Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, April 12, 2004

1924 Ballot

This (and everything here) could disappear temporarily if the upgrade of the site comes down this week - I’ll post something to the new site, don’t worry, but make sure you keep a copy of your ballot just in case - and anything else you might want to reference over the next week or two, until the archive is imported.

JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: April 12, 2004 at 08:54 AM | 69 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. karlmagnus Posted: April 12, 2004 at 01:07 PM (#523683)
For Meyerle, Pike and the catchers I take adjusted hits as actual hits *130/actual games, normalizing them in each season to 130 games, with the exception of mini-seasons at the end where they were clearly winding down.

Still an extremely crowded ballot, though none of the newbies merit attention.

1. (8-9-8-14-13-11-8-5-4-5-4-5-4-2-2-2-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-2) Bob Caruthers - 2/3 of Plank plus 1/3 of Crawford, back to #1 again -- his next threat is Joe Jackson in '26. 218-99 is more and more impressive when you compare Rusie, Griffith and McGinnity, let alone Walsh (Caruthers won 23 more games than Walsh and lost 27 fewer, pitching about 100 fewer innings in his career -- and Walsh had a career OPS+ as a hitter of 50.) As a batter TB+BB/PA .483, TB+BB/Outs .793, so better than Nap and close to Stovey. If he?d just concentrated on pitching, added 50% to his career length, and gone 327-149, he?d have been in on the first ballot. Magnificent peak: 1886-87 59-23 and an OPS+ of 180 on 681AB beats anyone (Ruth?s best 2-way years, 1917-18, he was 37-20 and OPS+ of 182 on 440AB.) Compare with Ward, whose TB+BB/PA was .374 and TB+BB/Outs .545 and W-L was 164-102 (ERA+118) Caruthers was a better hitter and much better pitcher - so why have we elected Ward and not Caruthers?

2. (N/A-3) Sam Crawford Beats Plank on WS (well, I might as well use everybody else's metric occasionally!) If you adjust for era, fewer hits than Beckley. TB+BB/PA .480, TB+BB/Outs .740, so rate stats a bit better than Beckley, very similar to Nap, and nearly as good as Caruthers!

3. (N/A-4) Eddie Plank Better W/L and ERA+ than Welch puts him here, beating Brown by over 90 wins.

4. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-2-2-4-5) Mickey Welch - 307-210 still impresses me a lot, particularly compared to the short career dead ball era pitcher glut. 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson?s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. Welch not as good as Clarkson, but not that far off. Better than the 00s pitchers, all of whom were pitching in favorable conditions, none of whom (other than Young, Matty and Plank) got near 300 wins. Equal sixth all time in Complete Games; 8 of top 10 already in HOM.

5. (N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6) Jake Beckley. Played only 3 seasons of more than 140 games in his first 16. Adjust his 2930 hits to full length seasons, taking account of each season, and he gets to 3,238, agonizingly close to Nap's 3242 (Nap played a few short seasons early on, too, but no more than 50 hits worth of discount). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707 not as good as outfielder glut - but much of his career was played in the dead ball ?00s, and as others have suggested 1B was a marginally more important fielding position than LF or RF then. Played for un-famous teams. We're not giving him enough respect; he should be a slam-dunk HOM'er, as he was significantly better than Keeler and very nearly as good as Crawford.

6. (N/A-6-7) Mordecai Peter Centennial Brown 239-130 and an ERA+ of 138 says he's marginally better than McGinnity. Somebody had to be the keystone of those Cubs, and I think Brown was it, more than Sheckard, and much more than the Trio.

7. (N/A-6-7-4-4-3-3-3-4-7-8) Joe McGinnity. 246-142 is better than either Griffith (237-146) or Rusie (245-174) though not than Caruthers? 218-99. Peak at 35-8 (1904) better than Griffith or Rusie, too. Career ERA+ only 121, but I think that's a fairly meaningless stat, since ERA was only invented in 1913 -- these guys tended to let up in blowouts, preserving their W/L (which they cared about) but not their ERA (which they'd never heard of.)

8. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9) Hugh Duffy TB+BB/PA of .489 and TB/Outs of .788, but this in the high-offense 1890s, and he?s way below Beckley on total hits. Like the 1894 peak, though - and it?s ?94 not ?93, pitchers had had a year to adjust. Behind Beckley on counting considerations. Moves back above Thompson on fielding considerations, since the Beaneaters' WS figures were fudged and he was supposed to be really good.

9. (N/A-13-13-14-12-11-7-6-6-5-6-5-4-4-6-9-8-6-6-5-5-8-10) Sam Thompson Only 2,136 hits adjusted to 130 game season. However TB+BB/PA was .534 and TB/Outs .865, among the highest figures on the ballot, so high peak. Even though this figure is inflated by his having no decline phase, and by his big years coinciding with hit gluts, each new outfielder makes Thompson look a little more special.

10. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-8-7-10-11) Harry Wright Better than Pearce, but how good was he really compared to the rest? But I?m convinced by the anecdotal evidence that he has to have been at least as good as this. Moving steadily up the ballot, it seems.

11. (N/A-8-7-11-10-10-13-14-13-14-12-12-12-8-11-12) Frank Grant. The most plausible comparison I?ve seen was to Hardy Richardson, although others are comparing him to the (IMHO) somewhat inferior McPhee or, more recently, Collins. With the figures we have now got, TB+BB/PA .442, TB+BB/Outs .737, assuming (rough guess) 200BB, which makes him slightly better than Richardson and significantly better than McPhee, but against lesser competition. Moved him up a bit in '21, as I think he's better than Johnson and Monroe, his next serious NL competitors.

12. (N/A-7-9-12-13) Bobby Wallace. Decent length career, TB+BB/PA .402, TB+BB/Outs .596, mostly in the deadball era, and he wasn't a bad pitcher for a year or two. Slides down below Wright and Grant based on apparent consensus that he was nothing all that special, whereas Wright and Grant were.

13. (N/A-14-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-13-14) Clark Griffith Moves up a bit, as he pitched for poor teams, and pitching in the 1890s was unquestionably more difficult than in the Dead Ball era. 237 wins is not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice - though Welch?s 1885 is better.
   2. Daryn Posted: April 12, 2004 at 01:41 PM (#523684)
No changes

1. Sam Crawford ? 31 more hits than Beckley, his most similar player.

2. Ed Plank ? would be first many years. No real black ink, but easily best pitcher on the ballot unless you love McGinnity?s peak. Top ten most similars are a pretty impressive list.

3. Joe Mcginnity ? led league in wins 5 times, averaged 25 wins a year, led league in IP 4 straight years. Very close in value to first ballot inductee Walsh. Just flipped him with Brown.

4. Mordecai Brown ? very close to Mcginnity, top 5 pitcher in the league 7 consecutive times, 8 total. On win/loss only, Mcginnity had brown?s career and then went 7-12. I think they are about that close, but I am dropping him below McGinnity based on Chris? great analysis of the Cubs? fielding and the comparison of McGinnity against replacement level pitchers for all of his extra innings each year. I like that latter idea a lot and will try to incorporate it into my rankings in the future.

5. Grant Johnson - best blackball player to date. I?d really like to see he and Grant and Rube all make it.

6. Frank Grant ? no stats, gut pick based on descriptions of a great excluded player.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 12, 2004 at 05:39 PM (#523685)
I use a combination of peak and career for the rankings. Therefore, career guys will mix with peak guys on my ballot. 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."
   4. favre Posted: April 12, 2004 at 07:54 PM (#523686)
Over the past twenty years I?ve developed from a strict career voter into something of a ?prime? voter. My rankings are based heavily on the best seven (nonconsecutive) years of each player, but also gives weight to career and peak.

1. Sam Crawford
   5. favre Posted: April 12, 2004 at 07:56 PM (#523687)
Over the past twenty years I?ve developed from a strict career voter into something of a ?prime? voter. My rankings are based heavily on the best seven (nonconsecutive) years of each player, but also gives weight to career and peak.

1. Sam Crawford
   6. Jim Sp Posted: April 12, 2004 at 08:28 PM (#523688)
New candidates are nowhere near the ballot, only Schulte makes my top 1000. Wagner moves off and Welch is back on. Yawn.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 12, 2004 at 09:51 PM (#523690)
Once voted into the HoM, he would automatically be the best RF in the HoM.

Hmm ... definitely better than Flick and Keeler, but I'm not sure about King Kelly (though the Wahoo guy had the greater value strictly as a rightfielder).

Overall, I think you're right, but I'm not sure it's a slam dunk.
   8. favre Posted: April 13, 2004 at 12:18 AM (#523691)
Sorry about the double post/
   9. Marc Posted: April 13, 2004 at 01:26 AM (#523694)
I don't know what ed's sources for Negro Leaguers are, but I think he is right on target. Hey, everybody, look at Bill Monroe!

Re. Dickey Pearce, OTOH....
   10. Marc Posted: April 13, 2004 at 02:31 AM (#523695)
Still mostly peak and prime, and including adjWS, adjWARP1 and LWTS. 31 players in this year's consideration set. Actually the C-1B-2B-SS-3B represent a "reconsideration" set. OFers and P next week. For now I've just tried to integrate my new list of C and IF and my old list of OF and P.

The top 7 (*) all are in my PHoM.

1. *Sam Crawford (n-2 last week)--easy choice, though I must say that I am shocked (shocked!) to find that he has only the 12th best peak on the list, and only the 5th best peak among OFers after C. Jones, Sheckard, Browning and S. Thompson. But he has the #1 prime on the list--15 years at 28 WS, etc. Most players who squeeze out more than a dozen prime years are at a much lower rate--Wallace, e.g., is at 22 for 14 years, Beckley a paltry 19 for 17 years and Sheckard 24 for 14 years. And then I have Wallace with a slightly better career but Sam is #2 on that list. So overall an easy first-ballot choice most years. Makes my PHoM, and pretty much everybody's, this year.

2. *Dickey Pearce (1-1-3-4-4)--not much I can say other than he was the best player in the world for awhile. I don't think anybody else on this list can say that. Maybe Jennings.

3. *Bob Caruthers (2-2-1-3-3)--a unique and unique valuable player, easily the #1 peak available. 167 adjWS for 3 years, and that's with a 50 percent discount for pre-'93 pitching.

4. *Harry Wright (4-4-4-5-7)--a loooong career and, like Pearce, a decline phase in the '70s that suggests a great talent.

5. *Sam Thompson (5-5-5-6-8)--Thompson-Sheckard, Sheckard-Thompson? Well, Sam earned 161 adjWS over his 5 non-consecutive year peak. So did Jimmy. And for adjWARP1 5 year non-consecutive peak, it's Sheckard 61.3 to Sam 61.1. Tough choice, but Sam clearly was held in higher esteem by his contemporaries.

6. *Ed Williamson (8-8-9-11-11)--this is the PHoM slot and I took someone's advice, I forget who provided it. But, OK, I admit that Sheckard does a little better by my numbers, but Williamson was much more highly regarded by his contemporaries and looks more like a HoMer to me. So here he is without apologies. I mean he has the #3 peak among my 31 players, the #3 prime though only the #8 (tie) career. Welcome, Ed.

7. *Charley Jones (6-7-7-7-9)--the #2 peak and #3 prime.

Another 6 are pretty sure to make my PHoM during the coming drought.

8. Cupid Childs (x-10-12-13-15T)--has moved up as a result of my grand reconsideration. He and Sheckard are also close, both 106 adjWS for 3 years, but Childs wins on both adjWS and adjWARP for 5 years.

9. Jimmy Sheckard (15-9-8-9-6)--I love ya, Jimmy, really, I do! So many great players, so few slots at the top of the ballot. Was 6th last year, could be as high as 5th this year, but somebody has to be 9th.

10. Bobby Wallace (n-15T-15-x-x)--Wallace fans won't look at this as "moving up," but he has moved up as a result of my reconsideration. About equal to Eddie Plank for his peak, but the #2 prime and #1 career.

11. Hughie Jennings (7-11-10-12-10)--dropped behind Wallace, but still right up there with the #2 peak.

12. Bill Monroe (n-15T-x-x-x)--moved up, ahead of HR Johnson and Frank Grant after I re-read all of the Negro Leagues thread.

13. *Home Run Johnson (x-6-10-5)--not as good as Monroe, I now believe, but he is already in my PHoM and would have gone in in the future even ranking behind Monroe and Wallace.

14. Mordecai Brown (x-x-8-12)--doesn't actually do this well but I felt like a should have a pitcher in here. Note that this is the 6th slot for PHoM backlog, and if it comes to that I am not sure I won't decide to go with Fred Dunlap or Pete Browning. The three of them are very, very close.

15. Fred Dunlap (14-x-x-x-15T)--when Pennants Added were available, I added up all three of them (WS, WARP1 and WARP3). Here are the totals for some of the players for whom we have PA numbers. Thompson 2.64, Duffy 2.62, Ryan 2.58, Dunlap 2.55, C. Jones 2.52, Williamson 2.51, Van Haltren 2.49, McGinnity and Beckley 2.41, Browning 2.32. PAs really seem to work similarly to the way I value peak (40 percent), prime (45 percent) and career (just 15 percent, no X-credit for hangin' around).

A couple-three more could make my PHoM during the coming drought and I would guess another two-three before we're done.

16. Pete Browning, 17. Joe McGinnity, 18. Frank Grant, 19. Eddie Plank, 20. Hugh Duffy, 21. Lip Pike (dropped off for only the second time ever)

The rest are unlikely to ever make my PHoM, but who the hell knows?

22. Rube Waddell, 23. George Van Haltren, 24. Herman Long, 25. Jimmy Ryan, 26. Jake Beckley, 27. Sol White, 28. Tommy Leach, 29. Bill Bradley (the 3B), 30. Roger Bresnahan, 31. John McGraw.
   11. Marc Posted: April 13, 2004 at 02:35 AM (#523696)
Oh, McGinnity and Grant also dropped off my ballot along with Pike. McGinnity due to a new comfort level with not having pitchers generally any higher on my ballot, and Grant because he dropped below Monroe.

And then there's the required comment re. Eddie Plank. He's behind Brown and McGinnity, since I'm more of a peak voter, and they're all in the 10-20 range.
   12. Rusty Priske Posted: April 13, 2004 at 01:04 PM (#523697)
1. Sam Crawford (2,x,x) Most other years, he would have been first ballot.

2. Eddie Plank (3,x,x) First ballot on a weak year. Sure thing eventually. Probably this year.

3. Bobby Wallace (4,3,1) Deserves a spot. Somewhat overlooked.

4. Jimmy Sheckard (5,4,2) Also overlooked, imo.

5. Grant Johnson (7,6,9) Will likely be the first Negro League player to be inducted. Soon, I hope.

6. Bob Caruthers (8,5,3) Both over and undervalued.

7. Mordecai Brown (9,x,x) I'm not as high on him as some, but I wouldn't be upset if he got in.

8. Frank Grant (12,7,6)
   13. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: April 13, 2004 at 01:58 PM (#523698)
Why's the ballot discussion for 1924 not listed in the main listings? Or is my computer just weird?

Anyhoo, my ballot:

1. Sam Crawford (2). For all the standard reasons.

2. Home Run Johnson (5,5,5). Seen strong evidence that he was a great hitter very early & very later in his career with no reason to think he was anything less (& likely much better) in between.

3. Eddie Plank (3). Great career value.

4. Joe McGinnity (5,2,2,3,4) Terrific combo of quality & quantity. Only pitched 10 years but threw enough in those seasons that his career numbers look like respectable career-length totals. Could throw 400+ innings of high quality baseball in his prime (at a time when that was rarely done) - no one else here could dominate their league like that.

5. Jake Beckley. (3,7,6,9,8). For me, enough years of very good play can turn into a great career. By OPS+, he was the best 1B in baseball in 1899, & 1900, & the best in the NL in 1901, even with his low peak. Gets a first baseman bump because not only is there a shortage of them right now but also he's (IMHO) an overwelmingly qualified candidate).
   14. Al Peterson Posted: April 13, 2004 at 02:06 PM (#523699)
1924 ballot. I'm fairly set this year - most everyone moves up one spot. Still mixing up the 16-30 positions so those are the people I need to firm up ordering when we start electing off our backlog.

1. Sam Crawford (2). Alltime leader in triples. On the bad side he didn't even hit 100 home runs. Top 10 in Slugging % 14 out of 15 years (1901-1915). If only the rest of the backlog was as easy to deal with.

2. Sam Thompson (3). Personally feel a deserving HOMer. During 10 year period (1886-1895) was top 10 in league in total bases 9 times. .308 EQA, .684 OWP, man could hit a little.

3. Eddie Plank (4). Outstanding win totals with the needed underlying stats to go with them. Would be the type of pitcher any staff needs - steady, longterm option just not super. Oldest regular player in the 1915 Federal League - and still won 21 games. Whether that upgrades Plank or downgrades FL is your call.

4. Joe McGinnity (5). Quanity of work for the 1900s impressive to say the least. Helped the team by taking the ball often. Top 5 in IP for six straight years (1899-1904). Nine year span (1899-1907) of 123 ERA+ over 3235 IP. Good thing he threw sidearm with that workload.

5. Jimmy Ryan (6). He passed away this last year. Tip of the cap to a fine old ballplayer.

6. George Van Haltren (7). And whereever little Jimmy Ryan went George Van Haltren was sure to follow...

7. Three Finger Brown (8). Has stood up pretty well to analysis of Cub defense, team quality questions. Don't forget his key stat - Wins per Finger.

8. Frank Grant (9). Nothing new to report; scant evidence points to a player worthy of mention, possible induction.

9. Pete Browning (10). Don't know why I soured on him to such an extreme. Even with league discounts he swung some mean lumber. Let me throw out some numbers. Career OPS+ = 162 which puts him in company with names like Foxx, McGwire, Frank Thomas. Discount it because of AA play? At the OPS+ = 147 level you're talking Heilmann, McCovey, and Schmidt. That's some pretty lofty company. Batting Average Placement within league 1882-1891: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, -, 1, 3. Had a career .341 average in a league environment of .257 . Offensive Winning Percentage - .745. His guy was a WOW when hitting. He might not be the ideal multi-dimensional player but when you are this much an outlier at part of the game its going to get a bonus from me.

10. Jimmy Sheckard (13). Another well-rounded player, successful for the great Cub teams.

11. Rube Waddell (11). His strikeout numbers were well ahead of his time. Suffered from inconsistent offensive support. Had the sizzle of a star player in contrast to the substance of Plank.

12. John McGraw (12). Limited playing time but what he did with it is nonetheless outstanding. Positional bump as well.

13. Home Run Johnson (14). Weighed the evidence, can provide some ballot support. Probably ranking him mostly as SS.

14. Bob Caruthers (15). My tug-of-war with his value continues. I'm more sure now that if push came to shove Freedom Bob deserves in before the rest below him.

15. Jake Beckley (16). Tougher and tougher to ignore with dearth of 1B for a number of years; career totals eventually add up to quite the player despite lack of peak.

Coming back in future years:

16. Tommy Leach. Career took off after Jimmy Williams exited Pittsburgh for the new American League.
   15. ronw Posted: April 13, 2004 at 04:46 PM (#523700)
1924 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. I'll gladly incorporate WARP when they finally complete their fix.) I realized that my general breakdown is the opposite of Marc?s, as I probably have 15% peak, 45% prime, 40% career as my interpretation of Merit. (Like Marc, there is some BS factor thrown in as well.)

1. Sam Crawford I think he?s the best OF in history to this point not named Cobb or Speaker. MVP Candidate 1905, 1907-1909, 1911, 1914. All-Star candidate 1901-1904, 1906, 1910, 1912-1913, 1915. (15 HOM seasons)

2. Eddie Plank It will be interesting to see if we treat pitchers the same way as batters. Will the long steady pitching career look better than the 5-6 year shooting star? Never an MVP Candidate. All-Star candidate 1901-1905, 1907-1913, 1915-1916. (14 HOM seasons)

3. Grant Johnson At SS, Johnson seems to be a better alternative than the steady Wallace?s and Tinker?s of the world, but he probably doesn?t measure up to the greatness of Davis and Dahlen, and can?t touch Wagner.

4. Frank Grant It is a shame that Johnson came along to eclipse him. I believe he should have been elected by now. Deserves a high ranking when considering the dearth of outstanding 2B candidates playing in 1890-1915 (Lajoie excepted).

5. Joe McGinnity I think very comparable to electee Walsh. MVP Candidate 1899-1900, 1903-1904. All-Star candidate 1901-1902, 1905-1907. (9 HOM seasons)

6. Jake Beckley Every year, as fewer 1B come along to challenge him, Beckley looks more and more unique. All-Star candidate 1888-1895, 1897, 1899-1905. BTW, until Sisler, and even he is not a lock, we won't have a HOM 1B since Anson and Connor retired. (16 HOM seasons)

7. Jimmy Sheckard Compares very favorably with Sherry Magee. MVP Candidate 1901, 1903, 1911. All-Star candidate 1899-1900, 1902, 1905-1907, 1909-1910, 1912. (12 HOM seasons)

8. George Van Haltren I think he stands ahead of the CF glut. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1901. That is 14 consecutive solid years, the majority in a tough consolidated league. (14 HOM seasons)

9. Jimmy Ryan MVP candidate 1888. All-Star candidate 1886-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1899, 1902. (14 HOM seasons)

10. Bobby Wallace I do like long careers. To make my ballot, a long career player still needs a decent amount of solid play. Wallace had that solid play. I don't think ever an MVP candidate, but All-Star candidate 1897-1899, 1901-1908, 1910. (12 HOM seasons)

11. Hugh Duffy Part of the now underrepresented CF block. We have Hamilton from the 1890's, and no 1900's CF representatives. The teens will have a few, however. I'm not sure Duffy is so different from Joe Kelley. MVP candidate 1893-1894, All-Star candidate 1889-1892, 1895-1899. (11 HOM seasons)

12. Fielder Jones Doesn't seem too much different from Kelley or Duffy, when you factor in his fielding. MVP candidate 1908 (his last real year). All-Star candidate 1896-1898, 1900-1907. (12 HOM seasons)

13. Roger Bresnahan Max convinced me to drop him a bit. I think I was compensating for Bennett not being on the ballot, and not necessarily looking at the catcher candidates in their own right. MVP candidate 1906, 1908 All-Star candidate 1903-1905, 1907, 1911, 1914. (8 HOM seasons)

14. Vic Willis He keeps showing up on my list. Barely ahead of the pitcher glut (Brown, Mullane, Welch, Caruthers, Waddell).

15. Rube Foster I?m still not sure about him, but he has dropped. He might be the equivalent of a 3F Brown, who didn?t make my ballot this year. More likely he should be equated with Al Spalding, the best (or only) pitcher on a really, really dominant team. This is where Spalding would end up on this ballot, BTW.

MISSING OUT (significant newcomers on top, other must-comments following)

Wildfire Schulte ? No, he will never make my ballot, but he?s the only candidate worth mentioning this year. MVP Candidate 1911, All-Star candidate 1905-1906, 1909-1910, 1912-1913, 1915, 1918. (9 HOM seasons)

Bob Caruthers ? Number 16 on my ballot, will be on next year. MVP candidate 1885-1889, All-Star candidate 1890-1892. (8 HOM seasons)
   16. RobC Posted: April 13, 2004 at 05:35 PM (#523701)
1. Sam Crawford (2) Best on the ballot, now that a certain SS is gone.
   17. stephen Posted: April 13, 2004 at 05:57 PM (#523703)
Some slight readjustments from the prelim...

   18. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: April 13, 2004 at 06:21 PM (#523704)
<i>14- Jim McCormick (12)
   19. DanG Posted: April 13, 2004 at 07:14 PM (#523706)
New exhibit added for Thompson. In 1924 Crawford and Plank receive their due, as the new candidate drought begins. In 1925, pitchers and Negro Leaguers battle for honors while Sherry Magee takes on the OF glut. Then, Black Sox Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte debut with Larry Doyle in 1926.

1) Crawford ? Among the top 90 in history.

2) Plank ? First ballot HoMer in some years. Most wins 1904-12:
   20. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: April 13, 2004 at 07:28 PM (#523707)
I think I had already tried to account for Jim's poor run support (by moving him up). But when I saw he 'under-pythaged (achieved)' his expected W-L record by 14 wins, I dropped him some.

Well, since posting that I re-did how I figure the pythags (see 1924 discussion thread) & it's about 95% likely that he no longer underperforms by 14 wins. Maybe by 10-12 wins.
   21. Marc Posted: April 13, 2004 at 07:41 PM (#523708)
Dan, not sure what you mean by anecdotal evidence re. Johnson and Monroe. I've moved Monroe to the head of the pre-1920 black list (pardoning the expression). But the problem for Johnson is getting mentioned at a position where Lloyd and Wells played. Meanwhile, the 2Bs really don't have any superstars to compete with and so it is a lot easier for Grant and Monroe to get a mention when the all-time teams are put together.

That doesn't explain Monroe over Grant, but it gets Johnson on my ballot.
   22. Jeff M Posted: April 14, 2004 at 01:01 AM (#523709)
11. Sam Thompson (8,11,14,14,11). He could hit a little. And Fred Astaire could dance a little. Though I'm more a career guy, his prime is just amazing.

Imagine if he had been as good as Browning! :)
   23. Marc Posted: April 14, 2004 at 02:14 AM (#523710)
AdjWS 3 year consecutive peak--Browning 102 Thompson 95
   24. Rick A. Posted: April 14, 2004 at 03:36 PM (#523712)
1924 Ballot

It seems almost every year, I find a group of players I've been underrating in a major way. A 'decade' ago, it was pitchers. A 'couple of years' ago, it was middle infielders. Now, it appears to be corner infielders. I've reevaluated corner infielders (placing more importance on defense than I have in the past) and several have moved up, although only Williamson jumps onto my ballot.

1. Sam Crawford ? Would be first most years
   25. Rick A. Posted: April 14, 2004 at 03:42 PM (#523713)
1924 Ballot

It seems almost every year, I find a group of players I've been underrating in a major way. A 'decade' ago, it was pitchers. A 'couple of years' ago, it was middle infielders. Now, it appears to be corner infielders. I've reevaluated corner infielders (placing more importance on defense than I have in the past) and several have moved up, although only Williamson jumps onto my ballot.

1. Sam Crawford ? Would be first most years
   26. Marc Posted: April 14, 2004 at 03:43 PM (#523714)
TomH, I apply the AA discounts myself so they are in there. Obviously the WARP league adjustments are bigger than what I use. Mine range from about 30 percent early and late, to parity in 1886. The average is about 17 percent. For a guy like Browning who did not play his entire career in the AA the total career discount comes out to about 8 percent.

Some people say the AA is overrated. Others say the discounts (up to 30 percent at its worst) are too big. Which is fine. But how big exactly are the WARP discounts? And what about people who use WARP3 and *then* discount, oh, let's say, Bob Caruthers further yet???

Just eyeballing, here is how much value each loses from adjWARP1 (season length AND my kinder, gentler AA discount) to WARP3 (season length and a machine-gun-hand AA discount).

3 years--Thompson 23 percent, Browning 31 percent

5 years--Thompson 38 percent, Browning 127 percent! No comment.

career--Thompson 39 percent, Browning >100 percent

Is an additional 60 percent discount over and above an 8 percent discount really really real? If it is, all the folks who are not voting for Browning and Caruthers needs to reconsider their vote for Harry Stovey, don't you think?

In my mind, Pete's performance in the PL in 1890 really puts these WARP discounts to shame. Pete's performance in the PL in 1890 was real. WARP's discounts are theoretical. And wrong.
   27. Rick A. Posted: April 14, 2004 at 03:46 PM (#523715)
Sorry for the double post.
   28. OCF Posted: April 14, 2004 at 04:19 PM (#523716)
1924 ballot.

1. Sam Crawford (----, 2) Overwhelmingly qualified. Better than most of the outfielders already elected.
   29. RobC Posted: April 14, 2004 at 04:26 PM (#523718)

Wouldnt a >100% discount lead to negative numbers? Me thinks your denominator is not right.
   30. Marc Posted: April 14, 2004 at 07:41 PM (#523719)
Tom and Rob, obviously you're right. What I meant to say and put exactly backwards was that he lost more than half of his value.

That is different from your 44.5 percent because I was comparing adjWARP1 versus WARP3, not WARP1 to WARP3. I think my comparison is appropriate because adjWARP1 and WARP3 both make the seasonal adj of ^1/2 AND both make a league "difficulty" adjustment.

So Browning loses more than half of his value based on the WARP league difficulty versus my ~8 percent league difficulty adjustment alone! That was what I wanted to call attention to. The value he loses from WARP1 to WARP3 understates the effect of the method because WARP1 has no adj for season length. My comparison is more apples to apples if what you're trying to get at is the effect of the WARP methodology.
   31. Sean Gilman Posted: April 14, 2004 at 08:40 PM (#523720)

1. Wahoo Sam Crawford (2)--He's great. One of my all-time favorite players.

2. Lip Pike (3)--Not quite as good in the NA as McVey, but better before; much better in the NA than Start, not as good before. Very underrated. I?ve never been able to understand the anti-1870s crowd. A pennant is a pennant. How one could rank, say, Sam Thompson ahead of Pike I have no idea. Played the infield, played the outfield. The greatest power/speed combination of his time. Great peak and a reasonably long career for his time (1866-1878).

3. Home Run Johnson (4)--Look at KJOK?s translations and he?s a ?no-brainer?. Easily the best Negro League player we?ve seen so far and this year becomes the first to make My Personal HOM.

4. Eddie Plank (5)--Heads the string of big career value players. Who had the better peak: him or Pud Galvin?

5. Jimmy Sheckard (6)--Looks pretty much identical to Keeler to me.

6. Hugh Duffy (7)--Peak and Career edge on Browning after the AA discount.

7. Bobby Wallace (8)--Lack of a peak keeps him from the top of the ballot, but I think he?s an eventual HOMer. Of course, I was a big fan of McPhee and Sutton too. Guess I like the defense.

8. Joe McGinnity (9)--A lot like Browning: big peak, not so much career value.

9. Pete Browning (10)--AA discount and short career keeps him in the middle of the ballot. But I still think he?s really underrated by the electorate at large. The man could hit. We know Win Shares likes him better than Sam Thompson, but did you now the BP stats show Browning to be the better hitter? Thompson?s edge in WARP is only in fielding and pitching (remember Browning?s -37 PRAR?) and Davenport?s AA discount. Considering the problems Davenport?s had with 19th century OF fielding and the admitted anomoly with Browning??s pitching and the unknown natue of his AA discount, I don?t know how one could rate Thompson ahead.

10. Mordecai Brown (11)--I?ve got 3-Finger behind the Iron Man based on McGinnity?s IP advantage in their respective peak seasons and Brown?s superior defensive support.

11. Dickey Pearce (12)--The best shortstop of his time ranks towards the end of a very deep ballot.

12. Bob Caruthers (13)--His WARP1 and 3 Pennants Added are essentially the same as Pete Browning?s, which is interesting. . .

13. Hughie Jennings (14)--Like Sam Thompson, only a slightly better peak and he was a shortstop instead of a right-fielder.

14. Roger Bresnahan (15)--Great rate stats, but he just didn?t play enough to generate the value of the higher ups on the ballot. Ranks ahead of Childs and Grant only because of the bonus I give him for being a catcher.

15. Cupid Childs (-)--Grant, Charley Jones, Waddell, Thompson, Van Haltren and another dozen or so players are just off the end of the ballot.
   32. KJOK Posted: April 14, 2004 at 11:34 PM (#523721)
3. Home Run Johnson (4)--Look at KJOK?s translations and he?s a ?no-brainer?. Easily the best Negro League player we?ve seen so far and this year becomes the first to make My Personal HOM.

Not mentioning this to discredit Johnson, as I think he's HOM worthy, but I did mean to mention this earlier, which is that Johnson benefits from a "Gavvy Cravath" effect on his translated numbers, which is that his skill set (good power, good eye) translate as more valuable in "neutral" contexts and in more modern eras than they really were in his ACTUAL context of lower offense, fewer xtra base hits competition.

He was still an excellent offensive player, but just not quite as excellent as his neutral context numbers suggest.
   33. jimd Posted: April 14, 2004 at 11:48 PM (#523722)
On the Browning percentage thing.

I don't think that BP is operating with a percentage, or with just a percentage.

The dominant part appears to be an offset, perhaps derived from a comparison of replacement levels or something. If you look at some of the career AA journeymen, guys like Chicken Wolf or Bill Gleason, they don't lose 45% of their value, they lose much more; Wolf loses 85% and Gleason 105% (eyeball estimates), which means a percentage factor is not the mathematical operation being used.
   34. Ken Fischer Posted: April 15, 2004 at 10:52 AM (#523723)
1924 Ballot

Includes my top 60 list

1-Sam Crawford 446 WS Should be automatic for Wahoo & Gettysburg Eddie

2-Eddie Plank 361 WS

3-Bob Caruthers 337 WS As I look at my top 15?only Sam Thompson in 1887 and a couple of 3-Finger?s years rival the impact of Bob in the late 1880s on his championship teams?I know he didn?t do it alone but he made a difference
   35. Marc Posted: April 15, 2004 at 03:45 PM (#523726)
Andrew, nice job, nice job. I mean your reconsideration of the backlog. But take another look at Bill Monroe!
   36. Brian H Posted: April 15, 2004 at 03:57 PM (#523727)
1. Sam Crawford - Stellar. Easily a full rung above the other outfield candidates.

2. M. Brown - I?m not really certain he was better than Caruthers but I think his career numbers warrant a slight edge... An integral part of the great Cub teams of the early 20th century....Interestingly, James ranks Walsh just above Brown as a Pitcher but then includes Brown (and not Walsh) in his 100 greatest players overall..

3. Bobby Caruthers (5 AS, 2 Cy Young, 2 MVP) For now I?m going with Brown over Caruthers. His five year Win Share total in the NHBA is THE HIGHEST EVER.

4 Eddie Plank - Because I am more a peak guy than a career voter he trails Caruthers and Brown. For now I place him above McGinitty but I have some reservations.... Regardless, I think he'll be getting in this year.

5. Hugh Jennings ? (3 AS + 2 MVP) His peak is among the highest ever at SS. He was not merely the top SS of an era abundant with outstanding shortstops. This was in perhaps the most competitive era we have judged to date (the one-league 1890?s). James (a peak fan) ranks Jennings 18th , just above Dahlen among all SSs... Jennings was an integral part of the ?Old Orioles? dynasty of the ?90s.

6. Rube Foster ? The first great Negro League/Black ball Pitcher

7. Joe McGinitty (4 AS, 2 Cy Young, arguably 3 Cy Youngs)? Very strong peak and stronger career numbers than the new candidates. A crucial player for McGraw?s Giants.

8. Frank Chance (7 AS, 1 MVP) Chance was the was the premier 1B in baseball for several years (weak years for the position). Conversely, I have Beckley as the top 1B for only a few years. Very valuable on the bases.....Chance could rank higher if: (A) He was accorded credit for managing the Cubs; or (B) He was more durable player and put up career numbers like his longtime nemesis Fred Clarke.

9. Big Sam Thompson -- (6 AS and 1 MVP)?. The best player on the Detroit Wolverines NL pennant winner in 1887. A big assist man in the outfield though apparently not too good with the glove.

10. Hugh Duffy ?(2 AS, 1 MVP) Duffy was integral part of Boston?s ?team of the 90?s?. He had an exceptional peak and enough of a career that I can?t call it a fluke. Renowned as a heads-up player and a top-notch fielder.

11 Pete Browning (8 AS !) ? A better AA hitter you will not find. Not as good all around as Stovey ? a much better career than O?Niell. His early AA years are discounted. Known as ?the Gladiator? for his battles in the outfield (with the ball) ? not a great fielder.

12. Rube Waddell ? (3 AS, 1 CY + 1 MVP) ? one of the greatest strikeout Pitchers of all time. If he had the legendary savvy of Griffith, for example, he probably would have won 300 games and become a first ballot HOMer.

13. Cupid Childs (5 AS) ? I had him above McPhee based on his peak and strength of competition (as does James). I also think he hit a bit better than Bid (although his fielding was clearly inferior).

14. Roger Bresnahan (4 AS) ? Better than Bennett but not by that much. He was a tremendous all-around talent and played a prominent role in the successes of the Giants of the 1900's.
   37. Jeff M Posted: April 16, 2004 at 02:49 AM (#523730)
Regarding using WARP3 instead of WARP1 for Browning vs. Thompson (or for any other player): That's fine if you accept WARP3's mysterious adjustments (or more properly, WARP2's mysterious adjustments) wholesale, with no idea how they are calculated. Remember, there's some timelining in the WARP2 adjustment.

I don't buy that, of course. Although the people at BP are smarter than me on these issues, I don't think they have any better idea than any of the rest of us about how to adjust for league quality. I think that issue is simply one that cannot be determined based on the info we have.

It just seems unreasonable to me that BP reduces Browning's WARP1 by 50% to get to WARP2. What kind of adjustment is that? This is the same guy who mashed his way to a batting title in the Players' League, which most people agree was stronger than the NL.

Anyway, that's all been said before, so I'll shut up. :)
   38. Adam Schafer Posted: April 16, 2004 at 02:58 PM (#523733)
Basically the same ballot as last year. Everyone just moves up 1 spot.

1. Sam Crawford (2) - Truly a model of consistency. Being someone who looks at a mix of career and peak, but leans more towards career, I love Crawford.

2. Eddie Plank (3) - Great career.

3. Mickey Welch (4) - He wasn't quite as good as Keefe, but really wasn't much worse at all. I like to think of it as something like Glavine was to Maddux. Not quite as good, but would've been the #1 starter on most any other team. They pitched in the same park in the same era for too long for their extremely similiar stats to be coincidental. Welch pitched much too long for his career to be considered all luck.

4. Joe McGinnity (5) - I'm looking forward to seeing him inducted soon.

5. Three Finger Brown (3) - Some reevaluation of Welch and McGinnity leads to Brown's bump down my list. I still believe he is a HOM worthy player, but needs to be ranked a bit lower than I had him.

6. Sam Thompson (6) - 10 great years. Excellant peak. I'm more of a career type of person than I am peak, but Sam has a great mix of both.

7. Bobby Wallace (7) - Career, career, Career. That's what I keep saying I like. I like Bobby's, I really do. I would really like to see SOME peak.

8. Jake Beckley (8) - Again, I'm a career lover

9. Rube Waddell (9) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive years. 107 years after he pitched his first MLB game, he's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

10. Roger Bresnahan (10) - It's no secret that I love catchers. I would've ranked Roger higher had he caught more and played the OF less during his peak years.

11. Lip Pike (11) - I can see him finally getting in one of these days.

12. Hughie Jennings (12) - Nothing new to add to Jennings, except that he moves up above my OF glut

13. George Van Haltren (13) - I've been a moderate supporter of Van Haltren, unfortunately he'll never make the HOM, but he's still the 13th best player eligible in my opinion. Good career, very modest peak.

14. Jimmy Ryan (14) - See Van Haltren

15. Home Run Johnson (15) - For the first time I felt like there was enough information for me to rank one of the early Negro League players. Is there enough information for me to rank him higher? No. Would he have fared well against Major League talent? Maybe. We'll never know. I don't feel comfortable ranking him extremely high. I honestly don't think he was a better player than the people I have above him. I do feel he was a better player than the people I have below him though.

16. Rube Foster (n/a) - I really thought I'd have him ranked high on my ballot, but then after all of the posts, I wasn't so sure. I'll keep him near the bottom until I'm more confident in him as a player.

17. Clark Griffith (15) - He's hanging on to the bottom spots. I doubt he ever moves up to the middle spots

18. Bobby Carruthers (15) - I like Griffith a little bit better

19. Jimmy Sheckard - Just another Outfielder. I just don't get his high ranking for some.

20. Hugh Duffy - I'm beginning to wonder why I have him so low

21. Ed Reulbach - Pretty decent pitcher and look at that ERA!

22. Tommy Leach - I am a personal fan of his, I just can't rank him any higher

23. Vic Willis - A great pitcher, and I'm a friend of most pitchers. Vic lost too many games for my liking.

24. Dickey Pearce - Although doubtful, I could still persuaded to move him up

25. Deacon McGuire - I really wish I could justify putting him on my ballot somewhere, I really like the guy

26. Pete Browning -

27. Cupid Childs -

28. Mike Tiernan -

29. Joe Tinker -

30. Lave Cross -

Frank Grant still isn't under consideration by me.
   39. Philip Posted: April 16, 2004 at 03:40 PM (#523734)
1. Crawford (2) ? It?s about time.
   40. Chris Cobb Posted: April 16, 2004 at 08:12 PM (#523735)
1924 Ballot

Thought I'd get this in before the weekend. Everybody starts moving up, some faster than others.


1. Sam Crawford (2). One year after missing election, he'll go in as a near-unanimous number one choice. 491 cws, 123 total peak, peak rate, 05-11 = 34.06 ws/162.

Leading Candidates This is the group that I'm clear should be elected. They all stand out one way or another, and I think they will all make my personal HoM.

2. Grant "Home Run" Johnson (3) . Excellent in 1895, excellent 1910-1913, excellent in Cuba, excellent in limited at bats against major-league pitching, played important defensive positions on the best black teams for 19 years. Record is fragmentary, but all fragments are in agreement on his quality.
   41. KJOK Posted: April 16, 2004 at 08:24 PM (#523736)
Using OWP, playing time, and defense (Win Shares/BP) for position players, applied to .500 baseline. Using Runs Saved Above Average and Support Neutral Fibonacci Wins for Pitchers.

1. SAM CRAWFORD, RF. .686 OWP, 401 RCAP, 10,596 PA?s. Def: AVERAGE.

2. MORDACAI BROWN, P. 295 RSAA, 282 Neut. Fib. Wins, 138 ERA+. Certainly benefited from good defense behind him, but '06-'10 Cubs were the BEST EVER at preventing runs, and I think some people are forgetting that fielding measures are MUCH LESS ACCURATE than batting ones, so pitchers probably deserve SOME of that credit too! Better pitcher than Walsh, Radbourn, & Galvin.

3. EDDIE PLANK, P. 278 RSAA, 288 Neut. Fib. Wins, 122 ERA+.

4. JOHN McGRAW, 3B. .727 OWP. 459 RCAP. 4,909 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Similar to Lajoie except only 60% of RCAP, but 60% of Lajoie is still excellent. He didn?t have a long career, but he?s being discounted for low playing time way too much as he provided more value in those few appearances than all of his contemporary 3rd baseman. When he retired, he ranked 12TH all-time in Plate Appearances by 3rd basemen:
   42. Marc Posted: April 16, 2004 at 10:29 PM (#523738)
>7 (8) Mordecai Brown--Closer to McGinnity and Waddell than he is to Caruthers. I'm very curious to
   43. dan b Posted: April 17, 2004 at 02:53 AM (#523739)
Win shares are my metric of choice. I start with a composite ranking = 4 x Career + (3 best years)/3 + (5 best consecutive years)/5 + (8 best years)/8 + WS per 162. I then make adjustments justified by individual components with a touch of subjectivity thrown in. I use the same system for hitters and for 60? 6? era pitchers. I also look at WS w/o defense for a hitting only ranking. (Number in parenthesis shows composite rank.)
   44. jimd Posted: April 17, 2004 at 06:49 AM (#523740)
Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles. The new rating system is here on the tryout track for a first time shakedown. I've added a dimension for comparing players against their contemporaries, both for career and peak. It uses three groups for the comparisons, pitchers, hitting positions (OF/1B), and fielding positions (C/SS/2B/3B). It's not quite finished (tough week for me this week) but close enough for now.

1) S. Crawford -- Not a slam-dunk #1. More like the Bobby Wallace of OF'ers. Win Shares overrates deadball OF's due to "freebie" offensive shares (low "replacement level") and excess fielding shares that should go to the infielders (outfield PO's/BIP is the lowest in the 20th C).

2) B. Caruthers -- Still the best pitcher available, measured by peak. Made my revised PHOM years ago.

3) B. Wallace -- Made my PHOM in 1921, instead of Collins. Are we still in the "best-athlete" stage where they tend to play SS, resulting in a shortage of really good 3B and 2B players?

4) H. Jennings -- Using rolling 5-year peaks for WARP-3, only he and Tommy Bond on this ballot can claim to have been the "best player in baseball". All of the others have already been elected or are not yet eligible; elected to my PHOM a decade ago.

5) J. Sheckard -- Surprised me. The best NL OF'er of the early oughts, by peak. He didn't last as long as Clarke, which drops him to just above the gluts. In my revised PHOM, instead of Joe Kelley.

6) E. Plank -- There are better careers and better peaks by pitchers in this era; which also can be said for Crawford and Wallace within their groupings. Enough of both to rise just above the glut.

7) D. Pearce -- Reflecting on him and his long career at a top defensive position in the undocumented dawn of the game, I think he belongs. (Basically, the Joe Start argument, with less documented evidence.)

8) T. Bond -- Both WARP and Win Shares places him as the best player in the game during the late 1870's. Career prematurely shortened by the rule change that moved the pitching box back 5 feet in 1880. You just don't modify at will the break on that "curved-ball" you've been throwing for five years.

9) G. Johnson -- The concensus seems to be that he was better than Frank Grant. Bumping him ahead of the OF glut until I can get a better handle on him.

Following are the guys that I might not have in my HOF, but then again I'm a small hall advocate, smaller than the one that exists now. The pool of qualified applicants has quite a few marginal guys.

10) J. Ryan -- Now looks a lot better than Van Haltren. Much better peak when compared with his contemporaries, but not up to Sheckard's level either.

11) F. Grant -- Stalled and waiting for new information.

12) N. Williamson -- Deserves some reconsideration.

13) S. King -- Not likely to go anywhere, but this is where he rates.

14) F. Jones -- Reached the top of the OF heap before he walked away. Not enough peak for the peak voters to really get excited about and not enough career for the career voters. Some of each works, at least on my ballot.

15) S. Thompson -- He's back, for longer than I thought.

Just missing the cut are:
   45. Jeff M Posted: April 17, 2004 at 01:36 PM (#523741)
Same as last time, 'cept everyone moves up a slot and Waddell creeps back on the ballot.

1. Crawford, Sam -- My system ranks him as the sixth best position player we've seen so far.

2. Plank, Eddie -- Just kept piling the numbers on. His only weakness in my system is that WARP doesn't see him as having an impressive 3-year peak or 5 consecutive year peak.

3. Brown, Mordecai -- Unlike some, I don't have him far behind Plank -- there's not much difference this year b/w my #3 and #4. Top-notch and deserving of the HOM. If he had retired a year earlier, he would have been elected that "year".

4. Browning, Pete -- Hasn't budged on my ballot in a long long time. I've been on the Browning bandwagon for a while. I have discounted his 82-85 and 89 seasons but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. I think he's a HoMer because he was easily one of the best hitters we've evaluated. He was an outfielder, so I doubt his suspect defense detracts much from his overall value.

5. Johnson, Home Run -- Lacking a perfect system for ranking the Negro League players, I tend to look at which white players they were compared to, and then drop them a couple of notches below that (unless there is evidence that I shouldn't). I've got Johnson linked with Home Run Baker, who will easily make the HOM, so I've got Johnson here and haven't seen a reason to move him.

6. Bresnahan, Roger -- I was surprised to see that in my system he was quite a bit better as a hitter than Charlie Bennett, though certainly not as good defensively. If you stack Bresnahan's WS and WARP1 numbers against the catchers actually elected to the HoF, he looks very very solid.

7. McGinnity, Joe -- Solid WS numbers. Fantastic winning percentage and excellent Wins Above Team. Has some nice counting stats and good grey ink scores. Would probably have won two Cy Young Awards. Suffers a bit in the WARP system...otherwise, he'd be higher. I'm starting to wonder if his chance for election has slipped by.

8. Monroe, Bill -- With Monroe, his alleged comp is Jimmy Collins. He certainly appears every bit as good as Grant, but competition was stiffening in his era, so he deserves a bit more credit.

9. Jones, Charley -- I give no additional credit for blacklisted seasons. He hit about as well as McVey, with power, but with a smaller WS peak and fewer WS per 162 games. I think he has been overlooked from the beginning. Even those who see his skills have put him to the side in favor of more glamorous players -- thus, he's not really a factor in the consensus voting.

10. Leach, Tommy -- His numbers are deflated by the era, but normalized he looks very good. I've got him with 7 gold gloves at two different tough positions. He's just below my election line.

11. Caruthers, Bob -- WARP1 helped him leap higher on my ballot a few weeks ago. Also, I stepped away from the numbers and looked at the big picture, and he was one hell of a baseball player.

12. Duffy, Hugh -- Like most of the glut outfielders, he's appeared just about everywhere on the ballot. He has some good counting stats, good grey ink and scores well on WS and WARP1 measures. In my system he bests Thompson based primarily on pennants added. Thompson now lurks just off my ballot.

13. Grant, Frank -- Some of this is based on comparisons to Dunlap, who I don't value as highly as others. I haven't moved Grant's ranking, but I wonder if I subconsciously value Johnson and Monroe higher because Grant has been on the ballot so long.

14. Griffith, Clark -- Maybe too many pitchers on my ballot, but this is where he's been so this is where he stays. I'm not dumping him simply because other pitchers have become eligible. An excellent win pct on some bad teams. I boost his win totals and win pct by approximately 1/2 of his Wins Above Team, which are outstanding. Has a nice career Linear Weights total also.

15. Waddell, Rube -- Comparable to Griffith, but win totals are far less impressive. Can?t see putting him ahead of Griffith, unless you overvalue strikeouts.


Thompson, Sam -- Currently ranked #16 in my system, behind Waddell and ahead of Sheckard. Another pure hitter with questionable outfield defense. I don't think he was anywhere near as good a hitter as Browning. He didn't have an incredible peak or career, from a WS perspective, as outfielders go.

Sheckard, Jimmy -- Currently ranked #17 in my system, behind Thompson and ahead of Beckley.

Wallace, Bobby -- I've stated my thoughts on Wallace elsewhere, but in essence, his WS numbers are not that impressive in relation to existing HoF shortstops (he's kind of at the bottom of the stack) and he was only the best shortstop in the league once. He's ranked #22 in my system, behind Willis and ahead of Chance.
   46. Brad G. Posted: April 17, 2004 at 02:50 PM (#523742)
Currently having Internet access problems, so relatively brief this week:

1924 (Yay Sanators!)

1. Sam Crawford- Easy choice.

2. Ed Plank- Got a much better grasp on his career? joins my PhoM along with Wahoo Sam. Lots of Ink (particularly the gray variety). Most career Win Shares (360) of any pitcher currently being considered.

3. Mordecai Brown- I?m impressed by his Win Share production as well as WARP figures.

4. Joe McGinnity- Very close to Brown in my estimation, could almost be reversed. Another Win Share star, and a ton of Black Ink (not too shabby on the Gray either).

5. Sam Thompson- Love the moustache.

6. Jimmy Sheckard- Went in my PHoM a couple years back (McG and Thompson are already there as well). Career Win Shares = 339, WS3 = 96, Career WARP1 = 130.7, Career WARP3 = 93.5, Career Runs Created = 1067, Black Ink = 19, Gray Ink = 124. Earns a Defensive ?A? in WS. Long, steady career; very good all-around player. Knew how to get on base.

7. Frank Grant- Consistent (subjective) placement of this early star 2B.

8. Hugh Duffy- Career Win Shares = 295, Win Share 5-year Peak = 144 (!), Career WARP3 = 81, Career Runs Created = 1229, Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 147. A+ Centerfielder with 5 WS Gold Gloves, according to James, who ranks him #20 Centerfielder of all time.

9. Jimmy Ryan- Career WS = 316, Career WARP1 = 119, Career WARP3 = 84.5, Career Runs Created = 1338, B+ WS Defender.

10. Bob Caruthers- 119 Wins over .500 in his career.

11. George Van Haltren- Career WS = 344, WARP1 = 121, Career Runs Created = 1286.

12. Rube Waddell- Great when he was on.

13. Jake Beckley- Career WS = 318, Career WARP1 = 116. Career Runs Created = 1461, which exceeds Dan Brouthers? 1445.

14. Pete Browning- Career OPS+ = 162, which is outrageous. I have him ranked close to (just above) George Gore, a long-time HoMer.

15. Tommy Leach- Career Win Shares = 329, WARP1 = 113.7, an ?A+? third basemen.

16. Bobby Wallace- Career WS = 345, Career WARP1 = 155.5, Career WARP3 = 108. I feel he?s the 2nd best SS eligible.
   47. Howie Menckel Posted: April 17, 2004 at 03:51 PM (#523743)
re the "how many HOMers per era" issue, I have it like this:

   48. Marc Posted: April 17, 2004 at 05:16 PM (#523745)
Mark, yeah, and I don't disagree with where you have them on your ballot, BTW.

Re. Howie's numbers. Even among those who timeline, was baseball twice as good in the '80s as in the '70s? Do twice as many '80s guys deserve to be HoMers than '70s guys?

Of course, who says the two have to jive? Timeliners would obviously argue (DO argue) that the '90s were better yet, and especially that the '93 milestone (as important to some as '71 or '76) was the real start of the modern game. Yet we do not particularly look like we are going to have any more '90s (post-'93) guys than '80s guys.

I personally see no reason whatsoever not to have about the same from each era, but that's just me.
   49. Howie Menckel Posted: April 17, 2004 at 05:52 PM (#523746)
1924 ballot

1. SAM CRAWFORD - I wish he'd hit better in the World Series and gotten to 3,000 hits, but geesh, I'm getting awfully greedy. Wonderfully long and consistent career.
   50. OCF Posted: April 17, 2004 at 11:47 PM (#523747)
Seems like a number of top pitchers didn't win a game before 25, like Plank.

Hard to know what's cause and what's effect, but there may be something to that. It's one reason I have for being very cautious about speculating on what Warren Spahn might have done had WWII not intervened. Of the species you mention - top pitchers who didn't win a ML game before 25 - Spahn may be the type specimen.
   51. karlmagnus Posted: April 18, 2004 at 02:52 AM (#523748)
If you look at the economics, I would argue that 1892-1900 should have been weaker than the 80s, in terms of top stars, because both the money available in baseball and the number of opportunities to make that money was considerably less. Rather than 90s ball just having the top half of the talent distribution compared to 80s ball, I think it's quite likely it missed out on many potential ballplayers altogether, because the opportunities elsewhere were relatively better (except maybe 94-95, when there was a deep recession.) Then in 1901 when the AL came along, salaries rose again. It's a bit like 2-sport players curently chossing baseball over the NFL; people with a choice, say between baseball and becoming a lawyer in the 1890s would have found baseball a relatively unattractive alternative.
   52. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: April 18, 2004 at 04:21 AM (#523749)
I thought I could do some reevaluating in this week, but it didn't happen for various reasons (which include why I'm putting this up on Saturday night instead of my usual Sunday), so there's not a lot of change here. Sam and Eddie make my PhoM this week:

1. Sam Crawford (2) One of my favorites, because of his chapter in Glory of Their Times as well as his excellent play.

2. Eddie Plank (3) His career argument is well ahead of any other pitcher's, and his peak was not that much worse than the rest. Oddity that probably means something but I don't know what: Chris' Pythag W-L record and KJOK's Support-Neutral are identical for Plank (311-209).

3. Lip Pike (4) Made my HoM in 1919. The one 1870s player who should still be honored, one of the best hitters of his time. If we can honor an 1870s pitcher when we're not sure how much they contributed, why not an 1870s OF, when we know what their contributions mean? The one player left from my 1898 ballot, but he dropped off for one year along the way.

4. Dickey Pearce (5) Made my HoM in 1921. The best player of his era, and I think that's worthy of honoring (and that's basically all we're arguing about with him.)

5. Home Run Johnson (6) I still have my reservations about tying his argument too closely to Pop Lloyd's, but the arguments for him seem pretty solid so far.

6. Bobby Wallace (7) I hope I'm not overvaluing shortstops, but he was a solid player for a long time, and his peak isn't nearly as poor as Beckley's.

7. Frank Grant (8) Not unlike Pearce in that I think "Best black ballplayer of the 19th century" is worth honoring. Maybe that's a quota, maybe not, but it feels legitimate to me.

8. Miner Brown (9) I need to look at all the stuff in last year's discussion thread again. I don't think were necessarily short on 1900s pitchers, so I'm not pushing them to the front of the ballot.

9. Jimmy Sheckard (10) A unique player, but there's nothing wrong with valuing defense.

10. Bob Caruthers (11) As usual, my dividing line between the defnites and the maybes. I reaaaalllly need to get a firmer handle on him.

11. Hughie Jennings (12) I still like his peak a lot, but I've got a LOT of shortstops on my ballot.

12. Bill Monroe (13) A good player, but I don't think he'll ever quite make the HoM or my HoM. Johnson seems to have been a more dominant player during his era.

13. Jim McCormick (14) I need to look at the pitchers again (I need to do a lot of things), but I'm still linking him with McGinnity for now.

14. Joe McGinnity (15) I really don't think he was that much better than Waddell or Griffith, and I can't support that many pitchers.

15. Cupid Childs (NR) On my ballot for the first time since 1907. I took another look, and he might might well be the best 2B of the 1890s - but his career's short and his peak isn't overwhelming. I'd definitely take Grant over him.

Left out:
   53. Rob Wood Posted: April 18, 2004 at 07:07 AM (#523750)
My 1924 ballot:

1. Sam Crawford -- a great player who was overshadowed by Cobb
   54. EricC Posted: April 18, 2004 at 02:31 PM (#523751)
Joe- I'll be out of town the next few days, so I won't be able to send you a vote count.

1924 ballot.

Season-by-season ratings for each player determined by rate of performance relative to peers in the same season, based on (unadjusted) win shares per plate appearance (for batters) or ERA+ (for pitchers), corrected for league strength. The best string of consecutive seasons (the "prime") is then determined for each player. Final ratings are based on a combination of the strength and length of the prime.

1. Sam Crawford (N-2 last year) 330 gray ink points should be enough to make him a shoo-in. Similarity scores have Crawford and Beckley mutually most similar, but this is a case of comparing a player whose career was in the heart of the deadball era with one whose career wasn't. Incidentally, had 600 or more plate appearances 14 straight years 1902-1915, the first player to have such a long string.

2. Eddie Plank (N-3) 326 wins make his election all but inevitable.

3. Roger Bresnahan (N-2-3-5) His Win Shares rate (per game or per plate appearance) is among the highest that we've seen to date among players at any position.

4. George "Rube" Waddell (N-4-5-3-3-3-1-5-4) Those ERA+ and strikeout titles against strong competition convince me that he was a legitimately great, though hard-luck, pitcher.

5. Mordecai Brown (N-4-6) I'm rating him on his ERA+, uncorrected for defensive support, so he may be a little overrated. At worst, though, I would favor electing him a little later rather than not at all.

6. Bobby Wallace (N-5-4-6-7) The kind of player (good every year for 15 straight) that adds a hugh number of pennants over a career.

7. Jake Beckley (N-5-3-5-11-10-10-6-7-6-9-9) Average to very good for 17 straight years of regular play. Similar to Eddie Murray, though not quite as great. Would easily have cleared 3000 hits with a 154-game schedule for his entire career.

8. Lip Pike (3-2-4-4-4-5-8-6-4-4-5-7-8) In documented years, almost always best at position, with lots of black ink. Evidence that he was the fastest player in the game suggests that he was a defensive asset.

9. Dickey Pearce (X-4-2-8-9-10-X-9-8-9-7-11-11) Anecdotal and statistical evidence suggest that he was the greatest pre-NA player.

10. Hughie Jennings (8-8-3-1-3-2-6-4-2-2-3-8-10) Highest win shares/600 plate appearances during prime of any player on ballot, but was only really good for 5 years.

11. Addie Joss (N-7-7-5-9-6-8-12-13) Career WHIP of 0.968 lowest ever; 142 ERA+ tied for 12th best ever. 8.5 years at this level is no fluke.

12. John McGraw (12-15-9-5-6-6-9-8-5-8-10-13-12) Best 3B of 1890s. Highest career OBP before Ruth.

13. Jimmy Ryan (X-13-10-10-12-14-15-13-12-12-12-14-14) The 1889 White Stockings outfield forms the top of the CF glut. Ryan and Van Haltren have classic borderline HoM careers; Duffy has less career, but the monster year. I have them very close, with Ryan on top due to career length. They all hover (in perpetuity?) around the bottom of the ballot.

14. Sol White (X)
   55. EricC Posted: April 18, 2004 at 03:19 PM (#523752)
If you look at the economics, I would argue that 1892-1900 should have been weaker than the 80s, in terms of top stars,

Actually, you can look at the before-and-after performance record of players who played during the 1880s and/or 1890s to determine the relative quality of competition. Dick Cramer studied the issue using traditional statistics and found that the average player in the 1890s was better than the average player of the 1880s. Using Win Shares as the performance measure, I come to the same conclusion. The evidence also suggests that the top stars of the 1890s were, in general, no worse than the top stars of the 1880s.

If anything, more players in the 1880s than the 1890s means that the "replacement level" baseline was at a lower absolute level in the 1880s. Therefore, WARP1 and Win Shares overrate players of the 1880s and underrate players of the 1890s. Ammo for friends of the 1890s backlog?
   56. Marc Posted: April 18, 2004 at 03:26 PM (#523753)
Eric, I would argue that WARP1 measures value. WARP3 = value X ability adjustment. IMO the ability factor is irrelevant to this project. If our objective was to elect the top 200 players by ability, we would just start on April 18, 2004, and elect the top 200 like the Survivor project.
   57. Paul Wendt Posted: April 18, 2004 at 03:42 PM (#523754)
Seems like a number of top pitchers didn't win a game before 25, like Plank.

McGinnity was an older rookie than Plank.
   58. EricC Posted: April 18, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#523755)
Marc- Suppose that baseball contracts next year to 15 teams by eliminating the bottom 50% of players. I would want the ratings for the top players this year and next to be roughly equal because I believe in a "top down" measure of value. It sounds like you would say that that next year's top players would systematically have less value because their WARP1 numbers would be lower. If I am characterizing your viewpoint correctly, then OK, but I'll have to disagree.
   59. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 18, 2004 at 04:32 PM (#523756)

Put me in the "cream rises to the top" camp with you.

As for "value or ability," I don't really have an argument with Marc here, either. However, when it's unfairly applied (endurance levels of 1870s catchers over 1900 backstops or the conundrum Eric elaborated upon), that's when I apply the brakes.
   60. Marc Posted: April 18, 2004 at 04:59 PM (#523757)
Eric, we can deal with that if it happens.

But historically the number of teams has grown fairly spurts, but slowly over time. And it has almost always grown. It has not always been at the same rate but it has been in the same direction as population growth. The one real exception was the 8 team NL in the late 1890s.

(The other "exception" in a different sense is the 8 team NL pre-'82. So let's hear it for Lip Pike and Tommy Bond! I don't hear anything!?)

I understand, therefore, that RP level would be higher and WARP scores might be a bit lower. But over the course of a career (a HoM career), this would be a blip on a player's record.

Let me know what I'm missing here.
   61. EricC Posted: April 18, 2004 at 05:18 PM (#523758)
Let me know what I'm missing here.

1891-1892 was a major contraction because the number of major league teams dropped from 16 (the number for most of the 80s) to 12 (the number for most of the 90s).
   62. Marc Posted: April 18, 2004 at 06:44 PM (#523759)
EricG, this is semantics I suppose as much as anything, but my view would be that a major contraction would be 16 to 8, which of course did occur, but in stages. Of course in the grand scheme you had 16 ML teams from 1882 to 1960 with, again, that one exception of 1892-00, and the 8 team period probably needs special handling, but I can't get too excited about the 12 team period.

Then of course you've got the other side of the coin, the expansions and especially the temporary ones--the PL and FL (I don't worry about the UA at all since as a 24 team year, virtually all of the new, lower RP players were all in the UA, it didn't affect play in the NL and AA much, nor did the FL affect the NL and AL much, frankly, but still....)

Then the expansions after 1960, but those are nicely supported by population growth.

So I agree with you in principle--the '90s are the one "major contraction" period in ML history. But I don't see adjusting a whole lot except for the 8 team period.
   63. Max Parkinson Posted: April 18, 2004 at 07:26 PM (#523760)
I've been updating my data set (it's now much more comprehensive, allowing me to do a lot more comparisons), and this has somewhat affected my basic ratings. Based on my previous categories for ranking players, my ballot was extremely middle infielder heavy (with 3B counting here).

I know that due to timing, and who we elect in a given year, ballots will not always be proportioned well between positions (especially pitcher/position player), but this seemed a little ridiculous.


<i>1. Jennings
   64. Cassidemius Posted: April 18, 2004 at 09:14 PM (#523761)
I was hoping the site redesign would give me a little more time to play around with things, but it didn't work out. I'm pretty confident in my ballot, though.

1. Sam Crawford He wasn't the best outfielder of his time (or his team, usually), but he looks like a consistent All-Star and a top-ten player in his league.

2. Joe McGinnity A tremendous pitcher for six seasons is enough to convince me.

3. Bob Caruthers Probably the best player in baseball for a couple of years in the late 1880s. I don't think the AA of that time deserves much of a discount.

4. Frank Grant The best black player of his century.

5. Lip Pike I think he's closer to the 1870s players already in than he is to those with no chance.

6. Eddie Plank Some are looking at him as a pitching version of Jake Beckley, but I think he's much better than that. Sure, most of his value comes from a long career and not a spectacular peak, but it was a much better career than Beckley's, in my opinion.

7. Dickey Pearce The best eligible player from pre-NA days.

8. Bill Monroe He's above Johnson (this week) based on expert rankings. They're very close, as far as I can tell. Both should go in (after Grant).

9. Home Run Johnson

10. Jimmy Sheckard I'm convinced he rises above the outfield glut. His peak is oddly-shaped, but it's real.

11. Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown He remains low on my ballot, pending re-evaluation. I'd like to be cautious with him after the discussions about the Cubs defence.

12. Tommy Leach I don't know what to say about him; his play at third lifts him above the outfield glut.

13. Hughie Jennings The best player in the world for a brief time. A little more of anything would have lifted him a long way.

14. Rube Waddell There are definitely things working against him, like unearned runs, but I do like the strikeouts.

15. Vic Willis Not as many sexy strikeouts, but not far behind Waddell in effectiveness.

Fred Dunlap just misses my ballot this year.

Bobby Wallace also misses and has never made it, but I am starting to like him more and more. He will probably make my ballot sometime in the next few years.

Sam Thompson still makes the consensus top ten, but he's buried somewhere in the outfield glut on my ballot, somewhere down between 20-30.
   65. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: April 19, 2004 at 01:51 AM (#523762)
Have had practically no time to work on this, so very little change below.

1924 ballot:

1. Sam Crawford: Easy first-ballot #1 most years. Poor end-of-career timing kept him out last year.

2. Eddie Plank: The best pitcher on the ballot. Brown has a more impressive pure peak, but Plank has many more good years.

3. Grant Johnson
   66. Esteban Rivera Posted: April 19, 2004 at 04:04 AM (#523763)
Wahoo and Gettysburg make my PHOM this year!

1. Sam Crawford - Fantastic player who was tremendously respected by Cobb even though they did not like each other. It was Cobb's campaigning that got Wahoo Sam into Cooperstown.

2. Eddie Plank - Very steady career. Career numbers are definitely HOMer worthy. This would be the type of pitcher I would love to have on a pitching staff.

3. Sam Thompson - A heck of an offensive machine. Reputed to have the best arm of his time. Doesn't the 1890's Philadelphia outfield kind of resemble the mid 1990's Cleveland outfield?

4. Joe McGinnity - Compiled an awesome record in only a decade and began past the usual starting age for a ballplayer in the majors. The best pitcher or runner up for half his career

5. Mordecai Brown - See him around McGinnity's level. Brilliant defense behind him lands him just a bit behind the Iron Man. But only a bit.

6. Frank Grant - I am finally comfortable ranking Grant higher. The experts that chose Grant in their list gave me the added confidence of boosting him higher. Was a great ballplayer acording to all accounts. Would be a an honor to have him grace our hall.

7. Grant Johnson - I am very certain that Home Run is a HOMer. All evidence points to a player of superior ability.

8. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball. Definitely deserves more attention.

9. Rube Waddell - Was a special picher. I buy the run support analysis and also believe in the higher value of being a phenomenal K artist in his time and place. His career record isn't that impressive but you have to remember that there were some stretches where he was jettisoned because his managers did not know how to deal with his unique personality.

10. Hughie Jennings - A historical monster for five years.

11. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress. I buy the "greatness can't take full advantage off lower competition" idea. Proved he could hold his own in the player's league.

12. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 90's. Then he just fell off. However, I feel his peak gives him the slight edge over Ryan and Van Haltren.

13. Clark Griffith - The more that I look at him the more I realize I have been underestimating his accomplishments.

14. Roger Bresnahan - Starts of low on my ballot. He has his favorable points such as his offense and being versatile. However, playing time and defensive issues make me a bit wary of going higher with him.

15. Bill Monroe - Is back on my ballot probably to stay. Have gained more confidence in his standing. Will be moving up soon.

Candidates who will be back but were just bumped off by all the new eligibles:
   67. Carl Goetz Posted: April 19, 2004 at 02:54 PM (#523769)
Please welcome a pair of Great RFers to my personal HoM in 1924; Sam crawford and Willie Keeler.

1)Sam Crawford- Picked the wrong time to retire. He'd be a 1st-ballot HoMer alot of years.
   68. OCF Posted: April 19, 2004 at 03:32 PM (#523771)
45 votes cast so far. Still not heard from: Brad Harris, Casey Elston, Clint, Craig B, Lennox HC, Matt B, RMc, Sean M. One new voter this year: stephen.
   69. Marc Posted: April 19, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#523773)
A damn good thing Martin and Philly got their votes in--maybe Sam and Eddie can rest a little easier now ;-) It was lookin' too close for comfort otherwise.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.6294 seconds
59 querie(s) executed