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, June 14, 2004

1928 Ballot

Balloting for 1928 is now open. I’ll have my revised WARP numbers up this week (I’ve got the eligibles done, need to do the HoMers now), based on BRARP+FRAA+PRAR. These numbers overrate pitchers because the replacement level for their offense is underrated. I’ve adjusted for season length as well.

An early tease, the top 8 (I think? need to look again, numbers are not on this PC) eligibles are all pitchers. Several of them are old timers, to whom the season-adjustments maybe shouldn’t apply. Obviously there is something wrong with that, so I need to do the current HoMers for perspective.

Hopefully I get the current HoMers done tonight, but there are 50 of them (47 with stats) so it likely won’t be until tomorrow night (early Wednesday). I’ll be tweaking my ballot somewhat this week as there were a few surprises.

Another thing I noticed is the monumental difference between WARP and WS fielding evaluations on some players. So I’ll list each component (BRARP, FRAA, PRAR) for both WARP1 and WARP2 and I’ll give the player’s WS defensive letter grade also. Once I can get the data input, I’ll list his season length adjusted WS total too, but that’s not likely to be out until 1929.

JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 14, 2004 at 08:24 PM | 196 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2004 at 02:03 PM (#687493)
I feel like Lucy on the conveyor belt, barely managing at this point to keep the ballots coming. Losing all that cumulative stuff in the changeover is painful, and a rally-killer. Also find the new format inconvenient in so many other ways. sigh.

1. FRANK BAKER - Not the crappy Yankees 1970ish SS. This Frank Baker could hit homers, relatively speaking. Significant positional bonus, yes, but some huge peak years, too. A coupla weird missing years, hard to say if he gets a credit on those. But for this feeble ballot, he's a No. 1.
2. JOE MCGINNITY - Concerns about what kind of precedent we set by electing Ironman are understandable, but I think he clearly knocks out the SP competition of the time. Winning games was all they cared about, and he did it quite well, majors and minors.
3. LIP PIKE - One more 1870s star before the rest of this pack; it bugs me a little that he didn't get to play much with 'the big boys' at a time when they seemed to seek each other out, but the hitting numbers are dazzling.
4. JAKE BECKLEY - Once you move out the slam-dunk HOMers, the counting stats achievements stand out more. Very good for a very long time, a lonely perch in ranking below hitting's all-timers and above everyone else. Can someone finally explain what Keeler has that Beckley doesn't?
5. MICKEY WELCH - These next three all have moved up several spots for 1928. Still convinced we got a little off-track in the Keefe-Welch-Clarkson discussion; OK if we rate Welch third in that bunch, but not sure how he got THIS far behind. Went 61-34 vs HOMer pitching opponents. Yes, he had a very good team, but he lived up to that in the showdowns.
6. RUBE FOSTER - He impressed too many people for me to doubt him totally. It's not just that he fared well in head to head games with Three-Finger Brown, it's that everyone EXPECTED him to. Did benefit from his park, though.
7. BOBBY WALLACE - I've probably been underrating him a bit; looking for a post that gets me more excited about him.
8. JIMMY SHECKARD - Left startlingly few fingerprints in terms of baseball's collective memory, but you have to love the
all-around skills and imprint on pennant winners.
9. CLARK GRIFFITH - A personal favorite, I suppose: It's remarkable how much better he was than the teams he pitched for. I think he was a brilliant strategist long before he became a manager, and it showed in his pitching.
10. PETE BROWNING - Moves up four spots in 1928. Great hitter, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time.
Has been discounted too much for AA numbers, and may move up further for me.
11. FRANK CHANCE - Probably the kind of guy in mind of those who want 20 ballot spots. Came in at a tough time, too little time on the field. But now you look at the competition, and you see his contributions outshone most. Could move up further if a FOFC convinces me to.
12. SAM THOMPSON - Still have a hunch that we'll wind up with dozens of OFs in the Thompson range; if I'm wrong he'll get in many yrs from now. Damn good hitter.
13. DICKEY PEARCE - Have 'rethunk' a bit, again to where I'm seriously debating who I'd want in the HOM. Can live with him, but not sure he was really THAT good.
14. CUPID CHILDS - I used to tout him; for some reason lost the love. But was the 2B of the 1890s, in a one-team era. Could be convinced to move up further.
15. BOB CARUTHERS - Back on the ballot for first time in several years. Tough to encapsulate what it means when a special hitter and special
hitter share the same body/same season.

GEORGE VAN HALTREN - Starting to inch back on the radar screen, not a HOMer but good enough to rate strong ballot consideration. Pitching edges him past Ryan and Duffy and friends.
HUGHIE JENNINGS - This career annoys me. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies little
else and even plays those games at 1B for a further discount. Tough call.
RUBE WADDELL - Strikeouts are cool, but cooler if you know what to do with them. Refuse to believe that this scatterbrain failed to win games just by bad luck.
   102. Adam Schafer Posted: June 19, 2004 at 03:16 PM (#687506)
Practically no change on my ballot this year with the exception of Baker taking the spot that was held by Shoeless Joe last year. I've found reason to add anyone new to the ballot or to change rankings amongst those I had already ranked.

1. Frank Baker (n/a) - The greatest third baseman yet. An easy choice for #1

2. Mickey Welch (2) - 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.

3. Joe McGinnity (3) - Hard pick between him and Welch, I'm not one to base a career on 3000 hits, or 300 wins, but in this case it was the deciding factor on putting Welch ahead of McGinnity

4. Sam Thompson (4) - 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.

5. Bobby Wallace (5) - 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.

6. Jake Beckley (6) - Again, I'm a career lover

7. Rube Waddell (7) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive years. he's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

8. Roger Bresnahan (8) - 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.

9. Lip Pike (9) - I can see him finally getting in one of these days.

10. Hughie Jennings (10) - Nothing new to add

11. George Van Haltren (11) - 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.

12. Jimmy Ryan (12) - See Van Haltren

13. Bobby Carruthers (13) - Leap frogs over Griffith as I take a longer look at Bobby

14. Clark Griffith (14) - He's still hanging around the bottom, I'd like to see him move up

15. Eddie Cicotte (15) - the ban is over, he bumps Sheckard
   103. Guapo Posted: June 20, 2004 at 08:38 AM (#688842)
Decided 2 pitchers on last week's ballot was too few. My re-review of the pitchers didn't clear anything up. Decided to add a couple- unfortunately, they're not the popular ones.

1. Frank Baker- Best third baseman in history to date. Absolutely, no doubt about it, inner circle.
2. Rube Foster- Thinking about it, I have a feeling his contemporaries would snort at Pete Hill getting in before him. (Yeah, I know, I had Hill ahead of him last week too.) Was benchmarked throughout his career by observers to guys like Rusie, Young and Waddell. I can’t hold it against him that he didn’t have the career arc of an Eddie Plank.
3. Larry Doyle- Well, his B-Pro stat page suggests an interesting comp- was he the Derek Jeter of the teens? Star middle infielder for NY champion team, but a defensive suckhole? Relative to his league, Doyle looks better than Jeter Finished in top 10 in league in OPS+ 7 times, in HR 6 times, in XBH 6 times, in times on base 5 times. He was a dominant offensive player in the league, comparable to Clarke and Magee, except he was a second baseman. As for his defense... well, on the one hand you have the B-Pro #s. On the other hand, Win Shares gives him a C+, John McGraw was apparently willing to live with him, and he was well regarded by his contemporaries (see BJHA, 1984 version). In other words, the jury’s out, and he doesn’t deserve a penalty that could negate his offensive preeminence.
4. Joe McGinnity- The only other eligible pitcher I feel strongly about electing.
5. Bill Monroe- Jumps up a few spots this year. Rube Foster reportedly described him as the greatest player he ever saw. Long career, certainly comparable to Grant.
6. The Honorable Gavvy Cravath- Per James, he’s currently a sitting judge in Laguna, California. Yes, a short career, but a dominant bigleaguer for 5 years. Plus, vote for him and he might wipe out your parking tickets.
7. Ed Konetchy - The best first baseman of his time, largely forgotten because of the era and teams for which he played.
8. Roger Bresnahan- I sense some momentum building for his candidacy, which I support. Obviously benefits from a big positional boost. Very unique career makes him difficult to compare to others, and so ranking him is a challenge.
9. Lip Pike- Others have made the arguments, and they’re convincing. The premier outfielder of his time.
10. Frank Chance- Keith Hernandez comp? An OBP stud who was an offensive star, albeit for a short time.
11. Fielder Jones- The best centerfielder in baseball between Hamilton and Cobb. I feel, passionately, that he’s one of the most underrated players in baseball history. Which is a sure sign I need to get a new hobby.
12. Dickey Pearce- OK, I’m convinced again. Probably more of a “career” than a “peak” player, but based on the stats I’m thinking his peak was at least very good. Thanks to all who responded to my question on the ballot discussion thread.
13. Mickey Welch.
14. Hippo Vaughn
I see a serious glut among the remaining pitchers. In chronological order, McCormick, Welch, Caruthers, Mullane, Waddell, Willis, Ciccotte, and Vaughn are all very close. Rather than penalize them all, I decided to go with one from the 1880s and one from the teens. Welch’s career value was the tiebreaker for the 1880s guys. I actually like Hippo’s peak a little better than Cicotte’s- He had five terrific years, including a potential MVP season in 1918. Plus he didn’t throw no World Series, and apparently pitched competitively until he was in his 50s, according to James.
15. Charley Jones- sneaks on the ballot. Will probably bounce on and off, depending on whose eligible. There are a bunch of other guys who could rank here.
   104. Guapo Posted: June 20, 2004 at 08:40 AM (#688843)
The Consensus Says Yes, But The Ballot Says No:

Bobby Wallace: Current lows at the “important” rate stats for all HOMers whose careers started after 1876: AVG: Bid McPhee, .271; OBP: Jack Glasscock, .337; SLG: McPhee, .372. Wallace is going for the trifecta with .268/.332/.358. The baseline cometh.

Jimmy Sheckard: Actually pretty close to the ballot- I have him close to C. Jones. Very good player, but I see him as the third-best leftfielder in his not-particularly deep league for most of his career, behind Clarke and Magee.

Sam Thompson: I like the 1880s-1890s outfield glut as follows: Duffy, Tiernan, Ryan, Thompson, Van Haltren. At least this week, er, year. So he’s got some people to jump over.

Bob Caruthers: Toughest player to rank? I just don’t see his peak as that much greater than several of his contemporaries, who had markedly longer careers.

Jake Beckley: A personal fave, but he was the fourth best 1B for most of his career, whereas Konetchy and Chance were the best of their eras.

George Van Haltren: See Thompson comment. Will never make my ballot.

Jimmy Ryan: I’d take Jimmy over GVH based on peak. Ryan’s not a bad candidate, but he’s going to have to wait to get a vote from me.

Rube Waddell: Undoubtedly great, but probably about the seventh best pitcher of his era behind a lot of guys who’ve already been elected.

Hughie Jennings- Slipped off my ballot- I’m sure he’ll sneak back on the bottom in years to come. Big-time player, but peak is relatively short, and it’s not like the HOM is hurting for 90's shortstops.

Clark Griffith- probably should take another look at him- he’s not even quite at glut level for me. I see a long, distinguished career, but was rarely one of the very best pitchers in the league.
   105. Jeff M Posted: June 20, 2004 at 04:55 PM (#688900)
I’ll have my revised WARP numbers up this week (I’ve got the eligibles done, need to do the HoMers now), based on BRARP+FRAA+PRAR.

Joe, if I understand your project correctly, you are mostly trying to make the WARP fielding component make more sense (i.e., substituting FRAA for FRAR)?

I just added a post to the 1927 ballot on your debate about whether WARP1 uses BRARP or BRAR. You may have already resolved that debate, but the post is there if you want to read it. It may not be conclusive, but maybe food for thought.

Another thing I noticed is the monumental difference between WARP and WS fielding evaluations on some players.

This has always bothered me. Has anyone looked at whether fielding WS matches FRAA better than FRAR (or vice versa)?
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 20, 2004 at 05:14 PM (#688908)
12. Dickey Pearce- OK, I’m convinced again. Probably more of a “career” than a “peak” player, but based on the stats I’m thinking his peak was at least very good. Thanks to all who responded to my question on the ballot discussion thread.

Bless you, kind sir! :-)
   107. Jeff M Posted: June 20, 2004 at 06:41 PM (#689029)
Has anyone looked at whether fielding WS matches FRAA better than FRAR (or vice versa)?

Responding to my own question. I plucked 20 random players covering various positions (mostly SS, Catcher and Outfield) over various eras, and calculated the correlation coefficient between Fielding WS and FRAR on the one hand, and Fielding WS and FRAA on the other. I used unadjusted numbers for Fielding WS, FRAR and FRAA.

As you might imagine, there is some variation in how good the correlation is, but as a general matter, based on this smattering of players, Fielding WS correlates fairly well with FRAR and poorly with FRAA.

The worst correlation between Fielding WS and FRAR was .73 (Jeter), and the vast majority were in the .90s. The best correlation between Fielding WS and FRAA was .91 (Bench, who also had the highest correlation with FRAR), but most were in the low .70s and some were quite a bit lower (.62 for Terry Moore, .48 for Gore and .13 for Jeter).

Obviously 20 players isn't conclusive by any stretch, but it may be a hint that when Joe produces new WARP numbers using FRAA instead of FRAR, we may be getting further away from WS on the fielding issue.

And of course, that may be okay. The DiminoWARP may be the right answer and WS may be wrong. But I think it is worth noting.
   108. Ken Fischer Posted: June 20, 2004 at 11:40 PM (#689294)
1928 Ballot

I missed the vote last time. Sorry folks. I have missed only 1898 (the first one) & 1927. I have Rube Foster and Sol White on my ballot. Based on several historical accounts, I vote for them not as pioneers but as outstanding players.

1-Bob Caruthers 337 WS
Yes, it was a short career but great winning pct. And Bob had an incredible run from 1885-1890. Probably had a bigger impact on his teams winning flags than the rest of the players on my ballot (possible exception Thompson in 1887 and a couple of Baker’s seasons)

2-Dickey Pearce
Best candidate to provide the HOM a link back to the pre-NABBP days. Played in the 1858 NY-Brooklyn All-Star series…was still in the line-up when the NL started. Dickey’s time is coming

3-Bobby Wallace 345 WS
I go back & forth on Wallace. He has the career value & win shares…but he usually had teammates that overshadowed him. But his numbers are solid and managers obviously valued him enough on the early AL Browns teams to keep him around a long time.

4-Jimmy Sheckard 339 WS
Solid win share numbers…strong peak…walked a lot…maybe a Billy Beane type player…one of those guys that gets hidden in the traditional stats.

5-Frank Baker 301 WS
One of the few third basemen to stand out between Jimmy Collins & Eddie Mathews as HOM material. A fairly short career but helped define third basemen until Harlond Clift and others came on the scene. His time with the Yankees gets
lost in the shuffle because of the Babe.

6-Rube Foster
Rube won 44 games in a row in 1902. I know it wasn’t major league…but still quite a feat for any pitcher on any team

7-Joe McGinnity 269 WS
The Iron Man may make it in this time after finishing third in ’27…he will be a worthy addition…but I believe Caruthers did more for his teams in 1880s than Joe did for the Giants in the 1900s…it may be close…but I think Bob has the edge

8-George Van Haltren 344 WS
Ryan & Van are career guys…I think they helped their teams a little more than Beckley. Van gets edge over Ryan…he pitched a little. Like his teammate George Davis, Van is hurt by playing during the Giants’ dark period.

9-Jimmy Ryan 316 WS

10-Sam Thompson 236 WS
Great numbers & great teammates…never led team in Win Shares after 1887…but I believe he’ll eventually make it into the HOM

11-Jake Beckley 318 WS
Similar situation as Wallace…Jake never led his team in win shares but consistent throughout his career.

12-Lip Pike
I’m sold now on Pike. One of those 1870s guys overlooked by history…but Dickey should go in first. A great run in the NA’s five years…with some power.

13-Sol White
Formed and starred on the 1902 team that included Foster. Mentioned along with Grant, G. Stovey and Fowler as one of the outstanding Negro players of 19th Century.

14-Hugh Duffy 295 WS
More than the great .440 season of 1894. Played on some great teams including the AA Reds…became one of the Heavenly Twins…a 4 league guy

15-Rube Waddell 240 WS
A strange guy known to chase fire trucks…but a great pitcher for the early Connie
Mack teams…hurt by short career (3 of 13 seasons 10 or less games)

Top 15 not on ballot: Hughie Jennings is right below at #16 for me with Griffith at #20. Having Foster & White on my ballot keep them off for now.
   109. Rob_Wood Posted: June 21, 2004 at 12:14 AM (#689387)
My 1928 ballot:

1. Sam Thompson: great turn of the century hitter
2. Frank Baker: one of the all time best 3rd sackers
3. Bobby Wallace: very good and long career
4. Larry Doyle: very good hitting second baseman
5. Jake Beckley: very good and long career
6. Jimmy Sheckard: sporadically great
7. Dickey Pearce: I wholeheartedly support Pearce
8. Rube Waddell: awesome strikeout totals for era
9. Addie Joss: fabulous ERA's
10. Charley Jones: good all around player
11. Roger Bresnahan: very good player for awhile
12. Lip Pike: overlooked early star
13. Ed Konetchy: underrated first sacker
14. Cupid Childs: very good second sacker
15. Joe McGinnity: great pitcher for a few years

I did not vote for Bob Caruthers though I have in the past and may well again (he's in my top 20).
   110. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 12:17 AM (#689399)
I missed the vote last time. Sorry folks. I have missed only 1898 (the first one) & 1927.

This is going to affect your eligibility for the good citizenship award. :)
   111. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: June 21, 2004 at 12:34 AM (#689467)
Baker’s the only new eligible to make my ballot, and I don’t see anybody else in the class of ’28 likely to make my ballot in the future.

1928 ballot:

1. Joe McGinnity: Terrific career, a bit short in years. 2CYA, 5 STATS AS, workhorse, led league in wins 5 times, innings 4 times. Is it finally Joe’s year?.

2. Frank Baker: A true standout at an underrepresented position. I think he looks really good regardless of position.

3. Sam Thompson: MVP, 6 STATS AS. Strong Warp3, WS not so strong. While stats are somewhat bloated by the era, still a standout among his contemporaries.

4. Jake Beckley: At or near the top at his position for about 10 years. Long, steady career, lots of gray ink. 3 STATS AS.

5. Pete Browning: Monster hitter, even considering AA discount. 8-time STATS all-star.

6. Bobby Wallace: Long steady career like Beckley, good WS. Only 1 AS but a backup 7 more times.

7. Larry Doyle: No questions about his offensive credentials. There are some about his defensive ability, but if he were substandard, wouldn’t McGraw have moved him elsewhere?

8. Mickey Welch: Not dominant, but pitched a lot, pitched well. There are a number of borderline pitching candidates kicking around now. He’s got the career totals to put him inside the border, and the recent discussions have made me more & more comfortable about supporting him.

9. Clark Griffith: Solid, long career, McGinnity-like stats but spread out over more years. A top pitcher in the offense-heavy 90s.

10. Bob Caruthers: Terrific pitching record, good hitter. A lot of value largely packed into 8 years. Short career and playing in the “wrong” league hurts his ranking some.

11. Roger Bresnahan: Looks like the best catcher post-Bennett and there’s nobody looming on the horizon to challenge him. Positional boost moves him up.

12. Bill Monroe: Made 4 of Holway’s first 6 all-star teams, the last in his next-to-last year at age 37.

13. Hugh Duffy: Solid WS and WS/162, excellent defense in CF. Warp3 doesn’t like him as well.

14. Rube Waddell: MVP/CYA in 1905, good ERA & ERA+, lots of strikeouts.

15. Lip Pike: In his first 7 NA-NL seasons, I make him a first- or second-team all-star every year.

In 1927 top 10, off ballot:

Jimmy Sheckard: Win shares and Warp3 really like him. A few very strong seasons mixed with so-so ones. He’s not at or near the top in his position often enough to suit me.

Dickey Pearce: The first real shortstop, portrayed in Nineteenth Century Stars as an intelligent player who overcame his physical limitations to excel. Also portrayed as the best shortstop pre-Wright. He was the best in a very small universe. He did play forever, which helps him in my book.
   112. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 12:55 AM (#689572)
My system is in a transitional phase for this ballot, so the explanations of rankings will be a little thinner than previous years (and years to come).

1. Bob Caruthers
I know WS may overrate 1880’s pitchers, but after applying the AA discount he tops out at 40 pitching WS for a season, which seems reasonable. As a two-way player matched only by the transitional Babe Ruth, Caruthers’ 1885-89 peak just dominates everyone else. My 287 calculated season length adjusted Win Shares over those five years are almost silly, but I think that shows just how much of an outlier this guy was—he was the best hitter and the best pitcher in his league in ’86, and the best pitcher and second-best hitter in ’87. WARP loves his peak too, and he actually tops the ballot in career WS while placing well above average in the Ink categories. The more I look at him, he was simply an unparalleled player, and we would be amiss not to recognize this level of dominance.

2. Joe McGinnity
The guy just racked up Black Ink like there was no tomorrow , and due to all those innings had the second-best peak Win Shares of anyone on the ballot. He had a real ability to prevent hits on balls in play--his allowed BABIP was 7% lower than his teammates for his career, and 16% lower from 1902-04 (when he pitched with Mathewson, no less). He’s not my kind of player, but I’ve gotta give him credit.

3. Frank Baker
Best 3B we've seen to date, IMO. Scores superbly on my Ink tests, excellent peak WS, above average everywhere. At a thin position, he should get in on this first ballot.

4. Sam Thompson
Big Sam doesn’t dominate any category, but he was possibly a better hitter than Baker (just at a much less valuable position). Way above average in WARP, Gray Ink, and my modified OPS+. Only WS doesn’t really like him, and even then he comes out just below average for this ballot in both career and peak. Let’s face it, guys: The man could hit.

5. Rube Waddell
As a DIPS devotee, I have a soft spot for Waddell, who from 1902-08 struck out 1/3 more batters per 9 than the league's second-place finishers in K’s per 9, including 1902 when he fanned hitters 82% more often than next-best finisher Jack Powell. Excellent Ink, lifetime ERA+*Years, and peak ERA+. But WARP and WS just don’t see it. He’s one of my favorites, and I have no doubt he is a HoM’er, but he really only pitched for ten years and was only great in four of them.

6. Pete Browning
Rated higher before I applied the AA discount, but was still the fifth-best hitter of his era (Brouthers, Connor, Anson, Kelly). He tops the ballot in OPS+*Years, while registering well-above-average scores in Peak OPS+ and both Ink categories and holding his own in peak WARP and WS and career WS. Just an extraordinary and underappreciated hitter.

7. Jimmy Sheckard
Near the top of the ballot in career WARP and WS, nice peak WARP and Black Ink.

8. Lip Pike
Estimating his pre-NA play at about 5.5 WARP per season, his peak OPS+ was exceptional, and he’s average or above everywhere else. He really did own the NA. As there aren't fielding WS for the NA I may be underestimating his Ink scores. I don’t see what makes McVey, who got in over a decade ago, so much stronger than the Lip.
   113. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 21, 2004 at 12:55 AM (#689573)
9. Clark Griffith
My defense-independent WARP really likes him--he had more of a peak than I gave him credit for. The no. 4 pitcher of his era (Young, Nichols, Rusie) is good enough for me.

10. Gavvy Cravath
Oh how I love thee, Cactus Gavvy. When all those weenie deadball slap hitters were jackrabbiting around the bases, you were playing baseball as it was meant to be played, drawing walks and cranking longballs. Your superb power-hitting peak shows up in a dominant Black Ink score, and good finishes in the OPS+ categories. But even crediting you as a 13.5 WS player from 1909-1911, you just can’t get it done in the counting stats, especially WARP, which found your glovework (aside from 1915) quite unimpressive.

11. Charley Jones
Now crediting for the blacklist years, he was one of the premier hitters of his era.

12. Addie Joss
Back on my ballot! My defense-independent WARP says he was a leetle better than Cicotte.

13. Eddie Cicotte
See above.

14. Jimmy Ryan
I used to not be able to tell between Sheckard, Ryan, and GVH, but he didn't peak like Jimmy--can't compete in Ink or peak WARP.

15. Hugh Duffy
Good career WS.
   114. Guapo Posted: June 21, 2004 at 01:30 AM (#689698)
Bless you, kind sir! :-)

Thanks, John. I assume the check is in the mail? ;-)
   115. robc Posted: June 21, 2004 at 01:53 AM (#689806)

The correlation stuff makes sense because WS is measuring versus a replacement level. Since no one has negative fielding WS (right?) and it is possible to get negative FRAR, the WS fielding replacement level is lower than for FRAR, but that is still much closer than to the zero point for FRAA.
   116. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 02:26 AM (#689970)
Right, RobC. I forgot to put the conceptual comment in my post, and I've been talking too much anyway. :)

Since I've been one of the people that complains occasionally about the different defensive ratings of WS and WARP1, my ears pricked up when I heard Joe's project to swap FRAA for FRAR in the WARP1 formula.
   117. MichaelD Posted: June 21, 2004 at 04:28 AM (#690148)
Since I spent a lot of time looking at the numbers last time there are very few changes this year.

Frank Baker makes my PHOM on the first ballot along with Ross Barnes after 31 ballots.

1. Frank Baker - It is possible to be a top career choice even with a short career. When I ran the numbers for my system Baker came out on top. Even slight consideration of the scarcity of 3B guarentees him the top spot for me.

2. Jimmy Sheckard - In defense of his defense Win Shares for defense for years when he was not with the Cubs and with a bunch of different teams. That seems to suggest that he was a strong defender, not just lucky in my opinion.

3. Bobby Wallace - Nice career. I flip-flopped Sheckard and Wallace.

4. Jimmy Ryan - I'm not sure what else to say. I guess I'm not necesarrily the biggest FOJR for a while now.

5. George Van Haltren - Before I was discounting his Win Shares too much for his pitching. I've moved him up even more this "year" passing Duffy because when I looked under the numbers it supported the numbers that said he should be ahead.

6. Hugh Duffy - Every time I do a re-analysis, Duffy or Ryan turns out to be slightly in front of the other and it flip-flops each time. Now Ryan has the slight edge.

7. Tommy Leach - I guess he is my type of player, lots of career Win Shares. 3b was still a key defensive position while he was playing there, so the defensive Win Shares make sense.

8. Gavvy Cravath - I'm right now giving him a middling bump up for his missed years (about half a full year) but could give him more.

9. Jake Beckley - Hard to ignore his entire career. Even though the peak is not very high, he was still often the best first baseman. Moved up slightly this year.

10. Larry Doyle - Falls a little because of the points Joe made talking about questions about his defense with regards to WS and WARP.

11. Joe McGinnity - He has fallen due to a downward revision of all pitchers. I might have overdone it and he could bounce back up next time.

Project personal 1932 cut line.

12. Sam Thompson - I re-evaluated the early players versus the later ones, by the numbers they still seem to be lacking but I gave them a little bit of a bump beyond what the numbers suggest. Thompson ends up here.

13. Clark Griffith - Also drops downward because of the pitcher re-adjustment.

14. Ed Williamson - There is now a chance Williamson could re-work into my PHOM situation again. A couple of years ago, I would have thought that highly unlikely.

15. Mike Tiernan - I always thought he was a little inferior to Thompson. The two are pretty close but that slight difference could be pretty important at this level.

Next groups. Listed alphabetically. Like what I do with grades, I tried to find break for these groups.

16-21: Bresnahan, Caruthers, Chance, Childs, Evers and Konetchy.

22-27: Jennings, Monroe, Pearce, Tinker and Welch.

28-30: Cross, Mullane Pike and Waddell.
   118. MichaelD Posted: June 21, 2004 at 04:36 AM (#690150)
Missing ballot:

Lip Pike - I think that Pearce is superior now. Pike just doesn't seem strong enough compared to his contempories already elected. I think I have the right number, but I'm sure others would disagree.

Dickey Pearce - Other than the early Negro Leaguers, probably the hardest player to judge. Two complicating factors. I'm still trying to make sure that he is the best player from his time and whether there was enough baseball to determine whether that makes a difference.

Bob Caruthers - Still not convinced. Not sure what else to say. I don't see how his being any better than the other 1880s pitchers before an AA discount. Even if the discount isn't all that great he can't make my ballot.
   119. Esteban Rivera Posted: June 21, 2004 at 04:46 AM (#690155)
I finally returned from what turned out to be a three week vacation. I know I wasn't really missed but a big heartfelt thanks to you guys for including my ballot. I really appreciate it. Anyway, this year only one new candidate makes my ballot and there is a slightly more emphasis on career. Just to enough to shake up my ballot somewhat.

1. Frank Baker - The top third baseman for the 60+ years of baseball so far in my opinion. The only knock on Baker is that he could have been just a bit more if not for the retirements.

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. Lip Pike - One of the best players in early baseball. The pre-NA numbers confirm what I have believed about his early career.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Bill Monroe - Keep gaining confidence in him. Seems to be one of the best second basemen of his time.

8. Mickey Welch - The correction of my overreaction continues as Welch moves up 2 spots this year.

9. Jake Beckley - The career man moves up this year as I place a bit more emphasis on career this time around.. There is a definite dearth of long career's at first.

10. Clark Griffith - The more that I look at him the more I realize I have been underestimating his accomplishments. Moves up 2 spots this year thanks to the work Dan Rosenheck presented this year.

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

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. Bob Caruthers - The peak/combo man holds steady on my ballot. Definite crammed value but not enough to juice him above everyone else.

14. Roger Bresnahan - Hanging by a thread. 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. Will most likely wait until he can be properly placed alongside Santop and Petway.

15. Bobby Wallace - Long consistent career but not the best at his postion for much of his time. I should not hold it too much against him considering who those other shortstops were. With a little bit more emphasis on career this year, Wallace hops over Sheckard for the last spot on my ballot.

Not on ballot but made Top 10 consesus:

Jimmy Scheckard - Still the bridesmaid, this time due to a little more emphasis on career. Wallace, being a shortstop, trumps him by a bit.

George Van Haltren - Another one with consistency but not the best at postion. However, he is in my next five.

Dickey Pearce - I still need to decide how much confidence I can muster in competition levels of the 50's and early 60's. With my current level of confidence, he's 20th.

Jimmy Ryan - I'll take Van Haltren's consistency over Ryan's ups and downs. Ryan is in my 21-25 range.
   120. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 21, 2004 at 10:17 AM (#690185)
A long one this week, as I hit major overhauls. I've ranked everyone through Johnny Evers (#47). If you don't want to read it, don't read it, but since there's such an overhaul, I figured I'd post it all, as my having Herman Long 35th last week drew some fire . . .

Major revisions this week.

If you spot something that looks illogical (like how could you have Doe #X and Smith #Y, when Smith was directly comparable and better) please speak up, I easily could have mis-slotted someone despite my careful reconsideration.

See post #261 of the discussion thread for my discussion of pitchers. Including adjust WARP1 numbers. I don't like WARP3 defensive adjustments at all. For pitchers I like WARP3 better, because it adjusts for leagues, and the defensive adjustments aren't a problem. I also take WS into account, but I don't have the numbers available to post them here - next time though.

1. Bobby Wallace (1) - 83.8 aWARP1. I see him as basically slightly below Alan Trammell. Outstanding offense, from a very good defensive SS, with a fairly high peak to boot.

2. Sam Thompson (6) - 85.3 aWARP1. Great hitter, lousy fielder according to WS, not so much so according to WARP. His greatness is overstated by having his best years in high offense leagues (which is why he's had to wait), but man could he mash, his SLG in the context of his leagues is outstanding (.505 vs. .376).

3. Clark Griffith (15) - 95.7 aWARP3. He moves up significantly. His aWARP3 is best on the ballot aside from McCormick, and his two best years show as more valuable than McGinnity's (though McGinnity had 4 such years total).

4. Ed Cicotte (14) - 93.7 aWARP3. I line him up with Griffith, and I see them pretty even.

5. Jimmy Sheckard (4) - 79.2 aWARP1. He's close to Kelley or Keeler - moves ahed of Ryan on further review (I had Ryan too high last week). If he was a little better or played a little longer he might have been #1.

6. Jake Beckley (7) - 80.5 aWARP1. Very good player for a very long time, much better than an average player. Good for 22-25 WS a year for about 13-14 years. That has a lot of value in my opinion. I also believe that 1B defense was more important in his time, and that gets him a subjective nudge forward from where modern methods place him. I see him as more Rusty Staub than Harold Baines.

7. Lip Pike (18) - 68.3 aWARP1. He was a great hitter. 155 OPS+ do not grow on trees . . . major bump, as that aWARP1 number has nothing before age 26.

8. Bill Monroe (9) - Still not convinced he was better than Grant or Johnson, but I am confident he should be ranked near the Thompson level.

9. Frank Baker (n/e) - 69.0 aWARP1. The star 3B of the 1910s, not much to add. I've subjectively moved him up a little, WARP does not love him.

10. Jim McCormick (36) - 121.1 aWARP3. A few huge years, and never a bad one, until his final season. He vaults after I re-did my rankings. If Caruthers had played his entire career in the NL and posted the same numbers, he'd be even with McCormick. Best pitcher in baseball (overall) from 1879-82. Timelined a bit though. Could be convinced to move him higher.

11. Charley Jones (12) - 80.4 aWARP1. Top 7 in OPS+ in the league every year he played from 1876-85, and he played some CF too. Wow. He had fallen out of my view as well. Was better than I realized.

12. Hughie Jennings (25) - 67.4 aWARP1. Great peak, but it was just 5 years, there's not a lot on the resume besides that. His career number turned out higher than I expected, and when you throw in the peak, well, here he is.

13. Ed Williamson (10) - 67.8 aWARP1. I'm really serious about taking a second look at everyone. His career is quite comparable to Jimmy Collins'. Both had a 113 career OPS+, and Williamson's was more OBP driven than Collins'. Both Collins and Williamson were great defensive players, Williamson was actually better, good enough to play about 3 1/2 years as a SS, though he wasn't too good there.

14. Dickey Pearce (11) - Pearce was a great player, the only question for me was whether or not his career fell under the scope of this project. His NA/NL career clearly shows that he was comparable as a hitter from age 35-41 as other great shortstops, and I take that as positive evidence in evaluating his case. Could possibly be convinced to rank him much higher.

15. Joe McGinnity (8) - 83.8 aWARP3. Three very good iron man years where he pitched a ton of innings, but he had a short career and just two years with an ERA+ over 140. But most of the pitchers we're comparing him to had short careers, and he pitched enough innings that he didn't have to be the best pitcher (per game) in the league to have enormous value. Nice career, great player for a short span.
   121. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 21, 2004 at 10:18 AM (#690186)
16. Jimmy Ryan (3) - 68.8 aWARP1. Good, not great defensive CF, which is probably why he was eventually shifted to RF. One heckuva hitter though. I jumped the gun on him last week. This is a tight ballot, he's not all that far behind Sheckard, but here is where he landed.

17. George Van Haltren (22) - 71.2 aWARP1. Nice, long, consistent career, very good player for a long time. Not a bad fielder, but not a great one either, pretty good hitter. Never had a monster year, he didn't make any Stats All-Star teams, but he also played mostly in a one-league era, where only 3 All-Star OFs were named per year, not 6. He's behind Ryan because of Ryan's higher peak.

18. Rube Waddell (13) - 80.5 aWARP3. Not quite as good as Joss at his best, but he pitched about 2 more seasons, enough to edge him forward.

19. Ed Konetchy (--) - 72.8 aWARP1. WARP loves his defense. Very good player - kind of Hernandezish - more power, less OBP, and overall not as good, but a similar package.

20. Cupid Childs (30) - 71.0 aWARP1. Now I can see how you could compare him to Doyle and have him ahead - consider me converted . . .

21. Vic Willis (41) - 88.7 aWARP3. I see very goodness. He's Dennis Martinez compared the guys on the ballot being Dave Stieb, David Cone or Tom Glavine.

22. Bob Caruthers (20) - 89.7 aWARP3. I see greatness, but not enough of it. And I don't see as much as those who think the AA was the NL's equal.

23. Rube Foster (30) - Giving him a little bit more of the benefit of the doubt, he moves up some.

24. Larry Doyle (16) - 37.5 aWARP1. Very comparable to Ron Santo. Wasn't as durable and played one fewer season, but he was great hitter for the position, even when you consider that 2B wasn't nearly as important defensively as it is now. QUestions about his defense have caused his drop - but I don't agree with the WARP defensive rating, which cost him 18.8 wins below an average 2B.

25. Gavvy Cravath (19) - 44.1 aWARP1. I ran a little quick and dirty WS comparison on Cravath at age 32-34 to find similar players, and four turned up - Bret Boone, Sam Crawford, Gary Sheffield and Billy Williams.

The others are slam dunk Hall of Famers (if Sheffield ages like Cravath, Crawford or Williams he will be one), except for Boone these guys averaged:

Age 28 - 25 WS
Age 29 - 30 WS
Age 30 - 26 WS

Of course, cravath could've been a late bloomer, like Boone. At 27, Boone had 10 WS, Cravath 12 (in limited playing time 20 projected to a full season). From age 23-26 and 28-30 Boone compiled 82 WS. I could see this as a conservative estimate for Cravath. I could also see giving him credit for 39 WS age 23-26 and 81 WS age 28-30. I think that's what I'll do for now - it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable estimate of where Cravath might have been had he not been held back. That would peg him as a 320 WS player, which about where I see him. Carefully worked out opinion is the best we can do sometimes.

I'm not quite as comfortable projecting this as I was though - so he slips.

26. Mike Tiernan (17) - 56.3 aWARP1. Relatively short career, but he could hit. I don't think the D was as bad as WARP says. I jumped the gun last week though . . .

27. Tony Mullane (39) - 89.9 aWARP3. Tough to rank, but his best years were in weak leagues, or he'd be higher. One of the best pitcher/hitter combinations of all-time, just a touch behind Caruthers, but this is a tight ballot.

28. Mickey Welch (26) - 85.9 aWARP3. Based on my adjusted WARP he comes out pretty, basically a little below McGinnity, Willis, et al. Throw in some timeline, and he's definitely below them.

29. Addie Joss (21) - 69.9 aWARP3. A truly great pitcher, in the Koufax/Dean mold. He never had a year where he wasn't at least a very good pitcher, and if it wasn't for his death, he'd be talked about with greatest of the great. He doesn't get any extra credit for dying young or anything, just saying that he was a truly great pitcher.

30. Pete Browning (37) - 85.6 aWARP1. Back on the board, but I don't see him as a great player. Short career, weak competition, questionable defense. Just not enough there. I see him kind of like Jim Rice - some spectacular surface numbers, but when you look at the context, many holes begin to emerge, and nearly all of the necessary adjustments dock his raw numbers.
   122. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 21, 2004 at 10:18 AM (#690187)
31. Roger Bresnahan (23) - 46.7 aWARP1. An incredible hitter for a catcher. Lots of walks, but he really didn't play all that much. He drops on the reevaluation - he just didn't play enough. He's only this high because of a subjective 'catcher bonus'.

32. Tom York (--) - 73.4 aWARP1. Very good player for a very long time.

33. Lave Cross (31) - 68.8 aWARP1. Another very good player for a very long time. Had big years in 1894, 1898, 1899 and 1902.

34. John McGraw (27) - 61.0 aWARP1. If only he could have stayed healthy. An incredible OBP machine when on the field, and played key defensive positions to boot. But his career was more than a full season shorter than Jennings, for example. Just 7 seasons where he played the modern equivalent of 100 games.

35. Frank Chance (34) - 57.4 aWARP1. Great player, short career and wasn't durable during his short career, decreasing the impact he could have on any one pennant race. What a great team, the most similar team to the 1996-2000 Yankees that I can think of, in terms of balance vs. superstars.

36. Herman Long (35) - 62.9 aWARP1. Pretty good player. I thought he was moving up, but I can't see who to put him ahead of.

37. Mike Griffin (29) - 61.6 aWARP1. Amazing defensive CF and a pretty good hitter too.

38. Levi Meyerle (42) - 45.3 aWARP1. Short career, awful defensive player, in an era where defense mattered most. He could hit though.

39. Joe Wood (n/e) - 58.7 aWARP1, 55.1 aWARP3. His 1912 was one of the best single seasons anyone has ever had.

40. Fielder Jones (43) - 57.4 aWARP1. Very good player, mid-glut I suppose, I have him ranked a little below Griffin, who was a little better in a shorter career. Similar to Thomas, not as good but played longer.

41. Tommy Leach (24) - 56.9 aWARP1. One of the best 'slash' players of all-time. When you consider his defensive contribution, career length and that he had some pop (career SLG + .021), it's a nice package. Well-rounded players always tend to be underrated. I wish I could rank him higher.

42. Joe Tinker (32) - 55.5 aWARP1. Another one that's kind of tough. I believe he was a historically great defensive player, along the lines of Ozzie Smith. His offensive was very good for a shortstop (better than Ozzie's). His career was short, or it wouldn't be a question.

43. Jimmy Williams (--) - 54.6 aWARP1. He actually showed quite well on my system. Very good defensive player, 115 OPS+. Call me surprised here . . .

44. Miller Huggins (44) - 52.2 aWARP1. Valuable little player, getting on base and playing a solid 2B for a very long time.

45. Hugh Duffy (40) - 52.0 aWARP1. He had a nice career, but his 2nd best year was in a weak AA (1891), and distorts his eyeball peak value a little bit. I'd take the career of Mike Griffin over Duffy's. Easily the most overrated player by the group. Convince me why I might be wrong, please, I'm just not seeing it.

46. Roy Thomas (28) - 51.6 aWARP1. Really good player, but no power at all. He was a great defensive player. I absolutely love the type of game he played.

47. Johnny Evers (33) - 50.7 aWARP1. Man these poem guys were good, it's amazing that none of them had a long career. All 3 had high enough peaks to warrant a spot near the top (Evers had 6 WARP1's over 9.0), but they just didn't play long enough.
   123. karlmagnus Posted: June 21, 2004 at 01:14 PM (#690197)
Just to remind everybody, McCormick went 20-40 in 1879 and 26-30 in 1881, with an ERA+ of 114 over the 4 years 1879-82. If your metric says that's the equal of Caruthers' peak, your metric's wrong.
   124. PhillyBooster Posted: June 21, 2004 at 02:34 PM (#690237)
Is there a ruling on Dolf Lucky's ballot with the ineligible Donie Bush on it?

Without all the votes in, it's possible that the battle for 2nd/3rd place will be close.

My vote is to count it, including the points for Bush, since Bush's name appeared on the top of the 1928 ballot discussion thread, and it's a borderline issue anyway. Other options include throwing out the ballot entirely, dropping Bush and knocking everyone below him up a slot, or dropping Bush and leaving a "hole" in the ballot, so that no one else's points are changed.
   125. Michael Bass Posted: June 21, 2004 at 02:36 PM (#690238)
I agree that we should count it, for the reasons PhillyBooster stated. It was in the discussion thread, and a whole lot of people do not follow the "eligible" thread where he was discussed (it doesn't show up on Hot Topics). It'd be nice if Dolf could correct it before the end of the day, but if he can't, I think we should count it in whole.
   126. Dag Nabbit at Posted: June 21, 2004 at 03:24 PM (#690261)
Just to remind everybody, McCormick went 20-40 in 1879 and 26-30 in 1881, with an ERA+ of 114 over the 4 years 1879-82. If your metric says that's the equal of Caruthers' peak, your metric's wrong.

Well, Jim McCormick didn't get jack for run support in '79 (RSI 70, I have his adjusted mark at 30-3), but I was still very surprised he said McCormick was #1 from 1879-82, so I looked it up. In 1882 he didn't just lead the league in IP, he freakin' lapped it. Led by about 100 innings. Especially impressive given that all pitchers were expected to be iron men back then. . . . Looking up his fielding support (see the ballot discussion thread, page 3 for how this is determined). . .

Total; +16.7. So from 1879-82 his fielding support was actually decent, so that doesn't excuse the 114 ERA+

One other thought as long as I'm here - I have no idea how much emphasis Joe' puttting on McCormick's 1885 season, but the more emphasis he's putting on it, the better a reason to knock him down a peg or two. Look at the standings that year. Two teams (one McCormick's Cubs) won over 75% of their games & a third barely finished over .500. It's also a reason to knock Welch down a peg or two (something I do in my ranking of him). It would be interesting to see who McCormick was pitching against that year. If it was mainly against St. Louis & Buffalo, his 21-3 becomes really unimpressive (I'm not saying he did mainly pitch against them, but I do wonder how he was being used, with only 24 starts with the Cubs).
   127. Dag Nabbit at Posted: June 21, 2004 at 03:30 PM (#690264)
Just checked:

Who McCormick pitched against in '85 while w/ the Cubs (team, number of starts & winning percentage for that team):

NY....3 (759)
Phil..4 (509)
Prov..3 (482)
Bost..3 (409)
Det...4 (380)
Buf...3 (339)
StL...4 (333)

A little more likely to face the bad teams, but this ain't 1908 Joe McGinnity here.
   128. DavidFoss Posted: June 21, 2004 at 03:50 PM (#690307)

NY....3 (759)
Phil..4 (509)
Prov..3 (482)
Bost..3 (409)
Det...4 (380)
Buf...3 (339)
StL...4 (333)

Everything is either 3 or 4. About has random as you can get really! Sure, the top team has a 3 and not a four, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
   129. Seaver1969 Posted: June 21, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#690644)
On time this week! None of the new guys made my list this week, so two new guys will be moving onto my ballot. I'm in the process of redoing my scoring process (3rd week here, already looking to improve...), but that will have to wait until next week for the earliest...the way I want to do it will take a good 30 minutes per player. Anyway, here are my guys, with their score under my system in (parenthesis):

1: Jake Beckley (136): A .796 career nearly 10,000 at bats. Never peaked, but he was a solid hitter for a long time. 2,930 hits is good for 30th all time, and #1 on my list.

2: George Van Haltren (134): Career OPS over .800, .316 hitter in over 8,000 AB. Great 5 year peak from 1893-1897.

3: Jimmy Ryan (126): .818 OPS in his terrific 18 year career. A bit erratic, but always a solid player. His peak (also 5 years long) wasn't as good as Van Halten's.

4: Sam Thompson (113): Only played for 10 full years, but he was still able to make quite an impression. Amazing three year peak where he hit .370, .402 and .392 OPS' of .954, 1.144 and 1.084. One of the great early sluggers.

5: Hugh Duffy (107): One of baseball's alltime best single season's in 1894 when he hit .440 with a 1.196 OPS was in the middle of his amazing 3 year peak. Played 11 full seasons.

6: Addie Joss (104): Still consider him the best pitcher on the ballot. 6 years with a WHIP under 1, batters hit worse than .220 7 times and he only once in his career did he give up more than 2 walks a game.

7: Rube Waddell (98): Nice long career. Never outstanding, but he had 8 good years, keeping his WHIP at or under 1.10. Pitcher over 300 innings 7 times.

8: Ed Konetchy (97): Another good player without a real peak. Never a great hitter, he still managed to draw a ton of walks and rack up over 2,100 hits.

9: Eddie Cicotte (96): In his prime, his opponents batting average was very low. Pitched 14 full seasons, the majority of which were very good.

10: Jimmy Sheckard (95): I really do like this guy...tons of walks, long career, some stolen bases. His OBP is over 100 points higher than his batting average.

11: Rube Foster (Unranked): Nice long career in the negro leagues. Everything that I've heard about this guy is positive, and I think he belongs in the HoM.

12: Larry Doyle (95): Less "A"S seasons than Sheckard. Again, he lacked a peak, but he was a good hitter for 12 years, and he drew some walks along the way. Everything you want from a second basemen.

13: Bobby Wallace (94): What a long career. 15 full seasons and 25 overall, playing mostly shortstop. Never an outstanding hitter, but to be able to hold your own for that long is truly an accomplishment.

14: Cupid Childs (90): One of the great early second basemen. Short career but he still amazing. He peaked for the majority of his career. One of the best 1880s players on the ballot.

15: Herman Long (87): Another infielder who could hit. 4 season peak and 14 full seasons lands him on my ballot, but he should probably never be a member of the HoM.

Vic Willis just missed, tied with Long but not as many "A" seasons.


Joe McGinnity: Only one season with a WHIP lower than 1.10, and just 4 seasons with an opponents batting average less than .240...he also burned out rather quickly. Doesn't do it for me.

Bob Caruthers: Good pitcher, but he didn't last long enough. I have him ranked in the low 20s.

Dickey Pearce: Haven't seen an impressive enough argument to vote for a guy playing against people who aren't getting paid. He was better than the rest, but I don't see enough evidence that he would be better than the rest if he peaked in 1900.

Lip Pike: Eh. Same with Pearce. The stats we do have for him don't impress me, and he never got enough PAs. Still, he ranks in my top 25.
   130. Chris Cobb Posted: June 21, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#690650)

Just wondering what your view is on Frank Baker. Did you forget about him, or do you really not have him in your top 15? If not, I'm curious as to why. . .
   131. Michael Bass Posted: June 21, 2004 at 08:37 PM (#690651)
Oof...poor Frank Baker makes it to 4:38 on the last day before finally being left off a ballot. Is that like losing a no-hitter with 2 outs in the ninth?
   132. karlmagnus Posted: June 21, 2004 at 08:48 PM (#690667)
It's only the 8th; still 3+ hours to go under our new official timing.
   133. OCF Posted: June 21, 2004 at 09:26 PM (#690700)
On time this week!

Besides Baker not making every ballot, John Murphy won't have the lowest consensus score this week.
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 21, 2004 at 09:30 PM (#690703)
Besides Baker not making every ballot, John Murphy won't have the lowest consensus score this week.

   135. DavidFoss Posted: June 21, 2004 at 09:30 PM (#690704)
Gosh, so tantalizing to have to wait these extra 3 hours...

Noo nee noo nee noo... *twiddle thumbs*

... patience is a virtue I guess. :-)
   136. OCF Posted: June 21, 2004 at 10:07 PM (#690719)
I agree that we should count Dolf Lucky's ballot. One thing to note: the two candidates who are contesting #2 and #3 (and hence election) are both on his ballot and both below Bush. Dropping Bush from his ballot would not change the margin between those two.
   137. Jeff M Posted: June 21, 2004 at 10:17 PM (#690732)
Other options include throwing out the ballot entirely, dropping Bush and knocking everyone below him up a slot, or dropping Bush and leaving a "hole" in the ballot, so that no one else's points are changed.

Gotta count it. Otherwise we are losing valuable input. Since Bush isn't eligible, everyone ought to move up a spot (b/c he isn't going to pluck someone out of thin air to fill the gap) and I'd leave #15 "open".
   138. EricC Posted: June 21, 2004 at 11:00 PM (#690759)
Bush isn't eligible

Whether or not Bush is technically eligible, his name did appear on the list of new eligibles in the '28 discussion thread, so I'd count the vote for him.

I'd also like to hear what Seaver thinks about Baker.
   139. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 21, 2004 at 11:11 PM (#690767)
"I have no idea how much emphasis Joe' puttting on McCormick's 1885 season, but the more emphasis he's putting on it, the better a reason to knock him down a peg or two."

Not much - it's mostly the 1879-82 that has him up there for me. It's a nice 'filler' year, but it's not why I'm voting for him.

The baseball-reference park factors take into account not facing your own batters or pitchers already - though on a team-average level. If you are using those, you need to make no adjustment unless you adjust within the team for situations like McGinnity, Whitey Ford, etc..

Since Bush is extremely borderline - I say we count the vote. I just pulled the list from the new eligible thread - I didn't double check it.
   140. ronw Posted: June 21, 2004 at 11:12 PM (#690768)
I'm counting the ballot. I have a meeting, so I won't be able to post my winners immediately after the cut-off. I'm sending my totals to Joe now.

DavidFoss, I can't let an old Sesame Street reference go by unappreciated. With all the little kids (like my 2 year old and 4 month old) and their 30 something dads who are rediscovering Sesame Street, you have more in common with us than your love of baseball history.

Go little typewriter! (He has of course now been replaced by Elmo's dancing computer, but the typewriter still makes an occasional appearance on the show.)
   141. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: June 21, 2004 at 11:19 PM (#690775)
"(Evers had 6 WARP1's over 9.0),"

Those are 'basic' WARP1's, not my adjusted ones . . . I need to update ALL of the comments, sorry . . .
   142. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 21, 2004 at 11:33 PM (#690784)
I'd also like to hear what Seaver thinks about Baker.

Eric, while I don't understand Baker's omission from his ballot, he's not required to give an explanation since he wasn't a top ten returnee (and I'm quite confident that he won't be next "year" :-)
   143. Jeff M Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:43 AM (#690880)
John, you should be a lawyer. Good point.
   144. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:44 AM (#690881)
OK, who won? It's bedtime, except on the West Coast.
   145. Michael Bass Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:47 AM (#690886)
This is what I have....

1. Baker 908
2. McGinnity 670

3. Wallace 657
4. Sheckard 578
5. Thompson 517
6. Caruthers 464
7. Pearce 427
8. Pike 407
9. Beckley 391
10. Van Haltren 368.5
11. Ryan 318.5
12. Griffith 282
   146. Michael Bass Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:47 AM (#690887)
Er, that's Wallace 647. Typo.
   147. EricC Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:51 AM (#690890)
I agree on the rankings of the top 12, but have different point counts for Wallace (647), Thompson (509), and Caruthers (472).
   148. Michael Bass Posted: June 22, 2004 at 12:59 AM (#690908)
You're right; I gave a Caruther's 13th palce vote to Thompson. I agree with your numbers.
   149. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:07 AM (#690920)
Very interesting. Well done, the Iron Man! At last the logjam at the top of my ballot shifts a bit.
   150. OCF Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:08 AM (#690923)
I agree with EricC and the #48 version of Michael Bass. To push it further:

13T. Waddell 267
13T. Bresnahan 267
15. Foster 231
16. Jennings 226
17. Duffy 218
18. Welch 213
19. Childs 201
20. Monroe 177
21. Doyle 168
22. Browning 159
23. Cicotte 146
24. Leach 140
25. C. Jones 129

If any number is doubtful, it's that last one. How's a ballot counter supposed to keep Jones and Jones straight?
   151. Kelly in SD Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:26 AM (#690946)
Damn Gateway/Microsoft stupid crashing computer!!!
I had to reboot my computer for the umpteenth time today while I was typing my ballot in. Tried to reconstruct it in time, but couldn't. Here is my ballot anyway. I know it won't count, but I spent a lot of time on it and I am going to send it anyway.

I'll send a full one with reasons to the 1929 discussion as soon as it is available.

1. Baker - Best 3rd baseman ever (up to 1922)
2. Sheckard - Big reason why Cubs won so much. OPB machine - great defense. 3yr WS peak is top 5 among eligibles. 339 career WS is 3rd among eligibles.
3. Welch - Wins are real. Great record against HoMers - 61-34. RSI shows only 3-4 win were lucky
4. Thompson - best RBI man ever. one of best power hitters of 19th cent. Home park only had run factor over 100 4 times in his 12 full seasons. Great Black and Grey Ink.
5. Caruthers - Most difficult to place b/c of hitting and pitching abilities plus a great team.
MVP candidate from 85-89 plus top 10 in 90. W% behind only Spalding and Foutz and Foutz pitched over 100 fewer decisions.
6. McGinnity - Lots of value in being very good for a whole lot of innings. Great Black/Grey Ink.
7. Beckley - My idiosyncratic career pick. Amazing consistency for nearly 20 years. Career totals are the best for eligible players. Why no peak???
8. Childs - Best 2nd baseman 1890's. Walk machine - .416 OBP is second among eligibles. 7 times WS AllStar - 5 in compressed league. Dominance outways short career.
9. Browning - 162 OPS+ (unadjusted for league quality) is best among eligibles. If discount by 10% only Cravath and Jones are marginally better. Best BA, 5th best OBP, 3rd best SLG among eligibles - usually like longer careers but great peak.
10. C.Jones - Great hitter. Short seasons, unfair 2.2 season blacklist, and no NA before age 25 hurts totals. Multiple All-Star in NL and AA. Excellent peak outways lack of career totals.
11. Monroe - power hitting 2b. hit mainly 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th per Riley up until his death. Per Riley, McGraw called him the greatest player of all time. Ranked here because of discount of Negro League numbers and quality of competition.
12. Leach - great defense at 3rd/OF. A+ per WS at both. WS AllStar at both positions. OPS+ hurts him. Long, consistent career.
13. Pike - great early CF. lots of power. short career - only played until 33 yrs old hurts him here.
14. Van Haltren - Great CF, but peak just isn't quite high enough to rank higher. Pitching ability helps ranking. Very consistent and ranked well in compressed league.
15. Pearce - Great long career. excellent hitter for much of his career. Ranking hurt by fact that competition was so limited during first period of his career (NY mainly and Civil War)

16 tie. Chance - Best 1b in 1900s. 6 yrs best in NL, 4 best in majors. Great OPS+. Rank hurt by little contributions in other seasons. Avg. 30 WS per 162 g.
16 tie. Konetchy - Best 1b in 1910s. 7 yrs best in NL(WS), 3 best in majors. Hard to separate the 2 of them.
18. Wallace - excellent career WS. Little peak. Very consistent - 12 seasons over 20 WS. excellent fielder.
19. Ryan - Excellent start to career. But too many years as an average player after the train accident.
20. Joss - Fantastic rate stats - h/9, w/9, ERA, ERA+, WS per 40 starts very comparable to elected post 93 pitchers.
21. Griffith - great pitcher on stanky teams. Lousy K/W rate. 3 yr cons WS peak is lower than any elected pitcher. Stats AllStar and WS AllStar totals are below those elected (same for Joss).
22. Doyle - Great hitting 2b. Mediocre fielder. Dominated a weak position in a weak league.
23. Jennings - Great ss for a short period of time. Fantastic defense. One of best players in the game for a five year period. May have to move up despite the short career
24. McGraw - Great 3b for a short time. Fantastic OBP - still 3rd all-time. VERY short career. Even in "full seasons" still hurt alot.
25. Cravath - Another great hitter for a short period. I do give some credit for his "minor" seasons. But there is some penalty for his home park's amazing run and home run factors.
   152. Kelly in SD Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:29 AM (#690948)
I haven't seen the totals that I'm sure others have posted. This is what my ballot will look like for the 29 election. Though the bottom of the ballot is always up for revision and I am assuming Baker is in.

My computer is SOOOO frustrating.
   153. OCF Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:37 AM (#690953)
Kelly's ballot doesn't count, of course. It would have had a consensus score of 6, which is above average, average being 4. Highest possible score would have been 21, which is pretty low for the highest possible - but it will be lower next year. Highest actual score was DanG at 14. Lowest was Seaver1969 at -14.
   154. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:38 AM (#690954)
Any idea if we will EVER recover the info from earlier threads?

If not, I gotta go through the five stages of death, a la Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (denial, anger, blah, blah, acceptance).
   155. DavidFoss Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:38 AM (#690955)
Tee hee... happens every week. Well, Kelly's got #2 ahead of #3, so it don't really matter.

Next week will be Spotswood Poles and perhaps the most underwhelming list of new MLB candidates yet.
   156. DavidFoss Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:44 AM (#690957)
Any idea if we will EVER recover the info from earlier threads?

I thought Joe said that the old info was still there, and links only needed to get hooked up. That is a lot of links, though.

Full conversion of those threads is not really necessary (as those threads are so inactive they could be effectively retired). A read-only version would suffice so that we can copy the tables into the new threads.
   157. Patrick W Posted: June 22, 2004 at 02:22 AM (#690989)
I count 46.

GAIN: Ken Fischer (29 Ballots - Good to see you back!)

LOSE: Marc (30!), Carl Goetz (29!), RMc (23), stephen (4)

NET: Down 3

Nice year for Baker, ecstatic year for McGinnity, not so good year for the HoM.
   158. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 03:20 AM (#691065)
Well, Mickey Welch thinks Kelly's ballot matters!

Yeah, read-only is fine on the old stuff. In two weeks I could reclaim what I need...
   159. DanG Posted: June 22, 2004 at 03:27 AM (#691071)
consensus score ... Highest actual score was DanG at 14.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya...everyone plotted to return me to Mr. Consensus status by voting in Johnson and Hill. Thank goodness Poles and Petway are coming on so I can shed the label again.
   160. Guapo Posted: June 22, 2004 at 04:07 AM (#691121)
HoM trivia:

Name the only HoM battery of the 20th century, to date.
   161. Jeff M Posted: June 22, 2004 at 04:20 AM (#691130)
Um, Energizer? It would get my vote. :)
   162. Jeff M Posted: June 22, 2004 at 04:28 AM (#691135)
Back to seriousness...

The last post I could find from Carl Goetz was in the '26 Results thread, debating whether we should vote for 20 instead of 15. Unlike with Marc, I don't think it was me who drove him off, because Carl and I agreed on that issue, and we were debating it with DanG, who was on the opposite side of the issue.

Maybe that's when Marc starting getting annoyed. He stepped into the argument to explain to me and Carl that DanG was one of the smartest people on the HoM threads. I didn't debate DanG's intelligence (obviously) but I did say I thought "smartest" was a tough title to bestow because I thought everybody here was smart. Maybe Marc got annoyed with that.

Then Marc and I argued about Spalding's election, which I didn't think was a big deal, since Spalding is already in the HoM. Then Marc didn't like my e-mails to Karl and John (even though Karl and John weren't upset by them).

Anyway, I'm sorry Marc's gone.

Has anyone sent Carl an e-mail to find out what's up? Has anyone sent Marc an e-mail suggesting he come back and ignore my posts?
   163. DavidFoss Posted: June 22, 2004 at 04:57 AM (#691176)
HoM trivia:

Name the only HoM battery of the 20th century, to date.

Wow... had to look for this one... good one....

"September 22, 1904: In the opener of a twinbill with the Reds, the Giants win, 7-5, behind Joe McGinnity. Their 100th win, it clinches the NL pennant for New York. In the final game of his 19-year career as an OF/C, future Hall of Famer Jim O'Rourke, 52, catches for Joe McGinnity. It is O'Rourke's first ML game since 1893 (Benton Stark writes that O'Rourke hit .358 in 1900, but it was not in OB) and is 1-for-4 and scores a run. He'll be elected to Cooperstown in 1945. The Reds come back in the nitecap to win, 7-3, in seven innings beating Hooks Wiltse."
   164. DavidFoss Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:21 AM (#691206)
Carl's last post appears to be his vote on the 1927 ballot. He's logged on as recently as the 16th which is encouraging. Maybe things just got really busy for him over the weekend or something.

Marc/sunnyday2 hasn't logged in since his last post which was is not a good sign. I hope he comes back at some time. He was fellow Twins fan.

(BTW, if this last log-in information given by the site seems a bit Big-Brother-ish, sorry... :-))

I think what we need is a 1929 discussion thread.
   165. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:46 AM (#691223)
Has anyone sent Marc an e-mail suggesting he come back and ignore my posts?

Marc e-mailed me back yesterday to say that he'll be back in 1930 when Pearce and Caruthers need his help.
   166. Jeff M Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:55 AM (#691228)
He'll be happy to know that Caruthers will be #3 on my ballot. At least I think he'll be happy. :)
   167. Rusty Priske Posted: June 22, 2004 at 01:06 PM (#691329)
So McGinnity made it in instead of Wallace?

   168. OCF Posted: June 22, 2004 at 04:33 PM (#691631)
Since I joined in 1904, we've elected 38 players to the HoM. Of these, 24 were in an "elect me" position on my own ballot, and 14 were not.

The ones that were in "elect me" position on my ballot:

Jack Glasscock, Charles Radbourn, Billy Hamilton, Ed Delahanty, Kid Nichols, Jesse Burkett, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Harry Stovey, Cy Young, Fred Clarke, Joe Kelley, Willie Keeler, Ed Walsh, Charlie Bennett, Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson, Honus Wagner, Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank, Grant Johnson, Sherry Magee, Joe Jackson, Frank Baker.

The 14 that were not, and the position they appeared in on my ballot in the year of election:

Amos Rusie 5
Hardy Richardson 6
Albert Spalding 6
Ezra Sutton 2
Pud Galvin 2
Joe Start 4
Bid McPhee 2
Cal McVey 10
Elmer Flick 2
Jimmy Collins 10
Mordecai Brown 6
Frank Grant 7
Pete Hill 5
Joe McGinnity 5

We haven't yet elected anyone who wasn't on my ballot at all, but there is some risk of that happening in the next few years.
   169. Rick A. Posted: June 22, 2004 at 04:51 PM (#691664)
Marc e-mailed me back yesterday to say that he'll be back in 1930 when Pearce and Caruthers need his help.

Glad to hear it. He was always a very good debater, and I liked how he stuck to his guns when questioned about his opinions. (Plus, we need him to continue the fight against the evils of timelining! :-))

As an aside, we should all remember that this is just a fun project, not a blood and guts war. We all have very strong opinions about who should be elected, but we should not let that affect our interactions with each other on this project. All of these players that we're voting for have their strong points, and I can at least see the arguments for each of them, although I may not agree with some of them.

Personnally, the players we elect to the HOM are a secondary consideration to me on this project, anyway. I'm just enjoying the opportunity to rediscover baseball history a year at a time, as well as weighing the pros and cons of players I would never have looked at without this project.
   170. Chris Cobb Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:07 PM (#691693)
OCF inspired me to a similar count. I joined in 1903 (1928 completes my first year of voting), so 40 players have been elected while I have been participating.

26 were in elect-me slots: Anson, Connor, Glasscock, Sutton, Delahanty, Galvin, Nichols, Burkett, Start, McVey, Davis, Dahlen, Stovey, Young, Clarke, Kelley, Keeler, Bennett, Lajoie, Mathewson, Wagner, Crawford, G. Johnson, Hill, Baker, McGinnity

14 in non-elect-me slots
2 -- Hamilton
3 -- Spalding, McPhee, Collins, Plank
5 -- Magee
6 -- Rusie, Richardson, Flick, Grant
7 -- Radbourn
11 -- Walsh
15 -- Brown, Jackson

Everyone elected has been on my ballot so far; Sam Thompson is the player most likely to break that streak.
   171. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2004 at 05:52 PM (#691753)
Walsh, Flick and Magee were from off my ballot, and Sheckard will be too if we elect him in '29 (Wallace will just sneak back on the bottom.) I think I was really born in about 1855, and am convinced baseball's gone steadily downhill since my young day. Of course, the 1850-1860 birth cohort is WOEFULLY under-represented in HOM-electors!
   172. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 06:27 PM (#691805)
As we await the result, some trivia:
Who is the only HOMer who at this point never played with another HOMer (in white major leagues and top Negro Leagues, minimum 10 games per player)?
   173. PhillyBooster Posted: June 22, 2004 at 06:49 PM (#691845)
Warning – long and overly-complicated anti-Sheckard rant ahead:

I'm was waiting until we get a 1929 thread to see if I can jawbone down some of this support for Jimmy Sheckard. He only had 7 "in the money" votes in 1928, so maybe there's still time to change some minds.

But since we may not get one until tomorrow . . .

Left field was the only position I did represent on my ballot in 1928, and here's why:

Consider, hypothetically, a second Hall called the Hall of Very Good. The HoVG is just like the HoM, except that the HoVG does not permit entrants who are in the HoM, and it is 50% bigger.

So, now that the HoM has 52 member, the HoVG has the best 78 HoM-eligible players who are not in the HoM.

As a though experiment, I tried to re-create the HoVG based on review of the old ballots (anyone who received at least one 15th place vote from 2 different voters automatically made it in), which brought us up to around 50, and my own additions from the high-peak, short career category (Joe Wood, Chief Meyers) and the long career, no peak category (Tenney, Chase, Tom Brown . . .) to get to 78.

Anyway, the idea is that the HoM should have about 5 players at each position (assuming 12 pitchers), and the HoVG should have about 7 or 8.(assuming 18 pitchers -- my list actually, and coincidentally, has 19 pitchers on it).

Which position, aside from pitcher, has the most representation on the HoM? Left field.

The following players had a plurality of games in Left Field: Jim O'Rourke, Ed Delahanty, Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee. That's six. Add in half of Harry Stovey (over half of games in the outfield, but more games at 1B than LF), Hardy Richardson (games split between 2B and OF) and Pete Hill (unknown division between CF and LF), and you've got about 7.5 leftfielders in the HoM.

An even division would be about 5, and 7.5 is not out of the realm of reason if there was simply more talent in LF than anywhere else. Add Sheckard, though, and 8.5 left fielders out of 54 players seems to start looking excessive. To check, I looked at the HoVG to see if left fielders really did dominate.

What would the HoVG look like if Sheckard were "promoted" from the HoVG to the HoM? How many left fielders would be among the Next-Best 76 (81, assuming Sheckard and Wallace are elected to the HoM, and the next 5 best are added to the HoVG)?

By my count: Tip O'Neill, Charley Jones, Tom York, George Hall, and Elmer Smith. Abner Dalrymple is borderline.

The only other position where my 78-member HoVG has fewer members that the 52-member HoM is right field, and in my mind that is because we incorrectly elected Flick and Keeler, who are not in my PHoM (Joe Kelley in LF is also not in my PHoM), and because RF is a “weird” position that was used in lots of different ways by teams for reasons other than having a good right-fielder.

Now, is it sensible that, in the first 50 years of baseball, there were more “Great” corner outfielders than there were “very good” corner outfielders? Or, is it more likely that we have been electing too many from down the “very good” list at the expense of centerfielders (11 in my HoVG, only 3-4 in the HoM) and third basemen (10 in my HoVG, only 3-4 in the HoM).

The other positions all fit the appropriate bell-curve type shape.

It is too late to take out some of the weaker corner-outfielders now in, but we don’t have to compound the problem by adding an admittedly “very good” outfielder like Sheckard who, when you look at it, doesn’t actually have a strong FoJS contingency who have been fighting for him for years – just a bunch of voters who started him in the teens and slowly let him glide upwards.

I am all for using scientific formulae to study these players, but sometimes the formulae need a reality check. If your formula is telling you that yet-another left fielder is ballot-worthy, while there is hardly anyone in that position in the next tier, then maybe you should conclude that your formula is failing to account for something.

To me, Jimmy Sheckard is too far down his position’s bell curve to warrant a ballot position.
   174. PhillyBooster Posted: June 22, 2004 at 06:55 PM (#691856)

Sherry Magee?
   175. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:10 PM (#691872)
Close, but...
No, Magee played with Kid Nichols for PHI NL in 1905. Magee was 20, Nichols was 35...
   176. Max Parkinson Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:13 PM (#691876)
Three Finger Brown?
   177. ronw Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:17 PM (#691882)
Max beat me to it.

Shockingly, its the Miner, although Sheckard will likely eliminate Brown.
   178. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:18 PM (#691885)
Sheckard and Wallace may both be beneficiaries of when they came on the ballot. People put them on, but low, in their fairly quiet years, then as the ballot has emptied in the following years, with very few new entrants, they have drifted up it to levels they don't really deserve, compared with say Duffy/Ryan/Van H, who came on just before a glut, or Thompson/Caruthers/Welch, who came on when there was a huge glut because we were still catching up from starting in 1898.

Normally new players like S&W would be pushed down by good newer players by those who timeline, but this hasn't happened because there haven't been good newer players that we haven't elected almost immediately.

This is not a criticism of the process, just an observation that it may be working slightly anomalously in prcatice at this point.
   179. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:25 PM (#691897)
We haven't yet elected anyone who wasn't on my ballot at all, but there is some risk of that happening in the next few years.

I'll do my best, OCF! :-)
   180. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:31 PM (#691908)
Brown is correct!

Besides Magee, thers I spot with only one HOM teammate: Grant, Hill, Baker, Walsh, and Wagner (!, 15 years with Clarke, the longest collaboration of any two players).
   181. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:32 PM (#691910)
that's "others," not "thers."
   182. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:35 PM (#691915)
I'm adding Beckley at the bottom for the next election (BTW, Caruthers gets another point from me, karlmagnus :-), while Rube Foster will make my ballot in the top ten or twelve position. I'm finally convinced about the latter.

Wallace and Sheckard are "still close, but no cigar" territory.
   183. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:43 PM (#691929)
Beckley's pushing up my ballot to a bonus spot at #2, ahead of Welch, because whereas today 300 wins is a bigger deal than 3000 hits, in 1928 it was the reverse; Beckley's #6 all-time at 2930 and Welch is #9 at 307. We have another 300 game winner soon (Johnson) and then 3 more 3000 hitters (Cobb, Collins and Speaker), so after 1934 the two will be close to balance, but not yet.
   184. Michael Bass Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:47 PM (#691935)
After "suffering" through the election of now one above the 5th spot on my ballot the last two times out (and one, McGinnity, completely off ballot), count me among those looking forward to Wallace and Sheckard's induction, to get a nice little shakeup at the top of my ballot. :)
   185. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2004 at 07:54 PM (#691946)
Incidentally, in the useless knowledge department, Beckley was #2 in hits after Anson from early 1906 when he passed Burkett (who retired in 1905) until 1910 when Keeler pipped him by 2. Wagner passed them in 1913 and Nap the year after.
   186. OCF Posted: June 22, 2004 at 09:06 PM (#692119)
PhillyBooster said:

... Sheckard who, when you look at it, doesn’t actually have a strong FoJS contingency who have been fighting for him for years – just a bunch of voters who started him in the teens and slowly let him glide upwards.

And karlmagnus said something very similar in #178.

Well, I guess I am a FOJS, but this doesn't characterize my votes. I started him out at #4 and have never had him below #4. There have been 13 players that I've ranked ahead of him, and all 13 have been elected, mostly after a very short time on the ballot.

There were 7 voters who had Sheckard #1 or #2 in 1928. If we go back to 1920, Sheckard's 2nd year on the ballot, these same seven voters had him ranked 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, and 8. (The 8 was Chris J.)

It's fair to say that most of the voters who now have Sheckard ahead of Ryan/Van Haltren/Duffy always had him ahead of those three.
   187. PhillyBooster Posted: June 22, 2004 at 09:20 PM (#692153)
Yes, I counted the votes. In fact, there were only 2 "in the money" votes 3 years ago (1925), while Pearce, Caruthers, Thompson, and Pike had 6 or 7 each, despite all finishing lower.

My point was that Sheckard doesn't have the support of a Pearce or Caruthers, who will rise or fall based on the numbers, and very few will be talked in or out of voting for them.

It is the folks OTHER than those 7 than my jeremiad was aimed at. Specifically, the 25 people who had him rated 6 through 15 in 1925.
   188. Howie Menckel Posted: June 22, 2004 at 09:25 PM (#692168)
on karl's point:

Seems like pitchers had a better chance to win 300 than hitters did to hit 3000, in this sense:
You could win 30-40 a year for 8-10 years (1880s), or 20-25 a year for 12-15 years (1900s).
But you never saw hitters collecting 300 hits a year for 10 years to get to 3000, or even 250 a year - a la 25 wins. It always took a long time.

On the other hand, that also meant that the schedule was key: Pitchers in the 1880s pitched more innings per year than later pitchers, even with fewer team games played. So hitters from the shorter schedules were more harmed than pitchers were in this comparison.

Now someone can take this from here and turn it all into a coherent point - I hope.
   189. DavidFoss Posted: June 22, 2004 at 09:29 PM (#692175)
It's fair to say that most of the voters who now have Sheckard ahead of Ryan/Van Haltren/Duffy always had him ahead of those three.

Much of my ballot is now filler that have trickled up the the top of the ballot. My preliminary 1929 ballot has some names re-entering that I thought were gone for good.

Hmmm... time for me to revisit the OF-glut I guess. I had always figured Sheckard was a better fielder with a higher peak than the glut... but a second look has me second guessing. Sheckard fielded well, but didn't play CF like GVH/HD. Sheckard's hitting numbers are similar to Ryan's, but Ryan's fielding numbers and reputation don't match Sheckard's.... but how much is fielding in LF worth in the dead-ball era?

Thinking out loud here. :-)
   190. Chris Cobb Posted: June 23, 2004 at 02:51 AM (#693400)
Well, Phillybooster's anti-Sheckard screed calls for a response.

Beginning disclosure: I've always had Sheckard ranked highly, because that's where the numbers put him. Yes, if we elect him, we'll have slightly more left-fielders than strict proportion dictates, but we're still close. While I believe positional representation is important, I am skeptical of rigid division between outfield positions.

My assessment of Sheckard, Van Haltren, and Ryan is a bit unusual, I think, in that I have the three spaced fairly far apart, though quite regularly on my ballot. Prior to final placement of Spotswood Poles, I have Sheckard 1, Van Haltren 10, and Ryan 21 on my 1929 ballot so far.

What justifies these placements? Primarily, differences in peak value as indicated by the comprehensive metrics.

In career value, the three are pretty durn close to exactly equal.

Player -- OPS+ -- EQA -- W1 -- W3 --- WS -- my adj. WS*
Sheckard -- 120 -- .297 -- 130.7 -- 93.5 -- 339 -- 383
V Haltren -- 121 -- .298 -- 121.0 -- 94.2 -- 344 -- 393
Mr. Ryan -- 124 -- .299 -- 119.0 -- 93.2 -- 316 -- 384

* These figures include adjustments for season length, fielding, and pitching. Van Haltren is ahead in unadjusted WS because he gets quite a bit of pitching credit at a time when WS is overrating pitching substantially, so that is adjusted downward.

Career numbers would suggest that VH should rate ever-so-slightly ahead of the other two, who are pretty close to dead even. It's his sliver of pitching value that puts him on top, especially in unadjusted WS.

But peak tells a different story.

Player -- yrs above avg. -- WS aa -- peak rate -- top 3 WS -- top 5 con* -- top 3 W3 -- top 5 con
Sheckard -- 11 -- 84 -- 33.63 ws/162 -- 112 -- 148 -- 30.6 -- 41.3
V Haltren -- 12 -- 57 -- 29.40 ws/162 -- 93 -- 148 -- 25.4 -- 39.5
Mr. Ryan -- 7 -- 50 -- 31.59 ws/162 -- 104 -- 157 -- 27.7 -- 41.4

*All these measures use my adjusted WS, because I've calculated them that way, but unadjusted WS would yield similar results, I believe.

In 5 peak categories, Sheckard tops 4, including the two I see as most important -- total peak and peak rate -- while Van Haltren tops one and Ryan tops two. Sheckard was very good almost as long as Van Haltren, but his top peak was significantly higher. Sheckard's top peak was almost as high as Ryan's, but he was very good for significantly longer.

Sheckard's edge over Van Haltren in peak value more than makes up for VH's slight edge in career; Sheckard's edge in peak value puts him ahead of Ryan. The ballot is very flat, 1-20, right now, so there isn't a huge absolute margin of difference between these three. But Sheckard clearly deserves to rank ahead.

A final word on fielding

Obviously, since Sheckard is slightly below VH and Ryan in career OPS+ and EQA, he must rate ahead of both in fielding to have equal career value. WARP sees him as a substantially better fielder, so much better that it even makes up for the post-1901 NL discount (which eliminates Sheckard's big advantage in WARP1, btw).

WS concurs

Sheckard 3.65 ws/1000 def innings (18160 def innings)
Van Haltren 2.90 ws/1000 def innings (15863 def innings)
Ryan 3.15 ws/1000 def innings (17175 def innings)

In sum, Sheckard is not a lot better than VH or Ryan, but you have to go against both WARP and WS or give Sheckard a positional discount to put him behind Van Haltren and Ryan.
   191. jimd Posted: June 23, 2004 at 08:25 PM (#694524)
Is there really a significant overabundance of LF'ers in the HOM?

I believe that PhillyBooster somewhat overstates the case.

The following numbers are derived by breaking down each HOM career into fractions based on Games Played and adding those up by positions. This was done using the Lahman Database, so there were no Negro League statistics. I'll let the people with more knowledge divvy up those 3 careers.

The results:

Pi 12.5 (24.0 %)
LF 5.9
1B 5.7
SS 5.1
RF 4.8
3B 4.3
CF 4.0
2B 3.8
Ca 2.5
PH 0.4 (? Fielding GP is often short of batting GP)
Tot 49.0 (+ Grant, Johnson, Hill)

LF is marginally ahead of 1B and SS (don't forget x% of Grant Johnson). I'd say that it's far from being a serious overbalance. RF also seems somewhat over-represented given that it really wasn't a career position before 1885; as PhillyBooster pointed out above, its characteristics are "weird" due to the varied strategic usage of the position before the "modern" in-game substitution rule was implemented in 1890.

On the underrepresented side, the 2B shortage is an illusion caused by exclusion of the Grants from the above stats, and CF will catch up nicely when Speaker and Cobb become eligible. (The LFers and RFers of that era are already being inducted; the CFers are not yet eligible.)

Catcher has a structural problem, being essentially a part-time position after 1885 with no strong rationale for being so valuable that it makes up for it's part-time status. Pitcher is subject to debate: what is the appropriate ratio of position players to pitchers? 8-4 (4-man rotation), 3-1 (current HOM proportion), 8-1, something else?
   192. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 23, 2004 at 08:39 PM (#694540)
Catcher has a structural problem, being essentially a part-time position after 1885 with no strong rationale for being so valuable that it makes up for it's part-time status.

Except catching became "part-time" only because it was much more difficult to play all of your team's games. As with pitchers of today compared to generations before, I can't understand penalizing players when the demands that were placed on them because of the position's responsibilities were that much greater (BTW, I'm not saying you are doing this, jimd).
   193. jimd Posted: June 23, 2004 at 10:02 PM (#694648)
John, I think there is a structural problem with catcher precisely because it was much more difficult to play all of your team's games. It was physically debilitating short-term (murder on the hands before good gloves were developed) and long-term (murder on the knees after the catcher moved up and into his modern crouch).

This sets up a situation where there are tactical and strategic trade-offs. If you're the (general) manager, are you going to let an offensive talent like Wagner or Ruth play Catcher? He's going to hit less per season because of the short-term injury issues, and he's going to have a significantly shorter career because of the long-term wear-and-tear issues. Your catcher will be a significant plus when he's in the lineup, but will that outweigh the downtime and the reduced effectiveness when playing each season during his prime, not to mention the seasons lost at the end of his career?

This is just a personal theory, and I have no clue yet on how to design a study to confirm or reject this hypothesis, but I believe one reason for the catcher's drought is that baseball people of this era steered talented players away from catcher if the player had other viable options (see the Bresnahan CF experiment, and there were attempts to move Ewing to 3b during his career also).

If the players at the position are less talented then they probably will be less meritorious. Even if they aren't less talented, they may be less meritorious because they are unable to contribute as much on an absolute scale due to the demands of the position. We can measure them on a relative scale (as I think you do) but that may be overcompensation if they are, in fact, less talented.

This is meandering thoughts, not a well-thought out position, so take it for whatever that's worth.
   194. PhillyBooster Posted: June 24, 2004 at 04:31 AM (#695653)
I don't know. Jim's breakdown by percentage may be more statistically accurate, but strikes me as intuitively the wrong way to determine positional balance.

Take Joe Kelley. He came up as a centerfielder, playing there in his age 20 and 21 seasons, but switched to left in 1894 when he became a star, and played there almost exclusively for the heart of his career, excepting 1901 and 1904, when he played first.

That math gives you about 0.6 leftfielders, 0.2 centerfielders, and 0.15 first basemen.

Granted, it's ONE valid way to look at it, but when I see Kelley's career, I see "left fielder". Discounting that 40% for time spent out of position doesn't really seem to capture what I am going for.

Sure, you could mix in the first base, but letting Kelley's early years contribute 5% of the CF "points" doesn't seem like the sort of CF contribution that I think is being under-represented.

Same with Jim O'Rourke. I am not saying it's wrong to count him as only 40% of a leftfielder and 20% centerfielder (and 10% RF, 10% C, 10% 1B . . .), but the fact is that he's not really a "centerfielder", and counting his games there as if he were makes it seem we're honoring more CFs than we really are.
   195. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 24, 2004 at 04:40 AM (#695664)
Same with Jim O'Rourke. I am not saying it's wrong to count him as only 40% of a leftfielder and 20% centerfielder (and 10% RF, 10% C, 10% 1B . . .), but the fact is that he's not really a "centerfielder", and counting his games there as if he were makes it seem we're honoring more CFs than we really are.

I think O'Rourke is an example of the "Ernie Banks" phenomena. Even though Orator Jim played more games in left (where he was good), he had more value as a centerfielder (where he was outstanding).

If I had to pin him down to one position, then centerfield would be the one.
   196. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 24, 2004 at 03:37 PM (#695988)
John, I think there is a structural problem with catcher precisely because it was much more difficult to play all of your team's games. It was physically debilitating short-term (murder on the hands before good gloves were developed) and long-term (murder on the knees after the catcher moved up and into his modern crouch).

My point wasn't that, overall, catchers had it easier pre-1890 than after, but that both eras are virtually equal value-wise. IOW, a Deadball Era catcher could duplicate the responsibilities of a backstop from the Gilded Age (and visa versa). Therefore, both eras at that position should be respected equally.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

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 0.9713 seconds
41 querie(s) executed