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, January 24, 2005

1944 Ballot Discussion

Otto, schmotto! Lou! Lou! Lou! Lou! Lou! :-)

Goose wasn’t too bad himself, but I don’t think ‘44 is his “year.” I can’t see him going in before Larrupin’ Lou and the Fordham Flash.

Ferrell was a great player in his prime, but will it be enough to overcome a short career?

Cuyler and Hoyt go in the Very Good, But Not Good Enough category, IMO.

1944 (January 30)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

489 143.0 1925 Lou Gehrig-1B (1941)
355 95.9 1922 Goose Goslin-LF (1971)
292 88.0 1924 Kiki Cuyler-RF/CF (1950)
262 70.0 1919 Waite Hoyt-P (1984)
233 84.7 1929 Wes Ferrell-P (1976)
245 62.0 1918 Jimmy Dykes-3B/2B (1976)
194 65.1 1924 Red Lucas-P/PH (1986)
151 54.0 1928 Ed Brandt-P (1944)
167 43.0 1924 Guy Bush-P (1985)
155 45.9 1927 Woody English-SS (1997)
149 43.6 1929 John Stone-LF/RF (1955)
147 39.6 1931 Ripper Collins-1B (1970)
116 36.3 1928 Joe Stripp-3B (1989)
110 32.8 1927 Ethan Allen-CF (1993)
121 28.2 1928 Mule Haas-CF (1974)
102 26.1 1926 Wild Bill Hallahan-P (1981)

1944 (January 30)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

16% 32-38 Slim Jones-P(1913) 1 - 0*
00% 31-38 CharlieHughes-2b (??) 0 - 0*

Players Passing Away in 1943
Age Elected

83 1913 Bid McPhee-2b
73 1921 Jimmy Collins-3b
71 1919 Joe Kelley-LF

Age Eligible

85 1897 Art Whitney-3B
84 1891 Bob Emslie-P/Ump
74 1905 Frank Dwyer-P
73 1912 Mike Grady-C
72 1912 Heinie Peitz-C
66 1919 John Titus-RF
65 1917 Bill Bergen-C
58 1921 Steve Evans-RF
40 1943 Pat Malone-P

Thanks to Dan and Chris for the great lists!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2005 at 03:57 AM | 139 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. EricC Posted: January 29, 2005 at 12:39 AM (#1109686)
1944 prelim.

1. Lou Gehrig) Incomparable.

2. Wally Schang
3. Goose Goslin) All eligibles with more WARP3 than Goslin have been elected, except for Gehrig and Frisch. All eligibles with more WS than Goslin have been elected, except for Gehrig, Frisch and Mullane. With a classic HoMer career shape, I don't see the fatal flaw that will keep Goslin out.

4. Joe Sewell

Position Players Leaders in Win Shares 1921-1929:
 1. Ruth       362
 2. Hornsby    324
 3. Heilmann   247
 4. Frisch     228
 5. Sewell     216    
 6. Goslin     200
 7. Speaker    194
 8. Rice       194
 9. Traynor    176
10. Cobb       175

This is not proof that Sewell is a HoMer. Of course the years have been chosen to portray Sewell in the best light. Even so, certain patterns of greatness are not apparent if one only looks at career totals, career averages, and peak, and never looks at best performances over decadish timespans.

5. Frankie Frisch
6. Sam Rice) I don't like having to give Rice 15 points and Beckley 0 when I don't see them as that different, but we only have 15 slots and don't get to pick how many points to give each slot.

7. Roger Bresnahan
8. Waite Hoyt) I don't see him as likely to make the HoM, but pitched a lot of good innings in what I view as the stronger league of the time.

9. Eppa Rixey
10. Jose Mendez
11. Pie Traynor

Position Player Leaders in Win Shares 1923-1933: 
 1. Ruth       421
 2. Gehrig     315
 3. Simmons    280
 4. Goslin     276
 5. Hornsby    264    
 6. Frisch     259
 7. Traynor    245
 8. Waner      240
 9. Manush     232
10. Sewell     226

12. Harry Hooper
13. Urban Shocker
14. George "Rube" Waddell
15. Ray Schalk
16. Jake Beckley
17. Wes Ferrell) Similar to Vance in value, sure, but I see Vance as having been a bit overrated. Could rise onto ballot after I figure out how to correctly account for his hitting. For all giving Ferrell hitting credit, note that Carl Mays is also another pitcher whose hitting could be the difference between on-ballot/off-ballot.

20. Bill Foster) Slowly adjusting my system to be friendlier to NeLers.

22. George Van Haltren
23. Hughie Jennings) A couple who are in my retroactive PHoM, but will probably be pushed off my ballot forever by later candidates.

25. Clark Griffith
34. Jimmie Dykes) I'll probably raise some eyebrows for having him this high, but I see the American League as relatively strong during his time, his 2282 games is still among the top 100 of all time (at a time when not a lot of 2B and 3B were having long careers), and he was pretty good until his last few seasons. Buddy Myer is a similar surprise.

43. George Sisler
46. Kiki Cuyler) Will likely make a fair number of ballots, but with so many OF in the same era with equal or better credentials, seems like a long-shot to ever make the HoM.

78. John Beckwith) I have Sol White, Ben Taylor, and Dick Lundy rated higher among eligible NeL position players.
   102. OCF Posted: January 29, 2005 at 01:17 AM (#1109751)
I just ran an odd anachronistic exercise: in an effort to sharpen my thinking about Roger Bresnahan, I ran Joe Torre through my offensive system. It turns out that Torre and Bresnahan have approximately the same number of games at catcher, but Torre had about 800 more games at all his other positions. Bresnahan's biggest year as a CF came before the bulk of his catching, while Torre's biggest year as a 3B came after he stopped catching. Bresnahan played a thin majority of his games as a catcher; Torre didn't, although it was a plurality, since his other games were split between 3B and 1B.

It turns out not to help me that much with Bresnahan, since on that offensive system, over all of his career, Torre looks better than Cochrane or Hartnett. His best match in the system: Sisler.
   103. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 29, 2005 at 01:41 AM (#1109788)
I know that this isn't too big a deal since one of these two players will most likely make it in this year and the other won't for maybe a 'decade' but...

Sewell v. Frisch


Sewell 277 WS, 88.5 WARP3
Frisch 366 WS, 113.7 WARP3
Advantage Frankie


Top five seasons

Sewell 29,29,26,24,23 (WS)
.......9.6,9.4,9.1,8.9,8.8 (WARP3)

Frisch 34,31,31,31,30,25(WS)
......11.9,10.2,9.0,8.5,8.0 (WARP3)
I would say Advantage Frisch on this one, but Sewell has a better 'back end' in WARP3

Sewell 109 in 7976 (AB+BB)
Frisch 111 in 9840 (AB+BB)
Advantage Frisch. He pretty much has an extra 1864 AB+BB (bbref doesn't have PA's) with production better than Sewell career average. Even with positional adjustment I believe that Frisch comes out on top.

Sewell: +22 RAA2 in 643g as a 3B, +67 RAA2 in 1216g as SS; A- in WS

Frisch: +20 RAA2 in 459g as 3B, +135 RAA2 in 1762g as 2B; A in Win Shares

Advantage none. Frsich seems ot ahve been better at his position than Sewell was at his, but Sewell played a lot of SS. However, if we are going to give a positional adjustment for Sewell concerning his hitting, he shouldn't get one in his fielding. I will give him the adjustment here, pulling him even. The numbesr certainly go to Frisch. To be fair, though, Frisch was a -4 in 75g as a SS.

My system
...........WS....WS>15...WS>25...Seasons over 15
...........W3....W3>4....W3>7...Seasons over 4

WS>15/W3>4 is my main measure of prime, along with seasons above 'average'. WS>25/W3>7 is my major measure of peak. Frisch is the clear winner here. It seems to be closer in WARP3, but Frsich still wins there. Those WS numbers from Sewell aren't very different at all to Bancroft, Long, and Tinker.

Now, this isn't to say that we need to get Frisch in now ( will have him at #2) but that maybe Joe Sewell is a tad overrated. I dont' see him as equivalent to Frisch at all and maybe those that have him in that league need to rethink.

The only argument I see for Sewell is that he was the best AL SS of the 1920's. This is flawed (I believe) but we have had this argument before. But what 2B of the 20s/30s was better than Frisch besides Hornsby? If Hornsby had been a SS (or Lundy/Moore been white) would we have Sewell so high? AND what if he had been in the same league as Maranville or Bancroft? Would he look as good?
   104. jimd Posted: January 29, 2005 at 02:28 AM (#1109840)
Using Paul Wendt's suggested ratio of 1:13, here is an update for BDERA+, with a few more pitchers added. The calculations are still crude (I'd really prefer having pitching BRAAP which I could add to PRAA), though I don't think a more precise calculation will change things by more than a point either way (two points tops).

102 -> 105 -> 107 Grimes
111 -> 107 -> 107 Welch
110 -> 111 -> 110 Rixey
113 -> 113 -> 111 Faber
114 -> 111 -> 113 Cooper
116 -> 110 -> 113 Mays
123 -> 114 -> 114 Keefe
103 -> 110 -> 114 Whitney
113 -> 115 -> 115 Lyons
119 -> 116 -> 115 McGinnity
120 -> 114 -> 115 Radbourn
125 -> 117 -> 117 Clarkson
116 -> 118 -> 119 Griffith
128 -> 119 -> 119 Brown
135 -> 121 -> 121 Nichols
129 -> 123 -> 121 Joss
114 -> 115 -> 121 Ferrell
123 -> 124 -> 122 Coveleski
118 -> 122 -> 122 Rusie
123 -> 124 -> 123 Waddell
126 -> 124 -> 126 Mathewson
123 -> 129 -> 127 Vance
132 -> 129 -> 128 Young
127 -> 129 -> 130 Dean
132 -> 132 -> 132 Alexander
141 -> 138 -> 136 Grove
136 -> 138 -> 141 Johnson

Also, the early 1880's guys are at a disadvantage in any ERA+ based calculation, due to the shallow pool in which they competed. There were no 4th/5th starters, just 1st and 2nd starters, so there was less room for variation in the stat (assuming that the NL took the best pitchers available).
   105. DavidFoss Posted: January 29, 2005 at 04:01 AM (#1109964)
He pretty much has an extra 1864 AB+BB (bbref doesn't have PA's)

FYI -- PA is the first column in the "Special Batting" Section. Frisch ahead 10100-8329. Difference of 1771. Sewell was hit a bit more and bunted a bit more as well.
   106. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 29, 2005 at 07:39 AM (#1110558)
Because we're all looking for any little edge for the backlog candidates, I decided to try and look at a bunch of them in terms of one of Bill James' questions: Could his team have won the pennant without him?, and the converse, were there any years he kept his team from winning? This is just a rough guesstimate, giving WARP1 and how many games a team won or lost by for years that might fit - it's data, not an argument.

I'm not assuming a replacement level of 0 WARP, so there has to be a significant difference between the WARP and the games back to make the list (about 4 or 5 as a minimum). For the "kept from winning" years, I'm looking for performances that aren't in line with the rest of a career - or very close races, which anyone could be blamed for (1908 comes up a lot).

I think I got all the big candidates, plus a few others.

Bancroft: 1 Win out of 4 Pennants - 1921 (11/7.4 games), possibly 1915 as well, although the numbers don't quite make it (7.4/7 games), No Losses

Beckley: No Pennants, No Losses

Bresnahan: 0 Wins out of 2 pennants, 1 possible Loss - 1908 (8.4/1 game back, could have lost a game)

Browning: No Pennants, No Losses

Childs: I'm not sure how the 1892 split-season worked, Childs had a 9.5 WARP, and Cleveland made the postseason. No Losses

Cuyler: 1 Possible Win out of 4 pennants - 1927 (4/1.5 games, but got suspended), No Losses

Doyle: 0 Wins out of 3 pennants, 1 possible Loss - 1908 (5.5/1 game back, could easily have lost a game somewhere)

Duffy: 2 Wins out of 5 Pennants - 1893 (9.0/5 games), 1897 (9.3/2 games), No Losses

Ferrell: No Pennants (the Yankee ones don't count), No Losses

Frisch: 6 Wins out of 8 pennants - 1921 (10.4/4 games), 1923 (11/4.5 games), 1924 (13.4/1.5 games), 1928 (10/2 games), 1930 (10.9/2 games), 1934 (8.1/2 games), No Losses

Grimes: 2 Wins out of 5 pennants - 1928 (10.5/1.5 games), 1930 (6.1/2 games), Maybe 2 Losses - 1924 (6.3/1.5 games back), 1927 (5.6/2 games back)

Goslin: 1 or 2 Wins out of 5 pennants - 1924 (9.2/2 games), possibly 1935 (5.3/3 games), No Losses

Hooper: 3 Wins out of 4 pennants - 1915 (6.5/2.5 games), 1916 (7.8/2 games), 1918 (8.7/2.5 games), No Losses

Jennings: 3 Wins out of 5 pennants - 1894 (10.0/3 games), 1895 (14.1/3 games), 1896 (14.9/9.5 games), No Losses

Jones (Charley): No Pennants, No Losses

Leach: 0 Wins out of 4 pennants, 2 possible Losses - 1900 (1.1/4.5 games back, but it's not clear if he was an established player yet), 1908 (9.7/1 game back, 1 game out could be anyone's fault)

Luque: 0 Wins out of 2 pennants, 1 Loss - 1926 (3.7/2 games back)

Mays: 4 Wins out of 6 pennants - 1916 (7.8/2 games), 1918 (7.4/2.5 games), 1921 (10.8/4.5 games), 1922 (5.1/1 game), No Losses

Rice: 1 Win out of 3 pennants - 1924 (7.3/2 games), No Losses (only had 0.4 WARP in 1918, but I'm assuming that's war-related, and yes, I should know that already)

Rixey: 0 Wins out of 1 pennant, 1 possible Loss - 1926 (4.0/2 games back, previous 5 years were 7.4, 6.2, 8.3, 7.6, 8.9)

Roush: 0 Wins out of 2 pennants, 1 possible Loss - 1928 (1.3/2 games back - probably injury related, but that's part of his problem)

Ryan: 1 possible Win out of 1 pennant - 1886 (4.8/2.5 games, but he was probably the 4th OF), No Losses

Schang: 1 Win out of 6 Pennants - 1922 (5.8/1 game), No Losses

Sewell: 1 possible Win out of 2 pennants - 1920 (decide for yourself, they won by 2 games), No Losses

Sisler: No Pennants, 1 possible Loss - 1922 (8.4/1 game)

Traynor: 1 Win out of 2 pennants - 1927 (9.4/1.5 games, 1 arguable Loss - 1924 (5.7/3 games back, had at least 9 WARP the year before and after)

Van Haltren: No Pennants, No Losses

Veach: No Pennants, No Losses

Waddell: 2 Wins out of 2 pennants - 1902 (10.8/5 games), 1905 (10.9/2 games), 1 possible Loss - 1907 (2.9/1.5 games back, but I don't agree with WARP there. His record is just not that bad.)

Williamson: 2 Wins out of 5 Pennants - 1882 (8.3/3 games), 1885 (8.6/2 games), No Losses

Willis: Maybe 1 Win out of 2 pennants - 1909 (0nly 6 WARP, they won by 6.5, but he did throw the most innings), 1 possible Loss - 1908 (5.0/1 game back)

Finally, I just don't trust WARP for pre-1893 pitchers, so I'll just give the pennants and IP.

McCormick - 1885 (2 games, 215 IP w/Chicago), 1886 (2.5 games, 347.7 IP)

Welch - 1888 (9 games, 425.3 IP), 1889 (1 game, 375 IP)
   107. OCF Posted: January 29, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1110918)
As a guy who likes leadoff hitters and actual runs scored, I'm bound to appreciate Woody English. Not enough to vote for him, of course. Maybe this is the way to put it: English is to middle-infield leadoff hitters of his time as George Stone is to slugging outfielders of the Oughts (with Max Bishop as John Titus): nowhere near enough career to even consider him, but for a couple of years there, it was a heckuva ride.

Go look at his 1930 stats just for the sheer entertainment value.
   108. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 29, 2005 at 04:41 PM (#1111048)
Thanks David. Somehow I know that PA's would be posted on bbref.
   109. Paul Wendt Posted: January 29, 2005 at 07:05 PM (#1111299)
EricC #[10]1
3. Goose Goslin) All eligibles with more WARP3 than Goslin have been elected, except for Gehrig and Frisch. All eligibles with more WS than Goslin have been elected, except for Gehrig, Frisch and Mullane.

I think the "enemy" of Goose Goslin, who puts great weight on the career-sum ratings, argues that Goslin was Jimmy Ryan with the advantage of a 154-game schedule.

jimd #[10]4
Using Paul Wendt's suggested ratio of 1:13, here is an update for BDERA+, with a few more pitchers added.

If I am right, the ratio of weights on pitcher OPS+ and ERA+ or RA+ approaches roughly 1:10 as complete game rate approaches 100%. Radbourn's batting was more important that 1:13, even if he never pinch hit or batted eighth.

I used Lefty Gomez because Lou Gehrig's record shows ~how many times the Yankees batted around the 4th spot in the order, minus 5/9 per game is a good estimate for the 9th spot. My estimates use a uniform rate of team outs by plate appearance, so that each batting position makes the final out in 1/9 of team games. That is easy to improve with a spreadsheet simulation but not easy to improve in a closed form, I think.

Given team-season plate appearances PAt, my estimate for the jth spot in the batting order is

PAj/G ~= PAt/G/9 + (5-j)/9

PAj ~= PAt/9 + G(5-j)/9

Devin #106
Childs: I'm not sure how the 1892 split-season worked, Childs had a 9.5 WARP, and Cleveland made the postseason.

Boston 52-22 won the first half by 2.5 games over Brooklyn. Cleveland 53-23 won the second half by 3 games over Boston. Boston would have won the championship without a "World's Series" by winning the second half (contrast 1981 rules). So Cleveland won a Series spot by winning the second half. Cy Young had a career half-season, 21-3. [Frank Williams]
   110. Howie Menckel Posted: January 29, 2005 at 09:36 PM (#1111464)
64 guys got votes in the 1943 HOM Election, with 27 non-electees getting at least 10 votes and 33 non-electees getting at least 5 votes.

Here are the 29 returnees with fewer than five votes, listed after the still-eligibles at the position who got more votes last year:

C (Bresnahan, Schang) Schalk 1

1B (Beckley, Sisler) Taylor 4, Konetchy 2, Chance 2

2B (Frisch, Childs, Doyle, Monroe) Dunlap 1

3B (Traynor, McGraw) Williamson 3, Cross 2, J Johnson 1

SS (Beckwith, Sewell, Jennings, Lundy, Moore) Maranville 3, Bush 1, Bancroft 1

OF (Van Haltren, Duffy, Leach, Roush, Browning, C Jones, Ryan, Rice, G Burns) Cravath 4, Hooper 4, Poles 3, Veach 3, Wilson 2, Youngs 1, York 1, Arlett 1, Jones 1

P (W Foster, Rixey, Griffith, Waddell, Welch, Grimes, Redding, Mendez, Mays) Willis 3, Joss 3, Shocker 3, Cooper 2, Cicotte 2, Luque 1, Bond 1, Leever 1, McCormick 1
   111. Brent Posted: January 30, 2005 at 01:49 AM (#1111893)
Paul Wendt # 52:

1:7 is too much credit for the pitcher's batting unless he works as a pinch-hitter. Indeed, 1:10 is too much if he bats ninth and doesn't pinch hit.

The OPS+ scale is comparable to ERA+. A pitcher who bats ninth, completes every game, and is never removed for a pinch-hitter in a game-winning rally at home-- gets 10% of team plate appearances in his games, so 1:10 is about the theoretical extreme.

If the team averages 40 plate appearances (4.44 per man; 4.00 for the ninth spot) and the pitcher averages 3 plate appearances, then 1:13.

My reasoning for 1:7 was something like this. I looked at the ratio of BFP to PA for several pitchers. For example, Grimes had 17959 BFP, 1685 PA, 1:10.7; Rixey had 18754 BFP, 1667 PA, 1:11.3. So if we were looking just at these two pitchers, we'd guess that 11 points of OPS+ is equal to 1 point of ERA+.

However, the denominator of OPS is PA, while the denominator of ERA is outs (actually 27*outs), so I figured we also need to take account of the fact that a pitcher who makes fewer outs per PA is providing his teammates with more opportunities to bat and score. So I added the extra outs avoided times the league runs per out. For example, Rixey made 1322 outs, whereas Grimes made only 1236, a difference of 84 outs, even though Grimes had 18 more PAs. (Note that this factor is really should depend just on the OBP, rather than on OPS - a pitcher with a low OBP and high SLG wouldn't be saving outs.) Figuring that during their careers each out was worth about .17-.18 runs , I solve for the ratio that would count the total runs (directly and indirectly through avoiding outs) and it comes to about 1:8. Is the effect of avoiding outs already included in the OPS factor? I don't think so, but some of you may know more than I do.

So that gets us to 1:8, but why did I propose 1:7 in my earlier post? In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, but in my earlier calculation I included several better hitting pitchers. The better hitting pitchers tended to get more PA per BFP. We've already seen that with Rixey (22 OPS+; 1 PA: 11.3 BFP) and Grimes (58 OPS+; 1 PA: 10.7 BFP). It's even more pronounced with the really good hitters. For Ruffing (81 OPS+) the ratio is 1 PA: 8.9 BFP, and for Ferrell (100 OPS+) it is 1 PA: 8.6 BFP. I had taken an average over a group containing both good and bad hitters, giving me a ratio of 1:10 (rather than the 1:11 I mentioned above, based on Rixey and Grimes). Now I think the ratio should vary to reflect the fact that the really good hitters get more PAs. Of course, that complication makes it harder to use a ratio as a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation.

So, if OPS+ already takes account of the effects of outs, than I'd think a ratio of about 1:11 would be appropriate for "ordinary" hitting pitchers, and maybe 1:9 for those really good hitters with OPS+ greater than 75. But if OPS+ doesn't take account of the effects of outs, then ratios of 1:8 and 1:6 may be more appropriate.
   112. karlmagnus Posted: January 30, 2005 at 01:56 AM (#1111914)
Very interesting. So for Caruthers, with an OPS+ of 135, his equivalent ERA+ would be (135 minus say 20)*1/6 above his actual ERA+, or 19 points higher. This makes his equivalent ERA+ 142, which puts his pitching in its proper light, just below Randy Johnson and above Clemens and Maddux. Looks about right to me!
   113. Brent Posted: January 30, 2005 at 02:02 AM (#1111933)
Another comment. In a way, the continuing discussion of pitcher's career ERA+ (and batters career OPS+) troubles me, because it seems to me that any rating system that depends on career rate statistics runs the risk of giving negative value to a poor season. For example, for his last 3 seasons Grimes had ERA+ of 79, 87, and 67. I haven't tried calculating his career ERA+ excluding those seasons, but they must have depressed his career number.

Is there any way to use career rate statistics and still guarantee that each season makes a positive contribution to his rating? If so, I'm not aware of it.

I really dislike the idea of a player getting points deducted for a poor season. In effect, that seems to be arguing that it's the player's own responsibility, if he's playing poorly, to bench himself, even if his manager still wants him to play. In my mind, that goes entirely against the work ethic and standards of sportsmanship that we expect of ballplayers. In my opinion, the only way a season might have negative value were if a player were purposely trying to lose (throwing games) or to hurt his team.
   114. Howie Menckel Posted: January 30, 2005 at 02:48 AM (#1112042)
I pretty much agree with you, Brent. There's also the problem of players who depart early, sometimes of their own fault, not having a natural downward push on their career rates.

That's why I do those "best OPS+s in order" lists of similar-seeming players. Basically, once you get down to under 110 or certainly 100, they don't help but they don't hurt either. That way you're really just looking at what kind of good offensive years they had - and then adjusted informally for position, defensive ability, etc.

Beckley's career OPS+ particularly stands out, I think, in that he played forever and still managed to be keep it at 125 for his career (144 OPS+ at age 36, then a 112, and two crappy half-seasons).
   115. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: January 30, 2005 at 04:21 AM (#1112280)
Chris J, regarding Ferrell and Vance:

"Fair enough. One thing I would point out is that the whole MOWP family indicates there was a considerable differnce in quality of opposition that these two faced."

But that's already included in RSI right? If Ferrell was facing easier competition wouldn't that be accounted for, at least indirectly in his RSI record? Or am I missing something?

Regarding Grimes and Rixey, the raw methods are close, but show Rixey somewhat ahead. But don't forget Rixey is missing about a year and a half for WWI - once you give him that credit the gap widens so far that I can't see any way to possibly have Grimes and his 107 ERA+ in 4200 IP ahead of Rixey and his 115 in 4500 (not counting the missing season and a half).

Grimes was a better hitter, but I can't see it closing the gap. He created 59 more runs, using 86 fewer outs, but that is already accounted for in Pennants Added and WARP3.
   116. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: January 30, 2005 at 04:30 AM (#1112302)
"The better hitting pitchers tended to get more PA per BFP."

Don't forget Brent that many of those extra PA are as PH or in some cases (especially pre-1893) as a position player. So the replacement level for those extra PA is higher than it typically is for a pitcher.

I've accounted for this in the replacement level I use in Pennants Added, pitchers that played in the field or were used as PH have those PA estimated and factored in as being at position player replacement level. Normal pitcher PA have a replacement level of 0 WS. Note this isn't '0', it's roughly .200. Pitchers below the 'marginal offense' level are docked in their pitching WS (Bill James' decision, not mine). So I treat all offensive WS for pitchers as being above replacement level.
   117. Dag Nabbit at Posted: January 30, 2005 at 05:33 AM (#1112497)
"Fair enough. One thing I would point out is that the whole MOWP family indicates there was a considerable differnce in quality of opposition that these two faced."

But that's already included in RSI right? If Ferrell was facing easier competition wouldn't that be accounted for, at least indirectly in his RSI record? Or am I missing something?

It can be. There's some definite overlap, but I don't think that they're identical (or I wouldn't bother figuring all the MOWP stuff out).

RSI looks at his own team. MOWP looks at opposing teams. A low RSI over a career should mean that he was on lousy teams and thus faced good teams more often, and vice versa. But it ain't always the case -- Mordecai Brown had a great RSI and one of the highest MOWPs I've found.

And then there's things like MOWP+ which just tell you how a pitcher was used by his team. An ace pitcher by this time tended to have a disproportionate number of starts against good & great teams. Wes Ferrell had this when he was with Cleveland, but Boston really liked starting him agasint second division teams. It is possible for a guy to play on a weak hitting team and be used mostly against lesser teams, thus having both a low RSI and low MOWP+, though I don't know if that happened to Ferrell in Boston because I don't know how Boston hit and am too tired to look it up. Everything I've said about MOWP+ goes for MOWP+6 and MOWP+4.

Again the main difference between RSI & the various MOWPs is one looks at a pitcher's own team, and the other(s) look at the opposing teams.
   118. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: January 30, 2005 at 11:19 AM (#1112952)
thanks Chris, that clears it up a bit.

"So I treat all offensive WS for pitchers as being above replacement level."

Just to clarify, all offensive WS for pitchers that didn't play the field or pinch-hit is what I meant.
   119. jonesy Posted: January 30, 2005 at 01:33 PM (#1112970)
I am assuming that Chris J. is basing his conclusion that Ferrell had his hand-picked assignments versus the second-division teams (by Cronin in Boston) from data obtained from retrosheet. Since the '35-'37 Red Sox game logs are easily viewable to all I would recommend that anyone with a question just take a look at that site.

Ferrell was Cronin's opening day starter in all three of those seasons. Ferrell then took on all comers in order of the schedule.

In 1935 and 1936:

Cronin started Ferrell in consecutive games once (not a DH, but consecutive days.). Grove did not do this.

Cronin never started either Ferrell or Grove with just one day of rest.

Cronin started Ferrell 11 times on two days of rest, often after working complete games. Cronin started Grove on two days of rest just once; he had been knicked out in the third inning of his previous start.

Cronin started Ferrell on three days of rest 36 times, Grove 27 times.

Cronin started Ferrell with four days of rest 19 times, Grove 11 times.

Cronin started Ferrell with five days of rest 4 times, Grove 10 times.

Cronin started Ferrell with six days of rest 1 time, Grove 5 times.

Cronin started Ferrell with seven days of rest twice, Grove 3 times.

Grove additionally had gaps of 11, 13 and 14 days of rest (or injury).

Ferrell's two seven day gaps were:

1. A sprained ankle around August 20, 1935.
2. Just before his last start (and 20th win) in 1936 when Cronin, with the season just about over, started a bunch of rookies.

Grove pitched significantly more (and better) than Ferrell against NY in 1936. Grove pitched 59 innings in 7 starts while Ferrell went 35 innings in 4 starts. The Boston schedule to open the season was Phi-Phil-NY-NY-Phi.

Ferrell started the first game, Grove was scheduled for game two but was held back due to cold weather so started vs NY rather than Phil. Ferrell started the fifth game (Phil.)

Later in the '36 season, Ferrell was due to start the close of a series with NY. It was rained out so he started vs. Washington the next day.

These were about the only significant issues I recall from my review of the '35 and '36 seasons.

While a stud versus NY, the STL Browns often beat up on Grove in '35 and especially '36, apparently causing Cronin to alter the rotation on several occasions so that Grove didn't pitch against them.

Here are the Boston starters in the first 11 games of 1937:


Cronin never started Ferrell on short rest. The Boston papers reported Grove was in one of his well-known snits, waiting for the weather to get warmer, as he often did in the spring.

Any suggestions that Ferrell was shown preferencial treatment by Cronin when Ferrell and Grove were teammates in Boston is ludicrous.
   120. Paul Wendt Posted: January 30, 2005 at 02:14 PM (#1112977)
JoeD #115
If Ferrell was facing easier competition wouldn't that be accounted for, at least indirectly in his RSI record? Or am I missing something?

Like Chris J said.

Here is a list of some "competition factors" that have been considered.

Own Team
- run support (RSI by Chris Jaffe)
- fielding support
- scoring ability (OPS+)
- winning percentage (MOWP by Chris Jaffe)

For the Phi AL 1930 staff, in the Wes Ferrell thread, I calculated Average Opponent OPS+ (as well as Avg Opp Winning Percentage, MOWP). The former provides context for the pitcher's runs allowed, ERA+ or RA+. The latter provides context for the pitcher's W-L record. In 1930, a start against the Yankees was more likely to hurt the pitcher's ERA+ and RA+; a start against the Senators was more likely to hurt the pitcher's W-L.
   121. jonesy Posted: January 30, 2005 at 02:42 PM (#1112994)
Couple of anecdotal pieces on the Cronin-Ferrell-Grove dysfunctional union.

1. Doubleheader vs. the Athletics in late May, 1935. Ferrell tosses a CG in the opener, winning, if I recall correctly, 6-4. Wes had a couple of hits that figured in the Boston scoring and retired the last nine Philly batters in order. Boston trails late in the second game and Cronin brings in Wes to pitch the top of the ninth. Wes comes to the plate with two outs in the bottom of the ninth, Boston trailing by a run. Boston runners are on 2nd and 3rd. Wes lines a rope into the left field corner. Tying run scores and only a backhanded lunge by Bob Johnson, that cuts off the ball before it reaches the fence, holds the runner at third. Wes stays on the hill. He retired the A's in order in the 9th and 10th innings (that's 15 in a row, counting the first game) but give up five runs in the 11th.

2. DH in StL in early June 1936 (maybe late May). Grove started the '36 season off 7-1 with a sub-1.00 ERA but then got pounded for a 6-plus ERA in his next eight starts. Grove opens a series in St. Louis and is pounded off the hill early. Couple of days later Wes tosses a brilliant two-hit shutout vs the Browns. Only 29 batters faced and the two hits were cheap. At that point in the season the Sox were on the tail of the Yanks. The second game is close and Cronin is looking for a reliever to start the seventh. He turns to Ferrell who tells him he can give him an inning but three are too many. Cronin goes to another reliever and the game is lost.

After the game, the media openly challenges Cronin. Where is Grove, they ask? Wouldn't he have been a help in that situation? They knew Lefty was dressed in civvies and sitting in the stands watching the game with Tom Yawkey. "Can't use Lefty," said Cronin. "I might need him later in the season and I do not want to tax him this early."

Much of the reporting of the day referred to Cronin being clueless as a handler of pitchers. The Sporting News reported that Cronin allowed Grove to walk off the mound in the middle of the game on his own volition. Elden Auker (who played for the Sox with Grove and Croinin in '39) said that anytime Cronin tried approaching Grove on the hill, Grove wouldn't talk to him, instead tossing him the ball and walking out of the game. "Lefty pitched when Lefty wanted to pitch," said Auker, "Not when Cronin wanted him to pitch."
   122. Paul Wendt Posted: January 30, 2005 at 02:45 PM (#1112997)
Brent's approach isn't quite right, but I see that mine isn't quite right, either.

I stand by 1:10 as the practical maximum share of Team PA while he has pitching responsibility, for a pitcher who bats ninth --since 1/10 is the approximate share of PA for the ninth spot. But the practical minimum for a good pitcher is not much less, probably more than 1/12 for a full season. Sure, 1/18 for a pitcher who is always removed for a pinch-hitter on the second PA for the ninth spot; 1/13 for a pitcher who is always removed on the third PA. But that is impractical.

The relative impact of pitcher batting on run scoring is less than the pitcher share of Team PA, because the pitcher bats when less is at stake: first, because the 8th batter is relatively weak; second, because pinch-hitter is more likely when more is at stake.
   123. jonesy Posted: January 30, 2005 at 02:49 PM (#1113002)
One more potential reason that Ferrell did not pitch as well against NY as Grove did in '35 and '36. (They both pitched very well and pretty evenly against Detroit).

Of the 11 times that Cronin started Ferrell on two days of rest between starts in 1935 and 1936, three of those games came against Detroit and two versus NY. One would think that a prudent mangager (as opposed to an inept one) would not use his ace against the better teams on short rest.
   124. jonesy Posted: January 30, 2005 at 03:23 PM (#1113020)
Here are some selected readings that I would recommend about the Cronin-Ferrell-Grove working relationship.

1. "Paths to Glory: How Great Baseball Teams Got That Way" by SABR members Mark Armour and Dan Levitt. Brassey's in 2003. Chapter six is titled "The Height of Folly: The 1930s Boston Red Sox." This is sabermetically focused (though not to a great degree).

2. "Sleeper Cars and Flannel Uniforms" by Elden Auker with Tom Keegan. Triumph Books in 2001. Anecdotal in nature but a great section with Auker discusses the managering skill of Cochrane (whom he loved) and Cronin (whom he thought was a nice guy but a clueless pitching handler).

3. "The Red Sox: The Bean and the Cod." by Al Hirshberg. Waverly House in 1947. Great material on the Red Sox of '35 and '36, documenting - among other great material - Grove walking out of the game on his own after bad fielding.
   125. Paul Wendt Posted: January 30, 2005 at 03:34 PM (#1113027)
#122 continued
That is, a weak-hitting pitcher does not diminish Team run scoring as much as he diminishes Team OPS+. The pitcher's sacrifice bunts probably amplify the difference between impacts; further diminish the impact of weak pitcher batting on run scoring.

Lefty Gomez, OPS+ = -7
pitched in 100% of his mlb games. He sacrified in 68 of 1024 plate appearances, almost 7%.

Ted Lyons, OPS+ = 45
pitched in 85% of his mlb games, fielded another position in 1 game, and evidently served as pinch-hitter or runner in 15% of his games (110g). He sacrified in 83 of 1726 plate appearances or 5%.

Red Ruffing, OPS+ = 81
pitch 71%, field 3 games, ph/pr 29% (255g).
SH/PA = 43/2083 = 2%

Wes Ferrell, OPS+ = 100
pitch 68%, field 2%, ph/pr 29% (161g).
SH/PA = 40/1345 = 3%
   126. Dag Nabbit at Posted: January 30, 2005 at 04:35 PM (#1113055)
Any suggestions that Ferrell was shown preferencial treatment by Cronin when Ferrell and Grove were teammates in Boston is ludicrous.

I don't really care if it's random chance or the result of how a manager wants to use a pitcher - Wes Ferrell started far fewer games against good teams when he was with Boston than one would expect.
   127. jonesy Posted: January 30, 2005 at 04:43 PM (#1113063)

Two other quick points:

1. Off the top of my head I recall four incidents where Ferrell either relieved late or stayed in to pitch after pinch hitting, resulting in plate appearances in key situations. Had he struck out in those four situations the games would have ended in losses for his team and he would not have been charged with any earned runs. However, in all four situations, after delivering the key RBIs that allowed his team to stay in the game, he was charged with 13 earned runs in 5 innings. Had he failed in those batting appearnances, his career ERA would have been 4.00 instead of 4.04. I imagine if I looked around some more I would locate several other incidents.

2. Lack of the Sacrifice Fly rule in the 30s. I think the rule was altered several times in that period but I recall a number of incidents where Ferrell delivered a key RBI with an outfield fly ball. Instead of 0 ATB and 1 RBI it was 1 ATB and 0 RBI. This, I imagine, probably impacted Ruffing as well. Small statistical impact for a batter with 500 plate appearances in a season but larger for a batter with 150?
   128. jonesy Posted: January 30, 2005 at 04:45 PM (#1113066)

I don't care either, and I certainly don't want anyone to take my word for should review it for themselves if it's an issue for them.
   129. Paul Wendt Posted: January 30, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1113193)
The sacrifice bunt stats in #125 may be corrupted by on and off distinction between bunts and flies in the historical record. (thanks, jonesy)

jimd #54
A batter with a 120 OPS+ has an OPS which is about 10% greater than an average hitter.

Paul Wendt #57
Yes, which produces about 20% more runs.

David Foss #68
[OPS+] is like RC in that its OBP times SLG. But also note that its fortuitously "lineup-adjusted" ... it eliminates some of the batting-yourself-in that can happen with RC with great players.

Paul Wendt #125
That is, a weak-hitting pitcher does not diminish Team run scoring as much as he diminishes Team OPS+. The pitcher's sacrifice bunts probably amplify the difference between impacts; further diminish the impact of weak pitcher batting on run scoring.

My observation and David's are two may be two sides of the same coin.

Anyway, a 20% difference in player OPS+ such as {120 100} in #54-57 produces about 20% difference in runs at the margin (for small differences) and within a uniform lineup.

In Wes Ferrell #22-30, OCF and jimd discussed accounting for a pitcher's batting by adjusting his pitching record. That was continued by Brent, Paul Wendt and others in 1944 Ballot Discussion, focusing on the adjustment of ERA+ for the pitcher's OPS+. I have extracted that "thread" from these boards and posted it on the web, for HOM reference only.

How to Account for Pitcher Batting, espy OPS+ -adjusted ERA+
   130. Brent Posted: January 30, 2005 at 07:24 PM (#1113332)
Joe Dimino wrote:

Don't forget Brent that many of those extra PA are as PH or in some cases (especially pre-1893) as a position player. So the replacement level for those extra PA is higher than it typically is for a pitcher.

Ok, I can see that it's probably best to treat the pitcher's plate appearances as a PH separately and not factor them into the ERA conversion. I'll note that there is another advantage - admittedly not easy to capture statistically - from having a pitcher who can pinch hit. The team has effectively expanded its roster. I can remember watching a number of games where a situation arises in which a pinch hitter could be used, but the team has already used all of its potential right- (/left-) handed pinch hitters. I don't know how one could evaluate the impact of an extra bat on the bench, and its value may be small, but it's worth something.

Paul Wendt wrote:

Anyway, a 20% difference in player OPS+ such as {120 100} in #54-57 produces about 20% difference in runs at the margin (for small differences) and within a uniform lineup.

I understand, but I don't think you addressed my question of whether the 20% difference represents runs per PA (which seems suggested by the denominator) or runs per game. If it's the former, I think we still need to add the extra runs that the pitcher's teammates are allowed to score because the pitcher made fewer outs. You've pointed out some reasons why the impact on run scoring may be less than the impact on OPS+, but this seems like a reason that it may be larger.
   131. karlmagnus Posted: January 30, 2005 at 08:10 PM (#1113406)
Over and above the arithmetical value of his hitting, there is an option value of a pitcher who can hit decently (i) at the Grimes level, where the manager doesn't have to take him out in late innings if there are men on, (ii) as an extra pinch hitter, and (iii) spectacularly, at the Ward/Caruthers/Rogan/maybe Ferrell level, where the pitcher can play a position adequately, where the manager can wake up each morning and decide whether he wants a pitcher of a hitter that day. Unfortunately, pre-1973 managers didn't have access to the Black-Scholes equation ......

This brings up an interesting thought: given the option value, Ruth might well have been more valuable to a Durocher type savvy manager if he'd gone on pitching, because the manager could have used him as a hitter when necessary.
   132. karlmagnus Posted: January 30, 2005 at 08:15 PM (#1113412)
Sorry, should be "pitcher OR a hitter"
   133. Sean Gilman Posted: January 31, 2005 at 10:18 AM (#1115438)
This reminds me of when did a simulated tournament with the 64 'best' teams of all-time a few years back. It was very interesting, but I couldnt' take it seriously because they didn't include the 1939 Yankees!

Their excuse was that they used the 1937 Yankees which featured, for the last time, a healthy Gehrig. That '37 team didn't make it into the final 16 as I recall. The winner was the '27 Yankees over the '75 Reds.

That was who ran that, actually.

Speaking of which, there's a user at whatifsports named "joe_dimino". . .is that our HOM founder, or just a big fan?
   134. andrew siegel Posted: January 31, 2005 at 04:20 PM (#1115761)
Topic for discussion: How good was Hughie Jennings's peak?

Win Shares and WARP disagree mightily.

I did a quick count of players with better five-year (consecutive) peaks in both Win Shares and WARP and found that what I knew to be a large discrepancy was gargantuan.

Before the results, two caveats:
(1) First, the counting is seat of the pants so my numbers are probably not exactly right.
(2) The numbers are not season-length adjusted so they actually disadvantage Jennings. He'd rank substantially higher on BOTH lists if you adjusted to 162 games.

On WARP, Jennings is tied with Willie Mays for the 12th highest 5-year peak among position players (behind Lajoie, Wagner, Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Mantle, Morgan, and Bonds). In addition, he only trails three pitchers (Rusie, Johnson, and Alexander; he's tied with Ed Walsh), putting him in a three-way tie for 15th best 5-year peak ever.

On Win Shares, Jennings is in a four-way tie for 63rd place among position players (behind guys like Flick and Hack Wilson) and trails somewhere between 50 and 100 pitchers (he trails 40-something guys in James's top 100 pitchers as well as a mass of other 19th-century pitchers).

Some may disagree, but I think the WARP numbers reflect a guy clearly worthy of election while the WS numbers make a good but not overwhelming case (255 season-length adjusted WS, most earned in a five-year run of 41-36-36-35-30, no other seasons above 15).

So, how has the right picture of Hughie?
   135. jimd Posted: January 31, 2005 at 09:05 PM (#1116401)
Major League Strikeout rates over time:
Column 1: range of years
Column 2: Percent of outs that were strikeouts
Column 3: K/27 outs (same data, different scale)

1876-80 09 2.4
1881-85 15 4.0
1886-90 14 3.6
1891-95 10 2.8
1896-00 09 2.3 <- era of Jennings' peak
1901-05 13 3.5
1906-10 14 3.8
1911-15 15 3.9
1916-20 12 3.2
1921-25 10 2.8
1926-30 11 2.9
1931-35 12 3.3
1936-40 13 3.5
1941-45 13 3.4
1946-50 14 3.8
1951-55 15 4.2
1956-60 18 5.0
1961-65 21 5.7
1966-70 22 5.9
1971-75 19 5.3
1976-80 18 4.9
1981-85 19 5.2
1986-90 21 5.8
1991-95 22 5.9
1996-00 24 6.6

What does this have to do with Hughie Jennings?

The strikeout rates of the late 90's are the lowest in NL history. Pitchers in Griffith's peak era struck out batters at the same rate (slightly less in fact) as they did in Tommy Bond's era. The fielders were making 4.3 more plays per 27 outs than they did when compared to the late 1990's. That is 15% of the outs of a game that have shifted from the fielders to the pitchers.

To me, this indicates that pitchers are still quite dependent on their defenses, perhaps even more so than in the 1880's. (Error rates haven't come down THAT much.) Now, I don't have the stats for this handy, but this shift in plays made is NOT to the outfield; it's infielders making those extra putouts.

Now we can debate about how well WARP captures this effect (because it's not fully published), but it's very clear that Win Shares does not (if you study how it's calculated). It does not change its allocations very much between pitching and fielding, and it caps the effects of good fielding when it does "too far" (IIRC, Baltimore was capped most years during Jennings' peak).

So these are the primary reasons I tend to believe WARP instead of Win Shares in the case of the fielding impact of Hughie Jennings (and other fielders of the pre-WWII era).
   136. karlmagnus Posted: January 31, 2005 at 10:26 PM (#1116567)
The same exact argument applies to Beckley, who did it for MUCH longer in the same era :-))
   137. TomH Posted: January 31, 2005 at 11:01 PM (#1116641)
...and for those of us who think ABILITY is sometimes as important as VALUE, I answer:

Yes, WARP may more accurately portray which infielder was worth more wins in 1895. But asking the question "who would have been a better player in 1920 or 1960 or 2000?", Win Shares might well be better at deciding in '1944' or '2004' whether either of them deserve to be in ahead of Sewell et al.
   138. PhillyBooster Posted: February 04, 2005 at 03:23 AM (#1123794)
I noticed this list of "best outfield arms" based on assists for 154 games in the latest Rob Neyer column. Always interesting to see a statistical "Best of" list where the HoFers outnumber the HoMers.

Here then, is my first crack at the 10 best-throwing outfielders in major league history, in chronological order (with their Baserunner Kills per 154 games):

1. Tom McCarthy, 34.7

2. Tris Speaker, 25.6

3. Bob Meusel, 18.5

4. Harry Rice, 19.3

5. Ross Youngs, 24.5

6. Johnny Callison, 15.2

7. Roberto Clemente, 17.3

8. Ellis Valentine, 15.3

9. Jesse Barfield, 18.0

10. Larry Walker, 14.1

. . .
Finally, with the (probably vain) hope of forestalling some complaints, here's a chronological list of other great-throwing outfielders who came close to making the above list: Lou Sockalexis, Jimmy Ryan, Bris Lord, Charlie Jamieson, Max Carey, Mel Ott, Indian Bob Johnson, Gene Moore, Vince DiMaggio, Glen Gorbous (who's in the Guiness Book for throwing a baseball 445 feet, 10 inches), Dave Parker (but only in his prime), Mark Whiten, Orlando Merced (yes, Orlando Merced), Raul Mondesi, Vladimir Guerrero.
   139. Adam Schafer Posted: February 04, 2005 at 10:37 PM (#1125199)
If I don't get this in today, I wouldn't make it this week.

1. Lou Gehrig (n/a) - Who else?

2. Frankie Frisch (3) - Most any other year he could've had the #1 spot

3. Bill Foster (4) - 3rd best Negro League pitcher not only doesn't get
a #1 spot on my ballot, he gets in at #4?? That really says something
about the quality players ahead of him.

4. Goose Goslin (n/a) - Fits perfectly into the type of player that I

5. Mickey Welch (5) - Big drop for Mickey this week

6. Wes Ferrell (n/a) - Hard to put him here without the career that I'd
normally love to see, but his peak was good and just barely lasted long
enough for me to rank him this high.

7. Burleigh Grimes (7) - Tough debate on whether to have him above Rice
or not

8. Sam Rice (8) - This is the type of consistency that I love

9. Pie Traynor (9) - One of the best 3b ever

10. Eppa Rixey (6) - A bit of a drop for Rixey. I've decided that
Grimes is more deserving of the word "Merit" by my definition.

11. George Sisler (10) - This is going to be an unpopular vote I know,
but his peak was great, and there's enough career for me put him this
high. What George has really done, is convinced me to move Beckley up on
my ballot again.

12. Clark Griffith (11) - Same old story for Clark

13. Jake Beckley (12) - Not far off from Sisler.

14. Rube Waddell (13) - The top 5 in strikeouts for 10 consecutive
years. He's #10 in the all-time ERA leaders.

15. Wally Schang (14) - Lots of career value for a catcher. I really
wish I could justify having him higher right now. A definate HOM'er in
my opinion. Just too many other good players on the ballot right now.

16. Joe Sewell (15) - darn good shortstop, and you couldn't strike the
guy out. Same problem as Schang at the moment.

17. John Beckwith (16) - Ok, I'll jump on the Beckwith bandwagon too.
After his high ranking last "year" I realized that I had better
reevaluate him b/c I was obviously missing something very important.

18. Dick Lundy (17) - I have him slotted just slightly worse than

19. George Van Haltren (18) - Moves ahead of Beckley and Bresnahan.

-------------My Personal HOM Line----------------

20. Jose Mendez (19) - I haven't been able to convince myself that he
deserves a spot higher than this.

21. Roger Bresnahan (20) - 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.

22. KiKi Cuyler (n/a) - Just not cutting it for my PHOM

23. Herb Pennock (21) - If he'd only put up some good seasons before he
was 25 he would've had a shot at my PHOM. He'll never make my PHOM, and
I doubt he'll ever come close to making the HOM, but he's good enough
to scratch in just ahead of Mays.

24. Jim Bottomley (22) - not Bill Terry material, but good peak and
enough career for my personal liking. I doubt he makes the HOM, but he's
one that I wouldn't be upset if he was somehow able to get enough
support to make it someday.

25. Carl Mays (23) - People may laugh that he made my ballot, but Carl
could pitch. With Sisler and Welch so high, I already have two
unpopular votes, so what's one more for them to laugh at?

26. Hughie Jennings (24) - Nothing new to add

27. Edd Roush (25) - Not quite as good as Max Carey

28. Vic Willis (26) - I'm beginning to think that I've highly
underrated him. He's making a slow climb up my ballot right now.

29. Judy Johnson (27) - This project has really opened my eyes to a lot
of players, I was a little disappointed when it showed me that Judy
wasn't as great as I had always imagined.

30. Dobie Moore (28) - I believe Dobie was great, there just isn't room
for him higher than this yet. I'm sure he'll move onto the actual
ballot soon enough.

31. Rabbit Maranville (29) - Only this high b/c he was a SS. No peak,
and not even a good enough career value for me, and I'm a big career

32. Eddie Cicotte (30) - Underrated in my opinion. May not be HOM
material, but underrated nonetheless.

33. Bobby Veach (31) - Not enough career for him to merit a higher
ranking on my ballot, but enough peak to grab a lower spot.

34. Jimmy Ryan (32) - A watered down Van Haltren

35. Urban Shocker (33) - 8 good pitching seasons. Nothing spectacular,
but a respectable career.

36. Hugh Duffy (34) - Back onto my ballot. No new thoughts on him

37. Harry Hooper (35) - 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.

38. Dick Redding (36)
39. Ray Schalk (37)
40. Cupid Childs (38)
41. Tommy Leach (39)
42. Pete Browning (40)
43. Larry Doyle (41)
44. Fielder Jones (42)
45. Firpo Marberry (43)
46. Ben Taylor (44)
47. Gavvy Cravath (45)
48. Addie Joss (46)
49. Tommy Bond (47)
50. Joe Judge (48)
51. Waite Hoyt (n/a)
52. Earl Combs (49)
53. Dolph Luque (50)
54. Duke Farrell (51)
55. Andy Coooper (52)
56. Lave Cross (53)
57. George Uhle (54)
58. Tom York (55)
59. Mike Griffin
60. Frank Chance
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Ray (CTL)
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.8582 seconds
56 querie(s) executed