Here's my ballot. Again, I use a combination of peak and career for the rankings. I also view each position on an equal basis. This doesn't mean that I have a quota to fill each position for my top ten. Sometimes a position will not have a viable candidate for a certain "year."

1) Ezra Sutton (2): Simply the best at the position for the 19th century when combining peak and career. Best third baseman for 1875 (probably), 1883, 1884 and 1885. Almost the best first baseman behind McVey for 1876.

As has been stated before, third base at the time was more of a defensive position than second base. Offense at the "hot corner" has to be analyzed with that in mind. Third basemen tended to get beat up more than they do today so their career numbers seem truncated as compared to some of the other positions.

2) Jack Glasscock (4): I have him basically tied with Wright, except he's more career value than Wright (and George is more peak).

Best shortstop for 1882, 1886, and 1889.

3) Al Spalding (5): The defense theory holds water for me, but only so far.

Best pitcher of his time. Best hitting pitcher by far, also. If you don't give credit for his pre-NA work, then that would be the only way you could consider his career short.

4) Cal McVey (6): Awesome player. I gave him credit for his pre-NA work, though I still decided not to give him any for post-NL. This might be unfair of me and I might decide later to include his career out west (does anyone have any info for this time of McVey's career?).

Never had an off year in the NA or NL. Best offensive catcher for the NA (possibly the best all-around). Best first baseman for 1876 (possibly 1879). Best catcher for 1877. Best third baseman for 1878.

5) Dickey Pearce (7): Really revolutionized the position of shortstop. All-around player at the position. Considered the best before George Wright. Caught many games as a catcher (even was an All-Star at the position one year). Even with my conservative evaluation, he has to rank near the top. He played for over twenty years in the best leagues or on the best teams of the 1850s and '60s. Even though his NA and NL was meager (he was 35 in '71), he still had the most value after 35 until Dahlen and Davis, FWIW.

If we are including pre-NA players, I can't see how anyone could leave him off their ballots, IMO.

I'm not giving him any credit here for the bunt, BTW.

6) Hardy Richardson (8): Greatest player who played a great deal at second for the 1880s (Fred Dunlap probably had the most value strictly at the position). Best leftfielder for 1886. Best second baseman for 1887 and 1889.

7) Joe Start (9): Considered the best first baseman for the 1860s. Considering how old he was when he joined the NA and how well he did, that evaluation seems to hold water. Best first baseman for 1871, 1878 and 1879.

8) Charlie Bennett (10): Strictly as a catcher, extremely comparable to Buck Ewing value wise (though based more on career than peak value). Best catcher for 1881, 1882 and 1883. Most durable catcher up to that time (catchers absorbed much more abuse than they do today).

9) Billy Nash (n/a): The '90s had some terrific players at the "hot corner": McGraw, Collins, Joyce and Nash.

Best third baseman for 1888, 1889, 1892, and 1893.

10) Levi Meyerle (11): Why does this man get ignored? I'm not saying he belongs where I have him, but you would think there would be a few more votes for him.

Great player, but short career. An injury forced him out of the NL. Best third baseman for the NA. I also gave him some credit for the period 1867-1870.

11) Jack Clement (n/a): Very durable with a nice peak. Best catcher for 1891 and 1895.

12) Ed Williamson (12): Best third baseman for the 80s. Best third baseman for 1881.

13) Fred Dunlap (13): Most value as a second baseman for the 1880s (though McPhee and Richardson were still the better players career wise). Best second baseman for 1880, 1881 and 1884.

14) Lip Pike (14): Considered the fastest man of his time. Best centerfielder for 1874, 1875 and 1876. Best rightfielder for 1871. Star second and third baseman for half of the 1860s. He might deserve to move up.

15) Pud Galvin (n/a): His triumphant return to my ballot! I'm back to placing him in front of Old Hoss. I'm confident he was the better pitcher of the two.

Amos Rusie stays off the ballot until I can get a handle on these damn pitchers. God, they make my ranking of them a living hell! I have no animus against him, believe me. :-)

My 1904 ballot.

1. Jack Glasscock: great player, fully deserving of HOM

1. Old Hoss Radbourn (3)- I thought this was his year. Why are people running away from him? Best pitcher on ballot.

2. Pud Galvin (4)- His comparison to Hoss moves him up.

3. Joe Start (5)- An overlooked gem.

4. Jack Glasscock (6)- I imagine I won't have to worry about where to put him next year.

5. Al Spalding (-)- I am a convert.

6. Amos Rusie (new)- Great pitcher, but there are better available.

7. Bob Caruthers (8)

8. Hardy Richardson (7)

My likely cut-off point

9. Harry Stovey (9)

10. Mickey Welch (11)

11. Sam Thompson (10)

12. Tony Mullane (12)

13. Jim McCormick (14)

14. Mike Griffin (new)

15. Pete Browning (-)

Dropping off - Silver King, Ezra Sutton

I favor career value over peak, and from appearances, this year favor hitting over glove work. Huh.

1. Jack Glasscock - Clear cut best of ballot, about time he gets in.

1. Joe Start

1. Pud Galvin (3) ? Best pitcher on the board, and now I see the best purely 19th century player overall.

Adjusted hits are normalized to 130 games played, as set out in my 1903 ballot, to equalize 1870s and 1880s/90s players. For pitchers, I?m inclined to think a win is a win, and would therefore put Rusie below Radbourn, Galvin and Welch. Pitching was less strenuous in the 1880s, but careers were shorter too, especially for the work-Hoss. I also refuse to use a ?sealed box? formula such as WARP-3 for evaluation; you cannot assess the value of any calculation without examining VERY carefully the assumptions underlying it.

1904 ballot. Fairly similar to my prelim.

1. Jack Glasscock. As worthy as Larkin or Trammell - which is an indication that there's no one at the level above that.

1. Start (3) -- Even being very modest about what he may have been in the 60?s, he has now emerged on the top of the ballot.

What I liked most about Pennants Added, aside from Ruth being #1, was how highly it ranked Ken Singleton -- probably one of the most underrated players of the 1970s.

Is it too early to start lobbying for a player who won't hit the ballot for another 84 year? :)

1. Al Spalding (3) ? Best pitcher of the 1870?s. Definite HoMer

Ah, 1904, I remember it well. Still like a good high peak, and I tend to scramble everybody every week. I don't know how some of you can sit still with the same rank order every week!? You must be doin' it with numbers! I inject some subjectivity along with that peak value thing.

1. Al Spalding (3 in '98-2-1-1-2-1 last "year")--from the standpoint of "one pennant is one pennant" Al had more impact on more pennant success than anybody. A giant of a man, how many standard deviations above mere mortals? A bunch.

2. Jack Glasscock (6-4-3)--not sure whether to discount his batting title year (a diluted NL in 1890) and his offensive record overall is pretty quirky. Peaks in '82, '86, '89-'90(?). What's with that. But that's a bit quibbly isn't it.

3. Amos Rusie (new)--another massive peak, I don't care what happened to Nichols and Young, and if Rusie had had the enlightened management Nichols, at least, had (in terms of innings pitched as a young man), who wants to say he might not have been better?

4. Sam Thompson (6-6)--top "slugger" on the board and let's be honest, the big hitters make the world go 'round. Only 8 pts of OPS+ behind Connor (admittedly in fewer PA). Was he a mediocre fielder or not? Who cares? Moves ahead of Radbourn and Caruthers.

5. Bob Caruthers (11-9-5-8-5)--another massive peak with big pennant race impacts. Top candidate from the AA and while I discount the AA it was plenty good to have at least one HoMer. Passes Hoss.

6. Cal McVey (5-6-8-7-7-9)--did everything Deacon White ever did, and better, just not as long. Played key defensive positions for the best teams in the world, and hit a ton. Passes Radbourn, Richardson and Browning.

7. Hoss Radbourn (10-10-6-4-5-4)--Another down cycle for Hoss, can never quite make up my mind. His best year was in a particularly diluted environment ('84). Discount that a bit and he's pretty interchangeable with the other guys on this ballot (except Al).

8. Pete Browning (8-10-8-12-7)--next best raw hitter on the board, OPS+ 164. You can't entirely hide that under an AA discount bushel-basket. Not sure he was as bad in the field as his rep.

9. Joe Start (15-x-12-14-13-12)--OK you guys are wearing me down. Not a lot of peak but some and a lot of longevity. Certainly one of the top 3-4 guys in the '60s and not an insignificant man thereafter, to be sure. Passes Richardson, Pike and Stovey.

10. Hardy Richardson (9-9-7-9-9-8)--that's Hardy not hardly. Still a HoMer to me, a good 2B and a better hitter as an OF than I had thought. Heck he led the PL in RBI.

11. Lip Pike (6-7-13-10-11-10)--a respectable middle IF in the '60s and an awesome offensive CFer in the '70s. Quit in '79 like so many did in that year of business reorg while still at the top. This is the bubble.

12. Charlie Bennett (13-11-11-10-13)--it takes a man to do a man's job and Charlie musta been a hell of a man. Gotta take a closer look at Clements, however, but no time yet. And this is the bubble, too.

13. Harry Stovey (12-x-15T-x-11)--it was his week to drop off my ballot, don't know how I missed that. The Sam Thompson of the AA, not quite the Pete Browning, however, and not quite a HoMer, I don't think.

14. Tony Mullane (15T-x-15)--also Tony's week to drop out, I'm slipping. A slight, ever so slight edge over the next 3-4 pitchers but I got plenty o' pitchers at the top of this ballot. Not a HoMer.

15T. Jim McCormick (15-x-)--his week to be back on the list. Leading active career WS guy for several years into the mid-'80s.

15T. Fred Dunlap (14-x-x-13-14-14)--if his '84 season had been in a bona fide ML he'd be near top 10, but as it is...not a HoMer.

Nobody dropped off my ballot. Might take a closer look at Griffin. Sutton still the best of the 3Bs. But no other even bubble type players any lower on this list, so let it go. Meyerle a personal fave (what with a massive peak) but no better than about 20th overall. Ditto big Dave Orr.

1904

1. Ezra Sutton (3)--Ahead of Glasscock and Richardson on both career and peak value.

2. Jack Glasscock (4)--Moved ahead of Sutton moved him back for the real thing. The two are close, but Sutton?s definitely got the better peak and probably the better career value.

3. Hardy Richardson (5)--Ahead of Start on defense and maybe peak.

4. Joe Start (6)--Might deserve to go higher. More career than McVey.

5. Cal McVey (7)--I like the Ross Barnes comparison a lot.

6. Harry Stovey (9)--He's got career value on Thompson, Browning, et al even after correcting for the clerical error, the advantage is just a little bit smaller though. And that?s not even counting the new baserunning info. Career value moves him ahead of Pike this year as well as Rusie.

7. Amos Rusie (-)--Clearly better than Radbourn or Galvin.

8. Lip Pike (8)--Not as good in the NA as McVey, but better before. Some credit for McVey's post-NL career moves him ahead.

9. Charley Radbourn (10)--Got career and peak edge on Caruthers and competition (and defense) edge on Spalding. Still think he's Dwight Gooden though. Could go either way between him and Galvin.

10. Pud Galvin (-)--Back on the ballot. Starting to be convinced that he?s more than average.

11. Charlie Bennett (11)--Great defense at catcher keeps him in the middle of the Outfielder/Pitcher Glut.

12. Pete Browning (12)--Browning and Thompson and Tiernan and Jones and Griffen all look pretty much identical to me. Browning's got a peak and a slight defensive (but probably only because he played center, he did play center right?) edge on Thompson.

13. Sam Thompson (13)--He's got competition advantages on Stovey and Browning, but a significantly lower peak than both, a big career value gap between him and Stovey and slightly less defensive value than Browning.

14. Al Spalding (14)--Here for his hitting and the adulation of his peers. This low because of the defense behind him, the hitters on his team compared to the competition and the amount of credit I give pitching vs. fielding in the pre-93 era. Some persuasive arguments made for him this year, I may be underrating him too much.

15. Bob Caruthers (15)--Hitting and peak keeps him on the ballot.

In these next three elections 1904-06, figure to see at least three of our backlog make the HOM. Recent elections indicate Glasscock, Radbourn and Richardson are the leading candidates. However, increasing support for Galvin and Start puts them in the running as well. (There is also a good chance one of the backlog will be elected in 1908.)

3. Amos Rusie (new)--another massive peak, I don't care what happened to Nichols and Young, and if Rusie had had the enlightened management Nichols, at least, had (in terms of innings pitched as a young man), who wants to say he might not have been better?

That could be said about only a thousand other pitchers. :-)

3) Sutton: His support has been slipping; maybe it?s time for the FOES to make their case again. I?m more certain than ever that he?s the best at 3B before Baker.

I haven't compared him to McGraw or Collins yet, but I think you are right, Dan. Baker is the stud of the pre-Mathews guys.

I don't know what else can be said about Sutton that hasn't been said yet other than that the best player at a position for the 19th century (30 seasons) should be somewhere in the top ten.

again, for explanations for each player i give no comments for, see previous ballots.

1. Al Spalding (2) - SURELY this will be his year. SURELY

2. Hoss Radbourne (5) - takes a jump over Sutton this week.

3. Ezra Sutton (4) - I didn't mean to take anything away from Sutton but my heart pulled me towards Hoss this "year"

4. Jack Glasscock (5) - such an unfortunate last name for such a good player

5. Pud Galvin (13) - Biggest jump ever for me. I've been following along with the discussions on him, and while I still don't believe he was up to Radbourne and Spaldings level, he was still much MUCH better than I was giving him credit for. I debated with myself long and hard about moving him so high after having kept him so low, but the facts are facts. He was good and should be in the HOM.

6. Sam Thompson (7) - Still love the offense

7. Joe Start (8) - he's moving up a hair

8. Charlie Bennett (10) - It's not like we're comparing him to Bench or anyone even yet to be born, so comparing him to Ewing makes him a logical choice.

9. Bob Carruthers (9)

10. Harry Stovey (11)

11. Amos Rusie (n/a) - I don't feel too comfortable with him at all. He led the league in losses as many times as he led it in wins, and nothing just sticks out about him and screams HOM!! I just don't know what to do with him yet.

12. Mickey Welch (12)

13. Hardy Richardson (14)

14. Cal McVey (15)

15. Mike Griffin (n/a) - Just on the ballot to acknowledge that he was decent and give him a little bit of credit for being a tad better than most others.

First ballot, I've been MIA for a while.

I've talked before about my selection criteria. I lean distinctly toward later players over earlier players, not only because of "timeline" issues, but because I consider players who played a game more in the modern style to have more merit, to be greater players, than those who played in an earlier idiom. In particular, players whose greatness exploited one or more elements of that extinct idiom (fair/foul bunt, or underhand pitching, or what have you) I won't consider as highly as other players. That's been my story, and I'm sticking to it.

1. Jack Glasscock (Biggest misfortune may have been having a career year in a depleted league)

Glad to have you on board, Craig!

A weak hitter in the middle of his career, a great hitter at the end.

He was actually just mediocre overall if you compare him to the other third basemen for those seasons in question.

Weak in the rarefied context we're talking was all I meant, but you're right as far as it goes!

4) Richardson: Does anyone know why he got a late start (age 24) on his career? Here are the ages in their rookie years of the ten greatest non-pitchers born from 1852 to 1858:

He played amateur ball in the Philadelphia area until 1876 when he caught on with a semipro team. For part of that year and 1877, he played for Binghamton in the International Association. In 1878, he won the New York Clipper award as the best centerfielder for the Utica team in the IA. (Information from Nineteenth Century Stars)

Weak in the rarefied context we're talking was all I meant, but you're right as far as it goes!

Weak in the rarefied context we're talking was all I meant, but you're right as far as it goes!

Explanation accepted. :-)

Here's my ballot. No comments this week.

1. Joe Start

My ballot:

1. AMOS RUSIE -- Very very good from 1890-1897, which represents a longer peak than Radbourn. I've seen comments that he benefited greatly from the teams he played on, but his Wins Above Team is about 36.

2. HOSS RADBOURN -- Haven't changed my mind about him since the first ballot.

3. HARRY STOVEY

4. EZRA SUTTON -- And to think, he wasn't even on my first ballot.

5. JACK GLASSCOCK

6. SAM THOMPSON

7. BOB CARUTHERS

8. CAL MCVEY

9. JIM MCCORMICK

10. PETE BROWNING

11. PUD GALVIN

12. AL SPALDING

13. JOE START

14. HARDY RICHARDSON -- I see him as a very good player, but others seem to see him as spectacular. I've re-looked at him about 10 times, and I just can't seem to move him up. I almost want to.

15. TONY MULLANE

Welcome Craig!

Not that you have to, of course (he was left off of 4 ballots last year), but I noticed that your ballot does not include Joe Start. I wanted to make sure you did not accidentally overlook him, since half of his career pre-dated 1871.

HOM Ballot, version 1904. I've tried to take in as much info as possible and did some analysis of various odds and ends. Came up with a new ranking somewhat different than before. Big winners are Richardson and Stovey, big loser would be Sutton.

I wanted to make sure you did not accidentally overlook him, since half of his career pre-dated 1871.

My omission of Start is intentional, yes. A very good player in his time and a very good player for a long time later, but I do not consider the pre-NL era to be "equivalent" to the NL era. Start was 17th on the ballot that I put together, between Pike and McVey.

Damn. Was hoping you just forgot.

On a related note, eveyone make sure you get your ballots in on time. This may be the closest election yet! With about half of the ballots cast, the gap between 2nd place and 7th place is only 31 points! There's a good chance that whomever is elected will be elected with the lowest percentage of votes yet (underbidding Ross Barnes, our only 4th place inductee.)

I wanted to make sure you did not accidentally overlook him, since half of his career pre-dated 1871.

My omission of Start is intentional, yes. A very good player in his time and a very good player for a long time later, but I do not consider the pre-NL era to be "equivalent" to the NL era. Start was 17th on the ballot that I put together, between Pike and McVey.

My double post, though, was unintentional. :)

?The fact that Harry Stovey, throughout his career,

Judging from the pitching matchups, I can't wait to hear about all the "great" pitchers that started their careers during the sixties as opposed to the ones that started during the fifties. :-)

Context.

I wonder why people would think that Galvin is better than Radbourn? Win Shares says Radbourn is better

Actually, Galvin (403) has more WS than Radbourn (391). Radbourn does beat Galvin WS per Season, however.

much as I like to build suspense, I'll be away for a few days. So..

1904

9. Ezra Sutton - The first personification of what will be many confused 3B rankings. Does best of an era get in, or do some positions just not have greats?

All you have to do is compare him to the guys at the same position. If you do that, Sutton is an easy pick.

As for "or do some positions just not have greats," I can't believe the best third baseman in forty years of baseball can't make it in the top five of all ballots yet. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

O'Neill is basically George Stone twenty years later (Tip was a lttle more durable). How many votes will Stone get?

O'Neill is basically George Stone twenty years later (Tip was a lttle more durable). How many votes will Stone get?

I don't know why I doubleposted. I only hit it once.

John,

I consider Deacon White to be a much better player than Sutton. He was elected 1st ballot. I realize he's listed as a Catcher, but he played almost twice as many games at 3B as catcher. To make him a catcher, you have to assume he would have played almost every game of a 162 game schedule at catcher(adjusting his NA years to a full length schedule). This is unreasonable, especially considering the beating catchers took back then. Any reasonable adjustment makes Deacon White a 3rdbaseman who also played alot of catcher. This makes White and not Sutton the 'best 3rdbaseman in forty years of baseball'.

I agree that calling Sutton the "Best 3B of the 19th century" is somewhat misleading.

Aside from Deacon White, and Carl noted above, there are tons of partial third basemen in the HOM already who played third during Sutton's career (1871-1888). Cap Anson was the best or second third baseman of 1872, 1876, and 1877. King Kelly was the best third baseman of 1879. O'Rourke played third, and was among the best in 1881. Same with Buck Ewing in 1882.

Among those not yet inducted, McVey was the best third baseman of 1879, and in at least several years Ned Williamson was the best.

I am not saying that Sutton is unworthy for eventual induction, and I'm not saying he wasn't the best pure third baseman, but greater players than Sutton played third during his career.

Part of the question is how valuable 3Bs were back then.

I look at it this way: If a third baseman is 30% better than average (or replacement level), but a first baseman is 20% better than average, the third baseman is better. Simple as that.

I have a better feel for catchers and for 1Bs taking a physical beating,

First baseman were easily the most durable players of the 19th century. Not even comparable to the abuse the third basemen were receiving.

I consider Deacon White to be a much better player than Sutton.

I do, too. However, White's value was unquestionably as a catcher. Sutton's value at third was, without a doubt, better than White's.

W3 says Galvin is better, both peak and career.

Aside from Deacon White, and Carl noted above, there are tons of partial third basemen in the HOM already who played third during Sutton's career (1871-1888). Cap Anson was the best or second third baseman of 1872, 1876, and 1877. King Kelly was the best third baseman of 1879. O'Rourke played third, and was among the best in 1881. Same with Buck Ewing in 1882

... and Sutton was the best third baseman for four years in 1875, 1883, 1884 (don't try comparing Ned with him again :-), and 1885. He played 17 seasons mostly at third (which is much more impressive than 17 years as a first baseman or outfielder).

Since Sutton was a first baseman in 1876 (and close to being the best) and a shortstop in '77, that's an unfair comparison with Anson. The same with the King Kelly and comparison (Sutton was at shortstop in '79). Buck Ewing shouldn't even be mentioned (since he was at catcher or other positions 42% of the time).

? Marc wrote: "'The fact that Harry Stovey, throughout his career,

Ed (the one who writes the anti-Galvin diatribes), if the pitcher who pitches a high pctage of innings is SO important, then how come you have Al Spalding 10th on your ballot?

Al Spalding pitched 40% as many innings as the #1 pitcher of all time in that category (Cy) in his measly little short career. Tip O'Neill had 30% as many AB as Pete Rose. So Spalding's was not nearly so relatively short as O'Neill's, and in the context of his time appears even less similar to O'Neill's.

And Howie, the difference you missed is between a pitcher who pitches a high pct. of his teams innings and WINS versus one who pitches a high pct. and does not win.

'Alright, WARP3 gave Galvin a higher 3 year peak (but Radbourn had a better 4th, 5th and 6th year), '

Yes, but even after the 6th year, Galvin's top 6 years are better than Radbourn's top 6. Galvin's Top 8 are better than Radbourn's Top 8. Also, Radbourn pitched 12 seasons and Galvin 15 so it was 8 extra W3 over 3 seasons which isn't too bad for outlying seasons.

Who thinks Denny Lyons and Henry Larkin are comparable to O'Neill? You can argue he shouldn't be fifth, but be reasonable.

You know what? It's posts like #83 that make me not want to bother taking part in this.

You want to argue, fine. You want to return to making the same points over and over again, fine. But put your name to it, at least, and once someone has made a point, let it lie.

1904 Ballot

Whew. This was a hard one to fill out. Position players stay in the same order as my preliminary ballot, but the pitchers have moved around.

1. Jack Glasscock (3). The best documented career of eligible players. Strong peaks, lots of good years. Above average offense, outstanding defense. He should go in this year.

Who thinks Denny Lyons and Henry Larkin are comparable to O'Neill? You can argue he shouldn't be fifth, but be reasonable.

Larkin is not, but I think Lyons was better. Remember: he was a third baseman. He almost made my ballot, but his is another patented AA short career.

You know what? It's posts like #83 that make me not want to bother taking part in this.

Hang in there, Craig. Ignore them (as I assume Mark will). Compared to Clutch Hits, we have a bunch of Lady Baldwins around here. :-)

Indeed, John, indeed.

ed -

The Cincinnati Reds of 2003 would kill to get 500 Innings from a

Okay, in an effort to not drive away Craig B., I'll posted as Henry Larkin, et. al. above.

Actually, I think ballots like Mark's are among the most important I look at. He was one of the few people to have Pud Galvin on the top of his ballot right from the beginning (he was dead last on my first ballot). Further analysis has shown me, at least, that Mark was right on that point, and he is now higher on my ballot than on Mark's. Joe's recent look at "pennants added" show that Mark's lone championing of Jim Whitney may have been justified as well. I'm not sure.

Mark's ballots (and John Murphy's ballots, as well), tend to be "quirkier" than most, giving high ratings to players who many others exclude altogether. When I read through the ballot threads, I honestly skim over the reason someone has Hardy Richardson fifth or tenth. But when I see an "outlier" vote for Levi Meyerle or Tip O'Neill, I look for explanations, since the opinions against the consensus have the best chance of completely changing my balance.

Which is why, I think, it is useful to focus on these issues (yes, "over and over again"). Mark obviously feels strongly about Tip O'Neill to put him fifth, despite the fact that he's not on anyone else's ballot at all. I want to understand why.

John Murphy's ballot shows a strong streak of inter-generational justice. He gives high rankings to the short-career early players (Pearce Start McVey Pike Spalding) because they were the best of their era, and doesn't seem to have a large timeline adjustment (if he uses any).

Mark's ballot, on the other hand, currently excludes everyone who played the heart of their career in the NA (he supported Ross Barnes, but has excluded everyone else since, including George Wright). I see his ballots as strongly favoring peak over career, but has a very steep timeline adjustment and a minimal league adjustment (AA accomplishments are valued highly).

Now, either Mark's or John's approaches have merit, but when I see a player like Tip O'Neill, who doesn't seem to deserve such a high rating even on the internal logic of the ballot, I want to raise questions.

The four players I listed were all short-career high peak guys who Mark had excluded. Maybe they were not the best examples, but Larkin -- for example -- had a nearly identical OPS+ playing in a similar era for 600 more plate appearances, while Lyons' one year OPS+ peak in 1890 was nearly as high while playing a more important defensive position.

Perhaps the better example is Pete Browning. The only way I could see O'Neill being ranked above Browning is on one-year peak, excluding the rest of their respective careers. Is that Mark's argument, or am I missing something else?

On at least some points, most of the active debaters in this group have convinced me that their viewpoint on some issue is more valid than mine. And as consensus builds and groups are convinced by others, it is the persistant outliers that will naturally and repeatedly draw my attention.

>after Galvin and Radbourne pitched identicallY

Opinion alert. Unsupported by first and second order analyses. Third order analysis alert.

Cool, guys. Didn't mean to come across as a shrieking little girl. Nice allusion to Lady Baldwin, John. Man, I should have come back sooner.

Incidentally, I agree about the Browning/O'Neill thing being odd... (I had O'Neill pretty high at one time, but he slid a long way down in my revisions) and I'd like to hear more about it.

Marc -

No opinion, it was a given in the argument. After subtracting out

Rob, with all due respect, you've made my point. e=mc2 suggests things I can't visualize, likewise the concept of subtracting a Radbourn shaped career from Galvin's career. I don't see a Radbourn shaped career anywhere in Galvin's record to subtract out. I think this is one level of analysis too many. I understand the 1400 innings @ 8 W3m but that doesn't mean that the first 5500 innings are in any way equal.

RE: All ?WARP shares? are not created equally

This may be heresy to some of the most statistically oriented voters -- but all Win Shares or Warp 3s (which I have less faith in because I don't know all of their elements) are not really equal. Winning a game (or contributing to a win) is significantly more valuable in my eyes if it leads to an actual pennant or championship. To use an extreme example this doesn't make Phil Rizzuto a better Shortstop than Ernie Banks but it does militate meaningfully in Rizzuto's favor for seasons in which his contributions to the Yankees were integral to their success. Later, for post-season play, I would reward players like Reggie Jackson or Pepper Martin for their post season excellence as well as their pennant contributions. As of yet, I haven't mechanistically converted these pennant race/post season awards into points but I would and do consider them in a player's favor.* Without considering this the players who contribute to a win long after their team has vannished from contention are rewarded the same as players who contribute to an "important" game at the end of the season which enables their team to win a pennant. With this in mind I would suggest going beyond a players simple rating number to consider what their annual ?warpshares? accomplished in terms of pennants.

---------

Marc -

In terms of W3 the first 5500 innings are equal. Also in terms of Win Shares. Of course Win Shares says that the remaining 1400 innings are below a reasonable WS replacement value, so I would take that as valuing Radbourn's career as better. This is a pure career analysis (no peak consideration), so its a matter of finding those 5500 innings of Galvin that have a value (by whatever method) equal to Radbourn's career value.

To use an extreme example this doesn't make Phil Rizzuto a better Shortstop than Ernie Banks but it does militate meaningfully in Rizzuto's favor for seasons in which his contributions to the Yankees were integral to their success.

Actually, it means Rizzuto had better teammates. Unless he was the GM, he shouldn't get any extra credit for that.

I would reward players like Reggie Jackson or Pepper Martin for their post season excellence as well as their pennant contributions

I think crediting those two for their post season excellence is a good idea. "How much" is the question.

I wouldn't deduct any points from players that didn't perform that well (Mays, Williams, etc.), however.

Well I'm not a fan of Scooter's at all (he should not be in the Hall of Fame) but I do think it is fair to say that at least in some of those championship seasons he "contributed meaningfully" to the Yankees success. He should be rewarded for that in determining his merit as a player.

But why? If the Scooter had been a Senator or Brown with the same quality seasons, he doesn't approach the pennant. The only difference is instead of playing with DiMaggio, Berra, Henrich and Mantle, he now would be playing with inferior players.

He lucked out by being picked by the Yankees, while Mr. Cub didn't. Rizzuto was rewarded with many rings and that's enough (other than giving him some credit for the postseason).

It's going to be very interesting when Rizzuto comes up for election.

BTW, I think he's a borderline case. I don't know if he'll make my ballot, but he wouldn't be a joke vote.

I think the Rizzuto debate is definitely for another day. I haven't really thought of him so I probably should leave my first impressions out. Suffice it to say that I think significant contributions to pennants are worth something over and above pure "Warpshares" points.

John, if you think the Scooter didn't contribute meaningfully/significantly to a given Yankee pennant then he deserves no "extra" value. Although Baseball is largely a game of individual achievments it is played by teams and ultimately the prize is pennants not simply the accumulation of individual statistics.

RobC:

In their time and place Ross Barnes seasons WERE as valuable as Babe Ruth's, not bouts a doubt it.

Aw, crap. I didn't want to get sucked in, but I feel compelled to say something.

There are three key points here that you're gliding over, Joe. I know that you recognize this, but it's worth reiterating.

First, is that the time factor is crucial. Barnes is dominant in a time and place when baseball as we think of it wasn't even in adolescence yet; Ruth is dominating a fully modern league. The game that Barnes is dominating isn't even close to the highly athletic and specialized contest that Ruth is such a master of.

Second, is that a pennant isn't a pennant, at least not to my mind; I actually think there's a difference between the strength of the leagues in question, and as such that means the later pennant is more meaningful. The players later on are better, the leagues are more competitive, the game superior. I don't want to completely discount the players and teams who played the early game, they deserve to be remembered as great ballplayers too; but the fact that they mostly couldn't play the modern game is, I think, significant.

Third, is the fact that 60 games isn't 130 games. It's exactly 70 fewer, and that much easier to have a dominant season or two in, and I think it doesn't represent as great an achievement. I actually think it is a value thing, although the confidence thing plays a strong role too.

If you don't take that approach, and they suddenly expand the season to 250 games for the extra money, you'll have all of the greatest players as coming from the new generation.

Well, obviously no, since the game would the same etc. But yes, playing 250 games in a year would be a greater test than playing 162.

Look, I think that both approaches are perfectly legitimate. But, well, I think both approaches are perfectly legitimate!

Im also not sure about the phrase "one level of analysis too many". That is like "too much Mozart"

Douglas Adams, RIP. It's a quote from "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency". But I will say this... "one level of analysis too many" is CERTAINLY an argument that can be advanced against a particular radio programming strategy.

"'Im also not sure about the phrase "one level of analysis too many". That is like "too much Mozart"'

Douglas Adams, RIP. It's a quote from "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency". "

Ah, I should have caught that. I've only read the book about a dozen times over the last 15 years. . .

I dont necessary buy the "a pennant is a pennant" argument. A pennant in a 16 team league with 2 rounds of playoffs is harder to win than a pennant in an 8 team league with 0 rounds of playoffs.

The number of electees is based off of team-seasons. That seems like a much more reasonable unit to base off. Including the under weighting of 18th century team-seasons. Well, maybe not that part.

Joe wrote:

"If anything we were conservative, treating the NA as a 0 in the team seasons calculation . . . That being said, for the spots we do have available, 1870s players should get reasonable consideration, that was built into the start date. If not, we're going to over-represent the 1880s, because these early spots were meant to be divided amongst the two decades."

I don't follow this. If NA and earlier is defined as zero for determining how many HoMers to have, doesn't awarding HoM spots to NA and earlier players take away slots that should go to later players?

1. Amos Rusie. Ok, he is no Cy Young or Kid Nichols, but then none of the other pitchers we have seen do date are either.

Joe - next time you are in Pittsburgh, I will introduce you to a lot of fans who still think Clemente is the best they ever saw. :-)

Just got back from the Louisville Bats win over Richmond. If Charlotte holds on we have a 9 game lead over the Mud Hens. Anyway, I stopped off at The Browning after the game, and in my semi-inebriated state, I am reconsidering a question that has plagued me in the past: Is there any connection between Lefty O'Doul and O'Doul's (pseudo)beer? I know he opened a restaurant in SF after his career - but I dont know if it has any connnection to non-alcoholic beer.

John, if you think the Scooter didn't contribute meaningfully/significantly to a given Yankee pennant then he deserves no "extra" value. Although Baseball is largely a game of individual achievments it is played by teams and ultimately the prize is pennants not simply the accumulation of individual statistics.

Where did I state that Rizzuto didn't contribute meaningfully/significantly to a given Yankee pennant? I've looked, but I couldn't find it. In fact, I'm more sold on him than you appear to be.

My point was why are we giving him extra points for a pennant race when he couldn't control who was on his team? Here's a hypothetical (please play along :-): If Babe Ruth had the misfortune of playing with a team as bad as this year's Tigers, he would absolutely never be in a pennant race. Impossible. Does it make sense then to give Frankie Crosetti extra credit for having the luck to wind up on eight World Series teams when he wasn't half the player as the Babe?

I think this is patently unfair to the guy who has the bad luck to wind up on crap. Unless he's also the GM, he shouldn't be penalized. As for postseason success, that's extra credit as far as I'm concerned, but that shouldn't be ignored.

I don't want to completely discount the players and teams who played the early game, they deserve to be remembered as great ballplayers too; but the fact that they mostly couldn't play the modern game is, I think, significant.

But Craig, the same can be said when comparing the players from the 1880s and '90s with today's players. I have mentioned this at least three times, but I keep getting ignored because than we would wind up not voting for anybody except maybe Anson.

Another thing with the "modern game": if Bug Seaslug decided to a concoct "new and improved" brand of baseball that were to last for a couple of centuries, does that mean that we wouldn't count everybody else that played before it. This is all seems very arbitrary.

2. Harry Stovey. Named by SABR?s 19th century committee as most deserving of enshrinement in the HOF. Will they say the same thing about the HoM in ?1999??

Hopefully. That would mean all the real great players from his time were selected already. :-)

But Craig, the same can be said when comparing the players from the 1880s and '90s with today's players

Right, John, and I think that's true. Which is why the ballot, as Joe points out, has been quite deviously designed to keep us from voting for the modern players until we hit the modern era.

If Jack Glasscock is still on the ballot when we hit the 1950s, I can guarantee you I won't be ranking him #1, not ever.

I don't think it's arbitrary to say that modern players could have played the 1880s game, but the 1880s players (by and large) couldn't have played the modern game. That's my opinion, of course. But I think it's a significant thing. Now I might not be allowed to make that judgment call accoridng to the rules we have here, I don't know.

If I'm not, someone let me know!

If Jack Glasscock is still on the ballot when we hit the 1950s, I can guarantee you I won't be ranking him #1, not ever.

I don't know if I could say that (though I probably wouldn't either). I'm still going to try to be fair to all eras as much as possible.

?Hopefully. That would mean all the real great players from his time were selected already. :-)?

Ballot-I've left out comments on some of the guys that haven't really moved on my ballot.:

<i>John ? since your ballot omits Stovey but lists 13 players not in the HOF in addition to the 4 non-HOFers we have already elected, you obviously hold a low view of the collective wisdom of SABR?s nineteenth century committee. <?i>

I definitely wouldn't say that. I might have had picked Stovey high on my ballot at the same time this poll was taken in the eighties. In fact, I was shocked that I had him as low as I do (which is right below the cutoff line, BTW). But once I compared him to his peers at the positions he played, he didn't really stand out anymore. His career is short for a first baseman/outfielder, too. I do like him, though.

Lifetime ERA+ equal to Koufax.

I know you probably are aware of this, but when you factor in his competition and the high-offense inflation factor of his ERA+, Rusie wasn't Koufax (of course, Koufax wasn't KOUFAX! either) :-)

14) Billy Nash - solid above-average player for many years; Ezra-lite.

15) Jack Clements - same as above, but Bennett-lite instead.

Nice comparisons.

John C: You are ignoring Start's 1860-1870, seemingly. Does that make sense to you?

redsox1912,

I don't believe that the book came up. I recently bought it about week ago, but haven't read it yet. (With a full-time job and a 2-year old daughter, I really don't have much time to read. I'm also currently working my way through Bill James' Win Shares book first, which I also just recently bought.) What do the rest of you think of the book(If I Never Get Back)? Does it seem pretty accurate, as far as the baseball info? More importantly, is it a good read?

I wonder whether or not in an earlier thread any of you have mentioned the book ?If I never get back?, by Darryl Brock.

I read the book years ago. Terrific book (though Brock tends to be somewhat of an old fogey).

5. S.Thompson-------I love the combination of speed and power Sam Thompson was able to muster. He was one of the great stars of the early years, and he was able to play defense better than most people are giving him credit for.

Except his reputation at the time he played was poor. Not as bad as TPI, but some of the defensive rankings that BP has for some of these guys are borderline ludicrous.

Even if Rusie's 130 ERA+ isnt directly comparable to Koufax's, he still has a lot more IP than Koufax and about 2 extra productive years. I'm guessing that they have roughly the same "value equivalent" (though granted its VERY rough).

I'm pretty confident that Koufax would have a few more innings under his belt during the nineties. :-)

1904 Ballot

1-Al Spalding: Several people have made interesting & valid arguments for or against Spalding, Start, Sutton & Pearce. IMHO these discussions are immaterial. It's tough to compare eras (pre-1871, NA, NL 1876-1892, post-1892). Based on what we know (mostly anecdotes & numbers that are hard to compare) these four players appear to be the most deserving to represent the pre-1876 era (along with others already voted in). Without more players from this time period in the HOM we would be operating as if baseball history started in the Year of Little Big Horn and would be totally overlooking the mid-1860s and before. I'm pushing for Spalding & Start now?but McPhee is coming soon and he'll be heading to the top of my ballot.

2-Joe Start: When he gets elected to the HOM it will be a triumph for baseball research. In the case of Start, Sutton and Mathews (one of my favorite long shots?in my top 20 right now)?their longevity & overlap into the post-1876 era help clinch why they should be among the players representing the pre-1876 era.

3-Old Hoss Radbourn: The best in his time under the conditions he played. He certainly was that for awhile. I believe in awarding both peak & career value. We need to start knocking off the 300 game winners (actually I would like to see the 250+ winners in). At the present rate it could be the 1970s before Mickey Welch and possibly Tony Mullane (I may be dreaming here with the limit put on HOM spots) make it in.

4-Amos Rusie: If you believe some authors he had a major influence on moving the mound in 1893.

5-Pud Galvin: Very good for a long, long time?would've had 400 wins easily if he had played for more contenders.

6-Jack Glasscock: OK, OK?I'll be moving him up if he doesn't make it this time. He has served his penalty box time for his Brotherhood misdeeds.

7-Harry Stovey: James Vail (in "Outrageous Fortune") has Stovey rated 13th overall of 19th Century position players?behind only Thompson on the list of eligible HOM candidates on the ballot.

8-Hardy Richardson: Unsung candidate?I expect him to become the fair-haired boy for some voters when we clear out most of the players listed above him.

9-Bob Caruthers: Bob will need a FOJS type of campaign to move up people's ballots. Vail's 19th Century pitcher rankings: 5-Radbourn 6T-McCormick & Bond 8-Galvin 9T-Rusie & Caruthers 11-Mullane?15-Welch

10-Sam Thompson: I believe Sam will get in during one of the lean years?his numbers are too good. Vail may be right about ranking him ahead of Stovey but I believe the AA needs more representation (with Stovey & Caruthers) or we shouldn't bother calling it a major league.

11-Mike Griffin: Griffin is #1 on George Gore's Similarity list. Hurt by short career.

12-Pete Browning: Doesn't even make Vail's top 30 19th Century list?I disagree.

13-Dickey Pearce: After Spalding & Start get in Dickey's stock will rise?we need at least one player from the 1850s!

14-Erza Sutton: Great points made by others about Sutton being the main 3B prior to McGraw, Collins & later Baker.

15-Charlie Bennett: Solid career, a leader

I hope my great grand kids participate in a similar project 100 years from now, and sing high fantastic praise on Derek Jeter for his great defensive reputation.

Good point, but Win Shares backs up the contemporary view. BP also has Billy Hamilton as the poorer outfielder on Thompson's team, when he had a terrific reputation at the time. Something is wrong with their numbers.

I don't accept Jeter's defensive evaluation from sabermeticians because the numbers say he stinks. I accept the evaluation because of the logic behind it. There is a lack of logic behind the Thompson/Hamilton ratings.

Ken,

From the constitution:

In rare and extreme cases, a voter may opt to exclude a player on ?personality? grounds on the first ballot on which the player appears. If that player does not get elected on his first ballot, the voter shall give the player full consideration in all subsequent ballots, regardless of the ?personality? factors.

Since we are well past his first ballot, there should be no need for you to move Glasscock up next year, he should already be all the way moved up. His "brotherhood misdeeds" could only be applied to his first year on the ballot.

Rob,

Understood. Glasscock is about where I would have him anyway. Since I expect two people above him on my list to get elected this time he'll be moving up anyway (unless Jack gets in this time).

Some re-shuffling this year:

1. Al Spalding - Still believe his dominance and reputation have meat. Harry Wright had to have him. William Hulbert went after him.

Of the new guys for the next election, McPhee is the only one that I can see (he'll be number two on my ballot). Tiernan is close, but no cigar (slightly better than Thompson). Bill Lange and Jake Stenzel were outstanding players, but their careers were too short.

I'm checking for any viable Negro League players.

Bud Fowler is eligible next election, so we need to figure out where he belongs. I'll make up a biographical sketch for him on the 1905 thread.

Too late to worry about it, but it would almost have been cool if Glasscock had waited one more year, to set up a Glasscock-McPhee middle infield duel. Which was better?

Too late to worry about it, but it would almost have been cool if Glasscock had waited one more year, to set up a Glasscock-McPhee middle infield duel. Which was better?

Flip a coin? Too close to call, IMO.

Re: Glasscock/McPhee

Now that's a good reason to use the Brotherhood brouhaha against the Pebbly One as a tiebreaker.