User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4694 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Thursday, April 22, 20041924 Results: Crawford and Plank Cruise into HallSam Crawford and Eddie Plank were easily elected to the Hall of Merit; each was in his second year of eligibility. In an unprecendented turn of events, the top 13 finished in the exact same order as 1923. Mordecai Brown and Grant Johnson are the top returning candidates for 1925. RK LY Player PTS Bal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 Sam Crawford 1102 46 44 2 2 3 Eddie Plank 907 45 23 13 6 2 1 3 4 Mordecai Brown 620 41 5 3 3 9 5 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 4 5 Grant Johnson 604 39 3 8 4 9 5 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 6 Joe McGinnity 548 40 2 2 6 3 3 7 3 3 4 2 1 2 2 6 7 Frank Grant 488 36 2 5 4 7 3 4 2 1 2 3 2 1 7 8 Bobby Wallace 483 35 3 4 2 2 4 6 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 8 9 Jimmy Sheckard 417 33 2 2 5 2 2 4 5 4 1 1 4 1 9 10 Sam Thompson 391 29 1 5 2 2 3 4 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 10 11 Bob Caruthers 376 30 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 3 2 11 12 Dickey Pearce 277 19 2 5 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 12 13 Lip Pike 269 18 4 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 13 14 Jake Beckley 253 22 3 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 14 17 Rube Waddell 244 24 1 1 2 3 3 3 5 1 2 3 15 15 Hughie Jennings 228 20 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 16 16 Jimmy Ryan 223 23 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 6 2 3 17 19 Hugh Duffy 201 18 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 18 18 George Van Haltren 197 19 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 19 20 Roger Bresnahan 194 20 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 5 2 20 22 Clark Griffith 149 15 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 21 24 Bill Monroe 148 15 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 4 22 23 Pete Browning 135 12 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 23 21 Rube Foster 115 10 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 24 27 Cupid Childs 101 11 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 25 25 Mickey Welch 99 9 1 1 2 2 2 1 26 26 Tommy Leach 79 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 27 28 Charley Jones 67 6 2 2 1 1 28 33 Ed Williamson 60 7 1 1 3 2 29 29 Addie Joss 47 5 1 1 2 1 30 31 John McGraw 46 4 1 1 2 31 30 Frank Chance 43 4 1 1 1 1 32 32 Lave Cross 34 3 1 2 33 37 Vic Willis 32 4 1 1 2 34 38 Fielder Jones 30 4 1 3 35 35 Harry Wright 28 2 1 1 36 34 Jim McCormick 25 3 1 1 1 37 42 Herman Long 19 2 1 1 38 40 Silver King 15 2 1 1 39 -- Tommy Bond 13 1 1 40 43T Sol White 7 1 1 41T 41 Fred Dunlap 6 1 1 41T -- Mike Tiernan 6 1 1 41T -- Tony Mullane 6 1 1 41T 36 Johnny Evers 6 1 1 Dropped Out: Jim Whitney (39), Charlie Buffinton (43T) JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: April 22, 2004 at 07:10 AM | 35 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2024
(13 - 11:23pm, Dec 08) Last: Space Force fan 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (191 - 7:43pm, Dec 07) Last: Howie Menckel 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Ballot (4 - 3:10pm, Dec 07) Last: Jaack Hall of Merit Book Club (17 - 10:20am, Dec 07) Last: cookiedabookie Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (28 - 10:54pm, Dec 03) Last: cardsfanboy Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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. Jim Sp Posted: April 22, 2004 at 01:27 PM (#524047)Dickey, you played little league...
Also I still see us electing 10 of this backlog by 1932 plus newly eligibles Magee, Jackson, Baker, Hill and Poles (not necessarily in their first years), then in '33 the Big Train and either Zack Wheat or another backlogger.
The first 8 backloggers look fairly secure, but the 9-10 slots are really up for grabs. Pearce and Pike are next in line now and along with Jennings might stand to get the extra bonus slot or two. But they will also miss a lot of ballots that Beckley, Waddell and Ryan will be on. That's 6 strong candidates for the last 2 (or 3) slots.
My personal bias would be for everybody to consider Williamson and C. Jones for those slots (since they probably won't get any higher than that).
Looks like Williamson will be on my ballot by '27. As for Jones, I might be his greatest friend now.
You had Jones 9th. His greatest friends, both of whom had him 7th, were Marc and Rick A. Marc was also Williamson's greatest friend, putting him 6th. You and Marc are tied as greatest friends of Pearce (2nd in both case). Given how closely Pearce and Pike are coupled in the standings, and the tendency for the same people to vote for both, it's intersting that neither of you have Pike in the top 15.
You haven't seen my prelim, have you? :-)
IIRC, Brouthers and Mathewson are the two others who were elected in two-player selection years and were named 1st or 2nd on every ballot.
This is also the 5th straight year we've elected someone born in PA.
This has to stop.
As for the Shoeless one, I will be boycotting in 1926 but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was elected without my help, and then you'll never know how I would have rated him! ;-)
Seriously, his career is only #3 among the 12 ML LFers I evaluated who are eligible through 1939 (after Wheat and Magee), but he did have the #1 peak and the #1 prime. I have him pretty even with Sam Crawford--better peak, obviously not as good a prime or career. Not sure if I would have him ahead or behind and won't have to worry about it now. And I have him a little ahead of Sam Thompson who has been the fully documented (statistically) position player at the top of my ballot over a fair period of time, sort of the standard other position players have to top. Joe does.
If he is eligible (not already elected) in 1927 I would have to decide where he goes compared to Caruthers and Pearce. Otherwise, he da man.
My point isn't that he doesn't belong on our ballots (he does), but that he shouldn't sail in as if he were the inner circle guy he could have been. It took Flick a few years; it should take Jackson a few, too.
Comps (Career)
As I will in '27 (because I will boycott him in '26).
Browning (9.5 seasons) actually played a greater percentage of his teams' scheduled games than Jackson (8.7) did (O'Neill was less at 7.8).
Not necessarily. It really implies uniqueness. And his uniqueness was in combining being pretty similar to Paul Waner until getting banned for life.
Comparing him to Tris Speaker means, what, he hit like a Gold Glove center fielder while being at best an average glove at a corner spot himself (James rates him C+; BP rates his as 101 in RF, 96 in the more demanding LF). Please, he's not Tris Speaker, even at Joe's best.
I see the Win Shares comparison to Flick; they're pretty close. WARP sees them differently, with Flick about 12% better, about one extra top-notch season, a significant difference (Jackson's war-work will make up part of that, but I have to decide how much, if any, to dock him for 1919/1920).
I haven't rated his peak yet, but unless he can top Cobb and Speaker, he looks like another candidate for the glut, just more romantic than most due to the might-have-beens for his career.
Except that you went on to express something entirely different than what he said: If your career is only half as long as Cobb or Speaker, then you better have a (forget Cobb and Speaker), you better have "a really high peak."
The question is whether he IS better than 10 guys on the ballot.
That's all he said (with euphemism for "really high.").
OK. I think we all agree!
adjWS 3 year consecutive----adj to 162 game season--Pike 149 Cobb 136 Speaker 132 Jackson 8th at 112. The adj to 162 games means that the 19th century guys do real well on this measure.
adjWS 5 year non-consecutive--Cobb 230 Pike 217 Speaker 210 Jackson 6th at 183.
adjWARP1 3 year consecutive--adj by the WARP ^1/2--Jennings 53.0 Speaker 47.6 Cobb 45.7 Jackson 8th at 38.4.
adjWARP1 5 year non-consecutive--Collins 83.5 Jennings 81.5 Cobb 79.4 Jackson 10th at 59.0. It is worth noting that Cobb doesn't dominate everything.
AdjLWTS 3 year consecutive--adj by ^1/2 (LWTS per TB7)--Speaker 22.4 Jennings 20.7 Collins 20.5 Jackson 5th at 19.9.
AdjLWTS 5 year non-consecutive--Speaker 35.4 Cobb 34.9 Collins 34.7 Jackson 5th at 28.3.
So his peak is very good by every measure but even at his best he was certainly not Cobb or Speaker or Collins or even Hughie Jennings.
Still among ML with statistical documentation (so, not including Pop Lloyd or Dickey Pearce who may rank higher, and maybe there are 1-2 others, I don't know), I have Jackson overall behind only Cobb, Speaker and Collins and about equal to Frank Baker and Harry Heilmann (and including--i.e. better than--everybody already eligible) between now and 1939. IOW a N-B after the boycott.
No it is not, at least for Edgar, who has a long respectable career. Belle's argument (like Jackson's) will be a peak argument, and so I will evaluate him in part by placing him in the context of his contemporaries, which includes Bonds.
Doing that for Jackson, well, Cobb and Speaker are his direct contemporaries. When Joe's at his peak, he's the third best outfielder and maybe the 6th best player in MLB. (Eddie Collins and Walter Johnson complete the big 4 of 1911-15 and then there's a big gap.) Jackson is competitive with Baker, young Alexander (getting better), and a fading Wagner. When the time comes, I'll also compare absolute values for peaks amongst everybody on the ballot, but that's only worth so much, because the peak values decline over time.
He's nowhere near the best player in baseball, or even the best outfielder in baseball. We're ignoring some guys who can brag about being such (Jennings, Caruthers, Bond for best player, King as best pitcher, Williamson, Dunlap as best infielder, Fielder Jones, Lip Pike, Dave Eggler as best outfielder) because they also had short careers.
Why the double standard? (If you don't already have a healthy sampling from the above-mentioned players on your ballot; if you do and support Jackson, well we just differ about measuring his peak value then.)
"euphemism for "really high.""
Marc and ed, you're both right, depending on which portion of my system is involved. In my ballot comparitive portion, he'll have to have a "really high peak", better than the other guys on the ballot, to score well there, to help make up for the short career. In my "contemporaries" portion, Jackson has to beat out his contemporaries to score well for peak, even though they happen to be Speaker and Cobb and Johnson and Collins.
John Murphy had a bit to say about how it was easier to be a 200 game winner in the 1880's; does he have anything to say about how easy it was to be an all-time top-10 great in the oughts/teens/twenties? (John, I hope you don't take this wrong; I sincerely enjoy reading your point of view on issues and debating with you because, like me, I know you don't take things personally. ;-) 7 of the top 11 by Win Shares are active then, so I'm not quite as reverential about them setting "impossibly high" standards. I look at it more as the period when the overall quality was still low enough to make domination easier (like 19th century baseball) but the game's stability, etc. made longer careers easier (as in later decades).
How do I answer this? I think it was easier for position players to have longer careers during the beginning of the last century than during the 19th century. I also think it was easier for position players to achieve and maintain their peaks during the "oughts/teens/twenties" than the previous century's stars could.
I have stated here that I thought that Jackson belonged in the top-five. Doing some more work on him, I'm not so sure anymore (for the reasons stated in the last paragraph). There's no doubt in mind that, if he hadn't derailed his career, he would be an inner circle "no-brainer" peak and career selection. However, his career was very short for his time and position. That was his fault and we shouldn't reward for his role in the Black Sox scandal by extrapolating his career numbers.
IOW, I'm having a tough time figuring out where to place him. :-)
(John, I hope you don't take this wrong; I sincerely enjoy reading your point of view on issues and debating with you because, like me, I know you don't take things personally. ;-)
I have read this about me a few times now, but I always worry that I come off as an ornery cuss most of the time in my posts. I'll give myself points for tenaciousness, though (Ezra Sutton and Dickey Pearce second that). :-D
It seems unlikely that Strawberry could be a fictional character in the literature of the 2030's in the way that Joe Jackson appeared in W.P. Kinsiella's novel - but you never know.
Just to expand on this a little bit. The top guys of this era get to have the stratospheric peaks of the 19th century guys because the competition is still not at the level we'll arrive at in the late 30's when the farm systems are funnelling all available (white) talent into MLB. OTOH, they also appear to have the long primes and career length that the later guys have due to whatever it is, advances in training methods or team stability or fan appreciation for established stars, or none of the above. The result is a relatively large number of players with the combination of unusually high career value due to the multiplicative combination of long-prime/high-peak, all playing at the same time.
Win Shares has 7 of the top 12 playing nearly simultaneously (Young and Ruth do not overlap). There is a similar interlude during the 50's with 5 of the top 13 all active. Bonds is the true outlier, transcending his era like maybe noone has done before (more analysis needed here). WARP sees it pretty similarly, though dropping Mantle in favor of Lajoie due to league quality.
I think that in the 19th century there was very little appreciation of the link between nutrition and health, except at the extreme (the low extreme, that is, where obviously it was understood that poverty and poor health were related). But the wealthy and even the middle class, such as it was, adopted conspicuous consumption to the point where obesity was a sign of status. Baseball players as early as the '70s made pretty good money and the temptations of food and drink were powerful, more so even than today, becuase there was no counter-acting philosophy or science about what made for good health.
The public health movement began to take shape around the turn of the century and was influential by the time of WWI. The immediate impact was in the area of sanitation, however, not immediately on such personal vices as gluttony and drunkenness. But even so we saw a dramatic increase in life expectancy around this time as certain illnesses became less and less common. There were an awful lot of baseball players who died young in the 19th and early 20th century. Later the Ross Young's and Lou Gehrig's became a little more unusual. But that is only the grosser effect.
It was probably even later, though, that an appreciation for physical conditioning and even eating and drinking habits took hold, maybe even after WWII from a mass culture standpoint.
Then there is the issue of mental illness. It seems to me that there was a lot of it in baseball in the 19th century. Not just drunkenness, etc., but even more grossly self-destructive behaviors, murder, suicide, etc.
And of course household accidents.
The reduction of all of which indeed had, as jimd says, a multiplicative effect on health, conditioning, etc., of all Americans, including professional athletes. If anything, however, I would guess that, just like today, professional athletes--young men coming into money--perhaps even lagged rather than led the improvements in health in certain respects, drunkenness foremost among them.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main