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, August 23, 2004

1933 Ballot

Will it be Zack Wheat, Heinie Groh, George Van Haltren, Clark Griffith, Lip Pike or Jake Beckley joining Walter Johnson at the ceremony this year?

JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: August 23, 2004 at 09:38 AM | 176 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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: August 23, 2004 at 09:45 AM (#813538)
Let the games begin!
   2. Kelly in SD Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:22 AM (#813549)
1. "The Farting Dog" - The 3rd to receive a perfect score??
2. Mickey Welch - extremely comparable to the enshrined pitchers of the 1880s. Beat them regularly whenever he faced them. Finished 62-37 against HoMers. Only Pud Galvin had worse run support and defensive help. Clarkson, Caruthers, Keefe, and Radbourn are in the top 12 for cumulative defensive support for their career. Welch recieved the 84th best.
3. Pete Browning - the best hitter among candidates. Highest OPS+ among eligibles. Only Brouthers and J Jackson had higher among elected. 4 or 5 others will finish with higher, but Browning is the top among eligibles. Also, he has the most WS per 162 games.
4. Heinie Groh - Moved him in front of Leach because Groh had a Peak and Prime than Leach if only slightly. 3 cons yrs win shares 95-86, best 7 years 191 - 189. Leach was a better fielder, but there is not much difference between them. Also, 5 times the majors best 3rd base man, while Leach was never the best (either while at 3rd or CF).
5. Tommy Leach - Probably the best fielder among eligibles. Defensive win shares A+ at both 3rd and CF. Strong Peak and Prime with a long career. One of the keys to Pittsburgh ability to stick most any pitcher in the rotation and get great performances. See Leever, Tannehill, Chesbro, Willis, Adams, Cooper, et al.
6. Cupid Childs - dominated second base during the 1890s - 7 times the best. I am questioning his placement, though he was integral to Cleveland's generally strong teams in the 90s.
7. Hugh Duffy - places above Burns and Wheat because Duffy did it during the one league 90s as opposed to 2-league teens-20s. 5th in Peak win shares, 2nd in Prime, 7th in rate. Excellent Black and Grey Ink. 5 times a top 3 outfielder. 1893 - tied with Delahanty for best position player by WS with 28. 1894 - Most win shares of position player. 7 times in the top 11 position players in the majors.
8. George Burns - ranks above Wheat because I believe he was more dominant when they played against one another. From 1913-19, he finished in the top 3 of NL outfielders 6 times, Wheat only 2 times. Had better Black Ink. Better Peak
9. Zack Wheat - From 1920-25, Wheat dominates Burns. Better Grey Ink. Better Prime. Both are B- fielders by WS. Wheat will probably move ahead of Burns based on longevity, but philosophically, where I see two players as very similar, I like to start the newer player one step lower so as to have more time to consider him.
10. Jake Beckley - freely admit he does not have a peak, and his prime is very low, unless you consider most of his career his prime. His career totals are just too high to ignore. In most statistical counting measures, every player ahead of him is in the HoM - AND several behind him as well. Bonus: an OPS+ of 125.
11. Charley Jones - Fearsome hitter. Career totals hurt by blackballing involving demanding pay while on the road, debts, and alcohol. 3rd highest OPS+ and 4th most grey ink. Rate of 30 win shares/162 is second only to Browning.
12. Bobby Veach - Best of the second tier of AL OF behind Cobb, Speaker, Ruth, and Jackson. Despite the competition, still was a 4 time win shares AL all-star. 4th most Black Ink, 2nd most grey Ink. 9th in peak, 5th tied in prime. May be awhile before the above two outfielders show on a ballot again.
13. Bill Monroe - second best available second baseman. John McGraw, who managed Larry Doyle, said Monroe was the best he ever saw. Frequently a middle-of-the-order hitter per Riley.
14. Jose Mendez - Think much more qualified than Foster for HoM enshrinement. Career much more documented against higher levels of play. Very strong documented performances against Cuban and Major league opponents.
15. Frank Chance - Best first baseman on the 20th century until some Yankee came along. Fielding, speed, OBP, leadership all lead to 6 STATS all-stars and win shares league all stars plus 4 major league ones.
   3. Rusty Priske Posted: August 23, 2004 at 12:22 PM (#813562)
My PHoM inducts the same two people that the HoM should be inducting this year.

1. Walter Johnson (new) PHoM 1933

This was a tough decision and...oh, wait. No it wasn't.

2. Zach Wheat (new) PHoM 1933

I am a BIG GVH booster, but there is no real reason that the top 2 shouldn't be unanaimous. Obviously the #2 view is not shared by everyone, but c'est la vie.

3. George Van Haltren (1,1,3) PHoM 1912

I said that he had missed his best chance and I think I was right. I can't see him being inducted at all any more.

4. Jake Beckley (5,3,6) PHoM 1913

He hops around a bit for me, but he is clearly deserving.

5. Mickey Welch (4,4,5) PHoM 1929


6. Lip Pike (6,6,7)

I thought he was sure thing at one point. Now it looks like he will eventually slide off into oblivion.

7. Tommy Leach (8,9,10) PHoM 1921


8. Jimmy Ryan (7,8,9) PHoM 1914

Not GVH, but not Fielder Jones, either.

9. Hugh Duffy (11,11,11) PHoM 1930

I would have thought he would be off my ballot by now, but he has staying power.

10. Harry Hooper (10,5,x) PHoM 1931


11. Clark Griffith (14,13,13)

Overrated, but deserving of a ballot spot.

12. Bill Monroe (13,10,12)


13. Spotswood Poles (12,12,14) PHoM 1929

14. Cupid Childs (15,14,15)

See Clark Griffith.

15. Dobie Moore (9,x,x) PHoM 1932

16-20. Doyle, Powell, Burns, McCormick, Willis
21-25. Mullane, F. Jones, Veach, Mendez, White
26-30. Waddell, Gleason, Cross, Konetchy, Groh

Top 10 guys not mentioned here: Jennings (no career. Peak alone is not enough.) and Bresnahan (just being a catcher doesn't make you great. He doesn't rate with the others.)
   4. Kelly in SD Posted: August 23, 2004 at 12:36 PM (#813568)
Top 10 Returnees Who Are Not on My Ballot:

#3 George Van Haltren: Consistently in the second best group behind Delahanty, Hamilton, Duffy, Kelley, Keeler, and other 1890s OF. I have the most difficulty with not voting for him. Excellent lead-off hitter. His career has the bulk weight, but I just can't find who I would remove from my ballot. I am more impressed with Chance in comparison to other 1B. I am more impressed with Veach's performance when compared to the others with whom he was competing. Charley Jones had a stronger peak. Mendez could be moving higher after the glut passes in the late 30s.

#4: Clark Griffith: His numbers don't compare to the pitchers that have been elected who pitched during his period. Even if he is compared to the shorter career HoM pitchers, he doesn't fit to my eyes. His career 273 ws is ahead of Walsh (265) and McGinnity (269), but the two of them are 21 and 19 better in Peak and 47 and 32 better in Prime. His numbers are comparable to Plank, except Plank has nearly 90 more career win shares. Only Rusie was an all-star as few times as Griff's 3. It comes down to not having a high enough peak to match the short-career, high-peak players.

#5 Lip Pike: Nits and picks. Below average fielder, even in the outfield where his speed should help. I admire the effort of a left hander to try second, but his below average results demonstrate the wisdom of lefties not playing second. The home run titles don't mean as much to me because of the period - triples and doubles were the power stats, and he had them. Also, the HR titles don't too much b/c is totals were small and one year he tied and two others he led by one. Without those, he only led his leagues in SLG once, doubles once and RBI once. He does have a lot of grey ink.
One poster wondered about other posts which referenced Pike's possible "ethical" dilemmas.
From SABR's Bioproject: The Baseball Chronology's account of events as the season of 1881 drew to a close:

September 3rd:
"Center fielder Lip Pike makes 3 errors in the 9th inning to give Boston 2 runs and a 3-2 victory over Worchester. The losing club immediately accuses Pike of throwing the game and suspends him."32

September 29th
"At a National League meeting in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., the league adopts a blacklist of players who are barred from playing for or against any NL team until they are removed by the unanimous vote of the league clubs. These men are: Sadie Houck, Lip Pike, Lou Dickerson, Mike Dorgan, Bill Crowley, John Fox, Lew Brown, Emil Gross, and Ed Caskins."

I don't know if he did this before 1881. His career doesn't pass my personal "sniff" test. With the suspension, the "early" acceptance of pay in 1866, the constant team-changing and being relieved of his captaincy at least twice, and the quality of early players already elected (I see Pike at the bottom), I can't see placing him on my ballot ahead of players about whom I have no questions.

#7 Hughie Jennings: I am not a fan of WARP numbers [surpise, surprise, surprise] so I don't see him as the best player in the game for 4 out of 5 years. By win shares, he is the best position player once, in 1896. Four other times he is a top 5 player. Unfortunately, in the other 7 years of his career, he finished middle of the pack or worse at his position every year. I know he was injured many times, but those injuries were often the direct result of how he chose to play the game. Hard, dirty, and he hung over the plate when at bat so he got hit - A LOT. Some people bring up the comparison to Koufax. Well, as voters in 1933, Koufax doesn't exist.

#8 Rube Waddell: I am not a strikeout fan. I realize how important they could have been in the error-prone era in which he pitched. However, despite the strikeouts significantly REDUCING the balls-in-play, he allowed MORE unearned runs than would be expected. Guess he didn't react well to errors. Be that as it may, he didn't have enough to go with a high peak - not enough career or prime.

#10 Roger Bresnahan: Great catcher who dominated his position. Didn't play enough to make the ballot when compared with Groh's peak, Wheat's length, and some pitcher.
   5. Daryn Posted: August 23, 2004 at 12:56 PM (#813576)
These next four years are going to be very boring.

1. Walter Johnson – Best. Black Ink. Ever. (Pitcher Division).

2. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data is helping Welch – those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe.

3. Zack Wheat – slightly better than Beckley, but doesn’t blow me away at all, even with all those Win Shares.

4. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. has him as the best first baseman in baseball for a long time. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (soon to be HOMer) are two of his three most similars (and, yes, I know it is a very crude tool - just saying).

5. Roger Bresnahan – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor.

6. Lip Pike – 4 monster seasons, career too short.

Ballot Filler

7. Rube Waddell -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+ and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown).

8. Tommy Leach – 300+ WS has to mean something.
A+ defense.

9. Bill Munroe – I think he was pretty good. Any blackball player that is even talked about as among the best 70 years later is pretty good. I’ll take McGraw’s word for it.

10. Addie Joss – I don’t like short careers much, but I cannot ignore the second best all-time ERA, the 12th best ERA+ and the nice winning percentage.

11. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected.

12. Jose Mendez – somewhere between here and Waddell seems right.

13. Cupid Childs – nice obp.

14. Pete Browning – Joe Jackson’s most similar player, and they are pretty close – I have him as about 4/5ths of Jackson, who was 2nd on my ballot when elected.

15. Heinie Groh – hard for me to analyze – I know he is not better than Leach in my mind and he is definitely better than Cravath. He could go up or down.

Off Ballot

16. Spotswood Poles – Van Haltren seems like a good comp.

17. George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated.

18. Jimmy Ryan – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs.

19. Hugh Duffy – 10 strong seasons, good black ink. I like him quite a bit but I guess I have timelined him off the ballot. He was on my ballot in the teens.

20. Dobie Moore -- about here.

21 and 22. Veach and Hooper – I don’t think they will make my ballot. But if one of them does I may defer to Hooper’s 321 Win Shares and 2500 hits.

23. Gavvy Cravath – I’m not sure how to treat his non-ML time, but I do think one of the purposes of the HoM is to take into account great achievers outside the majors. Baker Bowl issues keep him here.

24. Konetchy – 287 Win Shares, but nothing really impressive on his resume, particularly for a firstbaseman. Belongs in the Hall of the Very Good.

25. Larry Doyle – not a bad hitter for a second baseman and it wasn’t a particularly strong decade for NL second sackers.

26-31. McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Bender, Mullane and Mullin -- pitcher glut.

I have Jennings in the next batch of 15 players. His career is much too short for me. See more detailed comments in the first twenty ballots I left him off. He did get as high as 21st once.
   6. Kelly in SD Posted: August 23, 2004 at 12:59 PM (#813578)
Newbies and Other Popular Players:

Shocker - not enough career. A good prime, but not great enough to make up for the shorter career. I like that he faced the Yankees so much. He'll stay on the consideration list for after the new glut.

Shawkey - not enough career or peak. He managed to squeeze onto some win shares all-star teams despite not impressive numbers. Coveleski and Cooper and Shocker and Faber and Luque and Rixey, etc are better.

Fournier - not enough career currently, those his rate stats are great. I wish he had played more full seasons and he wasn't such a butcher at first, but you get the entire player, not just the good parts.

Peckinpaugh - he's better than McInnis, but...

Cooper - On the border, but going to have to wait until the glut is over for consideration.

Hooper - Maybe the 6th best outfielder of his league behind Cobb, Speaker, Ruth, Jackson, Veach. His only appearance as an all-star was 1918 when some regulars were at war so that gets a bit of an *. His peak number - 77 win shares in 3 cons years is 23rd among eligibles and that's before adjusting the short season players. His prime years - 163 win shares in his best 7 seasons - is about 23rd, again without adjusting short season players. The 321 win shares are 4th, but are a function of time spent in the majors, not high quality, as evidenced by the 22.5 WS/162games. That level is about 29th among eligible position players.

Jimmy Ryan - A completely mediocre second half of career doom the good start. At least he wasn't killed in the train crash.

Vic Willis - His teams were not as bad as people think. He only suffered from losing record teams four times. He does have a good case for election, but he is just under the barrier for me. He will stay on the chart to be compared with newcomers.

Jim McCormick - A strong career. Not as long as Welch's nor with as much peak performance nor with the performances against top quality opponents. His teams were slightly above Welch's as well. Also, while he received below average run support, he consistently received excellent defensive support.

Larry Doyle - Close to the ballot, but I can't see having 3 second basemen on the ballot right now. I think Childs is slightly better and his own manager thought Monroe was better so Doyle gets to wait.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 01:48 PM (#813611)
I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

I am integrating the conclusions made by DERA with Win Shares for all pitchers.

I do place (to a certain degree) domination at one's position during the player's era. That doesn't mean that domination-by-default will necessarily help you though (Gil Hodges may have been the best first baseman of his era, but I doubt he'll make my ballot when he becomes eligible).

1) Walter Johnson-P (n/a): I may have my doubts that he was the best all-time, but I have no doubts that he belongs #1 with a bullet this week. Outstanding peak and career - 'nuff said! Best major league pitcher for 1912, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1925. Best AL pitcher for 1915 and 1924.

2) Cupid Childs-2B (2): Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896 and 1897.          

Childs was the best major league second baseman more times in a season than Doyle was the best NL second baseman. IMO, there's no way that the Laughing One goes above the Little Fat Man.

Cupid has the most seasons as the best player at his position who is not in the HoM and compares favorably in that regard with the majority of HoMers, IMO. I honestly don't think any other player that becomes eligible from this point on with as many seasons as the best at his position will have to wait anywhere nearly as long Childs has had to endure. That doesn't mean he belongs as high as I have him, but he should be hitting everyone's ballot somewhere. Please take another look at him.

3) Heinie Groh-3B (n/a): Best third baseman of his era not name Frank Baker. Terrific hitting and fielding for his position. Like Childs, many years as the best at his position, yet still had a long career for someone at his position. He belongs. Best major league third baseman for 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1924.

4) Lip Pike-CF/RF/2B (3): Considered the fastest man of his time. Major star prior to the NA. Two things hold him back somewhat: durability and how good of a player he was at his position compared to his competition pre-NA (Pearce is not affected as much by the latter in my analysis, obviously). Best major league rightfielder for 1871 and 1873. Best major league centerfielder for 1874-1876.

5) Charley Jones-LF/CF (4): Like York below, he was playing a more difficult position than the one that it evolved into. I gave him a little more credit for his (unfairly) blacklisted years. Best major league leftfielder for 1877, 1879 and 1884. Best AA centerfielder for 1883. Best AA leftfielder for 1885 (close to being the best in the majors).

6) Zack Wheat-LF (n/a): Not really a truly great player at his peak, but compiled many seasons of quality baseball. A real good one. Best major league leftfielder for 1924. Best NL leftfielder for 1915, 1916, 1920, 1922 and 1926.

7) Vic Willis-P (6): Why does this man receive such little respect? Willis pitched a ton of innings at an above-average rate for a long enough time for his era. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

8) Tom York-LF (5): I know some here looking at his OPS+ must be saying to themselves "Murph has him over guys like Sheckard?!?" Fair question, but, IMO, York was a more dominating player at his position than Sheckard was during his time. Long enough career and many times as the best at his position (when left field was more like centerfield today) deserves a ballot spot.Best leftfielder of the 1870s. Best major league leftfielder for 1873, 1875, 1877 and 1878 (extremely close in 1872 and 1881).

9) Jake Beckley-1B (15): Big jump this week. Not much peak, but plenty of career. Better than his numbers suggest since first base was tougher during his time than during the ABC boys' era. Best major league first baseman for 1900.

10) Mickey Welch-P (n/a): Back on with a boost! First time in my top ten. Best major league pitcher for 1885.

11) Rube Waddell-P (9): Moved him up a little. If he had been a little more serious and quit the horse playing... Tied for best major league pitcher for 1902. Best AL pitcher for 1905.

12)Jose Mendez-P (10): Looks a lot like Waddell quality-wise, so I'll place him right here. Very impressive player.

13) Ed Konetchy-1B (8): Best first baseman of the Deadball Era, IMO. Best major league first baseman for 1910, 1911 and 1916 (very close in 1909 and 1912). Best NL first baseman for 1909, 1912 and 1919.

14) Roger Bresnahan-C/CF (11): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.

15) George Van Haltren-CF/P (15): A slight boost for pitching resurrects him for this week. Long career of quality play. Best AA leftfielder for 1889 and 1891.

Ryan, Jennings and Griffith are close.

Of the newbies, only Shocker was close to making my ballot.
   8. Adam Schafer Posted: August 23, 2004 at 02:02 PM (#813632)
Got my ballot done early this week.

1. Walter Johnson (n/a) - No doubt he's #1

2. Mickey Welch (1) - Not sure he'll ever get his rightful spot in the HOM.

3. Zach Wheat (n/a) - A career full of consistency. A lack of peak keeps him behind Welch

4. Clark Griffith (3) - Big jump for Griffith. All of the talk on Welch has had me reevaluate Griffith. Turns out Griffith was much more valuable than I was giving him credit for.

5. Rube Waddell (4) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive years. He's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

6. Lip Pike (5) - I bump him ahead of a couple others this year as I am convinced he was a bigger stud than I was willing to let myself believe. I can see him finally getting in one of these days.

7. George Van Haltren (6) - Moves ahead of Beckley and Bresnahan.

8. Jose Mendez (7) - I thought I'd have him a lot higher than this, but I just don't feel like I have a firm grasp of his career yet. I do feel much more comfortable with him than I do with Rube Foster though.

9. Jake Beckley (8) - Big drop for a guy that would've been #2 on my ballot this year. I didn't find any reason to like him any less, I just found justification in moving several others higher than him.

10. Roger Bresnahan (9) - It's no secret that I love catchers. I would've ranked Roger higher had he caught more and played the OF less during his peak years.

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

12. Heinie Groh (n/a) - One of the best thirdbasemen to date

13. Bobby Veach (11) - Not enough career for him to merit a higher ranking on my ballot, but enough peak to grab a lower spot.

14. Jimmy Ryan (12) - A watered down Van Haltren

15. Eddie Cicotte (13) - Underrated in my opinion. May not be HOM material, but underrated nonetheless.

16. Urban Shocker (n/a) - 8 good pitching seasons. Nothing spectacular, but a respectable career.

17. Hugh Duffy (14) - Back onto my ballot. No new thoughts on him

18. Harry Hooper (15) - nothing overly impressive about his career. I originally thought he would rank much higher than this on my initial ballot, but he just doesn't meet the qualifications in my mind that everyone above him does.

19. Jim McCormick

20. Cupid Childs
   9. mbd1mbd1 Posted: August 23, 2004 at 02:37 PM (#813664)
1933 ballot. Big Train and Zack Wheat are slam dunks.

1. Walter Johnson (NA) - duh.
2. Zack Wheat (NA) - better top two: Johnson and Wheat or Mathewson and Lajoie? discuss.
3. George Van Haltren (1) - I like GVH, but he's outclassed here.
4. Jake Beckley (2) - just short of GVH
5. Jimmy Ryan (3) - just short of Beckley
6. Harry Hooper (6) - nice career value, but no black Ink at all.
7. Hugh Duffy (5) - second tier of OF but with some nice Ink.
8. Tommy Leach (7) - just short of Duffy.
9. Vic Willis (8) - underrated, IMHO.
10. George J. Burns (9) - I'm just not all that excited about anyone from here on out.
11. Spotswood Poles (13) - this might be a little low for him, I'll take another look at his thread.
12. Bobby Veach (10) - meh.
13. Clark Griffith (15) - Willis pitched more innings, has more WS, and better Ink. Griffith has a better ERA+ and more W3.
14. Rube Waddell (14) - perennial ballot filler for me.
15. Heinie Groh (NA) - best of the 3B eligibles (except for half of Leach).

next five: Konetchy, Doyle, Cooper, Mendez, Cicotte.

missing top tenners: Pike is down my list of OF, I'd say in the 25-30 neighborhood. Jennings and Bresnahan don't have enough career value to make my ballot, they're hanging out around 35 or so.
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 02:43 PM (#813671)
2. Zack Wheat (NA) - better top two: Johnson and Wheat or Mathewson and Lajoie? discuss.

The latter. Not even close.
   11. andrew siegel Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:29 PM (#813724)
Ballot (same as prelim except moved Groh up 3 slots and add explanations for omissions):

(1) Johnson (new)--A tip of the hat.
(2) Wheat (new)-- I don't really see the case for keeping him out. Take the case I made for VH in discussion thread and multiply everything (career totals, peak seasons, prime seasons) by 10-15%.
(3) Childs (2nd)--When you adjust for season length and longevity at each position over time, he is right there with or perhaps even slightly ahead of the Richardson, McPhee, and Grant troika.
(4) VH (3rd)--See post in defense of him in discussion thread.
(5) Jennings (4th)-- Not thrilled to have him this high, but don't like what anyone else is selling.
(6) Groh (new)--Realized that I had him a bit low in the prelim--he's kind of the mid-point between Childs and Jennings--a slightly better peak and a slightly shorter period of positional dominance than Childs; a somewhat worse peak and somewhat better surrounding seasons than Jennings.
(7) Chance (6th)-- Rate stats, intangibles, and peak all there. Would rather induct him than those who follow.
(8) Duffy (8th)-- If current WARP numbers had been in place a year ago, we would have elected him 10-20 "years" ago. Then again, we might have made a mistake.
(9) Pike (7th)-- Nothing to add. Numbers are there, but I till think his contemporaries would have laughed at us.
(10) Beckley (9th)-- Wish I better understood defensive value of 1B during the 1890s. Right now, I'm treating being a good 1B as more valuable than being a good corner OF but less valuable than being a great corner OF or an average CF.
(11) Ryan (5th)-- I moved him up about 5 years ago b/c/ I didn't think the gap between him and VH could be justified, but someone had a great post last year showing how the little things add up. Back where my gut had him originally.
(12) Bresnahan (10th)-- Going to leave my ballot next year but likely to reappear sporadically for years. The last guy on this ballot who I can say that for.
(13) Doyle (11th)-- I've got them Wheat, Groh, Doyle, Burns, about evenly spaced but am still trying to figure out the NL peaking order.
(14) Jones (12th)--A very good defensive OF when young and a top-tier bat for awhile, he has a lot of chits. But he didn't make the bigs until late, played mostly corner OF, and loses about 15 EQA points to league adjustments. In the end, similar to Hugh Duffy if you give him full credit for the blacklist years. I give him 75% credit or so, since he WAS a pain in the #### for management.
(15) Willis (14th)-- The next pitcher, though well behind those we've elected. HoF was right to elect him in 1995, given their standards. Based on our standards, he just misses.

Next 10 in rough order: Veach (15th), Welch, Dunlap, Williamson, McGraw (13th), Cooper, Griffin, Mendez, Monroe, Browning.

Welch is 17th--as I explained in the Joe Williams thread I have him as the 81st best player eligible through 1934 and Keefe as the 58th, but those 23 spots make all the difference. I think Jack Morris is a nice comp.

I have Clark Griffith 26th--if you measure pitching value against the norms of the era, he does worse than lots of guys like Cooper, Cicotte, and Shocker. I think he's overrated b/c/ we don't make sufficient adjustments for era when evaluating his career totals.

Waddell is around 35--on the numbers, he's probably somewhere around Mendez (23rd), but in a draft of players' careers I couldn't imagine a manager who wouldn't have to deal with, say, Joss's lesser durability and early death or Griffith's slightly lesser level of ability or Vaughn's late start than with Waddell's unreliability, lack of intelligence, and disruptiveness.

Shocker is between 25 and 30 (3 more good seasons or 2 more excellent seaons off ballot). None of the other newbies are top 50, though Schalk, Shawkey, and Peckinpaugh would all be top 100 if I kept track that far down.
   12. robc Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:41 PM (#813734)
2nd ballot in a row where I havent posted a prelim. Must be getting lazy.

1. Walter Johnson - insert witty comment here
2. Fielder Jones - good career/good peak, at the top of the OF glut.
3. Lave Cross - Best 3B on the ballot. There are 2 I would like to see elected.
4. Harry Hooper - Has 2nd best career WARP3 on ballot. Over 100 behind 1st.
5. Zack Wheat - If he isnt elected, he could move to the top of my ballot next year, unless someone good is coming along or something.
6. Jake Beckley - Career value.
7. Cupid Childs - Best 2B, nice peak.
8. Jimmy Ryan - Part of the may never get elected glut.
9. Heinie Groh - Not quite Lave Cross.
10. George VanHaltren - more glut.
11. Rube Waddell - 2nd best pitcher on the ballot. Not that they can be compared.
12. Bobby Veach - Now reached the point of ballot filler.
13. Clark Griffith - Wont be on the ballot much longer.
14. Hughie Jennings - nice peak.
15. Mike Griffin - Last ballot appearance?

16. Tommy Leach
17. Roger Bresnahan
18. Joe Tinker
19. Mike Tiernan
20. Del Pratt
21. Vic Willis
22. Billy Nash
23. Ed Konetchy
24. Herman Long
25. John McGraw
26. George J. Burns
27. Urban Shocker
28. Miller Huggins
29. Jimmy Williams
30. Pete Browning

Any top 10s I missed will be covered in a future post.
   13. jhwinfrey Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:47 PM (#813744)
Here's my ballot--several changes since posting my preliminary version, although no change at the top!
My PHOM inductees are Johnson and Wheat.

1. Walter Johnson (ne) The game would have to change quite a bit for his career shutout record to ever be challenged. PHOM in 1933.

2. Mickey Welch (1,1,1,1,1,1,2) Big gap between #1 and #2. But someone has to get the bonus points, and Mickey is my choice. PHOM in 1926.

3. Zack Wheat (ne) A very solid career. 476 career doubles is impressive. I've been to his hometown of Hamilton, Missouri--also the birthplace of Walt Disney. PHOM in 1933.

4. Jake Beckley (6,3,5,4,4,3,3) 2,930 reasons to vote for him. PHOM in 1927.

5. Clark Griffith (11,8) 46 Wins above Team--that's antihistamine numbers.

6. Rube Waddell (5,8,8,6,5,4,5) No one struck out more batters in the first decade of the 20th century. PHOM in 1930.

7. Bill Monroe (15,nr,14,12,11,6,7) Best middle infielder on the ballot.

8. Jose Mendez (4) I now believe that I was mistaken to have him ranked ahead of Rube Foster in 1932. PHOM in 1932.

9. Lip Pike (13,14,12,10,8,8,9) My In/Out line probably sits just above Lip Pike this year.

10. Roger Bresnahan (9, 11, 9, 7, 6, 7, 10) Once again, he's the best catcher on the ballot. PHOM in 1930.

11. George Van Haltren (14,15,13,13,12,10,11) Only his pitching keeps him ahead of Poles for me.

12. Spotswood Poles (11,9,9,12) The only other eligible outfielder that stands out for me. Sorry, Jimmy Ryan.

13. Bruce Petway (14,12,14) Just below the "Magee line" for me.

14. Cupid Childs (13,15) Comparisons to Heinie Groh led me to drop Childs a bit from my preliminary ballot.

15. Jim McCormick (15, nr, 13) The brevity of his career keeps him from being up there with Welch.

Next 5:
16. Tommy Leach
17. Lave Cross--I "rediscovered" him this time around--I like him better than Hooper or Groh.
18. Addie Joss (10,9,10,8,10,14,nr) His career ERA ranking keeps him this high, but his career length keeps him from going any higher.
19. John Donaldson
20. Tony Mullane (12,13,11,14,13,15,nr) Pitched well for a long time, but against questionable competition.

21-25: Hooper, Willis, Ryan, Duffy, Doyle
26-30: Groh, Cravath, Tiernan, Burns, Konetchy
31-35: Browning, Mathews, Daubert, Cicotte, Evers
36-40: Milan, Cooper, Thomas, Shively, Lyons


24. Hugh Duffy--Good black ink and even a little bit of power, but his career length and the context of his era keeps him below guys like Hooper and Cross for me.

26. Heinie Groh--At the moment, I can't see putting him ahead of Doyle. He's 12 slots below Childs and 9-10 slots below Leach and Cross. That seems about right to me.

49. Roger Peckinpaugh--17 fairly good seasons and one MVP year, but that 87 OPS+ will keep him from ever sniffing the ballot.

51. Hughie Jennings--Simply not dominant enough to overcome his short career. See McGraw, John.

52. Urban Shocker--A good ERA+ of 124, but only a medium-lenght career. And he had a pretty good offense supporting him.

54. Bob Shawkey--Just a notch below Shocker.

55. Jack Fournier--His OPS+ of 142 is impressive, but his other offensive numbers don't separate him from the average first baseman for me. And on defense, he appears to be below average.

59. Ray Schalk--18 seasons of good-field, poor-hit baseball.
   14. PhillyBooster Posted: August 23, 2004 at 03:54 PM (#813757)
Second year in a row putting my ballot on the wrong thead . . .

1. Walter Johnson (n/e) – do you know anyone under age 30 named Walter? I don’t. Here’s a history of the name “Walter”, as a ranking of male baby names in America from 1930 to 2003, as recorded by the Social Security Administration:

1930s: 22
1940s: 27
1950s: 52
1960s: 80
1970s: 107
1980s: 158
1990s: 245 [falling between Josue (244) and Gage (246)]
2000: 310
2003: 356

2.Jake Beckley (2) – Career AND peak. If you think he had no peak, then I don’t understand your definition of the word.

Most Extra Base Hits, 1885-1905, inclusive:


3. Mickey Welch (4) – Is he as good as Tim Keefe or not? My view is that he was seen as better and placed in tougher matchups. A HoM that contains both Tim Keefe and Pud Galvin needs to also have Mickey Welch.

4. Zack Wheat (n/e) -- Not deeply impressed, but I’m guessing he’s goes on the short list of “Players Inducted Without Ever Receiving a First Place Vote”.

5. Jose Mendez (5) – Best of the black Cubans. Best of the Cuban pitchers. Best Cuban player. Played on Negro League “All-Star” teams even in years that he could not pitch. Bested U.S. Caucasian All-Star teams in years that he could pitch. Placing him fifth below Welch is very conservative, I think, and the lowest I could justify.

6. Gavy Cravath (6) – Any reasonable consideration of his Los Angeles and Minneapolis years demands a ballot space.

7. Lip Pike (7)– Most Extra Base Hits in the National Association, 1871-1875 total:


8.Roger Bresnahan (8) -- The opposition is to his career length. Here are a list of total games played by all individuals between 1895 and 1915 who caught at least 800 games (Bresnahan caught 974).


So compared to other catchers in his peer group, he had the best rate stats, and played in the most games. I can’t see what more could be asked of a player at the toughest defensive position on the diamond.

9.Cupid Childs (9) – WARP1/162 games among all second basemen with at least 1000 games played:

Bid McPhee, 14.49
Nap Lajoie, 14.40
Hardy Richardson, 13.23
Cupid Childs, 12.06
Jimmy Williams, 11.40

10.Pete Browning (10)– The greatest AA player not currently in the HoM.

11.Bill Monroe (11) – Re-read his Biography in the Biographical Encyclopedia, and would prefer him as perhaps the #2 black player of his era to any of the non-best Caucasians.

12. Henry Knight Groh (n/e) -- After much soul-searching, he falls somewhere between McGinnity, Childs, and Williamson. Or maybe not. This is a best guess, but I’m still not 100% that he was better than Williamson. Or Leach.

13.Clark Griffith (13) – Not among the best, but without a doubt among the best who are left.

14.George van Haltren (12) -- Excellent player who could pitch, but just the number 3 Centerfielder on my ballot.

15.Frank Chance (15) – Great offense/defense combo peak.
   15. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2004 at 04:05 PM (#813778)
(9) Pike (7th)-- Nothing to add. Numbers are there, but I till think his contemporaries would have laughed at us.

This sounds a little harsh, so I'll politely bite. Isn't one of the points of this project to get at the numbers and seek out who really had the value? The Shoeless One's contemporaries would have laughed at us, too.

His comrads may have inducted other players first, but so did we. If there is no room for more NA guys then so be it, but I see no shame in having Lip Pike on the top of the list of the uninducted from this time period.
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 04:22 PM (#813813)
2.Jake Beckley (2) – Career AND peak. If you think he had no peak, then I don’t understand your definition of the word.

Since you appear to be in the minority here, maybe a definition of the word from you might be better. :-)
   17. OCF Posted: August 23, 2004 at 04:38 PM (#813829)
1933 ballot.
1. Walter Johnson (new)
2. Zack Wheat (new) I had Van Haltren and Ryan #2 and #3 on last year's ballot. Wheat is directly comparable to them, and better.
3. George Van Haltren (9, 8, 2, 1, 2) No great enthusiasm for this choice - he gets here by attrition. As "peakless" careers go, he's got substantially more offensive peak than the likes of Beckley or Hooper. Not much pitching value (and it was a whole lot easier to be a pitcher-hitter before 1893 than after), but what little pitching there is serves as a tiebreaker among similar candidates.
4. Jimmy Ryan (7, 6, 3, 2, 3) Nearly indistinguishable from Van Haltren. 25th year on my ballot.
5. Larry Doyle (3, 2, 5, 3, 4) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the available outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
6. Heine Groh (new) This may be too high, but was an MVP candidate more than once.
7. Hugh Duffy (8, 7, 4, 4, 5) 27th year on my ballot.
8. Rube Waddell (6, 4, 6, 5, 6) I continue to see him as the best available pitcher. (Among mere mortals.)
9. Roger Bresnahan (10, 9, 8, 6, 7) Very good offense for a catcher; not enough if we think of him as an outfielder.
10. Jake Beckley (19, 18, 10, 11, 11) No peak, long career. But still more peak than Hooper. Decided to move him ahead of Cravath.
11. Gavy Cravath (11, 10, 9, 7, 8) In the system I use, the biggest offensive peak of anyone other than Chance (well, maybe Tiernan). Yes, he took unique advantage of his park, but real wins resulted from that. Seriously lacking in bulk unless you also consider his work in Minneapolis.
12. Jose Mendez (----, 9) Behind Waddell but ahead of any other pitcher feels about right - well, other than you know who.
13. Frank Chance (15, 13, 11, 10, 12) I could have him higher; huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time.
14. Mickey Welch (14, 11, 5, 7, 8, 10) The more I learn, the more confused I get.
15. George J. Burns (---, 11, 13) My new favorite leadoff hitter, ahead of Thomas and Hartsel. (See also the NBJHBA.)
16. Vic Willis (12, 11, 12, 12, 14) I could reasonably have him right up there with Waddell.
17. Jack Fournier (new) Matches up will with Cravath. Less defense, a less-developed minor league back story - but he could mash.
18. Tommy Leach (-----) The candidacy of Groh throws some relief on his case - I think I've been underrating him.
19. Johnny Evers (14, 12, 16, 20, 24) Him, too.
20. Harry Hooper (---, 14, 16) Less peak than Van Haltren, less peak than Beckley - it's sheer length of career as a good player that gets him this high.
21. Babe Adams (----, 17)
22. Herman Long (25, 15, 14, 15, 18) The key man in a great team defense. Scored some runs, too - twice over 100 R*.
23. Joe Tinker (18, 14, 13, 16, 19) Defense at SS does matter.
24. Clark Griffith (17, 17, 17, 17, 20) RA+ PythPat of 203-146.
25. Urban Shocker (new) Good pitcher, but RA+ PythPat of 181-117 puts him here. Fewer innings than Adams, and the problem with Adams was innings.
24. Bobby Veach (---, 18, 21)
25. Hughie Jennings (22, 22, 20, 22, 26) Keeping him in sight: I have to pay attention to the arguments of his supporters, even if I haven't adopted them.
Slipping out of the top 25: Bobby Veach, Wilbur Cooper, Roy Thomas, Spot Poles.
Urban Shocker would probably be 26th. RA+ PythPat of 181-117 puts him here. Fewer innings than Adams, and the problem with Adams was innings.
Bob Shawkey won't make my ballot, because he's not Shocker.
Roger Peckinpaugh is never going to make my ballot, because I have no reason to put him ahead of Tinker or Long.
   18. OCF Posted: August 23, 2004 at 04:41 PM (#813830)
do you know anyone under age 30 named Walter?

I had a grandfather named "Walter". He was born within 5 years of the Big Train's birth. I have a cousin named 'Walter", clearly named after his grandfather. He's in his late 40's now. None of this contradicts your point.
   19. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 23, 2004 at 04:49 PM (#813842)
Murphy--really? If not the Train, then Clemens or Grove I presume...just because of timeline? Johnson does, I think, have the best peak ever (190 ERA+ in the teens, finishing in the top 4 in innings every year), and the most valuable career ever besides *maybe* Cy Young...
   20. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 05:22 PM (#813873)
Murphy--really? If not the Train, then Clemens or Grove I presume...just because of timeline? Johnson does, I think, have the best peak ever (190 ERA+ in the teens, finishing in the top 4 in innings every year), and the most valuable career ever besides *maybe* Cy Young...

I actually have it now as a battle between Johnson and Young as the greatest up to 1966 (the last year I have been working on). Remember that Young had a chunk of his career in a one-league environment which depressed his numbers and his ranking within the NL. Of course, Young wouldn't have had the same amount of innings as he did if he started his career in 1927, so that has to be factored in. Young had his peak at the worst time to be a pitcher, while Johnson had his during the greatest era for pitchers. Johnson played with better competition. Trying to balance all of this leads me to say "stalemate." :-)

I don't know where Seaver, Clemens or Maddux should be yet.
   21. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: August 23, 2004 at 05:23 PM (#813875)
I think I've been too nice to OFer, so there's some shake ups, especially at third.

1. Walter Johnson (new). Well that was easy.

2. Zach Wheat (new). I believe in treating newbies cautionsly, but this is as low as I can put him. Big heaping gobs of career value.

3. Jake Beckley (4,3,2,1,2). I'll let others vote for the best players. I'll vote for the best careers.

4. Clark Griffith (8,6,5,3,3). Personal favorite 1890s pitcher. Nice career, nice prime.

5. Mickey Welch (6,5,4,4,4). Thank you retrosheet. Turns out he earned those 300 wins. Offensive support only gave him 3-4 wins. Defensive support, though a little above average, was actually worse the defensive support of all major non-Galvin pitchers in the 1880s.

6. Lave Cross (37,25,23,22,16). Weird career. Great defense, but banal offense. But overall he had an OPS+ of 100, which is above average for the 2nd most important glove position. And oh yeah, he's possibly the greatest defensive player ever at third, and he did it forever. Gets some bonus for playing some time at catcher. 16.0 seasons played.

7. George Van Haltren (12,9,7,7,6). Very good player for an extended period of time who could do numerous things well.

8. Jimmy Ryan (13,10,8,8,7). GVH without the ability to pitch. Played 14.6 seasons worth of games, by my reckonin'.

9. Cupid Childs (14,12,10,9,9). The D & OBP keep him above Larry Doyle. 10.5 seasons worth of games by my reckonin'.

10. Heine Groh (new). 11.1 seasons played. Better prime & bat than Leach, and off-sets Leach's career numbers because Groh spent all his time at the more important 3B position.

11. Tommy Leach (9,7,6,6,5). Mutlitalented player. Terrific defense at two positions & he was a good hitter. Fine player for a long time (14.2 seasons worth of games).

12. Larry Doyle (16,13,11,10,10). Close to Childs, but most of the things break to CC's advantage. 11.5 yrs worth of games.

13. Gavvy Cravath (19,15,13,12,12). Toughie to figure. Gets some minor league credit, but loses some due to park factors (a homer champion hitting all his homers at home? Sure you could argue that it shows he's really taking full advantage of his home park, but I'd like to see my sluggers be able to hit the ball in other parks also. In trying to weigh out the different factors, I'll give him enough credit for his minor league days to just get him on the ballot. He played 8.1 seasons worth of games.

14. Bill Monroe (22,17,14,13,13). He looks better in comparison to the later negro league arrivals (Poles, Donaldson, Lyons) than the initial ones (Johnson, Grant).

15. Addie Joss (24,22,20,20,18). Could freakin' pitch. But not for enough innings. I have too many 2nd-tier OFers at the bottom or near the ballot, so Joss rises up to counteract that.

Top Ten Returnees & Newbies:
20. Urban Shocker (new). I like him, but I can't justify putting him over Joss, who's off my ballot.
21. Jake Fournier (new). Heckuva hitter. Seems like he lost his job through bad play one year so I'm not giving him much minor league credit. 9.9 yrs.
25. Rube Waddell (26,26,24,26,25). The king of unearned runs - and considering how important his ERA+ is to his candidacy, that hurts.
28. Lip Pike (29,19,17,18,20). Drops with the rest of the OFers.
31. Hughie Jennings (41,42,43,29,28). Five great years & not much else - lands you this low on my ballot. I reckon him at 9.2 seasons played.
32. Roger Bresnahan (36,37,37,30,29). Not enough games at catcher to get in as a catcher & not nearly enough games to get in as anything else. 9.5 seasons played - only 65% at catcher.
86. Bob Shawkey (new). Decent pitcher. That's it.
Others are outside the my top 100.
   22. andrew siegel Posted: August 23, 2004 at 05:31 PM (#813879)

I'm all for overcoming the biases of a player's contemporaries and for filtering out much of the noise that distorts players' reputations.

But, it seems to me that we can go overboard in the other direction. Pike is an interesting case in point. To wit:

His objective plusses:
(1) HoM offensive numbers.
(2) Superhuman speed (most of which is already figured into his numbers, but still...).
(3) A lot of playing time at important defensive positions (2B, CF).

His objective negatives:
(1) His offensive numbers are someone uneven from season to season.
(2) His defensive stats (to the extent we can understand them) seem poor in the OF and very poor at 2B.
(3) His career was relatively short, cutting off relatively abruptly while his numbers are still decent.
(4) His teams didn't win very much.

Now, you can tell two different stories from those objective plusses and minuses: (1) he was an offensive powerhouse whose skill set wasn't fully appreciated, who lost part of his career to roster mismangement, who lost some of his value to misguided efforts to play him at wrong positions, and who was vastly underrated b/c/ he played on bad teams or (2) a bad seed who could hit a lot but often wasn't worth the effort to keep around.

Without more, we wouldn't know which story to favor. But there is a lot more:

(1) Scandals about accepting $$ to play before it was kosher.
(2) Accusations of game throwing.
(3) Fired multiple times as manager/captain.
(4) Kept switching teams almost every season.
(5) Teams consistently underperformed.
(6) Big gap between defensive performance and skill set (at least in the OF).

So, when you add the things I listed above to the mix, there is at least a strong case that Pike was a selfish, lackadasical, unsavory pain in the ass or worse. There is a chance, in fact, that he was Hal Chase with a better bat.

I'm not going to give that stuff too much credence, but it does make me do 2 things:

(1) Drop him below the 3 players I have in an essentially flat-footed 4-way tie with him.
(2) Acknowledge in my comments that he might be hoodwinking me.
   23. PhillyBooster Posted: August 23, 2004 at 05:39 PM (#813887)
Since you appear to be in the minority here, maybe a definition of the word from you might be better. :-)

Create a hypothetical League All-Star Team made up of top 25 or so players for each year. The team should be evenly distributed across positions, but containing all of the top stars -- on average 2 or 3 at each position and 4-7 pitchers.

If you make that team, you are part of the your league's "peak" performers. Any reasonable calculation of the NL (and 1890 PL) rosters puts Beckley on 8-10 All Star Teams (the wiggle room depending on whether you give a third "1B" slot in a few years that Anson, Brouthers, or Connor monopolize the easy slots). To me, any proper All-Star selection is neccessarily part Beckley's "peak," and I don't see anyone who gets on more All-Star teams except Wheat (I've got him on nine). Wheat is essentially tied with Beckley by my calculations, but I have him in third due to level of confidence -- I have been staring at Beckley much longer, and am more certain I am not missing anything.
   24. Patrick W Posted: August 23, 2004 at 05:53 PM (#813907)
I can’t believe we knocked 7 names off the voting list last year. I didn’t figure the list would ever start to shrink. Chance to knock off at least 5 more this year. (Putting those single vote names at the bottom of the list into a text file are a personal frustration for this ballot-counter. </rant>)

5 years ago, I could’ve made a case to get Peckinpaugh on the ballot, which would’ve made my largest rookie class on a ballot (I think) even bigger. No doubt a one-year record, but still…

1. Walter Johnson (n/a), Wash. (A), SP (’07-’27) (1933) -- I’m sure someone will be offended if I say no-brainer.
2. Zack Wheat (n/a), Bkn. (N), LF (’09-’27) (1933) -- See VH.
3. George Van Haltren (2), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – A case can be made for Van Haltren over Wheat. Mostly along the lines of reducing timelines & ignoring W3 PRAR, but it’s a case I could be persuaded by. Just too many tie-breakers point to the new guy. I’m going back to adjusted WS to break the tie with Ryan.
4. Jimmy Ryan (3), Chic. (N), CF / RF (‘85-‘03) (1926) – Still underrated by the group. Somebody needs to explain Duffy over Ryan to me.
5. Harry Hooper (5), Bost. (A), RF (’09-’25) (1931) – More emphasis on offense over defense for the OF’s gives Hooper the jump over Fielder.
6. Fielder Jones (4), Chic.(A), CF / RF (’96-’08) (1930) – Criminally underrated here. Not the second best on the ballot either, but 6 votes?? OPS+ isn’t everything folks…
7. Jake Beckley (6), Pitt. – Cinc.(N), 1B (’88-’07) (1929) – Solid numbers forever.
8. Rube Waddell (8), Bost. (N), SP (’97-’09) – Tied at the hip to Foster, so the new WARP helps them both to the top of the pitcher glut.
9. Heinie Groh (n/a), Cinc. (N), 3B (’12-’27) – Most worthy infielder eligible (might be over 4 years before I can say that again).
10. Urban Shocker (n/a), St.L (A), SP (’16-’27) – I remembered his name from a long time ago, looking up the ’27 Yankees. I had assumed his 18-6, 2.84 season was mid-career, not his last. Clear #2 pitcher without the ‘voluntary retirement’ at 35.
--. Joe Start, Atlantic-Bkn (NABBP)-N.Y.Mut.(NL), 1B (‘60-’86) – When’s that next drought coming?
11. Cupid Childs (13), Clev. (N), 2B (’90-’01) – Deserves to move up closer to Groh.
12. Eddie Cicotte (11), Chic. (A), SP (’08-’20) (1930) – Used to have a clear career-value advantage over the other eligible pitchers. Not the case anymore he has fallen back to the pack. Likely to be the first PHOM electee to drop from the ballot. I’m a big-Hall type of guy, so I’m not that concerned about him dropping on the ballot; I’m naïve enough to think everyone above here will make my Hall eventually.
--. Mordecai Brown, Chic. (N), SP (’03-’16) –
13. Clark Griffith (10), Chic. (N) - NY (A), SP (’91-’14) – Griffith’s numbers warranted moving up on the ballot, not falling back
14. Spotswood Poles (9), N.Y. Lincoln (--), CF (‘09-‘23)– MLE’s say he’s close to, but better than, Monroe in hitting.
15. Tommy Leach (--), Pitt. (N), CF / 3B (’98-’18) – Obviously, the early AL/NL difficulty adjustments were tweaked a bit from the old WARP. Might deserve to rank as high as Beckley, but I had a hard enough time finding space on the ballot at all with 4 rookies making the ballot also. I’m gonna consider him a 3B, so my ballot looks more balanced position-wise.

I hope it’s not an overreaction to last year’s results, but I chose Monroe and Mendez to drop from last year’s ballot, in addition to replacing Veach w/ Leach. The MLE’s just don’t stack up with the upper end of the ballot players.

Lip Pike – Too many other worthies have arrived (and will continue to) and rank ahead of him. Doesn’t look likely that he’ll ever make it to the ballot.
Hughie Jennings – Did ya notice how Big Train’s peak puts Jennings’ to shame?
Roger Bresnahan – Pretty big adjustment up by WARP, he’s now just being squeezed out by a stronger top 15. Avg. to below avg. catcher defensively and I don’t have quotas for representing every era of every position.
Hugh Duffy – What, 7½ OF/1B on the ballot isn’t enough? Among those 8, he is #1 on peak, #6, 7 or 8 on everything else. I should’ve had him on the ballot over McGinnity & others a few years ago, and I’ll keep him in consideration when ballot spots start becoming available again.

Pike, Jennings, Duffy & Bresnahan are in last year’s top ten, but not in my top 15. This list will also shrink next year.
   25. DavidFoss Posted: August 23, 2004 at 06:27 PM (#813950)
Thanks Andrew!

That was an extremely well-thought-out response on Pike! I can find it reasonable why you don't give him any tie-breakers. (You do have him on your ballot, after all, it was just the ballot-comment that I responded to).
   26. favre Posted: August 23, 2004 at 06:37 PM (#813967)
1.Walter Johnson
2.Lip Pike

a)averaged about 34 aWS per season during an eight-year stretch (275 aWS in 10-year documented career; -5 WS for two token appearances; 270/8=33.85). While I concede the difficulties of adjusted win shares for the NA era, that’s still quite a prime.
b) His career OPS+ of 155 is higher than anyone on the ballot except Browning.
c) was the best outfielder—not centerfielder, but OUTFIELDER-- in baseball in 1871, ’74, ‘75’ and ’76.
d) was a star for five years before the NA, one of the first players to be paid, probably the best second baseman in the game during 1869-1870.
e) with all that, his moment may have come and gone.

3.Zack Wheat
4.Jake Beckley
5. Clark Griffith

Zack Wheat looks like Willie Keeler to me, but withe a little more value at defense.

I understand why Beckley is as welcome to peak voters as the Dixie chicks would be at the Republican National Convention. But I’m not really a peak voter, and Jake’s a good career pick. He has 316 unadjusted Win Shares, which modified for schedule length would be, what, 330-340 WS? Not a lock, but hardly an embarrassment to the HoM. His WARP3 career score is good (87.1). He had 13 seasons with an OPS+ of 123 or higher. His career grey ink is good, and he has very good counting stats; I know we have to take the 90s level of offense into account, but 2900 hits/1600runs/1500 RBI certainly doesn’t discourage me from putting him high on the ballot. His era is underrepresented as it is, and I can’t imagine inducting another first baseman who played between 1897 and 1915. I’m sold.

Between 1895-1901, Griffith never had a season ERA+ lower than 119 in a hitter’s era. In those seven seasons, Griffith was 154-87, .639 WP; his team’s WP was .449 without him.

6.Tommy Leach
7.Heinie Groh
8.Rube Waddell

Leach has 324 career WS. We’ve elected everyone with more career Win Shares except Van Haltren and Welch, and Haltren’s WS (344) are distorted by his pitching stint. He played near flawless CF/3B and hit in a low offense era. I’m more and more convinced that he belongs. Groh has a similar argument, and was an even better player than Leach in his prime. However, Leach gets the career nod for now.

Rube Waddell led the AL in K/IP for eight years, and was 2nd in another year. The lack of home runs reduces the value of strikeouts, but each K was an out that his defense didn’t have to record, and defenses were pretty lousy back then. He has three ERA+ titles. On the other hand, it appears he allowed a lot of unearned runs, his W-L records aren’t great…Waddell drives me crazy, which, given his life story, seems fitting.

9.Ned Williamson
10.Pete Browning
11.Hugh Jennings
12. Cupid Childs
13.Larry Doyle

Like Leach, Williamson was an excellent fielder and decent hitter, but played in more offense-friendly and overrepresented era. If you give Browning a healthy AA discount (obviously a matter of contention), then he was a comparable player to Sam Thompson: relatively short career, not much defense, but a very good hitter.

I now have Jennings ahead of Childs. Childs has more career value, but not by a huge amount, and Jennings’ peak is so much better. Doyle was a comparable hitter to Childs, but has questions about his defense.

14. Hugh Duffy
15.Mickey Welch
16.George Van Haltren
17.George Burns

Holy crap, Hugh Duffy just made my ballot. I had always thought he was terribly overrated. However, once I had to explain why I’m not voting for him…well, his career looks like Van Haltren’s, a little shorter, but with a big year and better defense. VH does have 689 innings of league average pitching, but I don’t give him a lot of credit for that, and he slips off my ballot. Mickey Welch’s 300 wins keeps him in the top fifteen; his peripherals keep him low.

18.Jose Mendez
19.Mike Tiernan
20.Bill Monroe
21.Jimmy Ryan
22.Jim McCormick
23.Harry Hooper
24.Roger Bresnahan
25.Charley Jones

With all the basestealing and bunting that was going on during the 00’s, good defense at catcher was pretty important. Combine Bresnahan’s defense with his few plate appearances, and I just can’t put him on the ballot. I’m not completely convinced he was better than Petway.
   27. karlmagnus Posted: August 23, 2004 at 07:41 PM (#814041)
Johnson obvious. Wheat not quite as good as Beckley (though at 2880 hits, clearly a HOMer) and Groh a fraction less than Childs. It’s gonna be a long struggle for Beckley and Welch, alas.

1. Walter Johnson. Big gap follows, which is Johnson’s merit, not Beckley’s fault – Johnson’s the #2 or #3 player we’ve had so far, and clearly the #1 pitcher.

2.(N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4-3-2-2-1-1) Jake Beckley Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. Marginally ahead of Welch, as we have seen more 307-win pitchers (8 others among currently HOM-eligible) than 2930-hit hitters (5 others). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707 not as good as outfielder glut - but much of his career was played in the dead ball ‘00s, and 1B was a marginally more important fielding position than outfielder then. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals.

3. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-2-2) Mickey Welch - 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the short career dead ball era pitcher glut. 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. With 4802IP, OK at an ERA+of 113 (but he never heard of ERA) he was better than the 00s pitchers, all of whom were pitching in favorable conditions, none of whom (other than Young and Matty) got near 300 wins.

4. Zach Wheat. Like the near miss to 3000 hits. TB+BB/PA .475, TB+BB/Outs .738 In my PHOM this year.

5. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) By a significant margin the best pitcher on the current ballot – only loses to Welch on longevity.

6. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA

7. (N/A-14-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-10-8-7-6-5-5) Clark Griffith He’s another Amos Rusie, but not quite as good. 3385 IP, 237 wins and an ERA+ of 121 not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice.

8. (N/A-8-7) Cupid Childs. OPS+119, almost the same as the 90s trio, and TB+BB/PA .470, TB+BB/Outs .797 highly competitive with them. Main negative is only 1720 hits, or about 1780 even if you normalize him to a 130 games played season. Nevertheless, he was a 2B, and I’ve been undervaluing him, significantly.
   28. karlmagnus Posted: August 23, 2004 at 07:42 PM (#814044)
9. (N/A) Heinie Groh Close to a clone of Childs, so fits here. 1774 hits, OPS+118, TB+BB/PA .431, TB+BB/Outs .666 (all 3 below Childs). 3B in 10s probably about equivalent to 2B in 90s.

10. (N/A-12) Sam Leever (N/A) Vaults up ballot owing to upcoming pitcher dearth. 194-100 and an ERA+ of 123 get him above Van Haltren and Ryan, there being no outfielder dearth. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Much better ERA+ than Tannehill, and W/L pct close to record territory. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Above Waddell for the “would you want him on your team” factor, and 3 extra spots for his moral probity.

11. (N/A-10-9-8) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season (but that’s more than Pike, with much less of an adjustment, and Jones too missed two prime seasons.) But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF, and also on reflection above Tiernan

12. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9) Hugh Duffy TB+BB/PA of .489 and TB/Outs of .788, but this in the high-offense 1890s, and he’s way below Beckley on total hits. Like the 1894 peak, though - and it’s ’94 not ’93, pitchers had had a year to adjust. Significantly behind Beckley on counting considerations, and Browning on rate considerations.

13. (N/A-9-10-10) Mike Tiernan - only 1,983 normalized hits, so no higher than the middle of this weak ballot. Does well against the 90s trio, whose OPS+ and rate stats are distinctly lower. TB+BB/PA .518, TB+BB/Outs .850, so close to Browning (in an easier era for hitters).

14. (N/A-11)Rube Waddell - Short career but very high peak. 2961 IP, and W/L 193-143 not at all special. Fielding and hitting negative, not positive – but he’s considerably better than Mendez, with ERA+ of 134 and moves up owing to pitcher dearth, although his unearned runs prevent him moving higher than this.

15. (N/A-13) Vic Willis Moved up owing to pitcher dearth 249-205 and ERA+ of 118 get him here. Lots of IP – 3996 --, but W/L pct nothing special


16. (9-12-12-11-9-10-10-13-12-15-14-N/A-12-13-11-13-13-15) Lip Pike - Like Start, give some credit for missing 1860s. However, normalize 1871-78 season by season and he gets 1,592 hits after 26 - not quite an obvious HOM-er. 4 “normalized 200-hit” seasons, but only just, whereas Meyerle’s 1871 peak normalizes to 320 (obviously a random fluctuation, but in the right direction!)TB+BB/PA .478, TB+BB/Outs .713.

17. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14) Levi Meyerle. Normalize 1871-77 season by season to 130 games and he gets 1,577 hits, only 15 less than Pike in 1 less season. Better peak, too. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .751, though this, like McVey and Pike’s figures, includes no “decline” phase. Also, he was a 3B. Why did Meyerle quit? -- unlike Pike, he was nowhere near done in 1877. OPS+164 vs 152 for McVey and 155 for Pike. Lower than Pike because not a huge pre-’71 career. Back in later 30s, hopefully.

18. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
19. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11) Jimmy Ryan
20. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12) George van Haltren. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s.
21. Spotswood Poles.
22. Deacon McGuire
23. Tony Mullane
24. Jim McCormick
25. Larry Doyle
26. Roger Bresnahan. Santop, not this guy, is by far the best catcher of the era. Short career, and only about half of it as catcher.
27. Harry Hooper.
28. Jose Mendez I9 has him below 200 wins and with a pretty unimpressive WPct. Pretty clearly not as good as Foster.
29. Wilbur Cooper
30. Bruce Petway.
31. Jack Clements
32. Bill Monroe
33. Chief Bender
34. Ed Konetchy
35. Hughie Jennings Not a historic peak, and a very short career.
36. Jesse Tannehill
37 Bobby Veach
38. Tommy Leach
39. Lave Cross
40. Tom York
   29. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: August 23, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#814122)
Kelly in SD, on Mickey Welch:

Only Pud Galvin had worse run support and defensive help.

Among contemporaries who are major candidates for the HoM, only Galvin had worse defensive support (Jim Whitney also had wore defensive support). His run support was OK - but only OK. Off the top of my head, he had far better run support than Tony Mullane, who still gets some votes around here.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 08:34 PM (#814130)
Does anyone know how to use the CommandButtons on the ballot template that Eric Reich created? Thanks!
   31. Guapo Posted: August 23, 2004 at 08:52 PM (#814155)
1. Walter Johnson. Big gap follows, which is Johnson’s merit, not Beckley’s fault – Johnson’s the #2 or #3 player we’ve had so far, and clearly the #1 pitcher.

Yeah, but is he better than Bob Caruthers? ;)
   32. karlmagnus Posted: August 23, 2004 at 08:57 PM (#814166)
Honus is # 1, Caruthers is the questionable #2 :-))
   33. Evan Posted: August 23, 2004 at 09:39 PM (#814262)
Does anyone know how to use the CommandButtons on the ballot template that Eric Reich created? Thanks!

Hopefully this will make things easier to understand... Feel free to e-mail me with comments/improvements/problems.

To update the number of electees in a given year, change the value in cell A1. This will automatically change the points for each place.

In the event of ties for 15th place on a ballot, leave 15 blank and put each of the 2 players in the corresponding 15t slot for that voter.

How to add a new player:
On the ballot sheet, add the player's last name (or whatever name you want to use for them) at the end of column A.
On the names sheet, add the name used for them on the ballot sheet at the end of the list, along with their full name as it should appear in the official election results.

To generate correct election results year to year, it is necessary to manually update the "Last year" standings on the names sheet. Elected players should be deleted from the ballot and names sheet, while players receiving no votes should be deleted from the ballot sheet only.

Command buttons:

Sort List - This will sort the list of players based on how many points they currently have. It is also vital that this be done before creating output for posting results.

Generate Names List - This runs through all players in the voting box and returns a list of their unique names in column T, next to the voting results. This can be useful as an error-checking technique to make sure that all players are accounted for.

Check Names - This is a less than precise method for finding data entry errors or missing player names. If no error is returned, all player names and ballot totals check out. If an error is found, a row of numbers is returned at the bottom of the ballot page. These numbers are the number of recorded ballots for each ballot slot. If there are 53 total ballots cast, this number should be 53 for each column. If the number for one of these columns is greater or less, it is an indicated that the entry for that ballot position is incorrect. Manual inspection will be needed to determine the exact nature of this error. Some notes about this process: tied votes are not checked.

Create Output - This generates the formatted text for HOM election result pasting.
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 09:46 PM (#814272)
Thanks, Evan (BTW, I don't know why I typed Eric before - sorry)!
   35. favre Posted: August 23, 2004 at 10:27 PM (#814310)
Andrew’s comment about Pike got me thinking:

I’ve said before that Pike’s eight year documented career, 1871-1878 (270 aWS), reminds me of Dick Allen, 1964-1972 (280 WS). Both players were excellent hitters: Pike’s career OPS+ is 155, Allen’s 156. Both played important defensive positions, Pike 2B/CF and Allen 3B (from 1964-68). We know that Allen was mediocre in the field; it’s not clear how good Pike was at defense, though there’s some evidence to suggest he was subpar. Allen had a couple of good years after 1972, while Pike had a very good career in the 1860s. Both players were essentially done after age 33, although Allen was effective in a part-time role at age 34. Ignoring timelines, I would give Allen a higher peak score, and Pike a higher career score.

In addition, both players seem to have been big time pains in the butt. Like Pike, Allen was moved around from team to team, and his teams always seemed to underachieve. I’ve read a couple of articles which suggest that criticism of Allen is overblown. Maybe so, but he clearly was unpopular with some of his managers and players, and they will snicker too when he’s considered for the HoM. Allen claimed he was the victim of racism, which in the 1960s was certainly very possible. Pike was Jewish in 1870s America; he may have been the victim of racism as well, although I have absolutely no evidence to support that. To my knowledge Allen was never accused of throwing games, but he was certainly derided for lack of hustle.

You know this already, but Allen is somewhat controversial in sabermetric circles as well. Bill James said famously in POLITICS OF GLORY, after criticizing Allen’s off-field behavior, that “If that’s a Hall of Famer, I’m a lugnut.” Don Malcolm has become perhaps the most staunch defender of Allen. Malcolm is a pretty acerbic writer himself, but that’s (maybe) beside the point…Allen will be eligible for the ballot in 1983, along with Brooks Robinson, Jimmy Wynn, Joe Torre, and Boog Powell. Now THAT will be an interesting election.

I have no idea if this is useful at all, but I thought it was an interesting comparison. I think both players are HoMr's.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 23, 2004 at 10:28 PM (#814314)
BTW, the problem I was having was that my security level was too high to accept your macros, Evan. That's why the buttons weren't working.

Thanks again!
   37. Sean Gilman Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:01 PM (#814351)

1. Walter Johnson (-)--He’s good.

2. Lip Pike (2)--Not quite as good in the NA as McVey, but better before; much better in the NA than Start, not as good before. Very underrated. I’ve never been able to understand the anti-1870s crowd. A pennant is a pennant. How one could rank, say, Sam Thompson ahead of Pike I have no idea. Played the infield, played the outfield. The greatest power/speed combination of his time. Great peak and a fairly long career for a 19th Century Outfielder. According to WARP3, the best player on his team in 1871, 1874, 1875, and 1876. .2 WARP3 behind the team leader in 1872, second on the team in 1877. One of the top 2-3 players on the pre-NA teams he played for in his early 20s. Faster than a horse.

3. Pete Browning (3)--AA discount and short career keeps him behind Pike. The man could hit. We know Win Shares likes him better than Sam Thompson, but did you know the BP stats show Browning to be the better hitter? Thompson’s edge in WARP is only in fielding and Davenport’s AA discount. Considering the problems Davenport’s had with 19th century OF fielding and the unknown natue of his AA discount, I don’t know how one could rate Thompson ahead based on WARP.

4. Charley Jones (4)--Jones, Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me.

5. Hughie Jennings (5)--Like Sam Thompson, only a slightly better peak and he was a shortstop instead of a right-fielder.

6. Cupid Childs (7)--Nice to see Cupid getting some love. . .

7. Heinie Groh (-)--Peak not quite as high as Jennings or Childs, but better than the long career outfielders.

8. Roger Bresnahan (6)--Great rate stats, but he just didn’t play enough to generate the value of the higher ups on the ballot. Ranks ahead of Childs only because of the bonus I give him for being a catcher.

9. Zack Wheat (-)--Wheat, Duffy and Van Haltren looking pretty identical to me.

10. Hugh Duffy (8)--Duffy’s got small (very small) edges on Van Haltren and Ryan in pennants added and win shares peak numbers.

11. George Van Haltren (9)--Just when I thought I was rid of the dreaded Outfielder Glut. . ..

12. Ed Williamson (12)--Not better than Ezra, but keeps looking better as time goes on.

13. Tommy Leach (31)--Took another look at him this week and I was severely underrating him. Not quite the peak of the 4 players above him.

14. Jimmy Ryan (11)--Gluterrific.

15. Larry Doyle (10)--He’s no Cupid, but he’s not bad.

16. Bobby Veach (16)--Better peak, less career than Ryan.
17. Rube Waddell (13)--WARP1 (this week’s version) isn’t very impressed with his peak.
18. George Burns (15)
19. Jake Beckley (17)
20. Harry Hooper (18)
21. Gavy Cravath (19)
22. Spotswood Poles (20)
23. Herman Long (21)
24. Clark Griffith (22)
25. Mike Tiernan (23)
   38. Thane of Bagarth Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:10 PM (#814364)
Not much of a shake-up coming with my second ballot. I'm using WS more than before, but still relying on BP's stats most.

I guess I’m less impressed with Wheat than most people, but he still on the ballot. Most of the changes in my rankings took place in the 20-50 range.
1) Walter Johnson: 21 seasons, 146 ERA+, 417 wins, league leader in Ks 12 times, the list goes on, and on, and on…
2) Lip Pike: Hard to evaluate, but I’m going to try to stay consistent. Impressive 155 OPS+. A dominant player over a somewhat I don't think he is too far behind his contemporaries that are already in the HoM.
3) Rube Waddell: Definition of a dominating pitcher. Strikeout king of the '00s. Slight edge in career length puts him higher than Joss for me.
4) Addie Joss: 8 excellent seasons in a row. Clearly one of the top pitchers of the ’00s. 150 and 213 PRAA (all-time) in his top 3 and top 5 seasons is better than any other eligible pitcher not nicknamed “Big Train.”
5) Pete Browning: One of the few remaining outstanding hitters from the 19th Century. His 30.81 WS/162 games is highest among eligible hitters with over 1000 games played.
6) Hughie Jennings: He averaged more WS/Inning on defense than any other eligible player—his shorter career probably helps make that the case (Tinker is not far behind him), but it is still quite impressive.
7) Roger Bresnahan: Flip-flopped him with Jennings this year—I’m having difficulty settling on the degree of the bonus he deserves for being one of the few catching standouts of his time.
8) Jose Mendez: Last election I wrote “May have been better than R. Foster, just not as much hype to spread the reputation.” I’m getting that sense even more so this week. I think he deserves to make the HoM eventually.
9) Charley Jones: 149 OPS+ .321 EQA 30.17 WS per 162g…Even with no credit for missed time he was the cream of the crop—not far behind Pike and Browning for best remaining player from ’70s & ’80s.
10) Dobie Moore: It’s always hard to gauge the reputations of Negro League starts, but Dobie appears to have been a dominator for a long enough time before he got shot that I think he is worthy of the Hall.
11) Fred Dunlap: Pretty good hitter for a second baseman (.307 EQA/ 133 OPS+) and BP card is high on his defense (Rate/Rate2 of 113/107 at 2B). Better than Childs in WARP3/162g (10.6 vs. 8.3), WS/162g (27.7 vs. 26.5), and WS defense (A- vs. B+).
12) Heinie Groh: Replaces John McGraw as my highest rated 3B. Outstanding on defense: 111 Rate according to BP and an A- by WS. Had an amazing run from 1916-1919 where he was among the NL’s top 10 in adjusted OPS 4 times (second twice). Extended peak from ’15-’20 where he averaged just over 28 WS and 9 WARP3 per season.
13) Zack Wheat: I know this is a lot lower than most people will have him. I see him as a better version of Hooper, which is certainly deserving of enshrinement, but I’ve don’t feel like he can crack the top 10 yet. Slightly lower peak than contemporary off-ballot LFs Burns and Veach as measured by Top 5 WARP3 seasons: ZW…39.5 GB…42.8 BV…44.7. Longevity and durability win out, though, as he did amass oodles of WS (380) and WARP3 (95.2)
14) Clark Griffith: Stays at the top of the group of similar pitchers just above Cicotte and Willis. I like it that he had the most consistent and prolonged peak ('94-'01), the others were more up and down. He is tops among that group in all-time PRAA for his career (159) and his top 5 seasons (163).
15) Gavvy Cravath: Great player with lots of question marks. I moved him up due to his minor league excellence and his major league dominance.
   39. Thane of Bagarth Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:11 PM (#814377)
Dropped off my ballot:
16) Ed Cicotte: Slips off my ballot by the narrowest of margins.

40) John McGraw: Obviously a great player, short career year-wise doesn’t bother me, but I soured on his lack of full seasons.

Returning Top 10 off ballot:
17) Cupid Childs: He moved one spot closer to my ballot this year. I’m warming up to him, I still prefer Dunlap, though Cupid’s #17 is not far behind Fred at #11.

22) Hugh Duffy: Moved up a bit, he’s the the 2nd OF off my ballot behind F. Jones—by a hair. On top of the rest of the Ofers—by a hair.

33) George Van Haltren: He’s definitely in the top half of the cluster of OFs who remain just off my ballot. I haven’t been convinced that he should really be separated from most of the rest of the pack. I could see him falling anywhere from 15 to 45 among current eligibles.

48) Mickey Welch: Prospectus’ timelining is pretty harsh on him. I may be underrating pitchers of that era, but I can’t see him getting close to my ballot.

50) Jake Beckley: In spite of long career, lower WARP3 than most of the OF swarm (Leach, Hooper, GVH, Ryan, F. Jones, among others). 5-year peak by WARP3 is relatively low, too, at 32.

New Players:
26) Urban Shocker: I see him as the top pitcher in the echelon just below the level of Griffith-Cicotte-Willis. Better DERA than all three, but they separate themselves with more IP and better peaks.

27) Bob Shawkey: Comes in right behind Shocker. Barely better peak and not too many more IP than Urban, so noticeable difference in DERA leads me to put him one spot behind. WS prefers Urban by a hair, too: 225 vs. 223.

66) Larry Gardner: Decent 3rd baseman. Good glove, played for a while, but nothing spectacular.

68) Roger Peckinpaugh: Fielding was his saving grace (WS grade = A; Rate at SS = 105) as his .249 all-time EQA and 87 OPS+ are not too impressive.

70) Jack Fournier: Curious career pattern. Great hitter, but bad glove hurts a lot.

74) Ray Schalk: Looks live the catching equivalent of Peckinpaugh: .247 EQA/ 83 OPS+/ 105 Rate/ WS grade: A.

75) George Mogridge: Surpisingly good five year peak (5-year all-time PRAA= 89), but still nothing spectacular.
   40. Brad Harris Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:12 PM (#814383)
With no apologies...

1. Walter Johnson
2. Zach Wheat
3. Eddie Cicotte
4. Larry Doyle
5. Heinie Groh
6. Ed Konetchy
7. George Van Haltren
8. Jose Mendez
9. Charley Jones
10. Cupid Childs
11. Jimmy Ryan
12. Lip Pike
13. Addie Joss
14. Mickey Welch
15. Spotswood Poles
   41. Rick A. Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:42 PM (#814503)
I had a grandfather named "Walter". He was born within 5 years of the Big Train's birth. I have a cousin named 'Walter", clearly named after his grandfather. He's in his late 40's now. None of this contradicts your point.

My father's name is Walter.
   42. OCF Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:52 PM (#814549)
My father's name is Walter.

Of course, there is that prolific BTF poster, whose posts I always make a point of reading: Walt Davis.
   43. Evan Posted: August 23, 2004 at 11:56 PM (#814566)
There is now an updated ballot tallier on the yahoo group that should automate every function I could think of that hadn't been automated yet. Please give it a try. It has been updated with this year's voting through Brad Harris' ballot.
   44. DavidFoss Posted: August 24, 2004 at 12:07 AM (#814639)
(BTW, I don't know why I typed Eric before - sorry)!

... Uploaded by : ereich <ereich@ ... >

I looked at this and immediately got an "Evan/Eric" deja vu from John's earlier confusion.

Anyhow, many thanks to *Evan*! :-)
   45. OCF Posted: August 24, 2004 at 12:10 AM (#814650)
Thanks Evan. But I'll keep my own concoction, which has the secret recipe for consensus scores. By the way, those are going to be sharply up this year - more details later.
   46. Evan Posted: August 24, 2004 at 12:33 AM (#814733)
I'd love to know what goes into them... I've been trying to reverse engineer them for a week now, to no avail...
   47. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 24, 2004 at 01:37 AM (#815023)
1. Walter Johnson (x): First in war. First in peace. First on my ballot.

2. Zack Wheat (x): Plenty of prime, extended prime, and career value with some very nice peak seasons. He and GVH have very similar value, but Wheat has a little more peak and little more career. I do a little home-cooking with WARP, and it likes Wheat much better. I think this reflects the notion that Wheat was, in his own time, a more dominant player in his league than GVH was in his, though one could certainly argue that the NL of the 1910s was not as tough a league as the NL twenty years earlier.

3. George Van Haltren (2, pHOM 1932): Nice, long career helped him generate plenty of value, but flat peak keeps him out of the top two spots. That said, he’s not as flat in peak as the likes of Beckley.

4. Spotswood Poles (3): Poles seems like another member of the Van Ryanffy family, but I prefer him to all but GVH in the group. I do give him credit for missing the 1918 season.

5. Cupid Childs (4): Best second baseman of 1890s, peak not as high as Jennings, but he had a career, not just a peak like Hughie.

6. Hughie Jennings (6): Huge peak, the best among position players, goes a long way to establishing value, and winning five pennants. But being awesome for five years doesn’t mean as much when coupled to a near total lack of surrounding value, so I can’t get behind him any more strongly than this.

7. Bobby Veach (7): Nice peak/prime player, but once his NB contemporaries come due, he’ll be forgotten about. As someone said earlier, being second-tier in a league with Cobb, Crawford, Speaker, Ruth, Collins, ain’t something to sneeze at.

8. Heinie Groh (x): I really thought I might have Groh as a top 3 or top 5 candidate, but as I reviewed his credentials, I liked him a little less than I initially thought I might. His five year peak is sweet, but it’s not as nearly as high as Jennings’s. I also found that his his prime/extended prime didn’t offer as much as Veach’s did. Groh did play a more demanding defensive position when it was even more demanding than today, and from all accounts seems to be a brilliant defender, so it’s possible that I’m underrating him a bit, which means it’s possible he could move northward on my ballot as we compare him against future third base eligibles.

9. Bill Monroe (5): Working with the translations, he comes out as having the best career value among eligible second basemen, though less peak/prime value than Childs. In his own NgL 2B rankings, James says that Monroe “could rate higher,” and I agreed last week. But this week, I found myself waivering, especially in light of the sketchy information available about his career. Sigh.

10. Jimmy Ryan (8): I prefer GVH, SP, and BV.

11. Jose Mendez (9): I love the big peak, it gives his profile enough oomph to outrank Griffith when combined with some good shoulder years that militate against the dead-arm period.

12. Clark Griffith (10): The sly old Fox ends up ahead of other peak/prime guys without heavy career value. Griffith benefits, in my view, from better strength of competition than his predecessors like Jim McCormick, but also surpasses successors like Waddell when career, peak, and prime are all taken into consideration.

13. Duffy (12): Duffy concentrates a little more of his value into a couple peak years than the other members of his “family” but didn’t play quite as long. The peaks just weren’t high enough, however, to rise above the others.

14. Jack Fournier (x): Initially I had Fournier off the ballot, but when I credited him for missing his peak seasons due to what appears to be either organizational indifference or organizational incompetence it just nudged him on. That said, it’s not enough for him to zoom up the ranks, just enough to get onto the bottom of the ballot.

15. Pete Browning (14): Flatter career trend line than Jennings, with slightly more career value. But although he was clearly a great hitter, I’ve come down on the side that says the 1880s were an easier time to dominate than subsequent decades/generations. As such, he continues to slide down my ballot and will, undoubtedly slide off next year and perhaps permanently if better borderline candidates emerge.

Sliding off the ballot:
Charley Jones (14): I’m skeptical about the quality of play in 1871–1885, his salad years, so I had to drop him down a couple pegs. He was either a great player in an easy league to dominate, or a pretty good player whose league context made him look awesome. I’ve got enough questions to move him down, but the stats were good enough to keep him on the ballot until this week.

Lip Pike (15): Third best player of the 1860s–70s is, to my mind, a persuasive argument for Lipman. On the other hand, I’m not willing to put him anywhere near an elect-me spot without Pearce’s combination of performance AND visionary status. New candidates push him off.

Returning top tens that don’t make my ballot.

Jake Beckley (x): Becks Lite’s career length and totals ARE impressive, but the total lack of peak makes him seem like a background contributor, not a HOMer.

Roger Bresnahan (x): I’m very divided on my feelings about his productivity rate versus his playing time, each being keenly important to his teams and his case for being a HOMer. Utlimately I’m coming down on the side that says I needed to “see” him in the lineup more.

Rube Waddell (x): I see three pitching a clusters that looks like this:



The first group floats in the ether just off my ballot, while the second group comes in around ten places behind the first, and finally, the third another ten or fifteen behind the second.
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 24, 2004 at 01:51 AM (#815092)
1. Walter Johnson (x): First in war. First in peace. First on my ballot.

Damn you, Chaleeko, for coming up with that! :-)
   49. DavidFoss Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:21 AM (#815273)
Well, the big candidate gap appears to be over. Three newbies in the top four for me. Finally some downward pressure on my backlog.

1. Walter Johnson (ne) -- Will be the first HOM-er classified as wearing a "Twins" cap.
2. Lip Pike (5-4-2-1-2-2-1-1-1-2) -- 155 OPS+ CF in the NA/NL. Solid pre-NA play includes time at 2B. Brooklyn's best slugger in '70, second to Start in '69, also had excellent 'rookie' season on great Athletics squad in '66.
3. Zack "Buck" Wheat (ne) -- Solid hitter. By rate, I have him better than Sheckard and behind Magee. Longer career than both. Head and shoulders better than Hooper/Burns. I'm not buying the big NL discount for this time period.
4. Heinie Groh (ne) -- Best 3rd baseman of the late teens. Peak is that close to McGraw's but has a long enough career to rank himm.
5. John McGraw (10-10-11-10-9-8-6-5-4-4) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. In fact, his OBP is 3rd all time. Playing time issues are keeping him below Groh (even for this peak voter).
6. Charley Jones (nr-nr-13-12-11-9-7-6-5-5) -- Late start (for the era) and unfairly blacklisted. Appears to be a hybrid or Pike/Stovey/Thompson, guys I've ranked fairly highly.
7. Larry Doyle (nr-14-11-9-8-6) -- Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak, in fairly short career. Fielding was mediocre, but not as horrific as WARP suggests. Recent work here convinced me to drop his NL discount, he's far below Collins even without it. I think the electorate is underrating him.
8. Hughie Jennings (14-12-14-14-13-11-9-7-6-7) -- I like peak and boy does Hughie have peak. Short career, poor seasons outside his peak slip his career OPS+ down to 117.
9. Cupid Childs (nr-15-12-10-9-8) -- Very comparable to Doyle. OPS+ is OBP heavy. Fielding was good, but not A-level.
10. Clark Griffith (nr-15-12-10-8-7-9)-- Long tail at the end of career is masking a solid prime from 94-01... a prime longer than many other current candidates. That would fill the late 90's pitcher shortage that's been reported, but I'm not giving him a bonus for that or anything.
11. Roger Bresnahan (15-15-nr-nr-13-11-10-10) -- Great five year peak at C. 126 OPS+ is OBP-heavy. Didn't appear to play full-time outside his peak though... getting a small subjective boost due to catcher shortage.
12. Mickey Welch (nr-14-11-11) -- 300 game winner. Played for great teams in an easy era to win games, but new research is saying he did more to earn his W's than previously thought. Still, his meager 113 ERA+ is keeping him low on the ballot.
13. Spotswood Poles (ne-15-13-12-12) -- He was fast, yes, but a shorter career with not as much power as Pete Hill. Like others, would have benefitted from playing longer.
14. Pete Browning (nr-15-13-13) -- The man could hit. His 162 OPS+ is partly inflated by his great early AA numbers, but his great PL season almost makes you want to ignore the discount. His durability becomes an issue starting in '88.
15. Dobie Moore (ne-15) -- Short career, high peak, at SS with some war credit. Difficult to rate, but definitely belongs on my peak-friendly ballot.


Beckley -- Took a long look at him. Black Ink of 1. Top OPS finishes are 5-7-8-10. His 125 career OPS+ is actually SLG-heavy which is cause for a slight discount... probably explains why his career high in WS is only 23.
Van Haltren -- Two 10ths and an AA-7th in OPS+ is not what I look for in a HOM outfield candidate. Win Shares fielding rating of B. Looks like the Hall of the Very Good to me.
Duffy -- I'm a bit of a Beaneater fan and '94 was great, but 91-AA discount plus lackluster performance after age 30 drop him down into the OF glut with GVH & JR.
Waddell -- I love the strikeouts, I like the 3 of 4 year peak. Evidence several years ago shows that he gave up more than his share of unearned runs, though. Doesn't have the peak necessary for a "short" career induction. Could be swayed, I suppose.
   50. PhillyBooster Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:31 AM (#815318)
Rick A:

My father's name is Walter.


Of course, there is that prolific BTF poster, whose posts I always make a point of reading: Walt Davis.

Of course, my point was explicitly NOT that there is no one named Walter -- just that there is no one YOUNG name Walter. I don't know how old Walt Davis is, but my guess based on the SS database, is over 30.
   51. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:45 AM (#815352)
Posted by Brad Harris on August 23, 2004 at 06:12 PM (#814383)
With no apologies...

No apologies needed. Glad to see you were able to post a ballot that you liked that wasn't just last year's consensus. :)
   52. DavidFoss Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:31 AM (#815410)
There's Walt Weiss, most Walter's are from the first half of the 20th century and not the second half. Many Wally's have been Walter's, but some (Wally Joyner, Wally Moon) have actually been Wallace's.

A search of shows that Walter is becoming even less popular. It has fallen from the 194th most popular baby name in 1990 to the 356th most popular in 2003. (Hopefully, they can extend the reach to look further back!).
   53. sunnyday2 Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:49 AM (#815439)
1933 Ballot


First Klumpp

1. *Walter Johnson (new). Despite the obvious character issues (rumored to have accepted pay for play). PHoM 1933.

Second Klumpp

2. *Hughie Jennings (1). Still the highest peak of any eligible position player.

3. *Lip Pike (3). One of us once said that he could not accept Henry Chadwick's qualitative praise of Dickey Pearce because it was merely qualitative. The case against Pike is equally qualitative, except that the claims hardly have the authority of a Henry Chadwick. I think favre is right, that it is equally plausible (as any other explanation) that the anti-Pike sentiment of his time was anti-Semitic.

4. *Heinie Groh (new). Best 3B as of 1933 not named Baker. Better than Ed Williamson, better than Eddie Collins. No position adjustment per se, but this is as high as I can get him. PHoM 1933.

Third Klumpp

5. Jose Mendez (6). Conservative, keeping him low enough that he doesn't go into my PHoM yet. I need some more perspective on him, but he was a huge talent.

6. *Rube Waddell (5). Went from off-ballot to #5 last week in my re-evaluation of pitchers for the purpose of being more fair to the second tier from 20th century. Waddell seems clearly to be the best of the 20th century backlog. Noticed that John had Mendez and Waddell paired--me, too.

7. *Charley Jones (7).
8. Zack Wheat (new). Noticed that John also had these two back to back, too. But Jones has the edge on adjWS peak--3 years: 108-82. 5 yrs: 182-149. Wheat's edge on prime (except rate) and career makes this close, but I like that high peak. Note that this is with no X-credit for Jones' blacklist years. What has NOT been discounted because we have elected a lot of borderline LFers--he goes here because he IS a borderline LFer. The best of the group (Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Magee, Hill) to be sure, but part of the group nevertheless.

9. *Cupid Childs (13).
10. *Ed Williamson (12).

The Fourth Klumpp

11. *Tommy Bond (4). Waddell and 20th century second tier moves up, Bond and 19th century second tier moves down. But Bond had a massive peak and is still ballot-worthy.

12. Pete Browning (9). On my prelim I had Pete move ahead of C. Jones. Never mind.

13. Larry Doyle (14). The 2Bs continue to bounce around my ballot. Hard to choose among them.

14. Bill Monroe (11).
15. Dobie Moore (15). The black Jennings and the black Grant.

Dropped off: Poles (15).

16-20: Poles, Dunlap, Joss, Duffy, Leach.

The Fifth Klumpp
21-32: McCormick, Van Haltren, Bresnahan, Veach, Wilbur Cooper, Mullane, Ryan, Cicotte, Griffith, Tiernan, Beckley, Tinker.

Van Haltren--voted for Van 1909-10, nice peak, not nice enough.

Griffith--don't see him as good as eligibles from the '80s or the 20th century. A victim of his times perhaps.


Duffy and Bresnahan--19 and 22, straddling the borderline/in vs. borderline/out line--i.e. I can see Duffy as a PHoMer some day, not Roger.

Welch--finally went back to my original evaluation--lousy ERA+ uber alles.
   54. Howie Menckel Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:50 AM (#815442)
Wally Backman, Walt Bond, Walt Moryn, Wally Pipp (eligible next year), Wally Post, Wally Whitehurst, Walt No Neck Williams are some of the few other memorable Walters...
   55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:59 AM (#815458)
Walter Mitty.
   56. mbd1mbd1 Posted: August 24, 2004 at 12:57 PM (#815642)

I knew a kid in grad school whose name was Walter, but he went by his middle name instead.
   57. jhwinfrey Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:03 PM (#815682)
My little brother's first name is Walter, but he goes by his middle name too. He's 9.
   58. Daryn Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:16 PM (#815693)
I have three daughters. About a year ago, they decided they wanted to have nicknames. Their nicknames are Big Train, Lefty and Three Finger. I always wanted to be called big train, but as they say, you can't give yourself a nickname that will stick.
   59. DanG Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:34 PM (#815714)
My #1 and #15 were elected. New exhibits for Wheat, Pike, Leach, Ryan, Groh. In 1933 we slam dunk The Big Train, while Wheat and Groh contribute to the best newbie class in ten years. The class of 1934 is probably the best we’ll ever see, with four of the top 25(?) players in history (Cobb-Speaker-Collins-Lloyd), another great Black star (Torriente) plus one great, and another near-great pitcher (Williams-Covaleski). In 1935, Bingo DeMoss, Max Carey and Carl Mays debut.

1)Walter Johnson – Inner inner-circle HoMer. This reminds me so much of 1917 when we had Young and Clarke. Do you think if Caruthers were still around that Johnson would be a unanimous pick?

2)Zack Wheat – Big career, fine peak. Players with 700+ extra base hits 1871-1925:
1—1035 T. Cobb
2—993 H. Wagner
3—986 T. Speaker
4—902 N. Lajoie
5—864 S. Crawford
6—820 C. Anson
7—812 R. Connor
8—808 E. Delahanty

9—802 J. Beckley
10-771 D. Brouthers
11-728 Z. Wheat
12-726 J. Ryan

The next 9 on the list are all HoMers (or futures): Davis, O’Rourke, Ruth, Magee, Dahlen, Clarke, Hornsby, Stovey, Thompson.

3)Lip Pike (2,2,3) –If the HoM is about respect for all eras, then Pike is a “n-b”. IMO, his era is very underrepresented and he seems unchallenged as the best remaining candidate. Number of HoMers playing regularly during his career:
1866: 2 (Pearce, Start)
1867: 3 (the above 2 plus Wright)
1868: 5 (above 3, Barnes, Spalding)
1869: 7 (above 5, White, McVey)
1870: 8 (above 7, Sutton)
1871: 9 (above 8, Anson)
1872: 10 (above 9, O’Rourke)
1873: 11 (above 10, Hines)
1874: 11
1875: 11
1876: 10 (Pearce token)
1877: 9 (Barnes injured)
1878: 11 (Start, Wright, White, McVey, Sutton, Anson, O’Rourke, Hines, Bennett, Kelly, Ward)

In 1879 it explodes to 16; in 1881 it hits 20 and stays at 18+ until the teens.

Slugging average .300+, age 30+, 1876-82, minimum 600 PA:

1—.420 Lip Pike
2—.387 Joe Start
3—.386 Jim O’Rourke
4—.378 Deacon White

5—.331 Bob Ferguson
6—.327 Ezra Sutton
7—.311 Andy Leonard
8—.302 George Wright

The rest of these guys wouldn’t be bad HoMers, but I can’t justify ranking any of them among the top three, above my personal “Clearly deserving” line.

4) George Van Haltren (3,3,4)—The 1932 election may have been his last, best shot at induction. For a while, anyway. Now in his 25th year eligible. As to why he rates above Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he has higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan actually played more corner outfield. Players with 2500 times on base 1889-1901:
1—3392 B. Hamilton
2—3134 G. Van Haltren
3—3046 J. Burkett
4—3043 E. Delahanty

5—2840 H. Duffy
6—2837 D. Hoy
7—2774 C. Childs
8—2688 J. Beckley
9—2581 H. Long
10—2504 J. Ryan

5) Tommy Leach (4,4,5) – With 3B and CF lagging in HoM members, you’d think he’d get more attention. If you’re a FOBW, I don’t think you can ignore this guy. Question of league quality knocks him back a couple pegs, otherwise really close to Wallace. Had a better peak than Bobby, but his career was a couple years shorter and he had just a little less defensive value. Among OFers with 750 games 1905-14, he is 2nd in PO/G (behind Speaker) and 2nd in FA (behind Clarke). Most Times On Base 1902-10:
1—2173 H. Wagner
2—1952 S. Crawford
3—1845 J. Sheckard
4—1843 N. Lajoie

5—1809 T. Hartsel
6—1772 R. Thomas
7—1754 F. Clarke
8—1736 T. Leach

6)Clark Griffith (5,5,7) – The #4 pitcher of his era, behind three first-balloters, but far ahead of #5. Gets extra credit for excelling in the contraction years 1892-1900, an era lagging in number of HoMers. Could hit a little, too. Pitchers with highest OPS as hitters 1894-1903, minimum 500 PA:
1—.796 J. Stivetts
2—.696 A. Orth
3—.689 W. Mercer
4—.684 J. Meekin
5—.676 J. Tannehill
6—.673 N. Callahan
7—.650 C. Griffith
8—.646 F. Dwyer
9—.643 F. Killen

7) Jimmy Ryan (6,6,6)—Played with St. Paul in Western Lg in 1901. Best Power-Speed Number, 1886-1920
1—184.0 J. Ryan
2—179.0 H. Duffy
3—177.2 H. Wagner
4—171.2 M. Tiernan
5—165.3 E. Delahanty
6—163.6 R. Connor
7—157.5 S. Thompson

8—155.5 H. Long
9—153.4 S. Crawford
10- 145.6 B. Dahlen
   60. DanG Posted: August 24, 2004 at 02:35 PM (#815715)
8) Roger Bresnahan (7,7,8) – Even with Santop, catcher is easily the most poorly represented position in the HOM, a condition that may prove to be chronic. Could move higher, but I really like guys who play. Played half his teams’ games in only 11 seasons, averaging 71% of team games in those years. Still, his offensive production towers over other catchers of his era, so he deserves a vote. Lacking Bennett’s durability and longevity. Defense only C+. Players with OBP over .380, 1903-14 (minimum 3100 PA):
1—.424 T. Cobb
2—.420 E. Collins
3—.413 T. Speaker
4—.401 R. Bresnahan
5—.400 H. Wagner
6—.399 F. Chance
7—.396 R. Thomas
8—.386 N. Lajoie
9—.382 M. Huggins

9)Harry Hooper (8,8,ne) – Per adjusted win shares, his peak was better than Beckley’s. I see him at 34.5 for the abbreviated 1918 season. His 27.4 in 1916 is also better than Jake’s best, 26.6 in 1890. A couple bulk seasons at the end of his career in a weak NL give Beckley 28 more career AWS.

10)Jake Beckley (9,9,9) – He’s Joe Start, but without a peak and retired four years sooner. Grade B fielder, won four WS GG. The many triples are a product of a strange park in Pittsburgh; his other stats do not suggest good foot speed. Hit only 34 of 86 career homes at home. Firstbasemen with 950+ RBI through 1926:

1--2076 Anson
2--1575 Beckley
3--1322 Connor
4--1296 Brouthers

5--1060 McInnis
6--992 Konetchy
7--968 J. Doyle
8--952 H. Davis

Beckley's total is still the 8th best all-time among firstbasemen. Besides Anson (#1 all-time) there's Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Palmeiro, Perez and Killebrew ahead of Beckley. McCovey and McGriff round out the top ten. Bagwell and Thomas figure to join this group next season.

11)Hugh Duffy (10,10,10) – A WHOLE lot was context. Not a long career (12.4 yrs) for a corner OF, I’m coming around to the consensus view of him. Hit 82 of his 106 career HRs at home. Players with 1900 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1889-99:
1—2585 H. Duffy
2—2348 E. Delahanty
3—2141 G. Van Haltren
4—2135 B. Hamilton
5—2117 J. Beckley
6—2099 H. Long
7—2038 E. McKean
8—1939 G. Davis
9—1901 J. Ryan

12)Heinie Groh – His hitting is in the HoMer class; glove looks pretty good. Played 2B two years, then 3B for ten yrs. Outstanding peak, similar career length to Williamson. Mediocre power and speed. Was replaced by Freddie Lindstrom as Giants’ 3B. May survive next year’s deluge and hold on to my ballot. Highest career FA, 3B, 1876-1927, minimum 750 games at 3B:

1—.967 H. Groh
2—.960 O. Vitt
3—.958 J. Dugan
4—.958 C. Deal
5—.956 P. Traynor
6—.952 B. Jones
7—.948 L. Gardner

13)Ed Williamson (11,11,11) – Too similar to HoMer Collins to be too far off the radar. I think anyone who gives a bump for underrepresented positions needs to give Ed a serious look. Players with 300+ walks 1879-88:

1—442 N. Williamson
2—415 G. Gore
3—344 R. Connor

4—339 Y. Robinson
5—329 D. Brouthers
6—323 K. Kelly
7—319 H. Stovey

8—312 J. Morrill
9—305 C. Anson

14)Hughie Jennings (12,12,12) – He excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation. I’m still struggling with how to balance an awesome peak with an abbreviated career. I tried to find a retired player from the past 50 years with a similar career path, but there doesn’t seem to be one. Is there any good evidence that Jennings’ defense wasn’t as brilliant as WS makes it out to be?

15) Mickey Welch (13,13,14) – Stays on my ballot, he’s among those due to be knocked back off in 1934. Longevity OK, done by age 32, good for that era. Racked up lots of Gray Ink. I really can’t discern any large value difference between him and other 1880’s pitchers McCormick and Caruthers. Or deadball pitchers Waddell and Willis, for that matter.

Rube Waddell – Still under consideration. Had only two seasons as regular with a Win % of at least .600. His career seems to contain contradictions, mainly a won-loss record out of sync with his ERA. Perhaps he was a notorious hot/cold pitcher, getting raked over the coals after a couple shutouts. Can anyone do a study on this--is his standard deviation for RA higher than others? May deserve some credit for minor league performance. Most wins 1901-09:
1—236-109 C. Mathewson
2—211-127 C. Young
3—190-118 J. McGinnity
4—186-121 E. Plank

5—178-155 V. Willis
6—177-110 J. Chesbro
7—175-126 R. Waddell
8—156-134 G. Mullin
9—155-92 A. Joss
   61. ronw Posted: August 24, 2004 at 03:35 PM (#815803)
1933 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. I'll gladly incorporate WARP when they tell me how they reach their numbers.)

1. Walter Johnson Anyone who refrains from putting Walter #1 on this ballot should be transported back in time and forced to bat against him. Walter is the definition of a no-brainer. You really do have no brain if you don’t vote Walter #1 this year. MVP candidate 1910-1918, All-Star candidate 1908, 1919, 1921-1926. (17 HOM seasons). PHOM 1933.

2. Zack Wheat Solid Van Haltren-type of player, with a bit higher peak. MVP candidate 1924, All-Star candidate 1910, 1912-1923, 1925. (15 HOM seasons). PHOM 1933.

3. George Van Haltren Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1901. That is 14 consecutive solid years, the majority in a tough consolidated league. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1929.

4. Jake Beckley In his 16 All-Star seasons, he only averaged about 60% of MVP value, so that hurts him with peak voters, but I’m a career/prime man. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1895, 1897, 1899-1905. (16 HOM seasons) PHOM 1928.

5. Jimmy Ryan My system likes Jimmy about as much as Van Haltren and Sheckard. MVP candidate 1888. All-Star candidate 1886-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1899, 1902. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1930.

6. Harry Hooper I can’t support Beckley, Van Haltren, and Ryan, and ignore Hooper. MVP candidate 1918, All-Star candidate 1910-1917, 1919-20, 1922, 1924. (13 HOM seasons) PHOM 1931.

7. Heinie Groh - A rare infielder sighting on my ballot. MVP candidate 1917-1919. All-Star candidate 1914-1916, 1920-21, 1923-24. (10 HOM seasons)

8. Hugh Duffy Part of the now underrepresented CF block, but significantly below Van Haltren, Sheckard and Ryan. MVP candidate 1893-1894, All-Star candidate 1889-1892, 1895-1899. (11 HOM seasons)

9. Mickey Welch Solid pitcher is losing his luster as more 1880’s contemporaries join the HOM. With the lack of 1890’s quality, I think he still rates here. MVP candidate 1884-1885, All-Star candidate 1880-81, 1883, 1886-1889 (9 HOM seasons)

10. Tony Mullane I don’t see much between Welch and Mullane. I know this puts me in the minority. MVP candidate 1882-1884, All-Star candidate 1886-1893 (11 HOM seasons)

11. Wilbur Cooper I revisited Wilbur, and he goes here. He has enough of that steady play that I like. Never really an MVP candidate. All-Star candidate 1914, 1916-1924. (10 HOM seasons).

12. George J. Burns The teens Giants could be like the aught’s Cubs, many good players, not many HOMers. MVP candidate 1917, 1919, All-Star candidate 1913-16, 1918, 1920-23. (11 HOM seasons)

13. Fielder Jones Solid player will never make the HOM. Very comparable to Duffy, but played in the wrong offensive era. MVP candidate 1908 (his last real year). All-Star candidate 1896-1898, 1900-1907. (12 HOM seasons)

14. Ray Schalk A token appearance for the slick-fielding HOF catcher. He only makes it with my huge catcher premium, but I think he is a better selection than Bresnahan. MVP candidate (due to low catcher MVP standards) 1917, 1919, 1920, 1922. All-Star candidate 1913-1916. (8 HOM seasons).

15. Tommy Leach Good player. Excellent ballot filler. Never MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1901-1909, 1913-1914. (11 HOM seasons)

It looks like seven additions to my ballot next year. The addition of Cobb, Lloyd, Williams, Collins, Speaker, Torriente and maybe Taylor should drop off the bottom five. The first six will be in that order at the top of my ballot in 1934. Taylor may squeak in at the bottom.

MISSING OUT, in no particular order anymore.

Lip Pike – Would probably be in my PHOM if we started the election earlier. MVP candidate 1876 All-star candidate 1871-75, 1877-78. (7 HOM seasons)

Clark Griffith –I think that he had a relatively short productive career, and didn’t have nearly the peak of a Caruthers, Walsh, or perhaps even Waddell. He needs to get a pretty steep 1890s pitcher premium to make my ballot. All-Star candidate 1894-1901 (8 HOM seasons)

Hughie Jennings – Even the greatest five year peak (Babe Ruth) wouldn’t make my ballot by itself. I need some above average play outside that peak. Six years is a little better. Seven years might get a player in my PHOM (see Ed Walsh.) Five just doesn’t give me enough. MVP candidate 1894-1898. (5 HOM seasons)

Cupid Childs - I forgot him last week. It looks like if you aren't a pitcher or a catcher, you need at least 10 HOM seasons to make my ballot. MVP candidate 1890. All-Star candidate 1891-1898. (9 HOM seasons).

Rube Waddell - Fun man who needed to play longer. MVP candidate 1902, 1905. All-Star candidate 1901, 1903-1904, 1906-1908. (8 HOM seasons).

Roger Bresnahan - I just like Schalk slightly better. Never MVP candidate. All-Star candidate 1903-1908, 1911, 1914. (8 HOM seasons).
   62. Rick A. Posted: August 24, 2004 at 04:00 PM (#815854)
Walter Johnson
Joe McGinnity - Elected to HOM in 1928

1933 Ballot
1.Walter Johnson - Uhh.. He’s pretty good.
2.Charley Jones – 96% of value is above average. Truly great hitter who missed 2 years in his prime. Elected PHOM in 1926.
3.Lip Pike – 95% of documented career is above average. Fresh look at Charley Jones, Pike, and Browning made me change my order of them. Elected PHOM in 1918.
4.Pete Browning – 61% of value is prime, 89% of value is above average. Elected PHOM in 1929
5.Cupid Childs – Good hitter. Not as good defensively as McPhee. 84% of career above average.
6.Hughie Jennings – 77% of value is prime alone. Unfortunately, that’s all he’s got. Still that’s enough to get him this high. Re-evaluated 1890’s infielders since they seemed to get beat up during their playing days.
7.Ed Williamson – Looking at Heinie Groh makes me think I may have over-valued him. Need to take a closer look. Elected PHOM in 1931
8.Zack Wheat – Should be elected to HOM this year, since he is clearly better than Van Haltren.
9.Bill Monroe – Very good second baseman, but I can’t seem to rate him over Childs.
10.Hugh Duffy – 82% of career is above-average. Great defense. Took another look at him and he moved up a couple of spots
11.Tommy Leach – Good peak and decent career.
12.George Van Haltren –I tend to really like steady careers like Van Haltren, Griffin, Beckley, but just can’t see him jumping over anyone on my ballot. Moves up because I forgot about his pitching.
13.Clark Griffith – Won lots of games with bad teams. I’ve been convinced to move him over Waddell, may need to move him up some more.
14.Spotswood Poles – Slots in just under Van Haltren
15.Vic Willis – Very close to McGinnity.

Required Explanations
17.Heinie Groh – As I wrote in the ballot discussion thread, my system underrates Groh somewhat. Will evaluate this week and may move up to about Leach’s level.

20.Rube Waddell –Impressive SO ability. Just misses my ballot.

21.Rogers Bresnahan – Moves up thanks to Kelly’s data on how he dominated catchers. Still wish he played a little more at catcher.

32.Jake Beckley- I really like long careers. However his lack of prime value has him ranked lower than Van Haltren.

16-20 Doyle, Groh, Mendez, Tiernan, Waddell
21-25 Bresnahan, McGraw, Welch, Griffin, Chance
26-30 Burns, Veach, Ryan, Moore, Long
   63. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: August 24, 2004 at 06:37 PM (#816083)
Ron Wargo - outta curiousity, if you have Schalk at #14, where do you have Deacon McGuire?
   64. ronw Posted: August 24, 2004 at 08:09 PM (#816320)
Chris J.

Deacon McGuire is currently about two good seasons behind Ray Schalk, which puts him somewhere 50-100 in my overall rankings. (I haven't broken down my rankings in a while.) Among eligible catchers, I have:

1. Schalk
2. Bresnahan
3. Petway


4. Clapp
5. Kling
6. McGuire
7. Carroll
8. Snyder
9. Farrell
10. Strike Gonzales
11. Chappie Johnson

I wish I knew more about Gonzales and Johnson. No one past 3 has a chance of ever making my personal HOM, and 1-3 have only a very remote chance.

Even though I am a career guy, I see McGuire as something more like Joe Quinn or Tommy Corcoran, rather than Jake Beckley or George Van Haltren.

When you compare Win Shares to all positions for each year, then give a catcher premium, as I do, Schalk looks better. This may be because he was a better fielder, or it may be a product of the era in which he played, since Schalk was able to catch pretty much full-time. McGuire was never able to do this. Even under the era circumstances, though, Schalk was more often one of the top catchers in the majors.

According to raw Win Shares, McGuire is the best catcher in the majors in 1896. He is 2nd in 1895 and 1897, 3rd in 1891, 4th in 1899 and 1900, 5th in 1893 and 1901, 6th in 1892, and 7th in 1890. That's 6 top 4 finishes and 10 finishes in the top 1/2 of the majors. Not that comparison to one player is at all definitive, but McGuire generally finished behind contemporary Jack Clements, who will not make my HOM, and is probably next on my list above.

Using raw Win Shares, Schalk also was only the best ML catcher once, in 1917. He was 2nd in 1913, 1916, 1920, 1922, 3rd in 1919, 4th in 1914 and 1915, and 6th in 1925. That's 8 top 4 finishes and 9 finishes in the top 1/2 of the majors. Schalk generally finished behind contemporary Wally Schang, who will make my personal HOM, and who might make the real HOM.

My system generally "sees" the top 4 finishes as an All-Star season, unless there was a particularly strong position, in which more candidates may be considered All-Stars.

There are obviously no league discounts or premiums here, which I might apply as follows. Discount McGuire's 1890-1891 AA seasons. Premium his 1892-1900 seasons, especially 1900. Schalk might receive a premium for his 1910-1919 seasons.

I know 14 to 50-100 seems far apart, but we've got so many candidates, that the real difference is not huge. Neither Schalk nor McGuire will make the HOM, and probably neither player will make my personal HOM.
   65. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: August 24, 2004 at 09:13 PM (#816495)
Ron, fair enough, except for one quibble:

Schalk was able to catch pretty much full-time. McGuire was never able to do this.

In 1895 he did catch full time. And over the course of his career he caught over 13 seasons worth of games, while Schalk was around 10 yrs worth of games.
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 24, 2004 at 09:34 PM (#816535)
Schalk was able to catch pretty much full-time. McGuire was never able to do this.

Except Schalk wouldn't have been able to do so in McGuire's era either. Why should Schalk benefit from this?
   67. DavidFoss Posted: August 24, 2004 at 10:57 PM (#816673)
Except Schalk wouldn't have been able to do so in McGuire's era either. Why should Schalk benefit from this?

Schalk was extremely durable for his era. Many of Schalk's contemporaries couldn't catch anywhere near as much Schalk did.

Someone (Kelly?) had a table of catchers from the 00's and 10's showing how most were used half-time.

I conservatively have Schalk at a little over 11 seasons of C/games. Maybe 11.5 if the abbreviated 1918-1919 seasons were accounted for. Was 1727 C/Games the record when he retired?

It may be moot I suppose for these down-ballot candidates, but the playing-time issue is the big reason we have this early 1895-1925 "catcher gap".
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 24, 2004 at 11:11 PM (#816705)
Schalk was extremely durable for his era. Many of Schalk's contemporaries couldn't catch anywhere near as much Schalk did.

I'll grant you that he was extremely durable, but many catchers of his time were able to catch a hundred games. That wasn't the case for McGuire's era.
   69. ronw Posted: August 24, 2004 at 11:47 PM (#816849)
Chris J and John Murphy:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said "Schalk was able to catch pretty much full-time. McGuire was never able to do this." it was a given as a reason for the following statement:

When you compare Win Shares to all positions for each year, then give a catcher premium, as I do, Schalk looks better. Also given as reasons for this (Schalk looking better by Win Shares) were This may be because he was a better fielder, or it may be a product of the era in which he played.

The statement you quoted was meant to convey exactly John's sentiment, that perhaps Schalk shouldn't benefit by his era. I agree that Schalk would not have played full time in the '90s or '00s. I'm sorry that I wasn't a bit more clear.

Further, I acknowledge that I was in error about McGuire never catching full-time. He indeed performed this extraordinary feat (for the era) in 1895. However, even with McGuire's catching full time, Jack Clements (.394 BA in 88 games) was better in the Win Shares evaluation that year.

Despite the confusion wrought by my statement, I stand by my opinion that Schalk was better, based on the evidence above.
   70. Jeff M Posted: August 25, 2004 at 12:00 AM (#816912)
1933 Ballot

1. Johnson, Walter

2. Wheat, Zack – Longevity with a high level of performance. Looks great in WS, but suffers a bit in WARP. Appears to have been a fairly decent defender. A comeback in his “mature” years makes the difference.

3. Browning, Pete -- I have discounted his 82-85 and 89 seasons but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. One of the best hitters we've evaluated or ever will evaluate. An outfielder in the early years, so I doubt his suspect defense detracts much from his overall value. Would have been in the majors earlier if not for the ear problem.

4. Groh, Heinie – Excellent fielder with a high extended peak. Would fare better on my ballot if he played a bit longer and had some more grey or black ink. But still damned good.

5. Monroe, Bill -- Alleged comp is Jimmy Collins. He certainly appears every bit as good as Grant, but competition was stiffening in his era, so he deserves more credit than Grant, IMO. I don’t see him getting elected now that Grant is in, but I would have preferred Monroe.

6. McGraw, John – The guy’s OBP was .466! I would prefer a longer career, but among the backlog, I think he deserves some recognition. Plus, we aren’t too deep at 3b in the HoM…but Groh is more deserving.

7. Jones, Charley -- No additional credit for blacklisted seasons. He hit about as well as McVey, with power, but with a smaller WS peak and fewer WS per 162 games. I think he has been overlooked from the beginning because of the relatively short career and lack of notoriety. Also, he was a bit chunky.

8. Griffith, Clark -- An excellent win pct on some bad teams. I boost his win totals and win pct by approximately 1/2 of his WAT. Has a nice career Linear Weights total also.

9. Duffy, Hugh -- Some good counting stats, good grey ink and scores well on WS and WARP1 measures.

10. Bresnahan, Roger -- In my system he was quite a bit better as a hitter than Charlie Bennett, though certainly not as good defensively (and not a full-time catcher). If you stack Bresnahan's WS and WARP1 numbers against the catchers actually elected to the HoF, he looks very solid. But then again, he wasn’t a full-time catcher.

11. Waddell, Rube -- Comparable to Griffith, but win totals are far less impressive. Can't see putting him ahead of Griffith, unless you overvalue strikeouts.

12. Veach, Bobby – A little more peak than career, but an excellent defender. Hit about 50% better than the league, and would be a legit HoMer if he had played longer. I’ve got him fairly even with Poles, but there’s a lot more uncertainty in the Poles data.

13. Poles, Spotswood – A very talented player, but a notch (or two) below a guy like Pete Hill.

14. Leach, Tommy -- Numbers are deflated by the era, but normalized he looks very good. I've got him with 7 gold gloves at two different tough positions. He played approximately half his games at 3b.

15. Beckley, Jake -- Watching the 1886 vintage game on ESPN, I saw with my own eyes the difficulty of playing 1b at the time. Very solid and long career, but I don’t quite see him as a HoMer, though I do see a significant gap between Beckley and Konetchy.

Required Disclosures:

Van Haltren, George – Where’s the greatness? Never the best player in the league and never a genuine All-Star. Managed to crack the top 10 in AdjOPS+ only three times in his career, and two of those were at #10 (with the other at #7). Virtually no black ink; poor grey ink. He is ranked #26 in my system, tied with Urban Shocker. If elected, would supplant Bobby Wallace as the elected player that I have ranked the lowest.

Pike, Lip – Gut tells me he doesn’t quite belong. I’ve explained aplenty, so I won’t say more here. He’s #27 in my system, behind Urban Shocker and ahead of Hughie Jennings.

Jennings, Hughie – Career is just too short. Also, when I reduced the WARP fielding ratings to get away from the low replacement value used by BP, he plummeted. He’s #28 in my system, behind Lip Pike and ahead of Charlie Buffinton.
   71. Kelly in SD Posted: August 25, 2004 at 12:02 AM (#816920)
The table you might be referencing in available as the last post in the catchers thread. The post looked at the hitting of Bresnahan's contemporaries mainly. It also showed the years played and total games caught.

In order to provide some more reference for the above discussion I put up the top 3 totals in catching each year vs total team games during McGuire's career and McGuire's games caught each year.

McGuire's years of regular/semi-regular play - 1884-1906. year is obvious. McG is games McGuire caught. TmG is scheduled games. G#1C is total games caught by catcher with most games caught. #2C is second most, etc.
year  McG TmG  G#1C #2C  #3C
1884   41 108   75   65   65
1885   31 112   69   68   65
1886   49 124   72   71   69
1887   41 124   76   73   64   
1888   30 136   85   79   78
1890   71 134  106   89   83 
1891   98 140  104   98   92
1892   89 154  119  111  109
1893   50 132   93   92   92
1894  104 132  109  104  104
1895  132 132  132   91   88
1896   98 132   98   91   80
1897   73 132  110  103   85
1898   93 154  122  121  117
1899  102 154  105  102   94
1900   69 140   93   80   78
1901   81 140  113   87   84
1902   70 140   87   87   87
1903   69 140   96   77   75
1904   97 154  107   97   95
1905   71 154  114  109   92
1906   49 154  118   95   89  
   72. Chris Cobb Posted: August 25, 2004 at 12:27 AM (#817020)
1933 Ballot

1. Walter Johnson (n/e). I’ve always liked the story of his relief appearance in the 1924 World Series.
2. Zack Wheat (n/e) I’ve started applying a competition adjustment for 1900-1920 AL/NL, but I can't see a competition discount large enough to drop Wheat below any of the returning candidates. An excellent hitter even if he didn't take enough walks. Well-positioned by his hitting style to take advantage of the lively ball, and he did, racking up the best career value for a position player that we've seen since Sam Crawford was elected. Didn't have near the peak value that Crawford did (or that Joe Jackson or Frank Baker did, for that matter), but it was good enough to place him here.
3. Clark Griffith. (3) Re-evaluation of pitchers reaches Griffith; he edges Van Haltren for the title of best remaining player from the still-underrepresented 1890s. I think he was better than Rusie. My system shows him at 33.5 support-neutral wins above average. Like Van Haltren he lacks the high peak that appeals to some voters, but, also like Van Haltren, he was consistently above average, not just average.
4. George Van Haltren (2) All-around, consistent talent; just the sort of player who has been underrated in traditional discussions of merit. As Andrew Siegel has stressed, while he doesn’t have a peak that is very high, he was consistently well above average: he didn’t accumulate his value by stringing together the 18-20 ws seasons; he was consistently stringing together 25-30 ws seasons. That makes him significantly more valuable, in my view, than folks like Ryan, Beckley, and Cross, who were consistently putting up the 18-20 win-share seasons.
5. Mickey Welch. (4) 8th-10th best player of the 1880s. Like Griffith, 33.5 support-neutral wins above average. Accomplished this feat against weaker competition in much easier conditions for pitchers, so despite higher career value, he ranks below Griffith.
6. Heinie Groh (n/e) Given the early returns on Groh, I think the electorate is beginning to be in danger of seriously underrating peak-value candidates. Groh’s career was short, but long enough to match the career value of other short-career infield candidates like Doyle, Childs, Williamson, and his peak was better than any of theirs. In fact, it was a pretty amazing five-year peak, second only to Jennings among position-player eligibles. And he's a third baseman. What's not to like?
7. Hughie Jennings (5) The third 1890s star now featured prominently on my ballot. While I see why some favor Childs over Jennings, I’m just not convinced that the “best second baseman” argument matters, and Jennings, at his best, was the best position player of the era, a point on which WARP and win shares agree. During his 1894-1898 peak, he was the best position player in baseball, and better than a pair of contemporary first-ballot HoMers, Billy Hamilton and Ed Delahanty, who were also at their peaks during these years.
8. Tommy Leach (10) Comparison to Groh pointed out that I had been underrating him a little.
9. Lip Pike. (7) Career wasn’t long, but he was a regular longer than Hugh Duffy, Pete Browning, or Sam Thompson. Everybody below Pike will probably drop off my ballot in 1934.
10. Urban Shocker (n/e) A very underrated player; he might well be a HoMer. Like Cooper below, he may move up or down significantly as I study his pitching contemporaries more fully. He was definitely better than Cooper, however: even though Cooper threw considerably more innings, Shocker's career is more valuable: he had a couple of great seasons in 1920 and 1921, and he was above average every single year he pitched. He and Mendez are very close in value as my system sees it, but Shocker is slightly ahead. In comparing Shocker to a pitcher like Waddell, the electorate should keep in mind that average innings pitched for a starting pitcher dropped from an average of 277 for 1900-1909 to 230 for 1917-1926 as conditions for pitchers became increasingly difficult. In that context, Shocker’s innings-pitched totals are as good as Waddell’s, and he was a more consistently effective pitcher.
11. Spotswood Poles (8) His peak was short, but strong in relation to his contemporaries.
12. Jose Mendez (9) Mendez was lights-out during his peak, which is better than that of any eligible pitcher aside from Johnson. After 1914 he didn’t pitch much, but he remained a highly effective in a limited role. He’s a borderline candidate.
13. Harry Hooper (21). jimd's arguments about league quality have convinced me to reassess Cravath/Burns/Hooper/Veach as Hooper/Veach/Cravath/Burns, so Hooper moves into the rank formerly held by Cravath, and also moves above Larry Doyle, though I have some reservations about putting yet another teens outfielder up higher. Further movement is possible as I continue to study league quality issues.
14. Larry Doyle (11).
15. Hugh Duffy (12).

Consensus Top 10 returning players not on my ballot

Jake Beckley – see #32 below
Rube Waddell – see #17 below
Roger Bresnahan – see #19 below
Cupid Childs – see #21 below
   73. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2004 at 12:27 AM (#817021)
Despite the confusion wrought by my statement, I stand by my opinion that Schalk was better, based on the evidence above.

Overall, I think McGuire was slightly better when compared to Schalk in the context of their times.
   74. Chris Cobb Posted: August 25, 2004 at 12:29 AM (#817032)
1933 Off Ballot

16. Wilbur Cooper (15) A consistently fine pitcher for 8 years. A Griffithesque career, but not quite as high a peak, and a couple of bad years outside his peak. Could move up or down significantly as I study his contemporaries, pitching and non-pitching, in more depth. He might be a worthy HoMer in his context – just don’t know yet.
17. Rube Waddell (22) Moves up on reevaluation in comparison to later pitchers. I don’t see him as a HoMer, but he’s a bit better than I had credited him. If I had reevaluated him a couple of elections earlier, he might have made the bottom of my ballot for a couple of years. See Shocker comment above for more on how I compare Waddell to later pitchers.
18. Bobby Veach (25) Rearrangement of teens outfielders places him here.
19. Roger Bresnahan (14) Top catcher of the aughts. I’ve had him on the ballot for a long time, but the strong entering class and the reevaluation of Waddell push him downwards. My gut is against having him this low, but I’ve already given him a significant catcher bonus to place him here. Will probably stay off ballot for a long time now, unless the arrival of the great catchers of the twenties causes me to reevaluate catchers up as a group.
20. Jimmy Ryan (16) Don’t have to explain why he’s here this time.
21. Cupid Childs (18). Falls a little bit short on both peak and career. I’m not sorry to see him doing well; he was a heck of a player, and I could be selling him short. But I see Groh, Jennings, Leach, and Doyle all as superior to Childs, and he doesn’t rank all that highly against his 1890s contemporaries, either.
22. Fielder Jones (28) Like Cooper and Veach, benefits from implementation of early-twentieth-century league-competition adjustment, but he’s still a member of my Hall of Very Good.
23. Dobie Moore (20)
24. Gavvy Cravath (13) Re-arrangement of teens outfielders due to league competition differences places him here.
25. Herman Long (23)
26. Tommy Bond (24)
27. George Burns (17) Re-arrangement of teens outfielders places him here.
28. Charley Jones (26)
29. Bruce Petway (27)
30. Bill Monroe (19) Switched places with Fielder Jones.
31. Babe Adams (29)
32. Jake Beckley (30) Like Childs, Beckley just doesn’t appear outstanding in comparison to his contemporaries. Lack of better first-basemen could give him a positional boost, but right now I don’t see the justification for a positional bonus for first base.
33. Frank Chance (31)
34. Tony Mullane (32) Everybody below Mullane will probably drop out of top 40 in 1934.
35. Dick McBride (33)
36. Ed Konetchy (34)
37. Lave Cross (35)
38. Addie Joss (40)
39. John McGraw (36)
40. Johnny Evers (38)

Dropping out of the top 40

41. Joe Tinker (37)
42. Ed Williamson (39)

Reconsideration of pitchers edges Joss past this pair; Evers passes them on reconsideration of his hitting.

Other new eligibles worthy of mention:

45. Jack Fournier. With 55 win shares credit for his minor-league play, he just misses the top 40 eligibles. A potential HoM talent, but not anything close to an HoM career.

77. Roger Peckinpaugh. Great defensive shortstop who sometimes hit well, sometimes didn't. A fine player, but a notch below Bancroft, Maranville, and Sewell among his contemporaries.

82. Bob Shawkey. A very good pitcher. Better than Hooks Dauss, but a significant step down from Hippo Vaughn among his near contemporaries.
   75. Kelly in SD Posted: August 25, 2004 at 12:40 AM (#817094)
For further reference part 1 of a multi-part posting regarding catchers, how many games they caught, and how many years they could do it.

National League Catchers 1901-1920
Gs=Scheduled Games, G#1=Most games caught, G#2=2nd Most Games Caught, G#3 3rd Most, List of Catchers w/ more than 100
year  Gs  G#1 G#2 G#3 
1901 140  113  87  84  Kittridge
1902 140  112  98  89  Kling
1903 140  132 107  85  Kling, Moran
1904 154  104  96  93  Kling
1905 154  107 106  89  Dooin, Kling
1906 154  107 103  96  Dooin, Bergen (kling 96)
1907 154  109  98  95  Gibson (kling, bresnahan)
1908 154  140 139 132  Gibson, Bresnahan, Dooin, Kling
1909 154  150 140 112  Gibson, Dooin, Bergen
1910 154  143 119 117  Gibson, McLean, Meyers
1911 154  128 102  98  Meyers, Archer (gibson 98, mclean 98)
1912 154  122 118  98  Meyers, Archer (mclean 98, gibson 94)
1913 154  118 116 103  Killefer, Meyers, Archer, Miller, Clarke
1914 154  126 115 106  Meyers, Gowdy, Clarke, Gibson
1915 154  142 118 114  Snyder, Gibson, Gowdy, Killefer
1916 154  119 116 107  Rariden, Gowdy, Wingo
1917 154  120 120 100  Wingo, Killefer, Rariden
1918 128  104 104 100  Killefer, Schmidt, Gonzalez
1919 140  100  85  75  Killefer
1920 154  107 105 103  Wingo, O'Neil, Clemons

The Cubs have several players on this list: Kling, Archer, and Killefer

Part 2: National League 1921-1941
Part 3: American League 1901-1920
Part 4: American League 1921-1941
Later tonight for the next 3 parts - home insurance stuff for new house / dinner with in-laws / other new house stuff first.
   76. DavidFoss Posted: August 25, 2004 at 01:56 AM (#817397)
Thanks Kelly! Great stuff!

I should have known to check the catchers thread. Duh to me!

This stuff can stay in the catcher thread if you want.
   77. OCF Posted: August 25, 2004 at 02:02 AM (#817421)
The Cubs have several players on this list: Kling, Archer, and Killefer

And George Gibson dominates a significant patch of this durability list. The Cubs and the Pirates - the same two teams that pioneered spreading the pitching load to more pitchers were at the same time concentrating the catching load on one man. Maybe there's no relationship, but at the very least it indicates that these two teams were breaking up the concept of "battery."
   78. Kelly in SD Posted: August 25, 2004 at 07:03 AM (#817755)
National League Catchers 1921-1941
Gs=Scheduled Games, G#1=Most games caught, G#2=2nd Most Games Caught, G#3 3rd Most, List of Catchers w/ more than 100
year  Gs  G#1 G#2 G#3 
1921 154  111 107 101  Schmidt, Clemons, Snyder
1922 154  125 119 116  O'Farrell, Henline, Ainsmith, Gooch
1923 154  124 112 109  O'Farrell, Snyder, Hargrave
1924 154  119 110 106  Gonzalez, Snyder, O'Neil, Hartnett
1925 154  110  96  96  Hartnett, Smith, Snyder, Taylor 96
1926 154  146 128  98  O'Farrell, Taylor, Smith
1927 154  126 124  92  Hartnett, Wilson, Hargrave
1928 154  124 124 120  Hogan, Taylor, Wilson, Hartnett
1929 154  119 109 103  Wilson, Spohrer, Lerian, Hargreaves
1930 154  136 126 108  Hartnett, Lopez, Spohrer
1931 154  114 113 111  Davis, Hogan, Spohrer, Wilson, Sukeforth, Hartnett, 
Lopez, Phillips EVERY STARTER CAUGHT 100 
1932 154  136 125 120  Hogan, Lopez, Davis, Hartnett, Grace, Lombardi, Spohrer
1933 154  142 140 132  Mancuso, Hartnett, Davis, Lopez, Wilson
1934 154  137 129 122  Lopez, Hartnett, Mancuso, Lombardi
1935 154  126 126 110  Lopez, Mancuso, Hartnett
1936 154  138 127 114  Mancuso, Lopez, Hartnett, Lombardi, Berres, Davis
1937 154  128 111 103  Todd, Phelps, Hartnett, Lopez
1938 154  132 123 116  Todd, Lombardi, Owen, Danning
1939 154  132 129 126  Danning, Lopez, Owen, Lombardi
1940 154  131 113 104  Danning, Owen, Todd, Lombardi
1941 154  128 120 119  Owen, Berres, McCullough, Lombardi, Danning, Lopez,
Warren, Mancuso EVERY STARTER CAUGHT 100 

What happened in 1931? For the 1930s generally half of the catchers each year caught 100.
   79. Kelly in SD Posted: August 25, 2004 at 07:24 AM (#817760)
American League Catchers 1901-1920
Gs=Scheduled Games, G#1=Most games caught, G#2=2nd Most Games Caught, G#3 3rd Most, List of Catchers w/ more than 100
year  Gs  G#1 G#2 G#3  Catchers over 100 games
1901 140  111 107  97  Powers, Clarke 
1902 140   87  87  87
1903 140   96  75  74
1904 154  107  97  95  Sullivan
1905 154  114 109  92  Schreckengost, Criger
1906 154  118  95  89  Sullivan
1907 154  115 108 103  Clarke, Sullivan, Schmidt
1908 154  137 128 121  Sullivan, Street, Schmidt
1909 154  137  97  84  Street
1910 154  110  96  86  Carrigan
1911 154  141 103  89  Stanage, Thomas
1912 154  120 108  87  Stanage, Sweeney
1913 154  125 112 103  Schalk, Sweeney, Agnew
1914 154  125 122 115  Schalk, Stanage, Agnew, Schang
1915 154  134 115 102  Schalk, O'Neill, Agnew, Stanage 
1916 154  128 124 116  O'Neill, Schalk, Henry
1917 154  139 139 127  Schalk, Severeid, O'Neill, Ainsmith
1918 128  113 106  89  O'Neill, Schalk
1919 140  129 123 106  Schalk, O'Neill, Ainsmith, Schang, Severeid
1920 154  151 148 146  Schalk, O'Neill, Perkins, Gharrity, Severeid 

WOW, Schalk set a new standard for endurance!! And O'Neill wasn't far behind.
   80. Kelly in SD Posted: August 25, 2004 at 07:49 AM (#817765)
American League Catchers 1921-1941
Gs=Scheduled Games, G#1=Most games caught, G#2=2nd Most Games Caught, G#3 3rd Most, List of Catchers w/ more than 100
year  Gs  G#1 G#2 G#3  Catchers over 100 games
1921 154  141 132 126  Perkins, Schang, Schalk, Severeid, Gharrity,
Bassler, Ruel, O'Neill  EVERY STARTER CAUGHT 100
1922 154  142 141 133  Schalk, Perkins, Severeid, O'Neill, Schang, Bassler, Ruel
1923 154  137 133 128  Perkins, Ruel, Bassler, Schalk, Severeid, O'Neill
1924 154  147 130 128  Ruel, Severeid, Perkins, Bassler, Schang
1925 154  133 126 125  Cochrane, Ruel, Schalk, Bassler
1926 154  125 117 115  Sewell, Ruel, Cochrane, Collins
1927 154  128 126 123  Ruel, Sewell, Cochrane
1928 154  130 118 101  Cochrane, Sewell, Ruel
1929 154  135 127 124  Cochrane, Dickey, Sewell, Berg
1930 154  130 101 101  Cochrane, Dickey, Ferrell
1931 154  145 125 117  Spencer, Dickey, Cochrane, Ferrell, Sewell, Berry
1932 154  137 120 108  Cochrane, Ferrell, Dickey, Hayworth
1933 154  141 133 128  Sewell, Hayworth, Cochrane, Dickey, Ferrell
1934 154  128 124 114  Ferrell, Cochrane, Hemsley, Dickey
1935 154  141 131 118  Hemsley, Ferrell, Dickey, Sewell, Cochrane, Bolton
1936 154  143 126 121  Hayes, Sewell, Ferrell, Hemsley, Dickey
1937 154  137 118 115  Dickey, Sewell, Pytlak
1938 154  131 126 116  Ferrell, Dickey, York, Desautels
1939 154  126 119 114  Dickey, Tresh, Hayes, Hemsley, Tibbetts
1940 154  135 134 128  Tresh, Hayes, Swift, Hemsley, Tibbetts, Dickey
1941 154  123 115 104  Hayes, Tresh, Dickey, Early 

The American League certainly picked up in the 1920s and into the 30s. Cochrane, Dickey, Schalk, Sewell, Ruel, Dickey, Ferrell - that is a great deal of generally injury-free, consistent catchers.
   81. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 25, 2004 at 01:24 PM (#817829)
1933 ballot (still revising WARP methodology...look for changes in the years to come)

1. Walter Johnson
I don’t see any argument that he’s not still the greatest pitcher ever. 190 ERA+ with league leading innings for a decade, merely an All-Star for about 7-8 years on either side. It may never get any better.

2. Zack Wheat
Not a compelling candidate, but valuable career with 5-6 really strong seasons is good enough for the no. 2 slot here.

3. Heinie Groh
Great six-year peak with another six years of strong play, plus timeline, gets him here.

4. Charley Jones
Short seasons understate his greatness, he was extraordinarily good in 1879 and dominated the early AA as well. Blacklist years not his fault.

5. Clark Griffith
ERA+ makes it seem that Griffith had one dominant year in 1898 and was just above average elsewhere. In fact, he was just as good in 1899 (look at K, BB, HR, and BABIP/Teammates' BABIP), was a reliable workhorse, and pitched at an All-Star level for a decade. You can't see his greatness on the surface, but look deeper into the numbers and from 1896-1901 he was a genuine superstar.

6. Lip Pike
Obviously a truly dominant player in the NA and 1876 NL, played many years pre-1871 at a very high level.

7. Pete Browning
1890 showed us he was for real, so his knock-em-dead years in '82, '85 and '87 have to be taken seriously. More career value than the “career” guys GVH/Beckley by my measure, and a true dominator for three or four seasons. Hopefully I can drum up some support for him; he really deserves it.

8. Cupid Childs
Offensive juggernaut at a scarce position with often excellent leather for eight years. A bona fide superstar in '90, '92, and '96, and a strong All-Star in '93 and '97. Didn't play forever but so good that he accumulated more career value than the "career guys" IMO. We don't have anyone from his era at his position, and because he played in a stronger league than his comps by my estimate.

9. Addie Joss
Joss had a remarkable ability to prevent hits on balls in play, allowing a BABIP 31 points lower than his teammates' for his career (.238/.269). He had six seasons where he was absolutely one of the best in the biz, including 1908 which was particularly standout. His rate stats were so good that even despite his innings problem, he still comes out mid-ballot on both career and peak.

10. Hughie Jennings
So good for five years that he was more valuable than guys who played for three times as long.

11. Rube Waddell
Rube’s taken a big hit with my reevaluation. I *love* the K's, but now that I can see that deadball pitchers really could prevent hits on balls in play, he stands out less than he did before. It's worth nothing that his 1903 season was just as good as his much more highly regarded '04--almost as many innings, same BB/K/HR rates, similar propensity to giving up line drives (BABIP 5% higher than teammates' in '03, 6% in '04). '02 was really his best season though. One of the best pitchers in baseball from '02-'05, but not an otherworldly dominator and not enough career to push him further up the ballot or into my revised PHoM.

12. Eddie Cicotte
He really was a premier, superstar pitcher from 1917-19, and was serviceable in 1913 and 1920. A slightly above league average pitcher for the rest of his career.

13. Jimmy Ryan
He doesn’t fare that well in my system, but I do have to give respect to his near-ballot-topping career value and he did at least have two great years in 1888 and 89.

14. John McGraw
He didn't play long enough to make the HoM, and rarely played full seasons even when he did. But man, was he good--an on-base machine the likes of which the game has rarely seen since.

15.Vic Willis
Just kept churning out those innings at an above-average level. The Beckley of pitchers, but a more valuable career than Beckley and at least a genuine All-Star once or twice.

Left Off:

Jake Beckley: He wasn't an All-Star for 15 years. He was a slightly above average player for a long time, accumulating less career value than guys who played half as long. And of course he had no peak. Unless you think that replacement level in his era was so low that just playing in the majors meant a lot to helping a team win, he's really got no case. His best year (1899) was worse than Del Pratt in 1919.

George Van Haltren: Seems quite similar to Beckley by my measures.

Hugh Duffy: Enh. As cool as .440/.502/.694 looks, he just wasn’t a dominant player for any meaningful period of time.

Roger Bresnahan: Man, I don’t see it. A half-time catcher with two really good seasons in his entire career, one at OF, and a token player for many years.
   82. yest Posted: August 25, 2004 at 02:05 PM (#817883)
Johnson and Wheat make my phom this year
1. Walter Johnson hope he’s unanimous (obviously makes my personal HoM this year)
2. Mickey Welch 41 shutouts (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
3. Pete Browning 403 on base% (made my personal HoM in 1906)
4. Jake Beckley great career (made my personal HoM in 1915)
5. Rube Waddell most strikeouts 6 years in a row (made my personal HoM in 1917)
6. Hugh Duffy 324 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1908)
7. Addie Joss 2 era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
8. Zack Wheat 2884 hits 317 batting avg 1 batting title (makes my personal HoM this year)
9. Clark Griffith 619 winning % (made my personal HoM in 1912)
10. Ray Schalk best catcher ever
11. George Van Haltren 2532 hits (made my personal HoM in 1925)
12. Jimmy Ryan 2502 hits (made my personal HoM in 1926)
13. Lip Pike 4 HR titles (made my personal HoM in 1910)
14. Bobby Veach 310 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1931)
15. Jake Daubert 2 batting titles (made my personal HoM in 1930)
16. John McGraw 3 on base titles (made my personal HoM in 1930)
17. Gavvy Cravath most RBIs twice (made my personal HoM in 1928)
18. George J. Burns led in walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)
19. Ginger Beaumont 1 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
20. Stuffy McInnis 2405 hits
explanation for top 10 returnees not on my ballot
Jennings is somewhere in the twenties on my ballot
Bresnahan no catcher bonus for him
   83. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2004 at 02:36 PM (#817922)
10. Ray Schalk best catcher ever

Yest, no offense, but this is ridiculous and indefensible.
   84. DanG Posted: August 25, 2004 at 02:58 PM (#817960)
Yest, no offense, but this is ridiculous and indefensible.

I assume he forgot the word "defensive" before the word catcher(?)
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2004 at 03:02 PM (#817970)
I assume he forgot the word "defensive" before the word catcher(?)

If that's the case, that would be different. Yest?
   86. Michael Bass Posted: August 25, 2004 at 03:14 PM (#817994)
no offense, but this is ridiculous and indefensible.

Which part, that Schalk is the first catcher ever (I assume that means to date) or that the best catcher ever (to date) only rates 10th on this ballot? ;)
   87. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2004 at 03:16 PM (#817998)
Yest didn't have Santop on his last ballot though and Big Bertha kicks Schalk's butt all over the place.
   88. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2004 at 03:18 PM (#818005)
Which part, that Schalk is the first catcher ever (I assume that means to date) or that the best catcher ever (to date) only rates 10th on this ballot? ;)


Unfortunately, you might be making the wrong assumption with the first part of your question...
   89. yest Posted: August 25, 2004 at 04:17 PM (#818096)
the catch of catcher was supposed to be underlined meaning best defensive catcher ever at least in my opinion.
   90. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2004 at 04:23 PM (#818107)
the catch of catcher was supposed to be underlined meaning best defensive catcher ever at least in my opinion.

Whew! :-)
   91. OCF Posted: August 25, 2004 at 04:54 PM (#818152)
6. Heinie Groh (n/e) Given the early returns on Groh, I think the electorate is beginning to be in danger of seriously underrating ...<i>

Don't worry, Chris. Given the early returns, there's a very good chance that Groh will finish <i>better
than 6th.
   92. Rob_Wood Posted: August 26, 2004 at 05:25 AM (#820239)
My 1933 ballot:

1. Walter Johnson -- my all-time best pitcher
2. Zack Wheat -- big drop, but deserving HOM'er
3. Jake Beckley -- keep on trucking?
4. Larry Doyle -- am I lead FOLD'er?
5. Rube Waddell -- I luv the strikeouts
6. Addie Joss -- am I top FOAJ too?
7. Lip Pike -- early star standout on this ballot
8. Urban Shocker -- great underappreciated hurler
9. Harry Hooper -- very good player but not a deserving HOF'er?
10. Cupid Childs -- moving up in the world I hope
11. Roger Bresnahan -- very good catcher
12. Tommy Leach -- very good player
13. Charley Jones -- underrated star of his time
14. Ed Konetchy -- 1b slightly ahead of fournier
15. Jack Fournier -- very good bottom of ballot slot

I did not vote for Griffith (16th), Van Haltren (17th), Jennings (around 30th), or Duffy (around 50th) since I don't think they are better than the guys on my ballot.
   93. dan b Posted: August 26, 2004 at 10:52 AM (#820283)
It has been a while since I have commented on some of the top vote getters absent from my ballot. One of the Keltner questions is “If this player were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?” In the case of Jake Beckley, WS answers the question with an emphatic “no, not even close.” Using WS, Beckley never was the best player on his team, but the (3) times he was the 2nd best player on his team, his teams had a composite winning pct. of .428. When he was one of the 5 best players on his team, the best his team could do was 6th in a 12 team NL in 1899. The most competitive team Beckley played on was Cincinnati in 1898, which finished 3rd. Beckley was 11th on that team in WS. Looking at teams where Beckley had enough WS to be the leader in each year of his career points to the conclusion that a team whose best player was no better than Beckley would likely lose over 100 games in a 162 game season.

I think the following case against Mickey Welch has come up before. During the decade of the 1880’s, a total of 77,105 innings were played in the NL. If we add Welch to the HoM, then 27.6% of those innings would have been pitched by a HoMer. If that were the case, using Probability 101, if you were to pick a random inning of 1880’s BB, there would be a 7.6% chance that both pitchers were in the HoM plus a 40% chance that just one of the pitchers was found to be worthy of our Hall, leaving just a 52% chance that you wouldn’t be watching a “great” pitcher. I don’t know about you, but this stretches my definition of a HoMer from great all the way past very good to pretty good. If our objective is to honor all eras equally, then in the end we will see that we have already overdone 1880’s pitching. It is not enough for the FOMW to show that Smiling Mickey was as good as Keefe or Galvin. Demonstrate that the electorate made an egregious error in choosing Keefe or Galvin instead of Welch. Show that we already have honored the common performer, that Welch was the true Great.

Lip Pike – I haven’t been one to support players whose justification to fame occurred before 1876. In his NL days, successfully handled about 4 out of 5 chances in the field. But then we aren’t sure how many he was trying to handle.

Cupid Childs – of the 4, only Childs is on my radar screen. He has been on my ballot before and could be again.

And now my ballot. Win shares are my metric of choice. I have tweaked my approach by adding a look at 10-year consecutive “peak”, resulting a few key moves on my ballot. My composite ranking now = 5 x Career + (3 best years)/3 + (5 best consecutive years)/5 + (8 best years)/8 + (10 best consecutive years)/10 + WS per 162. I then make adjustments justified by individual components with a touch of subjectivity thrown in. I use the same system for hitters and for 60’ 6” era pitchers. I also look at WS w/o defense for a hitting only ranking. (Number in parenthesis shows composite rank.)

1.Johnson (1)
2.Wheat (1) Best hitter on ballot.
3.Groh (4) Next year he will fall to 7th, but eventual PHoM. 2nd in 3 and 5 year peaks.
4.Duffy (2). 3rd in 5-year peak, 1st in 8-year and 10-year, PHoM in 1912.
5.Griffith (3) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, elected to PHoM in 1913.
6.Jennings (12) – PHoM in 1908. 5-year peak 5th best of all eligible players to date behind Wagner, Baker, Delahanty and Lajoie. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar.
7.Waddell (4) I like his peak and K’s. 2nd best LHP to date. PHoM 1926.
8.Bresnahan (25) Big position bonus to fill the void behind the plate. HoM will be flawed if we do not induct at least one Major League catcher who played between Buck Ewing’s retirement in 1897 and Gabby Hartnett’s debut in 1922 – as The Old Professor said “You have to have a catcher….”. SABR dead ball era committee has him #1. Highest ranking available player by NHBA rankings. PHoM 1928
9.Leach (6) 6th in 8-yr peak, 3rd in career. PHoM 1926.
10.Poles Second Negro Leaguer to make PHoM (1929). Bill James and the Cool Papa’s survey agree.
11.Chance (15) –5 times one of the top 12 players in the NL, 4 times one of the top 5 hitters. Best 1B of the era. NHBA rank of 25 puts him in the BJHoM. PHoM in 1921. The Peerless Leader merits more attention here.
12.Browning (19) – Leads in WS/162, elected to PHoM in 1906.
13.Doyle (10) NHBA rank of 20 put him in BJHoM in 1926. PHoM 1930.
14.Willis (2) – 2st in career, 3rd in 3-year peak. By WS, best NL pitcher in 1899 and 1901, 2nd best in 1902 and 1906. Will a modern pitcher who wins the Cy Young twice and is also runner up twice, get more luv?
15.Burns (3) 4th in 3-year peak, 2nd behind Duffy in 8 and 10-year peaks. 2nd best hitter on the ballot.
17.Van Haltren (7)
18.Shocker (11)
19.Joss (15)
20.Veach (11) – 5th in 8-year peak and 10-year run.
   94. Howie Menckel Posted: August 26, 2004 at 02:41 PM (#820434)
Lovely to see some new blood, although two of the three most intriguing figure to be gone by next year's deliberations.
We're done with the 1860s and 1870s, unless Lip Pike fights his way through or Charley Jones goes back in time to play those missing seasons. Only Welch and Browning are making major bids from the first half of the 1880s.

1933 ballot
Just enough new comments and ranking shifts scattered among the dozen holdovers to keep you reading!

1. WALTER JOHNSON - Top 5 in Adj ERA+ every year from 1910-1919, except 1917, when he was a 'dreadful' 23-16 with a 119 ERA+. His W-L record was 32-48 in first 3 years, 385-231 thereafter. Check out 1925, at age 37. No, not the ho-hum (for him) 20-9 with the 137 ERA+. Walter hit .433 that year (42-97), 2 hr, 20 rbi (103 RBI per 500 AB pace). He slugged .577 against an AL avg of .416. As if he needed any 'extras' to be unanimous!
2. ZACK WHEAT - O'Rourkey, Burketty - I likey, I likey! 13 times cleared 120 OPS+. Pretty much an HOM lock by 1923, then puts up the best year of his career at age 36 and adds another gem a year later. Quite comfortable putting him through on his first try.

3. MICKEY WELCH - Obviously has to wait a bit longer. Pitching was extremely important in the 1880s in my mind, and this is the last one we need to close the books. I'm 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.
4. PETE BROWNING - Spectacularly good hitter, definitely better than Thompson, and his 1890 PL season says he could have done it in any league, any time. Has been discounted too much for AA numbers.
5. CLARK GRIFFITH - A personal favorite, and gets a pitching 'quota' bonus. 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.
6. CUPID CHILDS - The majors' best 2B, or nearly so, for most of his career is something that we just don't see on this ballot. Good to see a bit of a revival; his ballot timing wasn't quite there, earlier.
7. HEINIE GROH - About where I thought he'd start, but I thought it would be mostly for his bat. Heinie's a little short on that front (an oxymoron?), though. I'm slowly starting to give fielding numbers more weight after being quite skeptical in the 1800s.
8. LIP PIKE - The Dick Allen comparisons seem apt. A little odd 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 damn good. My main trepidation is the murmurs about his ethics, but I voted Shoeless Joe No. 1. Or maybe we have enough 1870s guys.
9. HUGHIE JENNINGS - Hanging on by the theory that a four-year megastar is better than entire careers of most of these balloteers. Enough peak for me to ask for not so much more, yet he supplies almost nothing else - and even plays so many games at 1B rather than SS. Tough call.
10. JAKE BECKLEY - Deserves recognition, but doesn't have an "oomph" to make the HOM. Still, possibly no one will ever explain what Keeler has that Beckley doesn't.
11. GEORGE VAN HALTREN - See my 'dis' in the 1933 ballot discussion thread. I'm just not a fan, and would rather see him not get in. The early pitching carries him past Ryan, Duffy, and friends.
12. BILL MONROE - His timing was as wrong for HOM as it was in real life. But a really strong player and worth a ballot slot.
13. TOMMY LEACH - Fourth time I've voted for him. Hurt by being a hybrid, but he was a darn good one. Not a HOMer, though.
14. BOBBY VEACH - Had a consistent, high-achieving career. Not a HOMer, obviously.
15. URBAN SHOCKER - notes that Shocker, with an enlarged heart, was unable to sleep lying down for the last two years of his life. Goes 18-6 with a 136 ERA+ in 1927, is dead a year later. Peak wasn't great enough to make up for the loss of counting numbers, so he just misses out. "The saddest words, of tongue and pen..." and all that.

ROGER BRESNAHAN - Bounced after several years on my ballot. Santop addition diluted the C bonus, which killed him, possibly for good.
HUGH DUFFY - Great in 1894. Real good in fairly weak 1891 AA. Otherwise not exciting. Close look at year by year reveals his flaws; too much credit for awesome years by some career methodologies, I suspect.
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.

ED CICOTTE, LARRY DOYLE - One of them could climb in here someday.
RAY SCHALK - Maybe someone talks him onto my ballot someday, but so far I don't quite see it.
BABY DOLL JACOBSON and JACK TOBIN - Don't deserve any votes, but a nod to the sweet (though era-inflated) numbers that Brownie OF, along with Ken Williams, put up in the 1920s.
   95. OCF Posted: August 26, 2004 at 04:11 PM (#820646)
[Rob Wood] 4. Larry Doyle -- am I lead FOLD'er?

In 1932, Jim Sp had him 2nd, you and Guapo had him 3rd, and I had him 4th. This year, you and Brad Harris both have him 4th, I have him 5th, and neither Guapo nor Jim Sp have voted yet.
   96. Kelly in SD Posted: August 26, 2004 at 06:13 PM (#820941)
re: Mickey Welch

dan b brought up good points regarding the Mickey Welch candidacy.
1. the number of innings pitched in the decade by HoM pitchers: This seems to be one of the two main reasons voters choose not to vote for Welch. Many voters have written that there are "enough" pitchers in the HoM from the 80s which seems to be shorthand for dan b's above point. I am of two minds about this.
I can see the point about a good percentage of innings pitched being pitched by HoMers and that to many voters, that high a percentage of innings should not be HoMer innings. I haven't seen an argument why that percentage is too high, just that it would be.
On the other hand, I would argue the method by which pitchers were then used causes the high number of innings. The National League in the 80s had Clarkson, Galvin, Keefe, Radbourn, and Welch who were excellent as well as relatively injury-free. Other times have 5 great pitchers as well. We won't see the same concentration/potential concentration of innings because pitchers are used differently in other eras. There are still great pitchers, but the game has changed to prevent a concentration of innings in so few pitchers.
Another way to look at this point is the following: Are the number of great pitchers a numeric constant or a percentage constant? Are there generally 4-7 great pitchers pitching whether there are 8 teams or 30 teams or is it a percentage of pitchers? If there is supposed to be approximately equal respect for each era then are we assuming a generally constant supply of great players at each position (allowing for fluctuations - first base in the 30s for example)?
If you do not agree that the number of great pitchers is in a constant numeric range, does anybody see the distribution as random? Or should it be a consistent percentage so the more teams there are, the more great pitchers we should see? From my baseball history reading, it appears as though the number of great players is more of a numeric constant than a percentage constant.

1a. How does one define era representation? This is a concern mainly with pitchers. By the number of pitchers or how much they pitched?

2. Proof that Mickey Welch is a HoMer.
Philosophically, I try to follow the arguments from James' Politics of Glory, Arguments chapter.
1. We are looking for the best candidate, not merely a qualified candidate.
2. No one argument places a man at that pinnacle. It's the weight of the evidence; its always the combined weight.
3. The fact that a comparable player is in the HoM is a point in favor of another candidate.
4. The fact that several comparable players are HoMers is an important element of proof for any HoM candidate.
5. It is important, in evaluating a HoM candidate, to show awareness of comparable players who are not in the HoM.
6. The Highest Common Denominator Argument. Combines 4 and 5. There are many players with comparable records who are in the HoM, and there are NO players with comparable records who are NOT in the HoM.
7. The fact that a player meets the statistical standards of previous HoM selections should be counted in his favor.
8. If a player is TRULY in a group of HoMers - in the middle of a group - that should be counted in his favor.
I think point 2 is very important. The combined weight. There are voters who are BP fans, WS fans, BP/WS fans, and those who can leave one or both of those metrics in the garbage. To me (and I would assume other FOMW) the weight of the general statistical record (counting numbers), win shares, record against other HoMers, similarity scores, and Welch's record with the run and defensive support outweighs the weight of BP numbers and ERA+. I have difficulty with the BP numbers for many reasons (whole other post - 6000 character limit) and ERA+ is dependant on the defense behind them - where Welch had the second worst defense. Galvin had worse defensive support and his ERA+ was worse.

I will close this by asking what additional support would a non-Welch voter like. He has the best record against HoM pitchers of any HoM/candidate pitcher I have examined (Keefe, Clarkson, Galvin, Radbourn, Rusie, McGinnity, Joss, Griffith, Willis, Waddell). Walsh does have a better percentage .666 vs .626 but that is based on 21 decisions vs. 99 decisions. Brown is close with a .593 based on 19-13 record.
His six most similar pitchers are Radbourn, Mullane, Keefe, Clarkson, Nichols, and Seaver.
Welch had generally poorer offensive and defensive support than other HoM.
He is comparable to his compatriots in counting stats and win shares though his peak is not as high.

Thank you for reading.
   97. Brad G. Posted: August 26, 2004 at 06:16 PM (#820949)
1933 Ballot:

1.Walter Johnson-
Big Train
Big Train
Come along 'n' ride
The Big Train

2.Hugh Duffy- Career Win Shares = 295, Win Share 5-year Peak = 144 (!), Career WARP3 = 81, Career Runs Created = 1229, Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 147. A+ Centerfielder with 5 WS Gold Gloves, according to James, who ranks him #20 Centerfielder of all time. The difference between him and Van Haltren is slight, but Duffy looks to be the better to me.

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

4.Zack Wheat- I toyed with being real conservative and putting him down as low as #12, but the overall career numbers Wheat put up simply won’t allow me to. Interesting Ink scores: not much Black (8), but his 227 Gray leads all non-pitching eligibles. Also, his career Runs Created= 497, passing Beckley as the current eligible leader. He and that other guy make my PhoM this year.

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

6.Rube Waddell- Career Win Shares = 240; WS5 = 145.

7.Clark Griffith- Not much separates him from Waddell anymore in my mind. He does, however, lack the impressive Ink scores of Rube, as well as the ever-important Win Share measurements.

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

9.Roger Bresnahan- A 15% Catcher Bonus puts him here. Once again the best eligible catcher this year.

10.Pete Browning- Put up some monster offensive numbers, led by the 162 OPS+.

11.Bobby Veach- Veach and Burns are real close. Career WARP3 = 82.1, Black Ink= 22, Gray= 170.

12.George Burns- Had a real nice career. Career WARP3= 63.3, Black Ink= 33, Gray= 165.

13.Tommy Leach- Super Career numbers; the best 3B on the ballot.

14.Hughie Jennings- A+ Defender. Outstanding peak/prime, especially for his position.

15.Cupid Childs- Career WARP1= 108.4, WARP3= 76.4. B+ Win Share defender.

16-20: Cravath, Doyle, Petway, Poles, Hooper
21-25: Welch, C. Jones, Moore, Monroe, Mendez
26-30: Pike (simply way too many outfielders I have ranked ahead of him), Seymour, Cicotte, Groh, Willis
   98. Dolf Lucky Posted: August 26, 2004 at 06:23 PM (#820984)
1 (-)Walter Johnson--The 2nd player since the beginning of this project to garner a perfect score in my system (Lajoie was the first).

2 (1)Rube Waddell--In a 9 year stretch from 1900 to 1908, Waddell led the league in K/IP 8 times. Finished 2nd the other time. New WARP scores boost his peak to a near Jennings level. High black ink totals. In other words--dominant.

3 (-)Heinie Groh--At his peak, he was the cornerstone of a championship team. His career numbers are solid, placing him at least the equal of Jimmy Collins, but shy of Frank Baker.

4 (7)Donie Bush--I backed off the Bush Kool-Aid somewhat, but keep in mind that Bill James blew it on this guy. See his comments in the NBJHBA, and then actually look at the numbers, and you'll realize that James doesn't make much sense.

5 (3)Roger Bresnahan--The biggest boost from the new WARP scores. The last time we had a catcher with an OPS+ this high, that had a career length in the high teens, that played several other positions with some regularity, we voted him in right away (Buck Ewing). My apologies to the Duke of Tralee for not catching on quicker.

6 (15)Duke Farrell--Catchers apparently got the largest WARP boost. Much of Farrell's case comes from the strength of his 1891 season.

7 (4)Eddie Cicotte--Career and peak numbers synch up fairly closely to Waddell, but Cicotte lacked the dominance.

8 (-)Urban Shocker--More of a career vote than anything, since his peak can't compare with Cicotte or Waddell, Shocker was still very good for a pretty long time.

9 (-)Zack Wheat--Trying to be cautious with this one early on, especially since we haven't lacked for left fielders. Wheat is the best career on the board (non-Big Train division).

10 (5)Hugh Duffy--I had to separate some of the OF glut with the addition of so many good names. Duffy and Leach were pretty close, but in having to make a decision, I'll generally go with the peak guy. Hence, Duffy stays alive for at least one more year.

11 (9)Hughie Jennings--The peak stud. Not quite long enough of a career. As great a peak as Jennings had, it's laughable how it stacks up to a guy like Walter Johnson.

12 (10)Del Pratt--Better career, prime, and more dominant than Childs.

13 (-)Larry Doyle--First time he's been on my ballot…at first glance he doesn't seem to stack up to Pratt, but it's hard not being awed by all the shiny gray ink.

14 (8)Bobby Veach--Veach and Jimmy Ryan have fairly similar careers, but 3 things give Veach the ballot spot, while Ryan's just off: Better peak, later timeline, and a suspiciously low number of R/RBI for Ryan.

15 (12)George Burns--Lasts out over Hooper/Seymour for now. The real outfielder candidates are coming.

Dropped out:
Tommy Leach
Clark Griffith
Harry Hooper
Cy Seymour

Top 10 ommissions:
George Van Haltren--I don't think I've ever had a player drop so quickly on my ballot. 9th a couple of elections ago, he now ranks in the low 40's. The more I look at him, the less I see that would distinguish him as a HoMer.

Clark Griffith--Lost on the numbers game. Tough to justify 5 pitchers on this ballot, and Griffith is just shy of Cicotte/Shocker.

Lip Pike--Might be the right player, but impossible to know. I'll take the devil I do know at this point in the game.

Jake Beckley--Not even close. Dan B in post 93 articulates quite clearly how I feel about Beckley. He hung around for a long time, but had the unfortunate problem of not actually being very good.
   99. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 26, 2004 at 06:40 PM (#821056)
3 (-)Heinie Groh--At his peak, he was the cornerstone of a championship team. His career numbers are solid, placing him at least the equal of Jimmy Collins, but shy of Frank Baker.

Excellent points, Mark.
   100. Michael Bass Posted: August 26, 2004 at 07:09 PM (#821159)
I'll balance this out first by saying I love your Groh comments and completely agree on that end. :-)

4 (7)Donie Bush--I backed off the Bush Kool-Aid somewhat, but keep in mind that Bill James blew it on this guy. See his comments in the NBJHBA, and then actually look at the numbers, and you'll realize that James doesn't make much sense.

James's rankings are all crazy (I'm a timeliner and all, but he takes it too a goofy level). So those aren't much of an issue at all.

Win Shares has him as a C defender (that's pure numbers, no subjective move there). BP has him as 15 fielding runs above average for his career. I think we can safely call that in the C range. Is there any system at all that thinks this guy was anything more than an average defender?

Then we go to his bat. Or "bat". Three seasons career over 100 OPS+, topping out at 116. Career OPS+ of 91. He did have 400 steals, but the CS data for that era is hit and miss (accoring to bbref at least), and what CS data exists is not encouraging for him.

I simply cannot see this ranking for him. Jennings is very close in both WS and WARP1 (he's actually up in WARP3), despite 3000 fewer plate appearances. I hold no illusions that either of those are the tell-all of stats, but honestly, I see no serious argument based on the numbers, traditional or advanced, for Bush to be this high on anyone's ballot.

Feel free to educate me, very possible I'm missing something. :-)
Page 1 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
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 1.0785 seconds
41 querie(s) executed