavy Cravath - 18
Babe Herman - 18
Willie Keeler - 15
Enos Slaughter - 15
   123. KJOK Posted: October 17, 2005 at 06:10 AM (#1688299)
Player Offensive Wins - Right Field
CORRECTION - Player OVERALL Wins - Right Field
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6080 seconds
68 querie(s) executed