User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1068 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Sunday, December 19, 20041942 Ballot DiscussionThe ballot thread will be posted one week later than normal (Jan.3). Bill Terry is the only position player this “year” that should make any impact on our ballots. As for pitchers, Firpo Marberry had a unique enough career that he may show some considerable strength as a candidate. 1942 (January 2)—elect 2 1942 (January 2)—elect 2 Players Passing Away in 1941 Candidates My favorite ballplayer of all-time, it always pains me to read this even though he died 24 years before I was even born. Much obliged to Dan G and Chris Cobb for the lists again! John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: December 19, 2004 at 01:36 AM | 266 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(20 - 10:37pm, Nov 30) Last: Alex02 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Results (2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 1.1068 seconds |
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.
Next year, Jesse Haines and Chick Hafey become eligible to further Frank up this Frisching mess.
Since there's no suspense about winners, I feel no need to be careful about discussing the ballot before it closes. Here's a notice to anyone who thinks Dazzy Vance should not be elected: This discussion cycle is probably your only chance to persuade us otherwise. On the first 50 ballots for 1941, Vance has the most 3rd place votes, the most 4th place votes, and (apart from the unanimous ones) appears on the most ballots. That vote pattern puts him clearly at the front of the line going into 1942.
OK, I get it - we stick with the rules. The way I see it, Terry goes to the front of the line of first basemen, ahead of Sisler, Beckley, and Chance. The adjusted RCAA-like system I use has Terry as the #1 guy among eligible candidates, ahead of Chance and ahead of any of the outfielders. Given that his career is on the short side, that may not put him ahead of Van Haltren, but he's at least in the upper half of my ballot.
I've been worrying that I haven't been giving any postseason credit, and have been looking for players to whom to give some extra.
Tommy Leach seems like one solid candidate, having hit the hell out of the ball in both the 1903 and 1908 World Series.
My question is: Were these World Series considered as "championship series" or were they, like I believe the Temple Cup of the 1890s was, glorified exhibitions? If it's the latter, which often included rumors of players colluding on outcomes, then no credit is warranted. But if it is the former, then I think strong performance in 2 WS would be worth a little credit.
1)Sewell--109 OPS+, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). Yes, I am allowing for his switch to 3B at the end of his career.
2)Schang--His rate stats would put him in the HoM, but a look at each individual year isn’t impressive. Still, a hitting catcher with his career length isn’t common...Bill James rates him a C+ fielder in Win Shares, but says he was a good catcher in the NHBA. Stands out from the extreme lack of catching candidates recently.
3)Doyle— His hitting is legitimately outstanding, he played 2nd base, and a C+ defender by Win Shares. 126 career OPS+, compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. #19 all time in innings at 2B. Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
4)Beckwith-- Was Beckwith, in his prime, was the best hitter in the Negro Leagues? He played a considerable amount at the difficult end of the defensive spectrum. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his “unusual circumstances”. His selection as manager indicates to me that his intangibles weren’t all negative. Could be higher. I might regret this, but he made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
5)Beckley— Behind the big 3, much better than other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production.
6)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115 for such a long career.
7)Vance--Rixey or Vance? Today I’m in a career mood I guess.
8)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
9)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
10)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
11)Bancroft--Adjusted him up…
12)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so he’s not quite as impressive as I thought at first glance.
13)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.
14)Terry--Overrated in general, but still pretty good.
15)Joss—Comp is Koufax…a terrible hitter.
My impression has always been that these World Series were taken seriously at the time - at least by the victors - unlike the Temple Cup exhibitions.
The 1903 Series was taken seriously by the AL as a means of establishing respectability, putting to rest any lingering questions about league parity; perhaps one can question the NL though.
The 1905 Series was taken seriously by the Giants, due to the controversy stirred up by their refusal to play in 1904, which nearly restarted the AL/NL war.
Did the Cubs take 1906 seriously? That I can't answer, but the game play-by-play seems to show two teams playing hard in 1907 and 1908. The first game of the 1907 Series is a great game (read the play-by-play some time).
Is there evidence to the contrary? That the players wanted little part of these new World Series?
1) Beckwith
2) Childs
3) C. Jones
4) Willis
5) York
6) Grimes
7) Traynor
8) Beckley
9) Welch
10) Waddell
11) Rixey
12) Konetchy
13) Van Haltren
14) Vance
15) Duffy
1903: I have always understood that the 1903 series was a glorified exhibition. (It wasn't sanctioned, but I mean more than that and I don't know the source.) Four books on the 1903 series were published recently, three 2003 and one 2004. From reviews I know that they don't generally subscribe to the "g.e." interpretation.
19th century. I believe that the 19c World Series and Temple Cup Series were taken more seriously in some years than others. More seriously in 1886 and 1896, for example. As for not trying to win, I have heard that only re 1894-1895.
Upon reflection, I suspect that there was a structural flaw in the Temple Cup series, with the outcome more important to the second place team. Same in 1900, but second-place Pittsburgh did not win the Chronicle-Telegraph series.
1) Vance
2) Terry - Very, very good hitter, great fielder, strong peak, good (if short) career.
3) Jennings
4) Veach
5) Mendez
6) Waddell
7) Browning
8) Sewell
9) Schang
10) Moore
11) Redding
12) Beckwith
13) Monroe
14) F. Jones
15) Cross
Two things may change. Once I get a firmer hand on the competitiveness of the 1903 and 1908 World Series, Leach may leapfrog Cross back to #15. And I'm awaiting Chris's revised Beckwith estimate. It sounds like I need to be moving him higher (I can see him at least getting to Browning, though past that will be tough).
(1) Jennings (3rd)
(2) Van Haltren (4th)
(3) Jones (7th)
(4) Childs (5th)
(5) Beckwith (9th)
(6) Vance (8th)
(7) Chance (6th)
(8) Terry (new)
(9) Roush (10th)
(10) Rixey (11th)
(11) Grimes (12th)
(12) Duffy (13th)
(13) Sewell (14th)
(14) Moore (unranked/16th)
(15) Beckley (unranked/18th)
Explaining differences from last week:
(1) Charley Jones moves up a couple of slots b/c/ I can't find a precedent for keeping a hitter of his quality with solid defensive skills and a decent career length waiting more than a few years, let alone keeping them out.
(2) Beckwith moves ahead of Vance b/c/ I am now giving him a teensy bit of credit for playing a key defensive position (however poorly).
(3) Terry's eligiblity made me spend a long time with the 1B. I think I had the big picture right before (Chance, Terry, Sisler, and Beckley very close and very much on the borderline; Fournier, Konetchy, and Taylor out of the game but actually not that far behind). However, I think I had a few of the details off--Chance slightly overrated, Terry slightly underrated, Beckley behind rather than ahead of Sisler. My new rankings correct for my changed opinion on those details.
(4) Vic Willis drops from what would be 14th to 17th (behind Sisler) based on observations about his defensive and run support posted last week.
Vance had a lot of strikeouts, but a very mediocre W/L record; I don't see him as a HOMer, not even borderline. Willis, Rixey,Leever, Cicotte, Griffith and Welch all significantly better -- Vance is at most the #7-8 pitcher on this ballot.
(2) Prime: Seasons with EQA over .300: Terry 8; Beckley 3
(3) Fielding: Terry--among the best ever, 115 FRAA vs. Beckley--good 50 FRAA in many more games
(4) Competition: Beckley's best seasons are when talent is diluted (1890, turn of 20th century)
On a rate or prime or peak basis, Terry was a significantly better player (roughly 20 points of EQA and 5-7 runs per year with the glove). The gap is so big you can slip a half dozen 1B between them.
Beckley makes up most but not all of the gap on career length which is his one big advantage.
I posted some breakdowns of HOMers by year and position, which I hope would be of use, on posts 134-143 and 155 on the 1941 ballot discussion thread. They're all updated to include Ruth and Hornsby presumed coronations.
Paul, I strongly agree with this. I was in junior high for the 1967 Red Sox, and winning the pennant was the goal, and made the season an incredible success. Losing the World Series was not important, though winning it would have been nice. (Contrast with 19 years later.)
In addition to the Super Bowl/championship mentality taking over sports in general, baseball has contributed to this in its own sport by adding layers of playoffs. Each additional playoff layer devalues the regular season while simultaneously putting more emphasis on the post-season. And winning the "pennant" (league championship series) has little meaning when it's just one layer in a multi-layer tournament.
To further the discussion, here is how Vance rates compared to various contemporaries and then eligibles.
In career Win Shares among eligibles:
1. Rixey - 315
2. Willis - 293
3. Quinn - 287
4. Grimes - 286
5. Griffith - 273
6. Redding - 267 (based on numbers in his thread)
7. Wilbur Cooper - 266
9. Mendez - 257 (see Redding)
10. Mays - 256
11. Cicotte - 247
12. Adams - 245
13. Sam Jones - 243
14. Vance - 241
tie Luque - 241
Here is how they rank by 3 consecutive years
1. Mendez - 107
2. Redding - 100
3.
The guy whose election scares me is Joe Sewell. Not that he wasn't a good player, but I dont' think the difference bewteen he, Bancroft, Tinker, and Long is that much at all.
Let's make sure we get the right guys in this 'year' since we have a big class coming next time. And by right guys I of course mean Hughie Jennings and Dazzy Vance!
In career Win Shares among eligibles:
1. Rixey - 315
2. Willis - 293
3. Quinn - 287
4. Grimes - 286
5. Griffith - 273
6. Redding - 267 (based on numbers in his thread)
7. Wilbur Cooper - 266
9. Mendez - 257 (see Redding)
10. Mays - 256
11. Cicotte - 247
12. Adams - 245
13. Sam Jones - 243
14. Vance - 241
tie Luque - 241
If you include 3 pitchers who look like they have pitched their last this year (Grove, Ferrell, and Dean), Vance would drop to 15th with Grove taking first with 391.
Here is how they rank by 3 consecutive years
1. Mendez - 107
2. Redding - 100
3. Waddell - 94
4. Griffith - 86
tie Joss - 86
6. Cooper - 85
tie Mays - 85
8. Shocker - 84
tie Willis - 84
10. Cicotte - 81
11. Luque - 80
12. Marquard - 78
13. Vance - 77
Adding in Grove, Ferrell, and Dean would push Vance down to 16th as Grove comes in first with 112, Dean goes to fourth with 99, and Ferrell has an 86.
The 7 best seasons of their career:
1. Mendez - 203
2. Willis - 199
3. Griffith - 189
4. Redding - 186
tie Waddell - 186
6. Mays - 182
7. Grimes - 181
8. Cooper - 179
9. Vance - 176
Adding in Grove, Ferrell, and Dean, Vance drops to 11th with Grove in first with 225 and Ferrell in 4th with 191.
Win Shares per 300 IP
1. Mendez - 26.7
2. Mays - 25.4
3. Shocker - 25.2
4. Joss - 24.6
5. Rommel - 24.5
6. Vance - 24.3
Again, adding in Grove, Ferrell, and Dean would push Vance down 3 spots.
STATS All-Star Apps
Mays 6
Shocker 5
Rixey 5
Vance 4
Cooper 4
Pennock 4
Grove would be on with an 11 (But this one goes up to 11...) and Ferrell would have a 5.
Redding and Mendez ???
Win Shares All-Star Apps
Cooper 6
Grimes 6
Rixey 6
Mays 4
Shawkey 4
Vance 4
Waddell 4
Willis 4
Redding and Mendez ???
Black Ink / Grey Ink Scores
1. Vance - 66
2. Waddell - 46
3. Grimes - 38
4. Cicotte - 27
tie Luque - 27
6. Uhle - 25
tie Willis - 25
Adding in Grove, Dean, and Ferrell would Vance down to second.
Grey Ink
1. Grimes - 213
2. Willis - 204
3. Shocker - 179
4. Rixey - 175
5. Cooper - 173
6. Mays - 172
7. Vance - 171
Adding recent retirees would add Grove and Waite Hoyt (185) ahead of Vance.
How much Run Support did Vance get though?
Worst
Vance - 90.47
Luque - 91.8
Rommel - 92.9
Waddell - 94.8
Quinn - 94.9
Rixey - 95.3
Joss - 97.4
...
Cicotte - 107.4
Shawkey - 108
Pennock - 111.8
Dauss - 113.5
Mays - 114.4
Defensive Support
Dauss neg 11.3
Uhle neg 4.1
Vance neg 1.5
Pennock 1.9
Quinn 2.9
...
Waddell - 9.1
Cicotte - 9.8
Cooper - 11.1
Adams - 12.8
Mays - 14.1
(Grove) - 15
Strikeout to Walk ratio
1. Waddell - 2.57
2. Joss - 2.53
3. Vance - 2.43
4. Adams - 2.41
5. Marquard 1.86
Sorry I don't have the relative numbers Chris J has on his runsupportindex blog - go check it out. Vance in relation to his era is amazing.
In 1940 I had them rated more on adjWS (peak and career) than anything else--Bond, McCormick, Waddell, (Vance slotted though not yet eligible), Rixey, Griffith, Welch, Joss, Cicotte, Willis, Wi. Cooper.
In 1941 I had them rated more on ERA+ and pennants added (peak and career)--Waddell, Vance, Rixey, Joss, Griffith, Bond, Willis, Grimes, McCormick, Cicotte, Cooper, Mays.
As I move more toward ERA+ as my more global stat--and I think it is valid because it answers the fundamental question: How effective was he?--I've worked up a new measure. Rather than just "eyeball" the IP part of the equation (which is obviously necessary), I've now worked it into the formula.
But I keep coming back to the fundamental question. What is Merit? What merits induction into our HoM? What is the evidence of merit? We know it's not "fame," we're the anti-HoF.
A few months ago there was a discussion and it was stated that, well, maybe we're the Hall of Value. Well, why didn't we say that, then? If we had, the Pennants Added data might have pretty much clinched things toward more of a career voting pattern--at least for me. Yet a career voting pattern still doesn't feel right to me.
So I think Merit = Greatness. And greatness is still something that a player establishes in his peak and/or prime period. You can't *become* great by being good, or even very good, even for a long, long time. The Charlie Hough discussion helped bring that home for me. Charlie could pitch till he's 60 at 90-95 ERA+ and never be a HoMer in my book.
So anyway, I worked up two lists (next post). Which one feels right to you will depend on whether you're a career voter or a peak voter, but instead of asking--are you a peak voter? or a career voter? here's the new question:
Are we electing a Hall of Value? or a Hall of Greatness? I choose Greatness.
Here are 1955-2004
Jason Giambi was better than Rodriguez by 1 win share in both 2000 and 2001 for best player in the American League. Alomar also had 37 in 2001.
(ERA+ - 100) x IP/1000
The consideration set is pitchers in the top 50 all-time in ERA+ and any pitcher who got a vote here in 1941.
Career
1. Waddell 103.6
2. Joss 97.7
3. Cicotte 74.2
4. Vance 74.2
5. McCormick 72.7
6. Rixey 71.9
7. Willis 71.9
8. Griffith 71.1
9. Hahn 67.0
10. Shocker 64.3
Prime
BTW, the prime is a floating number based on those consecutive seasons in which the pitcher maintained his "established level." When his career ERA+ started to drop and dropped more years than it bounced up, his prime was over.
1. Joss 106.6
2. Waddell 92.2
3. Bond 86.0
4. Mullane 84.7
5. Cicotte 84.2
6. Welch 81.1
7. Vance 80.9
8. Griffith 77.7
9. McCormick 75.3
10. Corcoran 74.3
BTW, the weaknesses of WS as a metric become more apparent with the WS list above. I just couldn't vote that list at all. I'll take the prime list above as best matching my notion of "great" pitchers, Corcoran excepted. Hahn is next, then Mays whom I would slot at #10.
7.
OOPs
In 1929, Sewell was playing 3rd so strike him from the above list for 1929.
Looking at Sewell's period of dominance, it strikes me that shortstop was very weak in the AL in the 20s. In 7 of the eight years, no other American League shortstop had more than 20 win shares. If he had been in the National League playing with Bancroft, Wright, and Travis Jackson, he would have led 3 times and tied twice. The NL 20s would look like
1920: Bancroft 21
1921: Bancroft 31
1922: Bancroft 27
1923: Sewell 29
1924: Sewell and Wright 22
1925: Sewell and Wright 25
1926: Sewell 29
1927: Jackson 24
1928: Sewell 23
1929: Jackson 23
1930: Wright 21
Sewell had the fortune to be playing in a league going through a dramatic lull in shortstop talent. During the 30s, we have had great shortstops like Arky Vaughn, Luke Appling, and Joe Cronin. Sewell is not as strong as any of them. Should an accident of retirement timing/birth be a player's entry into the Hall of Merit?
What separates Sewell from Bancroft and Tinker and Long? Sewell definitely hit better: OPS+ Sewell 109 to Bancroft 98 to Tinker 96 to Long 94. But Win Shares sees them the opposite defenively: WS/1000 inn - Tinker 7.28 Long 6.40, Bancroft 6.20, Sewell 5.87.
It looks like Sewell is another beneficiary of the SHINY NEW TOY SYNDROME. Bancroft is first eligible along with the remnants of the 1934 class, Pete Alexander, and Harry Heilmann. Sewell shows up in 1939 in the midst of our pitcher glut and gets noticed.
He makes an important point about the difference between the Hall of Value and the Hall of Greatness. I may disagree with his choice of metrics he used, but the point is excellent. It is not just long play at a good level, but there must be some excellence as well. Unfortunately, there is no uniform description for excellence - or - fortunately, there is no uniform description of excellence so we can have these debates every week.
His decision to move closer to ERA+ from Win Shares and comment about following WS only leads me to a second point. The danger of following only one metric. No one metric is sufficient to guide one's way through 85 years of baseball history (1857-1941). Both WARP and WS have their backers and detractors and most would admit there are significant difficulties with both systems for 19th century baseball. Yet there is the temptation to use just one of these because it easier to measure this large group of candidates. But doing this fails to provide a full picture of a player's career. These players did not compete in a vacuum. They played against real physical opponents.
A player may have led the league often in a category. But if that particular category does not have an impact on the game, does that skill matter? For instance, leading in complete games when 80% of the games are completed is not a big deal. Leading the league in stolen bases when most teams have decided it does not make sense so they do not have their players run - may not be a significant measure for judging a player's greatness.
I hope the electors will simply follow this idea: We are looking for the best candidate, not merely a qualified candidate and NO ONE ARGUMENT PLACES A MAN AT THAT PINNACLE. IT IS THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; IT IS ALWAYS THE COMBINED WEIGHT.
My methods are as follows:
For BP data, value is based on BRARP plus FRAA. BRARP is calculated by position, by year. For example all EqR created by 1881 SSs are divided by all outs made by 1881 SSs (then divided by 5 and raised to the 0.4 power), and then multiplied by 0.23, divided by 0.26 – meaning that if the positional average EqA is .260, then the replacement EqA is .230, and if the average is 0.280, the replacement average is 0.248. Note that this is the way that BP says that it calculates BPARP, but I wanted to do it myself to be sure.
All EqR and FRAA are based on ½ the BP discount between Warp1 and Warp2, and then extended to a 162 game season at the 2/3 power. These extensions are done at the “team game” level, leading to some wacky totals in the pre-NL, when teams played differing schedules. Some examples: A 75 game season turns into the equivalent of a 125 gamer, a 100 to a 138, a 140 to a 154, and a 154 game schedule is the equivalent of 159 games. This has been hashed out before, but I find that this decision splits the difference between hurting short-season players, and over-rewarding good stretches of 40 games. Again, splitting the difference also halves the league discounts – making a lot of sense in the 1900s, but possibly overrewarding the early AA and the Federal League. I’m willing to live with that, as my results are much more consistent with the talent gap between the AL and NL, and the NL and AA at its stronger parts, at least relative to the full BP discount.
Win Shares are based on a database that I got from Steve Treder (I assume it’s the same one many of you use). Again, I adjust for season length the same way, and apply ½ the BP league discount within seasons. In addition, prior to 1893, I take half of the Pitching Win Shares, and award them to the position players, based on their share of non-Pitching Win Shares of their particular team. I understand that Jim D. awards them all to defense, but when I did that, the results were heavily skewed towards defense, and therefore all of the greatest defensive players of all-time played in the 1870s and 1880s. Just didn’t pass the smell test. Players Batting Win Shares are added to their Fielding Win Shares (Pitching is excluded), to give a total for this study.
For the All-Stars, I award the best player in the game at his position 10 points, the runner-up gets 6 points, and 3rd place gets 4 points. When you add the yearly totals, you get the following leaderboards: (Totals are through 1940)
In case you’re wondering, there are 6 position players in the HoM who don’t make these lists - Carey, Jackson, McVey, Pearce, Richardson and Stovey. Ward and Caruthers don’t count, as they got a lot of their value by pitching. Pearce is an obvious – most of his value was pre ’71. As for the rest:
Carey – 12th on the WS list for CF with 32. Also had 14 points as a LF. 20th on the WS list of CF with 20. Also had 12 points in LF.
Jackson – 18th on Warp list for RF, 13th on WS. Pretty much split between LF and RF, so if you add them together, he’s on as either a LF or RF.
McVey – Played 4 positions (C, 1B, 3B, RF). 50 total points for Warp, 76 total for WS. Both systems have McVey getting most points at 1B.
Richardson – same multi-position problem. He’s 15th at 2B for WS, not close in Warp.
Stovey – collects 34 total points in both systems, split between LF, RF and 1B. If this is your ranking system, Richardson and Stovey are the two weakest elected position players.
To examine some of the areas of disagreement, mostly in terms of ranking (i.e. Bid McPhee is 3rd in the Warp list, with Hornsby 4th, while Hornsby is 3rd and McPhee 7th in the WS list), I dug a little deeper.
First, the two data systems are slightly different in terms of assigning positions. BP lists performance by position, while Win Shares only gives a player one position (at least, only one per team-season). Where this can have an effect is those pesky multiple-position players. If a player plays 120 games at 1B, and 30 in LF, he’ll rack up offensive and defensive value at both positions. In my Warp data, he’ll only get the 120 games of credit when being compared to all of the 1st basemen, whereas by Win Shares, he’ll be considered a 1B only, and all 150 of his games will aid him. This helps King Kelly, Buck Ewing and Jim O’Rourke rank higher in the WS lists – all of these players played lots of positions during seasons.
Second, the difference between best and 2nd best isn’t always great, and neither is the difference between 2nd best (4 points) and 4th (nada). In cases where the systems disagree on who was the best in any particular year, Win Shares almost always (and I only say almost because I haven’t checked every particular case) chooses the better offensive player.
Take Bid McPhee vs. Cupid Childs. By any account, whether anecdotal or statistical, these were the best 2 2nd basemen in the world for a good 10-12 year stretch. Look above (I’ll wait……OK), McPhee beats Childs 102-52 in the Warp list, pretty much double, while Childs wins 74-46 in the WS list. How can this be? It’s this way because for that 10-year stretch, Childs would finish behind McPhee in the Warp All-Star, and beat him in the WS All Star. Both systems agree that Childs was the better hitter, some years by a little and some years by a lot. Now to defense, where both systems agree that McPhee was better than Childs most years. Using Warp, McPhee’s FRAA advantage was big enough to overcome Childs’ BRARP advantage. Using WS, McPhee’s FWS advantage wasn’t. Which one is right? To be fair, I don’t know.
Other cases are similar:
Sam Thompson vs. Mike Tiernan
Schalk vs. Schang
Kling vs. Bresnahan
Konetchy vs. Sisler
Third, this is only part of the story. If you look closely at the 1st basemen lists, you’ll notice that Jake Beckley finishes ahead of Cap Anson in the Warp lists. (Karl, this one’s for you….) What needs to be remembered is that Anson was a 3rd baseman and catcher for a few years. By the time he was a full-time 1st baseman, Brouthers and Connor were hitting the scene. A great Anson year might only be good enough for 3rd-best, whereas Beckley’s better years were good enough for best in the game, as he was only competing against Dan McGann and Fred Tenney during those years. Again, only part of the story.
Like I said at the top, this isn’t the way that I rank players, but it could be. If you’re of the opinion that the HoM is to honor the true great players of the game, this might be a help to you. At any rate, I’ve got the database up and running, and can update it at any time, if any of you feel that you will use it.
I also have no idea why strikeout pitchers are so valued, looking backwards. Who cares if they struck out lots of people if it didn't lead to better performance?
Geesh, I claimed Matt Mantei in my fantasy league one week into his MLB career, I had Randy Johnson back in A ball, and I still look for the K per IP guys as potential stars. But THIS experiment is about performance, so what do Ks have to do with it?
It has been suggested that the Americans and Pirates traded losses in the first two games of the 1903 Series in order to extend the series. By 1909, I'm sure they were taking it seriously. OTOH, there are also rumors about the 1914, 1918, and 1921 Series; any others?
Probably repeating myself, but if a player was the best at his position in a league for EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS, unless that league is 'substandard' for some reason, then he should be in the HOM as he provided his team real wins/pennants and, IN HIS TIME AGAINST HIS PEERS, he was a HOM player.
I agree with your point about strikeouts in concept: they are great predictors of future success, but they don't necessarily describe a pitcher's entire effectivness. But I think the notion of why the strikeout is important has changed over time.
Nowadays, it's important to notch Ks because it means the ball isn't flying out. But back in the day, it meant that it kept it away from uneven infields and rudimentary gloves. A pitcher like Vance, who was already the victim of the poor defense behind him, really helped his effectivenss (and therefore his team) by striking hitters out and keeping the ball away from the likes of Babe Herman.
But if that's true, then aren't the K's already positively impacting his runs allowed?
We're talking about the 1920's where players still hit a lot of triples and some inside-the-park home runs. It's not even clear that DIPS-type methodologies work as well for this era....
Also, here's a link that shows a similar exercise like the All-Star points. Outfielders of 20's and 30's
A couple of weeks ago I raised the question of when he should be eligible on the "New Eligibles Year by Year" thread, and though only a couple of us participated in the discussion, the consensus seemed to be that his eligibility should be determined by the rules for non-MLB players (even though he played one year for Philadelphia), and that he would therefore be eligible in 1942. See posts # 391, 401, and 405-7.
If we've misinterpreted the rules, please pardon me.
- The 1892 league championship series should not be lumped together with the Temple Cup / Chronicle-Telegraph Cup series. The 1892 season was played under a split season arrangement - first-half winner against second-half, and as far as I am aware, everyone agreed that the pennant was at stake in the series. That arrangement had its own set of problems, with charges that Boston may have slacked off after winning the first half, so the split season playoff was dropped after that year.
Personally, I'm doubtful that the Temple Cup was ever rigged. Part of the problem with the Cup not catching on was that most of the series wound up decided by 4-0 or 4-1, which doesn't seem like what one would aim for if one were rigging a series. The more serious problem was that it was never accepted by the fans as really deciding anything, since there seemed to be general acceptance that the pennant had already been decided. By 1896/97 attendance was really low and it didn't seem worth the trouble. But I'm not aware of any solid evidence that the play was less than legit.
In the 19 aughts, baseball's popularity was really taking off fueled by newspaper media, popular heroes, and several exciting pennant races and World Series. With all the new attention being given to the Series, I again think the players were taking them seriously and playing their best. I know Cblau cites some rumors to the contrary, but I'd like to see some evidence before charging players with shirking and "laying down." Both the 1903 and 1909 Series seemed to have had a lot at stake, the first the classic opportunity for the new league to establish itself, the second the famous confrontation between the two biggest stars of the era.
Normally I would agree with you. I am a big proponent of paying attention to the context in which a player produces his season. But, if a player is the best in his league because the rest of the people at his position are not very good, then that does not say as much for him individually. sunnyday2's comments about a Hall of Value vs. a Hall of Greatness crystalize some of my feelings on this issue (sorry if this is not the way they were meant to be taken). Sewell had a great deal of value for the Indians and the Yankees because other shortstops were not very good. But he did not have great years like Cronin, Appling, Vaughn, Jennings.
It is a philosophical difference. Who is more meritorious? The player who has great years but there are other great players at their position OR the player who has very good years when there is a dearth of good players at his position.
Currently, the voters see to be leaning more in the direction of the latter - at least as it pertains to Sewell.
Percentage difference b/t RCAP and RCAA:
Wagner 1060/1011 1.05
Vaughn 515/414 1.24
Davis 452/379 1.19
Cronin 390/204 1.91
Sewell 346/124 2.79
Dahlen 291/186 1.56
Glasscock 289/188 1.54
Jennings 262/202 1.30
To me this says Sewell played against the worst group of opposing shortstops. For me, it is a reason for not boosting him for his league leading performances the way I normally would.
And for those of you that do give Sewell some credit for his eight times leading the league at shortstop, do you give credit to Ed Konetchy for leading his League at first 7 times and the majors 4 times?
There is not much difference between them: (Sewell's numbers first):
career win shares: 277 vs 287.
win shares 3 cons yrs: 76 vs 77
ws in best 7 yrs: 174 vs 171
ws per 648 PA: 22.3 vs 22.1
league best: 8 (2 ties) vs 7
major league best: 5 (2 ties) vs 4
They were A- defenders. Konetchy won more gold gloves, Sewell played a more important defensive position.
I'll add that I actually rate Konetchy above Sewell. Both had exactly .627 Pennants Added (pretty freaky). Adjusting for season length, I get Sewell at 184 WS above replacement, Konetchy at 185. This shows that they had a similar peak according to WS at least.
But I rate Konetchy higher because WS underrates pre-lively ball first basemen.
*****
I'm also a big fan of Max and KJOK's lists. That said, a few things that concern me about the.
First, RCAA and RCAP - Curious as to how Honus is 1011 above average and only 1060 above position? Are they saying an average SS is only 49 runs below average, over like 20 years (realizing he didn't play SS the whole time)? That sounds insane to me. I also assume those lists aren't adjusted for season length?
Max, all-star points are neat for sure, definitely interesting, but one detriment, is seen in the case of Schang and Schalk. Their primes were similar, but Schang went on to play pretty productive baseball for the better part of a decade after Schalk was irrelevant as a player. I assume you realize this, just pointing it out as a shortcoming, that's all.
Again, both lists are good for making sure we aren't missing anyone, etc.. Just pointing out a few things that should be taken into account if they are going to be used as a main part of someone's ranking.
*****
---
If your team doesn't score for you and can't play defense, you ain't gonna win many games. See Johnson comma Randy: 2004 Diamondbacks.
Raw #s ..IP ERA+
Griffith 3380 121
Rixey.. 4490 115
Well, that looks close. What else do we know? Timeline – not sure if there’s a big gap between 1890s one-league and Rixey’s 1920 NL. Griffith hit much better. Griffith supposedly “pitched to the score”, and thus was more valuable than his ERA suggests. His defensive support was not great, all leading to Griffith’s nice 46 Wins Above Team (not sure what Rixey’s WAT is).
How about Big Years? By Win Shares, top seasons are
Griffith 34 32 30
Rixey.. 26 26 24
By WARP3, we have
Griffith 11.4 9.3 8.1
Rixey….. 7.8 6.5 6.5
No contest either way; Clark wins hands-down.
How about rank among their peers? Griffith was good for an eleven year run 1891-1901. In that span he was 4th in ERA and IP and in RSAA (from the Lee Sinins encyclopedia), behind Young, Nichols, and Rusie.
Rixey was consistently good from 1912-24, and his career actually extended to 1932. In the first span (12-24), he was 9th in RSAA, 5th in IP, and nowhere in ERA. In RSAA, he was sandwiched between Mays, Shawkey, and Vaughn. If we use 1912-32 , he was also 9th in RSAA, surrounded by Rommells and Quinn. He was 3rd in IP, and again nowhere in ERA (34th among those with >2000 IP).
So, we have the 4th best pitcher of his time against the 9th best of his, according to the RSAA measure.
Using BP’s translated stats (correcting for era, park, and defense), we get (taking away the last silly 8 IP from Griffith’s cameo appearances at very advanced ages)
pitcher ..IP ERA …W-L OPS as hitter
Griffith 2500 3.71 178-103 .604
Rixey.. 4513 4.12 254-215 .468
Diff….. 1653 4.74 076-112 .136
Do you want a pitcher who gave you an extra 180 games with a Wpct of Under .400?
Should we give Rixey some WWI credit? Okay, what might he have done in 1918? His W-L record in 1917 was 16-21. In 1919 it was 6-12. In 1920 he was 11-22, and apparently many thought he was washed up. Rixey also pitched until he was 42; maybe a year of didn’t hurt his career numbers. So if you want, make the difference an extra 200 games instead of 180. But if Griffith really did win a few more games than his runs allowed record would indicate, as it seems he certainly did, he looks to me to rank pretty easily above Eppa Jeptha.
My conclusion? If you are a strict NO-credit-for-peak voter with a ‘replacement level’ set low (like Win Shares or WARP), and you DON'T give any credit for Griffith exceeding his expected W-L record, and you DON'T credit Griffith’s hitting and shorter schedule but you DO credit Rixey’s 1918 year missed for WWI, and you timeline in spite of Griffith pitching in the one-league 1890s and Rixey in the weaker of the two-league 1920s, you would surely have Rixey ahead. But that does not describe most of our electorate. I simply cannot fathom why last week, Eppa appeared on more ballots, and finished ahead of Clark overall by 28 points.
Clearly the Ks issue is double-counting; he strikes people out and helps them (and thus him) win more games and prevent more runs. So we're supposed to take the added wins and saved runs as bonuses PLUS we give him more pts for doing that?
My likely PHoM inductees this year are Red Faber and Edd Roush.
Prelim ballot:
1. Eppa Rixey (5,4,7)
2. George Van Haltren (7,6,5)
3. Tommy Leach (6,7,6)
4. Jake Beckley (4,2,3)
5. Mickey Welch (3,1,2)
6. George Sisler (8,8,9)
7. Edd Roush (10,9,8)
8. Hugh Duffy (11,12,11)
9. Sam Rice (9,3,x)
10. Jimmy Ryan (14,14,10)
11. Joe Sewell (12,10,x)
12. Bill Monroe (x,15,15)
13. Dobie Moore (x,x,x)
14. Harry Hooper (13,11,12)
15. Cupid Childs (x,13,x)
16-20. Doyle, Griffith, Powell, Grimes, Streeter
21-25. Willis, Burns, Mullane, Redding, White
26-30. Poles, Gleason, Maranville, F. Jones, McCormick
If your team doesn't score for you and can't play defense, you ain't gonna win many games. See Johnson comma Randy: 2004 Diamondbacks.
I can't say that enough, Tom. It's similar to thinking that if Babe Ruth played on 1962 Met-type teams for his whole career that he would still be World Series bound. His teammates would have failed him the same way as Dazzy's and Randy's did.
How about Big Years? By Win Shares, top seasons are
Griffith 34 32 30
Rixey.. 26 26 24
Me thinks an adjustment is needed here, since the Old Fox would have had quite a few less IP during the teens and twenties.
Innings Pitched:
Griffith
1895-353.0-6
1897-343.7-3
Car-3385.7-78
Rixey
1916-287.0-8
1917-281.3-8
1920-284.3-9
1921-301.0-4
1922-313.3-1
1923-309.0-3
1924-238.3-7
1925-287.3-3
1926-233.0-9
1928-291.3-3
Car-4494.7-27
I don't necessarily disagree, karlmagnus. My point was that you can't compare the WS peak seasons of an 1890's pitcher with one from a generation or two later.
I do think pitching 300 IP during the 1890's was far less stressful on the arm than doing it during the twenties.
re: your point about Beckley being the best '90s 1Bman.
I think that Kelly's comments in #27 regarding Joe Sewell are just as applicable to Beckley in the '90s. At least Bancroft is getting some HoM advocacy. Noone is stumping for Dan McGann or Buck Freeman. Beckley was the best of a pretty weak lot between the ABC boys and Chance. That's what I mean when I say that those lists that I made shouldn't be the last word on player rankings - they should be accompanied by some concept of how the player ranked against all MLers of his time (and probably great non-MLers as well). That's where Anson, Foxx and Chance jump Beckley. While they weren't the premier 1Bman as often, in many years they could be the 2nd or 3rd-best 1Bman, and still be one of the top 4 or 5 postition players in the game. You're Beckley's strongest advocate, but I don't think even you would argue that he was a Top 5 position player very often, if ever.
Maybe one of them has sat on your ballot too long; maybe another was discarded too soon and now belongs after all.
ACTIVE PTS LEADERS
1. G VAN HALTREN 10,980.5
2. HUGH DUFFY 10,962
3. HUGHIE JENNINGS 10,700
4. JAKE BECKLEY 10,210
5. PETE BROWNING 9966.5
6. JIMMY RYAN 9482
7. CLARK GRIFFITH 8564
8. RUBE WADDELL 8403
9. CUPID CHILDS 7687
10. MICKEY WELCH 7527
No one else on the ballot has even 5,500.
Of the top 100 pitchers in career IP (Cy Young to Kevin Brown):
79 were in the top 10 in their legaues in IP at least 5 times.
85 were in the top 10 at least 4 times (at 4: John, Koosman, Root, Faber, Fraser, Fitzsimmons).
94 were in the top 10 at least 3 times (at 3: Eck, J. Perry, Simmons, Doyle Alexander, Tannana, Sam Jones, Pennock, Tiant, Orth).
99 were in the top 10 at least 2 times (at 2: GRIFFITH, Adonis Terry, Quinn, Pappas, Haines).
100 were in the top 10 at least 1 time (at 1: Red Ames).
Griffith's rankings, while not unique and in fact better than 1 other guy, are still remarkably low.
There are two ways to make this list:
(1) Pitch lots of seasons.
(2) Throw your innings at times when pitchers tossed lots of IP and throw less than the real workhorses.
To the extent effect number 1 is at work, few if any demerits are in order (unless you are a peak voter).
To the extent that effect number 2 is at work, a pitcher's IP totals are over-inflated and need to be reduced to get an accurate picture of his work load.
For Griffith, I see both effects at work but number 2 more pronouncedly. (I have done a couple of short studies on this point, but further study or comment on this point is encouraged.) Therfore, I discount his IP totals heavily, which drops him to about 25th on my list. If someone can convince me that his IP actually accurately reflect his workload, he'd be in my top 10.
To reiterate what someone else has said about Duffy: if you adjust Duffy to a 162-game schedule, his peaks are enormous. So much so that I'd wager that any contemporary player with those peaks would be considered a shoe-in. Duffy comes out around 335 WS once you adjust for schedule, so he's not lagging in the career department either. To contextualize this within our contemporary Hall discussions, Duffy's peak is substantially better than someone like Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, or Jim Rice, and Duffy's got more career.
And then you can toss on his excellent post-season work if you'd like.
Van Haltren's fall from almost getting elected to forgotten man is hard to figure; perhaps a victim of shiny toys. After adjusting for schedule length, he's got the best career totals on the board, comparable but better than the already-enshrined Max Carey.
Being comparable to an already-enshrined player is a big point in his favor.
But in addition, he offers voters two other things: a peak that includes some MVP-level seasons of 30 WS (though not much higher, granted), and a lonnnnggggg string of 20 WS years for those who admire consistency. Carey had the consistency, but he didn't have the same height of peak.
Having noticeably better characteristics than an already-enshrined HOMer is also a point in GVH's favor.
The combo of a long, consistent, productive career, with a discernable peak is what puts him above the Carey's, Beckleys, and Ryans. As Kelly in SD/SEA would say, the combined weight of the evidence for GVH and Duffy is strong, indeed.
100% correct, Michael. Griffith still wasn't any where near being a work horse for his time, though.
141 132 127 111 108 101 95
Pluses: A 3B in two best OPS+ seasons (at ages 22 and 24).
Minuses: Hundreds of hitters had better careers, some of whom didn't - or won't - get a single HOM vote.
Hall of Famer Travis Jackson OPS+s, best to worst full seasons:
129 125 120 110 110 109 103 101 101 87 50 (!)
Pluses: Mostly an SS.
Minuses: The 129 OPS came in only 420 ABs. And hundreds of hitters had better careers, some of whom didn't - or won't - get a single HOM vote.
Both quit by age 32. Maybe they just played until someone told them their place in history was secured.
Duffy will probably move high up on my ballot. His peak is second only to Jennings of the eligibles (I have yet to devise a satisfacotry system for measuring a pitcher's peak) and he has more career. Of course WS, my base, seems to favor CFers A LOT. Jennings looks better in WARP. I tend to make a mental adjustment for this, especially for 1890's infielders who got pounded so much.
In the end, Duffy will be anywhere from 6-10 on my ballot and Jennings from 1-3. It's close though.
For Vance, he has a ton of K's, not many walks, take that for whatever it is worth. However, he has a high ERA+, a good W/L that is only made better by the lack of support from his teammates, and a nice low DERA in just under 3000 translated IP. I feel he is better than Faber and Coveleski, two guys I supported.
Again, its Sewell induction that scares me.
Griffith
1895-353.0-6
1897-343.7-3
Rixey
1921-301.0-9
1922-313.3-3
1923-309.0-6
1925-287.3-3
1928-291.3-4
Is that after adjusting all hitters that retired before Eagle Eye due to the shorter schedule?
:-D
Not a knock on Jake. I just couldn't resist.
I think that Kelly's comments in #27 regarding Joe Sewell are just as applicable to Beckley in the '90s. At least Bancroft is getting some HoM advocacy. Noone is stumping for Dan McGann or Buck Freeman. Beckley was the best of a pretty weak lot between the ABC boys and Chance.
Let me attempt to distinguish Beckley and Sewell, both of whom are being considered as "the best of a weak group."
Since Brouthers and Connor were 10 years older than Beckley, and Chance was 10 years younger, let us consider the "Beckley lull" as all first basemen younger than Brouthers/Connor and older than Chance -- i.e., all players less than 10 years older or younger than Beckley.
Here are the top 5 first basemen in that period, by WARP (WARP/162):
Beckley -- 114.5 (7.8)
Tenney -- 92.9 (7.5)
Davis -- 75.5 (7.0)
Stahl -- 70.3 (8.7)
McGann -- 67.0 (7.6)
Beckley is clearly the best of this lot, and has almost 25% more career value than the #2. And of that group, only Stahl has higher WARP/162.
Now, let us transpose our "Beckley lull" forward 31 years, so it centers on all shortstops less than 10 years older or younger than Joe Sewell:
Maranville, Rabbit - 134.7 (8.2)
Appling, Luke - 123.7 (8.3)
Cronin, Joe - 117.4 (9.0)
Bancroft, Dave - 111.1 (9.4)
Sewell, Joe - 102.6 (8.7)
Sewell is not the best of this group. It's not even obvious that he's better than Bancroft and Maranville, although if he is, it is not by nearly as much as Beckley is better than Tenney et. al.
Even if, in some period, you can call Sewell the best -- he simply is not the best by much. He's got a bunch of "almost as good" all around him.
On the other hand, if Beckley is only "very good", where is the next step down on the bell curve? Players who are only "very good" do not have gaps of ten years on either side before you get to a player who is not at least 25% worse than him.
Sewell -- if he was the best -- was the first among near equals. Beckley towered over his competition. It is not enough to show that the competition was weak to discredit a "best at position" argument -- you also have to show that the "best of position" guy didn't tower over the weak competition, as Beckley did (and Sewell didn't).
Your post is an excellent rebuttal to my comment about Beckley. To be fair, it strikes me that we are comparing apples to oranges, but I can't put my finger on why I think that. Gotta work for a while, but if and when I come up with what's bothering me about your analysis, I'll post a reply. For now, I'll simply say, point taken.
Cheers.
I have to say I think Phillybooster's plus or minus 10 years argument VERY convincing; he should change his name to Beckleybooster!
Actually, they have taken to calling me "34.90.305.175" in real life. On the internet, things can be a little more personal. :-)
Matt works fine, too. The addition of another HoM voter who has nearly my exact name -- similar first and exact last, although we are not related -- leads me to shrink away from my real name here to avoid confusion.
On the other hand, if the leadership bars the use of the PhillyBooster in the Senate, I may have to change my handle to "Quorum Call" or "Point of Information."
Everyone keeps arguing that there must be some reason that the best 1B from that era looks so average in retrospect. That the position must've had extra importance, even if the voter has no actual reason why it would have been more important. And thus Beckley gets a bonus for this unknown factor. But if he gets this bonus, why aren't the parade of mediocrities he's being compared to getting this bonus? I mean, if Beckley is in the top 5 on your ballot due to some phantom position bonus, you have to be arguing that at least one or two of these other guys are in your top 50.
For the record, this argument is not against the people, like karl, who like Beckley purely on his merits (his career numbers). It is against those who basically acknowledge that he was average, but give him some sort of bonus because all the other 1Bs of his time were even worse, so they are inventing reasons he must have been better than his stats say.
A very interesting ballplayer that Jake Stahl was; one whom I believe is vastly underrated.
Stahl had a law degree from the U of Illinois and had married the daughter of a wealthy Chicago banker. He sat out the entire 1907 season in a salary dispute with Commie, then all of 1911 when involved in the banking business. In between he led the AL in homers one season.
Ban Johnson brokered a deal wherein Stahl and his father-in-law were the main financial backers of the 1912 Red Sox. Stahl comes back as player-manager to win the World title. Looks like Jake himself cleared about $40K between his salary, WS share and stock holdings that year.
The next year, in an apparent power struggle, Jimmy McAleer axed Stahl, only to be canned in turn by a pissed off Ban Johnson.
It would have been interesting to see how/if things panned out any differently (Babe Ruth) had Stahl remained in control of the Boston Club.
Of course, he was into high finance and likely baseball would have just become a distraction.
I think Giambi has enough problems to argue the point effectively right now. :-)
Not quite, 152 in '98, 150 in '99.
1898: Cincinnati went 92-60 with 5 ties; total 157.
1899: Cincinnati went 83-67 with 6 ties; total 156.
First of all, I consider that last line very offensive. You can argue that my reasoning is off, but I'm not in the habit of inventing anything for long deceased players that I'm in no way related to.
Secondly, Beckley was in no way average.
Thirdly, my reasoning: I feel each is position is worth exactly the same. Therefore, if a player is 40% better than average at his position, that leads me to believe it's worth the same as an another player at another position who is 40% better than average, regardless of the numbers.
All other things equal, if my first baseman (.900 OPS) is 60% better than yours, my team is going to beat you more often, regardless if you have a rightfielder with a 1.500 OPS (because my rightfielder's 1.500 OPS cancels yours out). That's why I really don't care what the reasoning is about first base during the Inside Baseball Era: there was still a hidden value that Beckley was creating at his position separate from his stats (enough to place him at #8 on my ballot for this election).
He has the most Win Shares at first-base twice in his 19 years, in 1893 and 1900. He has the most WARP-1 at first-base three times in his 19 seasons, in 1894, 1900, and 1901. He's the consensus choice at 1B in 1900, and has a good argument in 1893, 1894, and 1901. Other players had better years in Beckley's other seasons; none had notable careers, other than the ABC guys back when Beckley was getting started. He's not dominant, just almost always above average.
Beckley was extremely durable. Let's grant him that. It's why he appears to be the dominant 1b-man of his era; nobody else who played the position was close to being that durable, and so nobody else racked up any comparable long-term career stats. IMO, this is not enough to make him a great player..
As for Greatness: To me, again, greatness is something a player carries on to the field with him. It is something that he IS, not that he becomes. You can't become great no matter how long you play. You carried it on to the field at some time.
And I think greatness means that a player is generally the best player on the field each time he steps out on to the field. Not forever, but for that period of greatness. He is generally the best player on the field that day, and more often than anybody else, he has more impact on the outcome than anybody else.
Take the NHL thing with the 3 stars. How many times was a player one of the three stars? What if you gave 3 WS per game that way instead of parceling them out based on pythag, what if you could only give them out in integers per game, 1 or 0, no fractions. A great player would get more of those than anybody else (at his position).
For pitchers I think ERA+ rather than WS, even peak WS, answers that question, or correlates to that kind of ability, to be one of the 3 best players on the field more often than most anybody else.
Of course, if you gave out 3 WS per game in that way, then even some all-star players would earn relatively few of them, your journeyman very very few, Charlie Hough damn few. In effect you're working with "Value Above Solid Starter," a very very high baseline. And when you're evaluating the top 225 players in baseball history, who really needs "replacement level"? What really separates the men from the boys is value above and beyond a fairly high value. Only in this way can you explain Kirby Puckett who nobody thought (at the time) was not a HoFer.
Like I say, I think ERA+ captures that kind of greatness in a pitcher more than anything else. Now, just to eliminate the Noodles Hahns and Orvie Overalls of the world, sure, multiply by IP.
For position players, however, OPS+ is nowhere near as useful because you have to adjust it for position, and I happen to think defense is a big deal too. So I'm still thinking about a more "simplified" method for position players. Maybe it's [(OPS+) + (some defensive number)] X PA/1000. The defensive number would have a much higher average among SSs than 1Bs, etc. etc.
I understand not being satisfied with any single measure for pitchers. I use ERA+ to a degree as well.
Also, I agree with the greatness and having the most impact on the field on a given day. I think that is the key. The player performed. He didn't just have skills or talent, but he performed on the field.
For example, I have trouble supporting Waddell who is always on the cusp of my ballot because I see him as a player with great skills or talent, but not the performance to go along with it.
This gets to my personal difficulty with many Negro League players is the lack of demonstration of their greatness on the field due to the lack of nubmers. I am very grateful to the work by so many on the various NeL player threads b/c I finally have been able to mesh the NeL'ers in with the rest. But because of the lack of numbers for so many of these players we are forced to rely on accounts of their talent. This is a problem for me.
Using Beckwith as an example b/c he is the one I am having the most trouble with right now so he is on my mind. We have several reports from a variety of sources about his power, 40-50 home runs a year talent. But the available stats say he was a 20-25 home run a year player (if I remember right, about 80 homers in about 2200 at bats.) How do you balance that? A third baseman with 40+ performance is Mike Schmidt without the glove. (NO, Schmidt is not the standard, before someone else says it) 20+ performance is, well, not.
So, two points. Greatness as demonstrated by consistent performance is what I look for. And, when the evidence of the performance is missing to a degree, how do others balance the talent with the available performance?
I do apologize for the inventing line, that came out more harshly than I was intending.
But going back to what someone (I think Marc) said, is this the Hall of Value or the Hall of Performance? Put another way, should Beckley get credit for the accident of being born in the perfect time period such that there were no other even average first basemen in baseball? That of course is not a question with a certain answer. For me personally, the goal is to induct the 200+ best players in the history of baseball. I don't want to induct Beckley over a better player who had the misfortune of having played at the same time as other good players at the same position.
Put another way, in your example above, does that mean the 900 OPS 1B gets more HOM credit than the two 1500 OPS RFs? Let's extend out the example: every RF in the league has a 1500 OPS. Every 1B in the league has a 750 OPS except for one, who has a 850 OPS. Is the 850 OPS 1B now the first guy we should induct into the HOM from that era?
Not adjusted for season length. Not adjusted for era, either.
The "Honus Wagner Effect" is similar to the "Babe Ruth Effect"... in an 8-team league a single mega-star can effectively raise the average level of play for an entire position by quite a bit.
1905 NL SS:
... that adds up to just about zero, so the RCAP list is nearly identical. Wagner is able to neutralize several mediocre bats by himself.
1. Welch (surprise, surprise, surprise)
2. Charley Jones
3. Pete Browning
4. Dick Redding (I finally mixed NeL players in with the rest of the players)
5. Hugh Duffy
6. George Van Haltren
7. Cupid Childs
8. Tommy Leach
9. Spots Poles
10. Willis
11. George Burns
12. Hughie Jennings
13. Edd Roush
14. Mendez
15. Fielder Jones
next in line (Griffith, Terry, Waddell, Moore, Sisler, W Cooper, Chance, Veach, Doyle, Beckwith, Wilson, Mays, Long, Grimes, Vance, Fournier, and Konetchy round out my top 32)
I know this will change over the next three weeks.
part 1.
In 2001, Alomar was 1 behind Giambi for best in AL
No problem, Michael. I wasn't really upset anyway. I felt it was more frustration with the ballot situation this election talking than you.
But going back to what someone (I think Marc) said, is this the Hall of Value or the Hall of Performance? Put another way, should Beckley get credit for the accident of being born in the perfect time period such that there were no other even average first basemen in baseball? That of course is not a question with a certain answer. For me personally, the goal is to induct the 200+ best players in the history of baseball. I don't want to induct Beckley over a better player who had the misfortune of having played at the same time as other good players at the same position.
But real wins were created by Beckley that are not shown in his stats. Can we ignore that?
BTW, I still think something was going on within that thirty year period, though I'm not sure what was happening.
Put another way, in your example above, does that mean the 900 OPS 1B gets more HOM credit than the two 1500 OPS RFs? Let's extend out the example: every RF in the league has a 1500 OPS. Every 1B in the league has a 750 OPS except for one, who has a 850 OPS. Is the 850 OPS 1B now the first guy we should induct into the HOM from that era?
In that universe, I would say yes. The first baseman is helping his team the most. Of course, this is a fantasy world that makes an interesting hypothetical, but that's all it is. That's why Babe Ruth was an easy choice for my ballot in '41, while Beckley is in the middle of my ballot. :-)
Lefty Grove from 1929-1931 pitched:
140.2 innings against Boston.
140.1 innings against Cleveland.
138.2 innings against Detroit.
125.2 innings against Washington.
124.1 innings against Chicago.
104.1 innings against St. Louis.
and
72 innings versus the New York Yankees.
(all dependent of course if I added correctly)
Wes Ferrell pitched:
139.0 innngs against Philadelphia.
121.1 innings against Detroit.
117.1 innings against St. Louis.
113 innings against Washington.
112.1 innings against New York.
111 innings against Chicago.
100.2 innings against Boston.
So the guy on the strongest team (Grove) pitches his heaviest workload against the worst team in the league and his lightest load against the strongest team.
And the other guy (Ferrell - on a middle of the pack team) pitches his heaviest load against the best team in baseball, and his lightest load against the worst.
He makes a good point about how ERA+/ W&L are heavily impacted by which teams one is pitched against. He illustrates the point with examples from Grove and Ferrell from 1929-1931.
Should have the catcher all-star list up tomorrow. Not doing an OF list because I have not gotten around to breaking things down L/C/R. If the people (TomH ??) who offered me their own breakdowns previously are still willing to offer them, I would be happy to take them.
But where is the evidence for this? I can understand this argument if first-base men are significantly undervalued in this era. But there is no evidence of that happening. First basemen hit only slightly less than their all-time cumulative average. It looks worse than it really is because the "drought" is bracketed by the two golden ages for 1b-men (1880's, 1930's).
To create these hypothetical extra wins, the average 1b-man has to be worse during this period than he is over all time. I don't see this being the case. What I see during this period is a lack of outliers, stars, and a lot of injuries, but not a lack of total performance at the position. It would appear that most teams have adequate solutions and backups but none that really stand out. Except Beckley over a career, though not in individual seasons.
What's the percentage difference, Jim? I thought it was significant enough when I saw it a few weeks ago.
BTW, I don't think Beckley had a great peak, regardless of how you slice it. As I always point out on my ballot, he's there because of his career value. His peak was good, but nothing really special.
To create these hypothetical extra wins, the average 1b-man has to be worse during this period than he is over all time. I don't see this being the case. What I see during this period is a lack of outliers, stars, and a lot of injuries, but not a lack of total performance at the position.
I think the injury factor is important. Beckley was extremely durable for his time when the infield was a dangerous place to man. My system evaluates the difference in career length between a given player and the average player at that position.
...and karlmagnus owes me for my defense of his #1 choice on his ballot! :-)
First base in this era has exactly the same issues (and judging from ALL the catchers we have inducted since 1896, it is probably an underadressed problem for catchers as well. *COUGH* Bresnahan *COUGH*.)
The fact is, when people say "Beckley was only the best in years X, Y, and Z," what they are not saying is that when he wasn't the best, it was to practically a different guy every year. In 1898 it was Dan McGann. In 1899 it was Fred Tenney. In 1903 it was Frank Chance.
When looking at first base averages, I think it's worthwhile to look at individual fluctuations, too. There's maybe some guy better than Beckley, but two years before and two years later, Beckley was better.
Do you use the year-by-year leaderboards that you have (generously) posted as part of your reasoning? The reason that I ask is that you have Tommy Leach currently ranked 7th, while your 3B leaderboard by Win Shares, which likes Leach at least as much as WARP does (probably more) says that he was the best in his league only once - tied for 1st two other times - and that he was the best in the big leagues only that once. That year he was better than Bradley by 1 Win Share, in the commonly accepted worse league. How much of a league discount would it take for him to fall behind Bradley? In that case, is Leach a little high, or do many other factors outweigh this one?
Decad 1B LF RF CF 3B 2B Ca SS Pit
1870's +1 +4 -1 +4 +2 +2 +0 +1 -13
1880's 13 +6 +1 +5 +1 -1 -7 -2 -17
1890's +6 +9 +7 +7 +0 -2 -6 -2 -22
1900's +6 10 +9 +8 +0 +2 -9 -1 -29
1910's +6 +7 +9 10 +1 +1 -7 -4 -31
1920's +9 10 10 +8 -3 +1 -4 -7 -32
1930's 13 +8 10 +5 -1 -3 -3 -4 -36
1940's +8 11 +9 +7 +2 -3 -4 -4 -37
1950's +9 10 +7 +7 +4 -3 -1 -5 -40
1960's 11 +9 11 +7 +4 -5 -3 -6 -46
1970's 10 +8 +8 +5 +3 -5 -2 -11-45
1980's +8 +6 +6 +2 +3 -4 -4 -8 -48
1990's +9 +4 +6 +1 +1 -3 -4 -7 -50
Mean.. +9 +8 +7 +6 +1 -2 -4 -5 -36
Note: this is OPS, not OPS+
I apologize beforehand if I'm screwing something up here.
I thought I said that. If not, I meant to.
This works together with the injury point. There was a different best 1b-man every year, because they were easily replaceable. The injuries are less important when the player is easily replaceable. First base-men were replaced all the time during this period and still maintained an OPS significantly higher than average (106, roughly equivalent to a 112/113 OPS+), comparable to the all-time OPS for right-fielders.
Beckley wasn't so much better than the average 1b-man that a large-number of hypothetical extra wins accrued to his team. He just played a lot longer than the guys who wore out quickly. This makes him durable, not great, in the sense that sunnyday2 used that word above. His durability didn't make him the best player on the field at most times.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main