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, February 14, 2005

1945 Ballot

From many comments on the discussion thread, there appears to be a consensus that Goose Goslin and Willie Foster will be the next HoM selections. Kind of hard to dispute that. But maybe newbies Tony Lazzeri and Heinie Manush, or possibly another backlogger, will fool us.

Returnees include: John Beckwith, Eppa Rixey, Clark Griffith, Wes Ferrell, George Van Haltren and Jake Beckley.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2005 at 02:54 AM | 179 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2005 at 02:29 PM (#1144515)
I'll submit a ballot some time this week. I'm still working on it.
   2. karlmagnus Posted: February 14, 2005 at 03:40 PM (#1144607)
Weakish newbie crop. Manush around the bottom of the extended ballot, but Lazzeri just above Childs (who himself moves down a little.) Lazzeri was much better than Frisch, but didn’t last as long.

1. (N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4-3-2-2-1-1-2-6-4-4-2-1-1-1-3-1-2-2) Jake Beckley. Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, above Babe, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. Marginally ahead of Welch, as we have seen more 307-win pitchers (now 10 others among currently HOM-eligible) than 2930-hit hitters (now 8 others). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals.

2. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-2-2-3-7-5-5-3-2-2-2-4-2-3-3) Mickey Welch. 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the 1920s pitcher glut. 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. With 4802 IP, OK at an ERA+of 113 (but he never heard of ERA) he was far better than most of the 00s and 20s pitchers under consideration, none of whom (other than Young, Matty and Alex) got near 300 wins, and many of whom had ERA+s little better than Welch.

3. (N/A-6-4-3-3-3-5-3-4-4) George Sisler. 2812 hits, OPS+ 124 puts him just below Beckley and Welch. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .748. Better singles hitter than Ichiro!, his record having been set in a 154 game season. And he had power too.

4. (N/A-5) Goose Goslin 2738 hits, 128 OPS. Sisler beats him largely because of peak, Beckley because of fielding and longevity. TB+BB/PA .536, TB+BB/Outs .854, but better hitting era than Sisler.

5. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4-6-4-5-6) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) Much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity. Successfully cursed Red Sox for over 8 decades!

6. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4-6-10-8-9-7-5-5-5-7-5-6-7) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA

7. (N/A-14-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-10-8-7-6-5-5-7-11-9-10-8-6-6-6-8-6-8-8) Clark Griffith He’s another Amos Rusie, but not quite as good. 3385 IP, 237 wins and an ERA+ of 121 not outstanding, but his winning percentage is good and his 1898 peak is nice.

8. (N/A-9-8-8-9-10-8-10-9) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B.

9. (N/A-10-9-8-11-N/A-15-15-14-10-10-11-12-10-12-11) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season (but that’s more than Pike, with much less of an adjustment, and Jones too missed two prime seasons.) But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF, and also on reflection above Tiernan
   3. karlmagnus Posted: February 14, 2005 at 03:41 PM (#1144613)
10. (N/A-12) Eppa Rixey, 266-251 and ERA+ of 115. Huge 4,494 IP, decided I’d been undervaluing him, so moved him onto the ballot.

11. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8-9-7-9-13) Sam Leever. Nobody shares my enthusiasm – pity he wasn’t able to start at the normal time; 2 more years would have made him a NB. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.

12 (N/A) Tony Lazzeri Shortish career but a pretty good one, and he just beats Childs all round. TB+BB/PA .521, TB+BB/Outs .816, OPS+121, only downside is only 1840 hits.

13. (N/A-8-7-8-14-13-14-13-9-9-10-11-9-11-10) Cupid Childs. OPS+119, almost the same as the 90s trio, and TB+BB/PA .470, TB+BB/Outs .797 highly competitive with them. Main negative is only 1720 hits, or about 1780 even if you normalize him to a 130 games played season. Nevertheless, he was a 2B.

14. (N/A-7-13-11-13-14) Hack Wilson TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144 Downgrade a bit because of short career and Hornsby is a LOT better (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore. OPS+ slightly below Jones, so here he goes.

15. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13-14-12-15-15) Carl Mays Somewhat better W/L and WS than Coveleski, not quite as good an ERA+. He’s very close to Coveleski, I’m fairly sure he’s not as good as Leever. Hitting pushes him just above where Coveleski was.

16. (N/A-11-12-15-14-N/A) Joe Sewell 2226 hits, TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .721, so not sure why OPS+ as low as 109. You could argue he’s better than Schang and Childs, you can’t argue he’s worse than Groh, especially as he was mainly a SS.

17. John Beckwith. A bit more confident, now I’ve seen we’re not automatically enshrining Lundy/Foster/Johnson

18 (N/A) Heinie Manush Shorter but better career than Rice. 2524 hits, TB+BB/PA .495, TB+BB/Outs .745. OPS+121.

19. (N/A-14-N/A-15-N/A) Sam Rice 2987 hits, but OPS+ only 112 TB+BB/PA.455, TB+BB/Outs .702, so not as good a hitter as Sewell on raw data.

20. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-N/A-14-13-15-N/A) Hugh Duffy TB+BB/PA of .489 and TB/Outs of .788, but this in the high-offense 1890s, and he’s way below Beckley on total hits. Like the 1894 peak, though - and it’s ’94 not ’93, pitchers had had a year to adjust. Significantly behind Beckley on counting considerations, and Browning on rate considerations.

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

22. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes. ERA+ nothing special at 107, but 270-212 is the best on the ballot apart from Welch, and he hit better than any pitcher on the ballot apart from Mays.

23. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan - only 1,983 normalized hits, so only on the ballot in weak years. Does well against the 90s trio, whose OPS+ and rate stats are distinctly lower. TB+BB/PA .518, TB+BB/Outs .850, so close to Browning (in an easier era for hitters).

24. (N/A-11-14-N/A) Rube Waddell Short career but very high peak. 2961 IP, and W/L193-143 not at all special. Fielding and hitting negative, not positive – but he’s considerably better than Mendez, with ERA+ of 134. His unearned runs prevent him moving higher than this.

25. Wes Ferrell Hon. Mention really, because of his hitting. Even Mays is only hovering around 15, and Ferrell not as good a pitcher, for not as long.
26. (N/A) Dick Lundy Just a few spots below Sewell, based on his MLEs.
27. (N/A) Hughie Jennings OPS+ 117 and he was a shortstop and he had a superb peak, but only 1527 hits. TB+BB/PA .414, TB+BB/Outs .671, so he’s not as good as Childs. Extra bonus for the peak.
28. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle. Normalize 1871-77 season by season to 130 games and he gets 1,577 hits, only 15 less than Pike in 1 less season. Better peak, too. TB+BB/PA .482, TB+BB/Outs .751, though this, like McVey and Pike’s figures, includes no “decline” phase. Also, he was a 3B. Why did Meyerle quit? -- unlike Pike, he was nowhere near done in 1877. OPS+164 vs 152 for McVey and 155 for Pike.
29. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
30. Ben Taylor. Not all that far below Beckley and better than Van Haltren.
31. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
32. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A) George van Haltren. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s.

33. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits, OPS+125, shorter career than Ryan and van H. puts him here. TB+BB/PA 502, TB+BB/Outs .798, long way short of Goslin
34. Jack Quinn
35. Deacon McGuire
36. Tony Mullane
37. Bill Foster Covaleski minus, I think – shortish career.
38. Pye Traynor
39. Jim McCormick
40. Dick Redding
41. Joe Judge
42. Edd Roush
43. Spotswood Poles.
44. Larry Doyle
45. Roger Bresnahan.
46. Wayte Hoyt. Better than Pennock, not as good as Quinn, so about here.
47. Harry Hooper.
48. Jules Thomas.
49. Wilbur Cooper
50. Bruce Petway.
51. Jack Clements
52. Bill Monroe
53. Jose Mendez
54. Herb Pennock
55. Chief Bender
56. Ed Konetchy
57. Jesse Tannehill
58. Bobby Veach
59. Lave Cross
60. Tommy Leach. Inferior to Childs, even if he’d played 3B his whole career, which he didn’t. Dropped him 1, as overall, Cross was better, too.
61. Tom York
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:27 PM (#1144697)
And I'll be a curmudgeon and offer a mild objection to the lead-in.

"Goslin and Foster try to maintain their momentum and sail into the HOM in a year which does not appear to feature any blockbuster candidates. But Hall of Famers Lazzeri and Manush hope to make the case for this hall, too."

I'm sure the intent isn't to push Foster and Manush on voters, but why even make the point at all?
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:29 PM (#1144703)
The middle paragraph was a sample alternative..
   6. PhillyBooster Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:31 PM (#1144708)
My ballot thread lead-in:

"Eppa Rixey and Jake Beckley attempt to overcome various electoral quirks to that have so far conspired to deny them inadmission into the HoM. Goslin and Foster are this year's major co-conspirators."
   7. ronw Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:37 PM (#1144720)
1945 Ballot (MVP candidates, All-Star candidates, and total HOM seasons are my own generalizations based on raw WS and yearly competition. All-Star candidate is roughly the top 16 pitchers and top 32 players. MVP candidate is anyone with double the WS numbers of the worst All-Star candidate in that season. I have incorporated WARP and Pennants Added.)

1. Goose Goslin Lasted longer than most of the 20’s-30’s outfielders and had a decent peak. MVP candidate 1925-1926, All-Star candidate 1923-1924, 1927-1936 (14 HOM seasons.)

2. Bill Foster The best left handed pitcher in Negro Leagues history. Generally accepted to be in the all-time Negro Leagues rotation. That’s enough for me.

3. John Beckwith Great hitter who has been tarnished by history, not unlike Dick Allen. PHOM 1942.

4. George Van Haltren Only one season among top 8 players (1898). Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1901. That is 14 consecutive solid years, the majority in a tough consolidated league. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1929.

5. Jake Beckley In his 16 All-Star seasons, he only averaged about 60% of MVP value, so that hurts him with peak voters. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1888-1895, 1897, 1899-1905. (16 HOM seasons) PHOM 1928.

6. Jimmy Ryan Had a nice peak 1888-1891. MVP candidate 1888. All-Star candidate 1886-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1899, 1902. (14 HOM seasons) PHOM 1930.

7. Eppa Rixey Consistently above average. Looking at measures other than Win Shares, he barely sneaks by Grimes. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1916-1917, 1920-1925, 1927-1929, war credit 1918 (12 HOM seasons). PHOM 1939.

8. Wes Ferrell Best pitcher peak on the board, may rate higher than Rixey/Grimes in subsequent years. MVP Candidate 1930, 1935-1936. All-Star Candidate 1929, 1931-1934, 1937. (9 HOM seasons)

9. Burleigh Grimes I think he is being overlooked by the electorate, especially given his 1918-1924 peak. MVP candidate 1918, 1920. All-Star candidate 1921, 1923-1924, 1926-1930. (10 HOM seasons).

10. Dobie Moore I realized my Hughie Jennings argument (one or two more great seasons would put him over the top) applies to add Moore to my ballot.

11. Dick Lundy If actually a 122 OPS+ hitter, he deserves to rate higher.

12. Bill Monroe Lack of documentation hurts him.

13. Tommy Leach Consistently at the top of his weaker league. MVP candidate 1908. All-Star candidate 1901-1907, 1909-1910, 1913-1914. (12 HOM seasons)

14. Dick ReddingNegro League pitchers elected or likely to be elected: R. Foster, Williams, Rogan, B. Foster, Paige. Others likely to get some consideration include Redding, Mendez, Ray Brown, Leon Day, and Hilton Smith. So it looks like we’ll elect five, and maybe one or two more. 7-10 Negro League pitchers seems about right to me, especially if we elect 20-30 Negro Leaguers.

15. Ben Taylor I think the deadball Negro League infielders get hurt as much as 1890’s infielders. For all I know, Taylor may have been better than Beckley.


Joe Sewell - Looks like the best of the available major league infielders to me, but is looking less impressive over time. Never an MVP candidate, All-Star candidate 1921-1929, 1931-1933 (12 HOM seasons).

Clark Griffith –I think that he had a relatively short productive career, and didn’t have nearly the peak of a Walsh, Brown, Vance or perhaps even Waddell. He needs to get a pretty steep 1890s pitcher premium to make my ballot. Pitchers ahead of him include Foster, Rixey, Grimes, Ferrell, Redding, Mendez, Mays, Willis and Cooper. All-Star candidate 1894-1901 (8 HOM seasons)

Heinie Manush – Solid outfielder, but not quite HOM material. MVP candidate 1928, 1933, All-Star candidate 1926-27, 1929-32, 1934, 1937 (10 HOM seasons)

Tony Lazzeri – Closer to the ballot than I originally thought he would be. MVP candidate 1929, All-Star candidate 1926-28, 1930-36 (11 HOM seasons).

Missing from my PHOM:

Terry (will make it some day
Coveleski (will make it some day)
Vance (will make it some day)
Faber (may never make it, even with the peak adjustment)
Thompson (will never make it)
   8. karlmagnus Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:38 PM (#1144723)
Phillybooster, I'll go with your version :-)).

It would be nice to think that Foster wasn't a slam dunk, I have to say. Probably best to avoid predictions in the intro, unless it's someone like Ruth or Gehrig.
   9. OCF Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:53 PM (#1144748)
We're 50 or so cantankerously independent voters who can look out for ourselves. I wouldn't worry too much about what a thread intro does or doesn't say. That intro is also factual, based on the vote table from the 1944 election: without huge support for Lazzeri or Manush (not visible on the discussion thread) and without large and widespread voter reevaluation between '44 and '45, Goslin and Foster will be elected.
   10. OCF Posted: February 14, 2005 at 04:58 PM (#1144756)
1945 ballot.
1. Leon Allen Goslin (----, 2) Yeah, I know we're probably too generous to flank outfielders. It is true that he's the best major league hitter on the ballot. Comparable in value to Zack Wheat or Joe Kelley.
2. Joe Sewell (5, 5, 3, 5, 5) If only he'd had 2 or 3 more good years - then he'd be an easy choice. Come to think of it, I could say that about a lot of people, including Childs.
3. John Beckwith (5, 7, 5, 7, 6) Doyle and Beckwith: infielders who could really hit.
4. Larry Doyle (4, 6, 4, 6, 7) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the backlog outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
5. George Van Haltren (2, 3, 1, 3, 3) curbing my enthusiasm for him a little, but defintely ballot-worthy, and will be so for a long time.
6. Eppa Rixey (6, 8, 7, 8, 8) A successful long-career inning-eater. No peak.
7. Wes Ferrell (----, 11) Nice early peak, flamed out young as pitcher, stopped hitting as well. The fact that he pitched in the highest average run environment of any ballot-worthy 20th century pitcher puts his 2600 IP in perspective, since high-scoring innings are more stressful
8. Willie Foster (---. 9, 9) Chris's translations show him as ballot-worthy but not quite a shoo-in.
9. Jake Beckley (7, 9, 8, 10, 10) Not much peak, long career.
10. Cupid Childs (8, 11, 9, 11, 12) Like a lot of people, his career is too short. Not the offensive peak of Doyle, but it is a real peak.
11. Hugh Duffy (9, 12, 11, 12, 13) 39th year on my ballot. Defense gets him this far.
12. Edd Roush (10, 13, 11, 13, 14) Nearly the same offensive value as the leftover 1890's guys; better hitter than Carey.
13. George Sisler (11, 14, 12, 14, 15) My peak-heavy offensive evaluation system likes Chance ahead of Sisler, and Sisler ahead of Beckley. The order gets reversed because of playing time.
14. Pie Traynor (-, 10, 13, 15, 16) Similar to Sewell: an above-average hitter playing a key defensive position for not quite enough years to clinch his candidacy.
15. Frank Chance (14, 17, 16, 18, 19) Huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time.
16. Rube Waddell (12, 15, 14, 16, 17) The best one left from his generation. Value crammed into a very few years.
17. Jose Mendez (13, 16, 15, 17, 18)
18. Roger Bresnahan (15, 18, 17, 19, 20) Very good offense for a catcher; not enough if we think of him as an outfielder.
19. Ki Ki Cuyler (----, 21) I'll peg his case to Ryan's.
20. Jimmy Ryan (16, 19, 18, 20, 22) Not beyond reconsideration.
21. Dick Redding (17, 20, 19, 21, 23)
22. Hugh Jennings (19, 21, 20, 22, 24) All he's got is 5 years.
23. Wally Schang (20, 22, 21, 23, 25) A much better hitter than most catchers. Not the hitter Bresnahan is, but closer to being a pure catcher.
24. Gavy Cravath (22, 24, 23, 25, -)
25. Rabbit Maranville (23, 25, 24, --) Hard to ignore a 2500+ game career.

The cluster of players fighting to get back up to the #25 spot include Rice, Leach, Luque, Lindstrom, Poles, Taylor, Willis, Welch, Burns, Griffith, and Hack Wilson.
Griffith languishes down here largely because he's not that high on career IP for his times.

Heinie Manush: Cuyler-lite. In the next group, along with the likes of Babe Herman, Pete Browning, Topsy Hartsel, Ross Youngs, and Harry Hooper.

Tony Lazzeri: in my system, offensively comparable to Johnny Evers. Both of them wind up behind Doyle and Childs. He probably should get a few votes, just not mine.
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2005 at 05:25 PM (#1144807)
From now on, I'm not going to post anything anymore for the threads at the top. I'm tired of this petty crap.

BTW, anybody who wants to take over should send an e-mail to Joe. I'm tired of the work and would rather just submit ballots for the future so I can pile on the new moderator about things that don't mean a damn thing.
   12. Daryn Posted: February 14, 2005 at 05:51 PM (#1144851)
1. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data shows those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his oft repeated record against HoMers.

2. Goose Goslin -- a step above Beckley, closer to Wheat and Heilmann, who I also had higher than Beckley.

3. Jake Beckley -- ~3000 hits but no black ink at all. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (HOMer) are two of his three most similars.

4. George Sisler – Hits impress me and he had a lot of them, plus a better peak than Beckley. I’ve put Beckley ahead of him because I’m a career voter.

5. Eppa Rixey
6. Burleigh Grimes – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between these two candidates. There is not much of a spread between here and Ferrell, a five person group of whiteball pitchers that includes Waddell and Griffith, the latter of whom I am souring on.

7. Bill Foster – Consensus has him better than Redding, and Redding is good enough for me (in a vacuum – ie without peer review, I’d probably have Redding ahead of Foster, and Foster as low as twelfth, in Vance’s old spot right behind Waddell).

8. Dick Redding – probably the 5th or 6th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams and Paige and likely behind Rube Foster, Rogan and Bill Foster), and that is good enough for me.

9. Roger Bresnahan – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor. I like him better than Schang because he compared better to his contemporaries, if you count him as a catcher.

10. Sam Rice – close to Beckley – I’ve dropped him after five years of insisting that he was equal to Beckley and Sisler. I took another look at his OPS+ and some traditional stats and feel comfortable with him here.

11. Rube Waddell -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+ and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown). My personal, in/out line is here.

12. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected. He is barely better than Ferrell, Hoyt, Mendez, Joss, Luque, Pennock, Quinn, McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Bender, Mays, Cooper, Shocker, Mullane and Mullin. I have Ferrell next in line and he may move up – I like hitting pitchers.

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

14. Joe Sewell – I’m assuming he was pretty good on defense. I don’t see him as a HoMer though. Back on the ballot. No throwing infielders in my top-13, five in my top 18.

15. Tommy Leach – 300+ WS has to mean something.

17. Beckwith – I’m assuming he was pretty bad on defence. The Beckwith thread is funny – Gadfly has him hitting .400 with 40HRs per year and Cobb has him at 297 career WS. I’m going with 95% of Cobb’s estimate. I like him better than Monroe and Moore I’m pretty sure he’s not Hornsby.

19. Wes Ferrell

28. George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated. Pretty good adjusted win shares.
   13. Rusty Priske Posted: February 14, 2005 at 06:02 PM (#1144884)
For what it is worth John, I'm with you. I can't believe people care about such things.
   14. Jim Sp Posted: February 14, 2005 at 06:28 PM (#1144936)
Thanks for all the hard work, John.
   15. andrew siegel Posted: February 14, 2005 at 06:35 PM (#1144957)
Kudos to John Murphy for doing mucho administrative crap for us over the last year. I don't blame him for his rare fit of pique at the (thankfully rare) pettiness of this thread.

On to the ballot:

(1) Bill Foster (3rd)-- I think his Negro League stats make him worthy of induction, but place him higher than those stats indicate b/c/ I think it is fundamentally misguided to suggest that he would have had the exact same usage and durability pattern in the big leagues and then to penalize him for it. Every bit of evidence (statistical and impresionistic) is that he was a great pitcher with a sufficiently long career; I'm not caught up in exactly how long.

(2) Goose Goslin (4th)-- Comfortably meets HoM standards.

(3) Hughie Jennings (5th)-- The more I look, the more convinced I become that his peak was Willie Mays-Stan Musial level-- which he needs to overcome lack of ancillary accomplishments.

(4) Hugh Duffy (6th)-- Absent evidence that Win Shares systematically overrates him, there is no precedent for excluding someone with his peak/prime/career package.

(5) George Van Haltren (7th)-- Discounting 19th-century pitching WS (including his) by 50% will likely have more season-length-adjusted WS than any other non-Homer when this project is done (and his peak and prime are perfectly solid too).

(6) Wes Farrell (11th)-- Every attempt to adjust pitchers' raw stats for important environmental factors (parks, defense, offensive support, league run environment, hitting, era workload, etc.) puts him into the HoM, some put him into the top half of the HoM. Since this accords with contemporary opinion, I'm going to run with it.

(7) Eppa Rixey (10th)-- Very different career than Ferrell, very similar value.

(8) Charley Jones (8th)-- His OPS+ numbers aren't quite as dominant as they look when compared with other contemporary bats.

(9) Cupid Childs (12th)-- If only he had played one or two more seasons, his place would be secured. As is, need to make a big adjustment for roughness of the era to get him in.

(10) Edd Roush (13th)-- A tad overlooked thus far.

(11) Dobie Moore (14th)-- At his peak, better than any other SS save Wagner, Jennings, Vaughn, Lloyd, and A-Rod.

(12) John Beckwith (9th)-- Chris Cobb's translations are being used to trumpet his candidacy and they do show a strong career, but they also show a surprisingly limited peak (best 3 seasons 31, 29, 28; only 4 seasons over 25 WS). Gap between him and candidates like Leach, Williamson, Traynor, Nash, and McGraw not as large as I previously thought.

(13) Burleigh Grimes (15th)-- Rixey-lite.

(14) Joe Sewell (nr/16th)--Welcome back.

(15) Frank Chance (nr/17th)--Ditto.

Next 15 in order: Willis, Beckley, Sisler, Ryan, Bresnahan, Schang, Mendez, Lundy, Doyle, Griffith, Redding, Veach, Leach, Williamson, Cooper.

Required disclosure: You can see that Beckley (17th) and, to a lesser extent, Griffith (25th) are close. They are held back by poor peak and lack of durability when compared with contemporaries, respectively.
   16. OCF Posted: February 14, 2005 at 06:55 PM (#1144984)
So I'm not the sole best friend of Chance, who got no votes in 1944.
   17. karlmagnus Posted: February 14, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1144994)
We have ALWAYS had a prohibition on predictions of ballot results, because such predictions can produce tactical voting and/or create bandwagon effects. Objecting, as mildly as it is humanly possible to do, to starting the ballot thread with such a prediction is NOT a nitpick -- indeed, from memory, other than in a totally obvious case, this is the first time the ballot thread has begun with such a prediction.

Of course in general this project is enormously enjoyable, and we, particularly the more sabermetrically inept of us, are all in the debt of Joe, John, Chris Cobb and others who do the serious work on it.
   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2005 at 07:33 PM (#1145072)
We have ALWAYS had a prohibition on predictions of ballot results, because such predictions can produce tactical voting and/or create bandwagon effects.

No, we have a prohibition against posting tabulated vote counts in the middle of an election (which I agree with). What you're suggesting is wrong.

Objecting, as mildly as it is humanly possible to do, to starting the ballot thread with such a prediction is NOT a nitpick -- indeed, from memory, other than in a totally obvious case, this is the first time the ballot thread has begun with such a prediction.

First of all, you're also wrong about the predictions since it was mentioned in the last ballot thread (which I didn't get any grief about, BTW). I've made predictions on quite a few ballots.

Secondly, I assume the electorate as a whole are not a bunch of morons. Unless some "eureka" moment occurs that changes the opinion of a certain player this week, we know damn well who the frontrunners will be.

If it were a close election, I wouldn't use my "crystal ball." Those are the elections that my comments might change an outcome (highly doubtful still, IMO). For those elections, I have stated that I had no clue who would win election.

But since I'm not going to post anything anymore in that section of the thread from now on, you don't have to worry about it anymore.
   19. DanG Posted: February 14, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1145108)
John, pay no heed to the nattering nabobs of negativity.

My #1 and #2 were elected again. New exhibits for Van Haltren, Leach, Roush, Rixey. This is a backlog year, everyone take two steps forward. The deluge of greats resumes in 1946 with NeLers Stearnes and Suttles, plus Simmons and Averill from white ball. Grove and Hartnett look like the class of 1947.

1)Goose Goslin – One of the top 10 MLB players of the 20th century enshrined by the veterans committee. Top 5: Vaughan, Mize, Baker, Crawford, Brown. Next 5: Walsh, Plank, Goslin, Reese, Herman.

2)George Van Haltren (4,4,1) - Pennants Added study shows him well. The 1932 election may have been his last, best shot at induction. For a while, anyway. Now in his 37th year eligible. As to why he rates above Ryan: he excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation; he had higher SB totals (35-40 vs. 25-30 per year in their primes), which I believe was more significant pre-1920; he was a mainly a centerfielder (~71.7% of his non-pitching games vs. ~47.6% for Ryan), Ryan (and Duffy) actually played more corner outfield. Players with 400+ stolen bases 1891-1900:
1—660 B. Hamilton
2—443 G. Van Haltren
5—416 H. Duffy
4—415 J. Doyle
5—414 T. Brown
6—405 G. Davis
7—401 P. Donovan
8—400 D. Hoy

3)Clark Griffith (5,5,2) – The #4 pitcher of his era, behind three first-balloters, but far ahead of #5. Gets extra credit for excelling in the contraction years 1892-1900, an era lagging in number of HoMers. Good hitter, too. Highest Complete Game Percentage 1893-1903, minimum 185 GS:
1—94.1% K. Nichols
2—93.4% C. Young

3—93.3% C. Griffith
4—92.4% A. Rusie
5—92.4% R. Donahue
6—90.4% J. McGinnity
7—90.2% C. Fraser
8—89.5% J. Powell
9—89.5% B. Dinneen

4)Bill Foster (6,6,ne) – Holding steady. I’ve seen nothing to indicate he is not worthy of his hall of fame status. Not sure he was any better than Vance or Faber, so he’s here.

5)Tommy Leach (7,7,4) – With 3B lagging in HoMers, it’s good to see him getting more attention. Longevity, defense and speed, more important in that era, rate him above Groh. Versatility a plus; it should not be assumed that any typical thirdbaseman of the era could have also handled CF. Question of league quality knocks him back a couple pegs, otherwise really close to Wallace. Had a better peak than Bobby, but his career was a couple years shorter and he had just a little less defensive value. Among OFers with 750 games 1905-14, he is 2nd in PO/G (behind Speaker) and 2nd in FA (behind Clarke). I like guys who play; longevity is a hallmark of quality. Players with 2000+ games played, 1892-1922:
1—2792 H. Wagner
2—2517 S. Crawford
3—2480 N. Lajoie
4—2383 B. Wallace
5—2308 B. Dahlen
6—2305 T. Cobb
7—2242 F. Clarke
8—2162 E. Collins

9—2156 T. Leach
10—2123 W. Keeler
11—2122 J. Sheckard
12—2096 G. Davis
13—2087 S. Magee

14—2085 E. Konetchy
15—2032 T. Speaker

6) Jimmy Ryan (8,8,5)— Most extra-base hits 1888-98:
1—549 E. Delahanty
2—507 J. Ryan
3—502 J. Beckley
4—497 S. Thompson
5—484 M. Tiernan
6—474 R. Connor
7—467 H. Duffy
8—452 E. McKean

7)Edd Roush (9,9,6) – Pennants added likes him a lot. Players with OPS of .850+, 1917-25, minimum 3800 PA:
1—1.193 B. Ruth
2—1.037 R. Hornsby
3—.975 T. Speaker
4—.961 T. Cobb
5—.931 H. Heilmann

6—.918 G. Sisler
7—.865 Z. Wheat
8—.864 E. Roush

8)George Sisler (10,10,7) – The problem I have with Terry’s election is that nearly every system or ranking I see has Sisler slightly higher. This may eventually take care of itself, but not for several decades. In the mean time, Terry looks like an accident of ballot timing. I think George is still among the top 230 players in history, which is clearly HoMer territory. This is probably not the case for Beckley. OPS+ is only half the story: excellent runner (4 SB crowns), great rep as a fielder, great peak, long career (+9000 PA). Does WARP penalize him for the high quality of firstbasemen in his era? Firstbasemen with 2400+ hits through 1980:

1—3418 C. Anson
2—2930 J. Beckley
3—2812 G. Sisler
4—2721 L. Gehrig
5—2646 J. Foxx
6—2495 M. Vernon
7—2467 R. Connor
8—2406 S. McInnis

9)Eppa Rixey (11,11,8) – Liking him more, but not quite up to Faber’s level. Looks like the GVH of pitchers. Only Grimes had more wins during the 1920s. Most IP, 1921-28:
1—2262 B. Grimes
2—2192 E. Rixey
3—2096 D. Luque
4—2023 W. Hoyt
5—1975 G. Uhle
Lowest ERA, 1921-28, minimum 1200 IP:
1—3.00 D. Vance
2—3.03 D. Luque
3—3.12 E. Rixey
4—3.20 P. Alexander
5—3.31 H. Pennock
6—3.33 R. Faber
7—3.34 S. Coveleski

10)Wes Ferrell (12,ne,ne) – Eight-year prime of 128 ERA+ and 103 OPS+ while averaging 264 IP in a hitter’s league is impressive. Only Hubbell pitched more innings in that time. This is around my HoM cutoff line. Pitchers completing 60% of their starts, 1929-37, minimum 100 CG:
1—74.0% W. Ferrell
2—72.4% L. Grove
3—71.9% D. Dean
4—69.6% T. Lyons
5—69.3% R. Lucas
6—65.1% R. Ruffing
7—65.0% C. Hubbell
8—64.0% L. Warneke
   20. DanG Posted: February 14, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1145114)
11)Roger Bresnahan (13,12,10) – Versatility should be a bonus, not a demerit. How many other catchers could have been pulled out from behind the plate to be an all-star in centerfield? Could move higher, but I really like guys who play. Played half his teams’ games in only 11 seasons, averaging 71% of team games in those years. Still, his offensive production towers over other catchers of his era, so he deserves a vote. Lacking Bennett’s durability and longevity. Defense only C+. Catchers with highest OPS+, 1876-1930 (minimum 3500 PA):
1—130 B. Ewing
2—126 R. Bresnahan
3—118 C. Bennett
4—117 J. Clements
4—117 W. Schang
6—101 D. McGuire
7—100 J. Kling
8—99 D. Farrell

12)Hughie Jennings (14,14,11) – Does four years of ARod plus eight years of Ivan DeJesus equal a HoMer? Maybe. Bill James thinks highly of him, he’s #18 at SS in the NBJHBA. I think I’m getting a bit more peak-friendly. He excelled in the contraction years 1892-1900, a period lagging in HoM representation. I’m still struggling with how to balance an awesome peak with an abbreviated career. I tried to find a retired player from the past 50 years with a similar career path, but there doesn’t seem to be one. Is there any good evidence that Jennings’ defense wasn’t as brilliant as WS makes it out to be? Most TC/G, 1889-1904, minimum 750 games at shortstop:
1—6.68 H. Jennings
2—6.45 B. Dahlen
3—6.40 B. Wallace
4—6.40 G. Davis

5—6.37 H. Long
6—6.18 M. Cross
7—6.10 T. Corcoran
8—6.05 B. Ely

13)Hugh Duffy (15,15,12) – He kinda fell off my radar for awhile, until I realized he shouldn’t be very far behind Ryan. Peak puts him over Hooper, but he didn’t have a long career (12.5 yrs) for a corner OF. A WHOLE lot was context. Hit 82 of his 106 career HRs at home. Players with 1900 or more RBI plus Runs Scored, 1889-99:
1—2585 H. Duffy
2—2348 E. Delahanty
3—2141 G. Van Haltren
4—2135 B. Hamilton
5—2117 J. Beckley
6—2099 H. Long
7—2038 E. McKean
8—1939 G. Davis
9—1901 J. Ryan

14)Wally Schang (--,15,13) – He’s back. Catcher bonus puts him here for now. Players with OBP of .380+, 1915-29, 5600+ PA:
1—.475 B. Ruth
2—.439 T. Cobb
3—.436 R. Hornsby
4—.435 T. Speaker
5—.427 E. Collins
6—.412 H. Heilmann

7—.399 J. Sewell
8—.398 W. Schang
9—.393 K. Williams
10-.381 G. Sisler

15)Burleigh Grimes (--,--,13) – He’s back. I like guys who play. More a workhorse but less longevity then Rixey. Similar peaks. Most wins 1916-29:
1—246 P. Alexander
2—224 B. Grimes
3—213 S. Coveleski
4—211 W. Johnson

5—210 E. Rixey
6—201 C. Mays
7—197 R. Faber
8—187 U. Shocker
9—187 W. Cooper
10-183 H. Pennock

John Beckwith – The current flavor of the month among the voters. I am not able to reconcile the general disregard of his quality with the translations of his stats being generated here. A small error makes a huge difference. On a ballot as tight as 1942, there is not much difference between an elect-me spot and off-ballot, between 23 points and zero points. Until we have a reliable Negro leagues encyclopedia, we’re likely to be making qualitative mistakes with some of them. Lacking a procedure for periodic recall elections, I will continue to employ a healthy skepticism. In any case, Chris Cobb’s MLEs don’t show him as being anywhere near the Dick Allen class as a player.

Jake Beckley is off as I question the logic of equal positional representation. I see nothing wrong with saying that few of the best players in his day were first basemen, that the talent tended to congregate around shortstop. Being the best of a weak group does not accrue merit to a player, in my analysis. We’re looking for the best ballplayers, regardless of position.
   21. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 14, 2005 at 09:15 PM (#1145297)
Bob Feller takes over themanager's job at Great lakes naval Base in place of HOMer Mickey Cochrane after the best military season of all-time in 1944. The Military World Series was all navy as an Army team taht was missing Buddy Lewis, Hank Greenberg, and Joe DiMaggio lost 8 of the 11 games played. And finally I can't imagine the Cubs NOT getting back to the World Series after the heart they showed against the Detroit Tigers this year.

1. Hughie Jennings (3, PHOM 1938) - At his best he was better than anyone else on the ballot. Only player left who coudl claim the 'best in baseball' tag for himself. Played in a tough era, both in terms of physical wear and competition.

2. Bill Foster (4, PHOM 1945) - I have become convinced that Foster was a good and Vance and if Vance were still eligible today this is where he would slot.

3. Cupid Childs (6, PHOM 1939) - Vaults over Goslin. Nice peak, best 2B of the 1890's. Long career for a player of both his position and time period.

4. Goose Goslin (5, PHOM 1945) - His uberstat numbers place him firmly at the top of the corner outfield heap both in terms of peak and prime. Not quite as good as Heilmann, however.

5. Wes Ferrell (9) - I have him just below the Faber/Coveleski.Vance/Foster quartet. He has the peak to compete with them but his career rate stats and innings pitched push him slightly below.

5a. Bill Terry
6. Clark Griffith (7) - IN a dead heat with Ferrell. Nice peak per traditional ERA+ and IP. the IP gets docked because of his era but due to his competition ERA+ may underrate him. One of only six eligibles with a DERA under 4.00.

7. Eppa Rixey (8) - Best career pitcher on the ballot. Lots of IP and he threw them at a good rate, making him the GVH of pitchers.

8. Hugh Duffy (10) - We already have tons of 1890's OFers. However there are still some very strong candidates and the best of the bunch is Duffy. He has a strong peak and prime in schedule adjusted WS.

9. John beckwith (15) - Slowly warming up to him. Very similar to guys like Belle and Allen, both in temperment and offensive production. I still have concerns over how long he would have played 3B in the majors. I think he career would have been a near mirror image of Allen's.

10 Dick Redding (11) - 2nd best NeL pitcher of the dead ball era.

10a. Max Carey
11. Rube Waddell (12) - Career path very similar to that of Jose MEndez, but he has a stronger ERA+, 134 -118. I am unconcerned about his UER as his DERA is a fantastic 3.69.

12. George Van Haltren (13) - Best career candidate on the board. Unlike Beckley, Hooper, et al. GVH has a strong prime and a respectable peak.

13. Dobie Moore (14) - The black Jennings.I am not sure how to deal with his military years yet and he didn't play at all after that peak. I refuse to give him credit for jumping out of a whorehouse while being chased by a gun wielding wife.

14. George Sisler (16) - Back on the ballot after a one-year hiatus. Best 1B on the baord with a nice peak. Would be in the HOM already if not for that sinus infection.

15. Roger Bresnahan (18) - This is my 11th ballot. In each of the first ten, Roger was between 16-20. I guess this is his time to shine. Best C on the board.
   22. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 14, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1145327)
16-20 Mendez, Browning, Roush, Veach, Lundy
21-25 Monroe, Doyle, Shocker, Wilson, Sewell
26-30 Leach, Cravath, R. Thomas, McGraw, Chance
31-35 Traynor, Joss, Burns, Taylor, Schang
36-40 Ryan, F. Jones, Evers, Cuyler, Grimes
41-45 Konetchy, Cicotte, C. JOnes, Manush, Lazzeri
46-50 Bancroft, Mays, Beckley, Tinker, Schalk

Just missed: Willis, J. Johnson, Seymour, Rommell, Rice, Welch, Bottomley, Fournier, Long, Maranville


44. Heinie Manush - WARP hates him, but WS thinks he is a HOVG type. Below 1944 newbie Kiki Cuyler. I still cant' get it into my head that it isn't Kee-kee but Kye-kye.

45. Toni Lazzeri - Good player. Most similar players on the board are guys like Evers, Tinker, and Long. Not HOM material. I tihnk the HOF got the wrong Yankee 2B. I perfer Gordon, or even Randolph for that matter.

Required Disclosures

25. Joe Sewell - Good player but very similar to guys like Bancroft and Tinker. He was better but I can't serperate them enough to put him on my ballot and have the other two ranked where they are.

48. Jake Beckley - To appease Karl he is back in my top 50 (jk). I moved him up a little as I realized that he was a better player than Sam Rice. However, with 5 newbies looking to make my ballot in 1946, his position in the top 50 is strenuous at best.

UR. Mickey Welch - Yes, he has those 300 victories. Yes, Chris J.'s data shows taht he earned them. But they are still purely a function of the era in which he pitched. I doubt he would even have reached 200 if he had pitched in the 1920's. His whole candidacy rests on those 300 wins.

26. Tommy Leach - Fell a bit after I adjusted for his years in CF. He no longer stands out amongst 3B like he did before when I had him in my top 10.
   23. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 14, 2005 at 09:30 PM (#1145334)

Please stay on as the thread poster of this site and PLEASE keep making comments. In fact I want you to make bold predictiosn that turn out to be false so we can look back and laugh!


I know this isn't the place to do this but are you giving Cicotte credit for the part of his career that he missed? That is ridiculous. He missed that part of his career solely through his own doing. It isn't like external forces put a gun to his head and forced him to throw a World Series.

Damn I think I am developing a nemesis.
   24. Howie Menckel Posted: February 14, 2005 at 10:12 PM (#1145449)
I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck.
There was a (I think productive) discussion of this last week, and I thought it was clear we agreed to avoid even the appearance of endorsing or predicting the election of candidates. Did I misunderstand?

I don't blame Mr. Murphy for being pissed, if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I'd be annoyed, I suspect, if someone complained about some of the charts I run and so forth.
I do very much appreciate Mr. Murphy's work, and our general mutual congeniality over the years led me to believe that posting what I described in the msg as "a mild objection" would not produce a major reaction. Obviously, I miscalculated.

Frankly, I'm done commenting on it. I didn't see it as a major issue, but if it's threatening to become one, I'd rather toss it aside altogether.

As you were, mates...
   25. Buddha Posted: February 14, 2005 at 11:00 PM (#1145516)
I love a good baseball nerd fight.

You leave John Murphy alone!
   26. ronw Posted: February 14, 2005 at 11:57 PM (#1145594)
I know this isn't the place to do this but are you giving Cicotte credit for the part of his career that he missed? That is ridiculous. He missed that part of his career solely through his own doing. It isn't like external forces put a gun to his head and forced him to throw a World Series.

jschmeagol, I believe that Karl doesn't condone Cicotte's behavior, but rather thinks that Knuckles (and his fellow Black Sox) were unfairly singled out because a certain Commissioner selectively applied and enforced gambling rules to clean up a corrupt sport.

It would be smilar to Selig arbitrarily throwing out a couple of steroid users this year but leaving the rest of the suspects in the league because of a lack of hard evidence.
   27. Sean Gilman Posted: February 15, 2005 at 12:23 AM (#1145631)

1. Goose Goslin (3)--Not the last HOM Goose, but the first. Is he the best?

2. Pete Browning (4)--AA discount and short career keeps him behind Pike. The man could hit. We know Win Shares likes him better than Sam Thompson, but did you know the BP stats show Browning to be the better hitter? Thompson’s edge in WARP is only in fielding and Davenport’s AA discount. Considering the problems Davenport’s had with 19th century OF fielding and the unknown natue of his AA discount, I don’t know how one could rate Thompson ahead based on WARP. (1927)

3. Charley Jones (5)--Jones, Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me. (1929)

4. Hughie Jennings (6)--Like Sam Thompson, only a slightly better peak and he was a shortstop instead of a right-fielder. (1932)

5. Cupid Childs (7)--Nice to see Cupid getting some love. . .(1938)

6. Tommy Leach (8)--May be the most underrated candidate out there. . .Leapfrogs over the pitchers this week for reasons of peak and pennants added.

7. Clark Griffith (10)--About as close to Coveleski as can be.

8. Larry Doyle (12)--Another underrated infielder. . .

9 Joe Sewell (13)--In danger of either being elected or becoming underrated. Well, not so much anymore. . .

10. George Sisler (14)-- Comparison with Terry convinces me I was underrating him.

11. John Beckwith (15)--Bumping him up over Williamson and Bancroft.

12. Ed Williamson (16)--Still no Ezra Sutton.

13. Jose Mendez (19)--Rearranged the pitcher’s this week. Mendaz and Mays are the big beneficiaries, while Foster and especially Redding drop a few spots.

14. Carl Mays (20)--These four pitchers form a very tight group.

15. Bill Foster (9)--Chris Cobb’s numbers, plus my own reevaluation of the relative merits of the various pitchers, cause him to drop back to the pack.

16. Wes Ferrell (21)
17. Dave Bancroft (17)
18. Roger Bresnahan (18)
19. Dick Redding (11)
20. Eppa Rixey (22)
21. Hugh Duffy (23)
22. George Van Haltren (24)
23. Edd Roush (25)
24. Jimmy Ryan (26)
25. Tony Lazzeri (-)
   28. Sean Gilman Posted: February 15, 2005 at 12:47 AM (#1145674)
I also vote that people leave John alone. I enjoy reading his predictions at the start of the ballot thread and think he does a great job in general around here.
   29. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 15, 2005 at 01:04 AM (#1145701)

That is all well and good. But it still doesn't change the fact that Cicotte was thrown out of baseball for his actions. It doesnt' clear him. he should recieve no credit for any imaginary year after 1920. He should recieve full credit for the yeras he pitched but not for anything else. That is kinda like saying that a drug dealer who gets caught shouldn't be punished because we don't punish all drug dealers.

And even mor to the point, a 25% boost? While knuckleballers have tended to have late peaks, what Cicotte a traditional Charlie Hough knuckleballer? Didn't he throw a faster version? And 25%? That is an enormous boost for a woulda coulda shoulda that is all of Cicotte's doing.

I would rather give credit to Sisler or Jennings for things they couldn't to Cicotte for things he could.
   30. Brent Posted: February 15, 2005 at 01:28 AM (#1145745)

I've always enjoyed reading your intros - many have been clever and interesting. And I know you spend a lot of time keeping up the plaque room and in many other activities. Your work is greatly appreciated!
   31. EricC Posted: February 15, 2005 at 01:58 AM (#1145795)
1945 ballot.

1. Wally Schang (2) In my system, catchers effectively get something like a 50 percent bonus in terms of conventional career rating systems. With a 117 ERA+ in 1842 games and contributions to many pennant winners, Schang more than meets the standards of Cooperstown. For those who think that I have too many catchers: Bresnahan, Schang, Cochrane, Hartnett, and Dickey make it to my PHoM, while Schalk and Ferrell don't.

2. Goose Goslin (3) All eligibles with more WARP3 than Goslin have been elected. All eligibles with more WS than Goslin have been elected, except for Mullane. With a classic HoMer career shape, I don't see the fatal flaw that will keep Goslin out. A "run of the mill" HoMer, but a HoMer nonetheless.

3. Joe Sewell (4) Position player leaders in Win Shares, 1921-1929: Ruth, Hornsby, Heilmann, Frisch, Sewell, Goslin, Speaker, Rice, Traynor, Cobb.
Certain patterns of greatness are not apparent if one only looks at career totals, career averages, and peak, and not at best performances over decadish timespans (see also Traynor).

4. Sam Rice (6) Long, steady career. Makes the ballot under the philosophy that players who rise above average for long enough can deserve the HoM even if they were never dominant players. Not that much higher than the number 15 player, but comes in #4 by default, and one can do worse that Mr. 2987.

5. Roger Bresnahan (7) Best catcher of the 1900s, but note NL weakness.

6. Jose Mendez (10) Trusting that his dominant Cuban years and his total run average title in his fulltime NeL season indicate greatness. Accepting the risk that comes in rating players based on peak in leagues of uncertain quality.

7. Pie Traynor (11) Position Player Leaders in Win Shares 1923-1933: Ruth, Gehrig, Simmons, Goslin, Hornsby, Frisch, Traynor, P. Waner, Manush, J. Sewell
Not the greatest 3B of all time by a long shot, but seems to fall into a blind spot of orthodox sabermetrics; hope to see some kind of rehabilitation in the future.

8. Eppa Rixey (8) Good enough for a long enough time to make him the next (final?) 1920s "career" pitcher choice. Very telling that he does well in my system even though I am discounting NL performance in this era. Some WWI credit pushes him above Hoyt.

9. Waite Hoyt (9) Lots of innings career in what I see as the better league at the time. Would not have made it, except that he got a career second wind as a reliever. Career ERA+ not spectacular; not sure that he deserves to be on the ballot, but gaining confidence that he is at least borderline-worthy.

10. Harry Hooper (12) Rice's near-twin in a less offense-heavy era.

11. Wes Ferrell (15) Similar to Vance in value, sure, but I see Vance as a bit overrated. Excellent hitter for a pitcher; makes a difference on a tight ballot. I have to take another look at the hitting of Carl Mays and Joe Wood, too, to see if it makes any difference.

12. Heinie Manush (N) Most similar players: George Gore, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Willie Keeler. Don't like the excess of corner outfielders in the HoM, but can't dock Manush for that.

13. Urban Shocker (13) My system likes the players who are consistently good.

14. George "Rube" Waddell (14) Off the charts as a strikeout pitcher for his time. His multiple ERA+ titles in strong leagues convince me of his greatness. Agnostic on whether his unearned runs and W/L record indicate anything more than random bad luck.

15. Ray Schalk (X) Thought he was a goner. Exceptional defense and longevity for position; played in stronger league of time.

Left off:

Beckley, Van Haltren, and Jennings are in my retroactive personal HoM, so I wouldn't mind seeing any of them elected, but I refuse to reverse-timeline.

Griffith is a very good pitcher who has made my ballot before.

Bill Foster should make my ballot in the next few years if not elected by then.

IMHO, John Beckwith has risen above "fair market value". I have Sol White, Ben Taylor, and Dick Lundy rated higher among eligible NEL position players. Fortunately, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Grove, Hartnett, Jud Wilson, Gehringer, Lyons, and Bell are coming along in the nick of time.


17. Tony Lazzeri: Most similar players: Buddy Myer, Pie Traynor, Hardy Richardson, Jimmy Collins, Cupid Childs, Heinie Groh, Ray Schalk. Borderline middle infielder. Gehringer waits in the wings.
   32. Brent Posted: February 15, 2005 at 02:21 AM (#1145835)
1945 Ballot:

I use WS for position players with a bonus for good fielding (which I think is undervalued in WS) and a combination of WS and WARP for pitchers, along with some info from Chris J’s site. My ballot focuses on how good a player was during his peak/prime.

With one of the weakest classes of newly eligible candidates in many years, not much has changed from my 1944 ballot.

1. Wes Ferrell –
While it’s nice to see him start to get more attention, I still think he’s underappreciated. IMO he was the fourth best pitcher of the 1920s and 30s (behind Grove, Paige, and Hubbell).

2. Hughie Jennings –
As the best player in baseball for 3 years (1896-98), he’s in pretty exalted company. Every other player who’s been on top for that long has been (or will be) considered a “no brainer.”

I’d like to see the HoM honor a few of the sprinters as well as the distance runners.

3. Hugh Duffy –
The only other player on the ballot who can lay claim to have been the best player in baseball for a year or two. 8 seasons with 25+ WS (adjusting to 154 gm schedule); A+ defensive outfielder.

4. Willie Foster –
Chris Cobb's new numbers knock him down a couple of spots. He had an incredible record in “must win” pennant- or World Series-deciding games.

5. Burleigh Grimes –
My general philosophy is to rank players based on their best seasons and not pay too much attention to their worst ones.

6. José de la Caridad Méndez –
I made the case for Méndez in a recent post on his ballot thread.

7. Goose Goslin –
Last week I compared him to Wheat, but I think he was actually better than that. Heilmann is probably a better comp.

8. Buzz Arlett –
Am I still allowed to vote for him? He hit for average, power, drew walks, and had several outstanding seasons as a pitcher. His fielding wasn’t so bad as to negate all of that.

I’ve been gathering some more information on the PCL and over the next couple of weeks hope to be able to post an improved set of MLEs for Arlett, as well as MLEs for the PCL seasons of Averill and a few other players.

9. Tommy Leach –
6 seasons with 25+ WS; A+ fielder at 3B and CF. Similar to Carey and Sheckard.

10. Clark Griffith –
Outstanding pitcher from 1895-99; good pitcher, albeit with a lighter load, in 1894, 1900-01, and 1903.

11. Roger Bresnahan –
His peak towers over Schang’s. I still hold out hope that he will eventually be elected.

12. George J. Burns –
Outstanding leadoff hitter; 3 seasons with 30+ WS.

13. Spottswood Poles –
Good hitter and fielder; comparable to Fielder Jones, whom I also like.

14. Urban Shocker –
15. Fielder Jones –


New arrivals.

I’m ranking Heinie Manush at # 45. I was a bit surprised to find that Tony Lazzeri didn’t make my top 50.

Top 10 not on my ballot:

John Beckwith –
I now have him placed at # 18. Comparing him with Leach, it’s outstanding glove work versus an outstanding bat, and Leach had the longer and more reliable career.

Eppa Rixey –
Ranked at # 21. During their primes, Grimes was better.

George Van Haltren –
# 28. I like Van Haltren, but he doesn't have the peak needed to boost him higher on my ballot.

Jake Beckley –
Not in my top 50. Undistinguished.
   33. karlmagnus Posted: February 15, 2005 at 02:28 AM (#1145857)
Ron, spot on -- this came up in 1926 and shortly thereafter. According to the Rothstein bio, the 1919 WS wasn't the first thrown -- '14 and '17 appear to have been thrown as well, though oddly, not '18. I'm not making a moral judgement about Cicotte, I am giving him a modest bonus for being what appears to have been the first top knuckleballer, and a little credit for the late career he never had, similar to but less than the 50% we're proposing to give to WWII veterans. Without Landis, I find it very hard to believe he wouldn't have sailed past 300 wins.
   34. Thane of Bagarth Posted: February 15, 2005 at 02:51 AM (#1145903)
1944 Official Ballot:

1) Bill Foster—Moves ahead of Ferrell. Only change on my ballot this week. Best Negro League lefty. May not have been as great as his reputation. Playing for consistently great teams and not having much competition for “best lefty” seem to have boosted his legend somewhat. Another lefthander to take a second look at might be John Donaldson.
2) Wes Ferrell—Great combo of pitching and hitting. 100 OPS+. Highest 5-year PRAR (455) and Career WARP3 (81.2) among eligible pitchers.
3) Dick Redding—Not as great as Foster, but pretty darn great.
4) Ben Taylor—I have Ben slotted with Bill Terry in my rankings and Terry’s peak & league strength (in WARP3) help him edge out the Goose, so Taylor squeezes in at #4.
5) Goose Goslin—The latest WARP3 numbers agree with WS that he’s well ahead of the OF glut.
6) John Beckwith—Looks like the best Negro League 3rd baseman, which is HoM-worthy. It will be interesting to see how Jud Wilson compares.
7) Joe Sewell—Evaluating his #s with Win shares and WARP3 produces very different results. His peak can’t match up with Jennings’, but the rest of his career is solid and moves him ahead.
8) Rube Waddell—142 ERA+ 3.81 DERA. 209 PRAA/429PRAR/145WS in 5 best seasons. Second only to Ferrell in PRAR in his top 5 seasons.
9) Jose Mendez— Great Cuban pitcher. Not far behind Redding, especially considering his edge with the bat.
10) Hughie Jennings— Nothing new here. He’s all peak, but it’s hard to resist: 52.7/151 in top 5 WARP3/WS seasons.
11) Dobie Moore—Pretty much pegged to Hughie Jennings from here on out.
12) Eppa Rixey—Not much in the way of peak, but tons of IP and a 115 ERA+.
13) Bill Monroe—Best 2B eligible this year.
14) Pete Browning—Ahead of Charley Jones by a little bit.
15) Charley Jones—Credit for blacklisted years nudges him up enough to be right behind the Louisville Slugger.
16) Urban Shocker—The third eligible pitcher with top 5 PRAR > 400.
17) Clark Griffith—Wow. He’s managed to get a lot closer to the ballot than I would have imagined.
18) Spot Poles—332 estimated WS.
19) Fielder Jones—New WARP3 moves him down a few spots.
20) Harry Hooper—Hardly different from Fielder Jones.
21) Ed Cicotte
22) Jack Quinn
23) Kiki Cuyler
24) Dick Lundy—Could certainly make the ballot someday.
25) Vic Willis
26) John Donaldson—2nd best NeL lefty is underrated.
27) George Van Haltren
28) Jimmy Ryan
29) Hugh Duffy
30) Waite Hoyt

Other Top 10 not on my ballot
78) Jake Beckley—Unimpressive 21.59 WS/162G and 31.7 top 5 WARP3 cannot be overcome by his longevity.

New Eligibles in Top 100
51) Tony Lazzeri—A few spots ahead of Childs for highest ranked Caucasian 2B now that Frisch is in.
85) Heinie Manush
   35. Thane of Bagarth Posted: February 15, 2005 at 03:08 AM (#1145931)
Yes, I know it's the 1945 election. I really need to start remembering to change that.
   36. The Honorable Ardo Posted: February 15, 2005 at 05:36 AM (#1146067)
1945 ballot:

1 (5-4-3-6) John Beckwith. About where I would put Dick Allen, who I see as a roughly comparable player for both his offensive production and his hot temper.

2 (new-5) Goose Goslin. Lawrence Ritter tells us he was never pinch-hit for until he injured himself in his final MLB at-bat. A remarkable pure hitter.

3 (new-6-2) Bill Foster. The NeL experts place him in the Coveleski/Vance mode. I see him as a Vance-plus and add postseason credit.

4 (1-3-5-4) George Sisler. Could have been a first-line pitcher, posting a 124 ERA+ in 111 career innings. Instead, he combined 2,800+ hits with a .340 career BA.

5 (8-7-7-8) Clark Griffith. Adjusted well to the post-1894 distance. His career record compares favorably to HoM inductee and contemporary Joe McGinnity.

6 (x-6-9-7) Edd Roush. Both his context-adjusted offense (5 top 5's in OPS+) and his defensive skills rank him as the best of the eligible CFs.

7 (x-x-x-10) Eppa Rixey. My study of the long-career pitchers convinced me that I under-estimated him. His peak in the mid-1920s is real.

8 (11-8-8-9) Joe Sewell. A clear notch above the MLB infield crew (Childs, Doyle, Lazzeri, Jennings, Maranville, Traynor) and not far below Frisch.

9 (x-x-x-12) Jose Mendez. The best Cuban pitcher of his era, with a solid mark against MLB competition. Unearthed in my pitching re-appraisal.

10 (x-x-11-13) Hugh Duffy. The HoF did right by admitting outstanding defensive CFs Roush and Duffy and excluding average defensive CFs Ryan and Van Haltren.

11 (new-13-x) Dick Lundy. Cobb's estimated 122 OPS+ seems too high, but a 112 OPS+ and his fine defense place him in Sewell's class.

12 (new-14) Wes Ferrell. Could be higher, but his ERA+ and (BB+H)/9 are not any better than Bridges or Warneke. A unique talent who didn't last long.

13 (x-10-14-x) Ned Williamson. His 113 OPS+ and outstanding defense compare well to Ezra Sutton (who had a 119 OPS+ and good defense, against lesser opponents)

-------- PHoM line --------

14 (10-11-12-15) Jake Beckley. I compared Beckley to another peakless/long career type, Harold Baines:

Beckley 2930 hits, 125 OPS+
Baines 2866 hits, 120 OPS+

Baines falls into the Hall of Very Good and won't be elected; Beckley, then, is a borderline case.

15 (9-12-15-x) Dick Redding. The fastballer sneaks onto my last ballot spot. He challenged Joe Williams as the best NeL pitcher for 2-3 years.

Tommy Leach (5-9-10-11) is #16. I had given him too much 3B bonus.

17-20: Bresnahan, D. Moore, Grimes, Jennings.
   37. Kelly in SD Posted: February 15, 2005 at 08:22 AM (#1146332)
Thank you for all the work you have done. It has been greatly appreciated. I enjoyed your intros. They were not "Repoz-ian," but very enjoyable.
   38. Kelly in SD Posted: February 15, 2005 at 09:04 AM (#1146356)
Re: Welch

Similar Pitchers
Most similar pitchers (from baseball-ref)
1. Radbourn
2. Mullane
3. Keefe
4. Clarkson
5. Nichols
6. Seaver
7. Grimes
8. Plank

Yep, no one of any consequence there. That is 6 HoMers out of 8. Notice he is not similar to McCormick or Bobby Mathews or Jim Whitney - other pitchers with long careers of the same time period.
Notice also that we have easily inducted 4 of the 5 most similar. 3 of the 4 most similar were direct contemporaries and I don't recall any down-grading their win totals.
   39. Kelly in SD Posted: February 15, 2005 at 09:12 AM (#1146359)
Welch continued:

Against the Best
Also, Welch regularly defeated all the HoM pitchers against whom he pitched:
HoMers Against Other HoMers and Welch: 
Radbourn         Clarkson        Keefe
Clarkson  9-8    Radbourn  8-9   Clarkson  9-10
Galvin   16-14   Galvin    7-5   Radbourn 14-10
Keefe    10-14   Keefe    10-9   Galvin    8-6
Ward      3-1    Rusie     3-4   Ward      3-7
Rusie     2-0    Caruthers 2-1   Rusie     5-2
Caruthers 0-1    Young     1-1   Young     0-2
Young     1-0    Nichols   0-1   Nichols   3-3
Nichols   0-1
total    41-39   total    31-30  total    42-40

Welch    10-17   Welch     7-13

Welch            Galvin  
Galvin   26-11   Ward      8-12
Radbourn 17-10   Radbourn 14-16
Ward      4-7    Keefe     6-10
Clarkson 13-7    Clarkson  5-7
Rusie     2-0    Caruthers 4-4
Nichols   0-1    Rusie     4-2
Caruthers 0-2    Young     1-1
total    62-38   total:   42-52
                 Welch    11-26 *
*Sometimes I only get 9 wins for Pud

That's 62-38 against HoMers.
Welch 62-38
Radbourn 41-39
Keefe 42-40
Clarkson 31-30
Galvin 42-52
Caruthers 8-6
He faced HoM pitchers regularly and he BEAT them.
   40. Kelly in SD Posted: February 15, 2005 at 09:18 AM (#1146364)
Welch continued

Defensive Support
Also, looking at his ERA+, which is still 113. It is a direct result of having some of the lowest defensive support of any successful pitcher of the pre-60 foot distance.
Clarkson pitched for 7 years with 8 teams that reached the defensive win shares "cap"
Keefe 4 times (3 when he was not on the same team as Welch)
Radbourn 5 times
Caruthers 5 times
Welch: once

Or, using Chris J.'s defensive support tool you find that Caruthers, Clarkson, Radbourn, and Keefe are all in the top 12 for career defensive support. Welch is 84th out of 200+ pitchers.
   41. Kelly in SD Posted: February 15, 2005 at 09:27 AM (#1146366)
Lastly, the difference between a 113 ERA+ (2.71 career era in a league context of 3.06) and that of Radbourn, Keefe, and Clarkson is as follows:

Radbourn: ERA+ 120 based on career era of 2.67 in a league context of 3.21. Adjusting Welch's career era to Radbourn's context gives Welch a 2.84. What is the difference between a 2.84 and a 2.67 era?
Over 450 innings, it is 8.5 earned runs. Radbourn had some of the best defensive support in the league 5 times, Welch once.
Is 8.5 runs over 450 innings a reason to keep a pitcher out of the HoM?
Adjusting to a more current 270 innings pitched workload brings the difference to 5 runs per 270 innings pitched. Is 5 runs a year a reason to keep a pitcher of the HoM?

Keefe: ERA+ of 125 based on a career era of 2.62 in a league context of 3.28. Adjusting Welch’s career era to Keefe’s context would give Welch an ERA of 2.90.
Over 450 innings that is a difference of 14 earned runs. Keefe had some of the best defensive support 4 times, including his 2 biggest years.
Is 14 runs with that difference in support a reason to keep a pitcher out of the HoM?
Adjusting to a more current 270 innings pitched workload brings the difference to 8 runs per 270 innings pitched. Is 8 runs a year a reason to keep a pitcher of the HoM?

Clarkson: ERA+ 134 based on a career era of 2.81 in a league context of 3.75? Adjusting Welch’s career era to Clarkson’s context would give him an ERA of 3.32.
Over 450 innings that is a difference of 25.5 earned runs. The defense behind him max’d out their defensive win shares 7 out of 8 years. Welch, once.
Adjusting to a more current 270 innings pitched workload brings the difference to 15 runs.
That is one run over 2 complete games. Defense is not all of that difference, but it is a good part of it.
   42. Howie Menckel Posted: February 15, 2005 at 12:27 PM (#1146428)
I feel like the guy who shows up at the Halloween party dressed as Cleopatra - only it's not a costume party.

Murphy for President!
His first act: Menckel tied to a wooden stake and set aflame!
   43. Rusty Priske Posted: February 15, 2005 at 01:32 PM (#1146464)
PHoM this year: Bill Foster and Bullet Joe Rogan

1. Goose Goslin (3,x,x) PHoM 1944

With 1 and 2 elected last year, the next three just slot up two spots.

2. Bill Foster (4,5,x) PHoM 1945

3. George Van Haltren (5,3,2) PHoM 1912

4. Eppa Rixey (7,6,1) PHoM 1939
5. Jake Beckley (6,4,4) PHoM 1913

Minor shuffle here. I'm pretty steady on Beckley but Rixey is sliding around on me.

6. Mickey Welch (8,7,5) PHoM 1929

7. Tommy Leach (9,8,3) PHoM 1921

8. Edd Roush (10,10,7)PHoM 1942

These three slot into the same spots.

9. Hugh Duffy (12,13,8) PHoM 1930

10. Jimmy Ryan (14,14,10) PHoM 1914

I was uncomfortable having Ryan so close to falling off.

11. George Sisler (11,12,6) PHoM 1940

I thought he was a sure thing a while back. Apparently not.

12. Sam Rice (13,11,9) PHoM 1940


13. Dobie Moore (15,x,13) PHoM 1932

14. Dick Lundy (x,15,x)

15. Harry Hooper (x,x,14) PHoM 1931

The last three are on and off.

16-20. Griffith, Powell, Monroe, Sewell, Childs
21-25. Grimes, Doyle, Mullane, Streeter, Cuyler
26-30. White, Willis, Burns, Poles, Gleason

For those wondering about all the PHoM listings, here are the guys who are in the HoM but not in the PHoM (one less after Rogan this year, and yes some will give me grief about catchers...). The number in brackets is where they appeared on my PHoM ballot this year (I keep 50 on th eballot from year to year).

Charlie Bennett (37), Mickey Cochrane (7), Jimmy Collins (6), Stan Coveleski (off), Buck Ewing (39), Heinie Groh (11), Joe McGinnity (17), Hardy Richardson (29), Harry Stovey (18), Bill Terry (38), Sam Thompson (30), Dazzy Vance (off), Ed Walsh (off), George Wright (off)
   44. sunnyday2 Posted: February 15, 2005 at 02:24 PM (#1146551)
1945 Ballot

1. Goose Goslin (new, PHoM 1945). I was surprised that he didn't look better. I always thought it was a travesty that he waited to go in the HoF via the back door in 1968, paired with Kiki Cuyler. But on close examination he is a clear Definition B-/C+ choice. This year, however, that gets him here.

2. Hughie Jennings (4 in 1943-2-3, PHoM 1927). Again the highest peak of any eligible position player.

3. George Sisler (5-3-4, PHoM 1938). Basically Joe Jackson plus some hangin' around time.

4. Dobie Moore (6-5-9, PHoM 1942). The black Hughie Jennings. At least 3 or as many as 7 seasons with the Wreckers plus 6.5 years in the Negro Leagues at a level that almost no other NeLer attained, considering his defensive position.

5. Rube Waddell (7-4-5, PHoM 1932). Prime ERA+ 152, highest of all eligibles. And I do think we are hard on Definition B pitchers compared to, say, corner OF.

6. Tommy Bond (9-11-x, PHoM 1929). Tried to banish him from my ballot since he isn't going anywhere, but this is where he really belongs.

7. Bill Foster (8-x, PHoM 1945). Not as good as his reputation but still a HoMer.

8. Larry Doyle (12-15-x). Not sure he's better than Childs or Monroe, not sure he's not.

9. Ed Williamson (11-6-8, PHoM 1924). Forget the 27 HR, he did it all.

10. Pie Traynor (14-7-10). Belongs somewhere between his former rep. as the best 3B ever and his current rep. as nobody.

11. Edd Roush (x-x-x). I go back and forth on Edd. WS overrates CF, so I discount the lot of them. But Edd is the best of the lot, and clearly one or more of them oughta be a candidate.

12. Charley Jones (x-12-11, PHoM 1921). See Bond, McCormick.

13. Addie Joss (15-9-13). Prime ERA+ 148.

14. Eddie Cicotte (x-x-x). Makes my ballot for the first time. 12 year prime at 129 ERA+ clearly better than the other long primes (Rixey, Grimes) and both longer and better ERA+ than Ferrell's or Welch's prime) and more additional value outside prime than Ferrell. This is with NO extra credit for 1921.

15. John Beckwith (10-13-14). Could mash the ball, not clear what other strengths he brought to the table.

Dropped out: Joe Sewell (13-8-12). 8 years at SS clearly below the Dobie Moore line.

16-20. Lundy, Sewell, Griffith, Browning, McCormick
21-25. Childs, Monroe, Redding, Welch, H. Wilson

By 1965 the in/out line might be way down here, give or take 3-5 slots. IOW even Rixey and Cuyler (below) don't strike me as grossly unqualified.

26-30. Ferrell, Rixey, Cuyler, Mays, Mendez
31-35. Dunlap, Sol White, Mullane, Willis, Grimes
   45. Chris Cobb Posted: February 15, 2005 at 03:35 PM (#1146657)
Adjusting to a more current 270 innings pitched workload brings the difference to 5 runs per 270 innings pitched. Is 5 runs a year a reason to keep a pitcher of the HoM?

While I appreciate much of Kelly's defense of Welch, this kind of argument -- "is 5 runs a year a reason to keep a pitcher out of the HoM" -- is slippery. How much difference does 5 runs a year make? The implied answer is, "Surely not any significant difference.

Let's shift this to some other units.

5 runs saved in 270 innings in a 4.5 r/g environment is worth .57 wins in 30 games.

That's 1.71 win shares.

In a 4000-inning career, being 1.71 ws better over 270 innings is worth 25 win shares.

Depending on where the pitchers stand in relation to other players a difference in career win shares of 25 is certainly large enough for one the player with more win shares to be in and the player with fewer win shares to be out.

This is not to argue that the line necessarily should fall between Radbourn and Welch, or that ERA+ is necessarily the best measure to use in establishing the value of 1880s pitchers.

It is to argue that adding or subtracting 5 runs per 270 innings over the course of a pitcher's entire career is adding or subtracting a significant amount of value.
   46. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: February 15, 2005 at 04:05 PM (#1146694)
Welch is 84th out of 200+ 192 pitchers.
   47. jhwinfrey Posted: February 15, 2005 at 04:14 PM (#1146713)
April 18, 1945--One-armed Pete Gray makes his major league debut with the St. Louis Browns.
April 24, 1945--Albert B. "Happy" Chandler becomes baseball's second Commissioner.
July 10 & 11, 1945--In lieu of an All-Star Game, several interleague series are played, including White Sox vs. Cubs, Yankees vs. Giants, Braves vs. Red Sox, and the Philadelphia Blue Jays vs. the A's.
August 28, 1945--Branch Rickey and Clyde Sukeforth meet with Jackie Robinson.

1945 Ballot
PHoM inductees: Mickey Cochrane & John Beckwith

1. Big Bill "Willie" Foster (2,2) No Smokey Joe, perhaps, but not far behind. (1943)

2. Jake Beckley (6,3,5,4,4,3,3,4,8,5,4,2,2,2,3,3,1,4,4) (1927)
3. Mickey Welch (1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,7,6,5,3,1,1,2,4,2,5,5) (1926) Time for some more new candidates with this duo sneaking back up to the top of my ballot.

4. Eppa Rixey (6,7,7,3,7,6) Eppa probably has the best chance of any of the backloggers, but may still have a few more years to go. (1939)
5. Burleigh Grimes (5,6,4,8,7) Is Ol' Stubblebeard's durability hurting him with the electorate? I don't see that his extra years with "only" good performance lower his value. (1940)
6. John Beckwith (21,12,11) Here's to two more negro leaguers getting inducted. (1945)

7. Tommy Leach (9,7,5,7,8,8,6,10,9) When Beckley is finally inducted, Leach will be here to take his place on my ballot.(1942)
8. Dick Lundy (11,10) The next best negro leaguer, IMO.
9. Carl Mays (9,10,9,7,5,6,9,8,13,12) Best submariner on the ballot. (1939)
10. Dick Redding (13,11,15,15,10,9,14,13)
11. Jose Mendez Cannonball Dick and Jose have cases equally as strong as Dazzy and Ferrell, I believe. (4,8,13,13,11,10,8,14,14,11,10,15,14) (1932)

12. Ben Taylor (11,8,8,6,4,3,4,5,5,9,8) I'm backing off on him a bit, with Lundy and Beckwith on the ballot. (1938)
13. Jim McCormick (15,nr,13,15,nr,15,12,11,9,8,9,12,11,16,15) I played a Statis Pro game yesterday between the 1884 Outlaw Reds and the 1965 Twins. McCormick led Cincinnati to victory, with Jack Glasscock coming through with a key RBI single.
14. Rabbit Maranville (10,11,13,12,17,16) Ozzie Smith version 0.9.
15. Edd Roush (8,6,11,13,14,13,18,17) His superior defense gives him the edge over Goslin on my ballot.

16. Goose Goslin--not quite there.
27. Wes Ferrell--needs a few more good seasons.
36. George Van Haltren--not enough career breadth to overcome its length.
47. Clark Griffith--Like the three names above, I understand his appeall. But he doesn't fit my criteria.
Manush is far from my ballot. And Lazzeri isn't in the top 100.
   48. SWW Posted: February 15, 2005 at 04:51 PM (#1146781)
I have also enjoyed John Murphy's lead-ins. I was never a big Dickey Pearce fan, but that's no reflection on him.

1945 Ballot
1) Leon Allen Goslin – “Goose”
Third last year, first now. Total career numbers are just too good. And my salute to the voter who last year wrote “Honk!” next to his vote. That made me smile.
2) George Harold Sisler – “Gorgeous George”
He seems like he should be all peak, but he’s still a right-decent ballplayer when you look at his non-prime years. I like the balance.
3) Burleigh Arland Grimes – “Ol’ Stubblebeard”
I seem to be Burleigh’s best friend, so I went back and looked at the numbers again. And I’m still his best friend. Durable career, a ton of black and gray ink…I’m hard-pressed to see the problem.
4) Edgar Charles Rice – “Sam”
5) Jacob Peter Beckley – “Eagle Eye”

A pair of long, flourish-free careers. The HOF Standards and Monitor stats are useful in tracking the difference between a merely long career, and one that measures up over the long run. Rice does exceptionally well here, but Beckley’s pretty good, too.
6) Joseph Wheeler Sewell
Consistently the top shortstop in the AL, with five Top 10 finishes in Win Shares. Can somebody confirm the pronunciation of his name? Is it SOO-ull or SEE-well?
7) Hugh Duffy
It’s hard to believe that he once ranked as high as 5th in the voting. When calculating prime vs. career, Duffy’s actually a lot more balanced than I expected. Prime is less than half of career. That was a surprise.
8) William Hendrick Foster – “Willie”
A difficult candidate to place. I eventually settled here. By all accounts a better Negro League candidate than Redding. Some say he’s similar to Vance – and this is about where I had Vance.
9) Edd J Roush
Nice all-around numbers, and several MVP-type seasons. Looking at outfielders, I decided I wasn’t giving Edd enough credit. So he gets a small bump.
10) Carl William Mays
After Burleigh and Bill, there’s a real mollybang of great-but-not-outstanding pitchers. Carl is still benefiting by favorable analyses from James Vail and Bill James, as well as an enviable peak. Not a lot of love for Carl, though. And I gather that’s never been Carl’s strong suit.
11) John Beckwith
I spent a lot of time looking over the Cobb projections and the attendant discussion. I have a sneaking suspicion that what I don’t like about Albert Belle is what I don’t like about Beckwith. But right now, the numbers justify inclusion on my ballot, so I’m moving him up.
12) Eppa Rixey – “Jephtha”
Whenever he looks like he’s about to fall off my ballot, I pull him back up. Which probably means I’m underrating him. I think I’m hung up on the winning percentage. But I also stump for Blyleven, so I’m not sure what my problem is.
13) Thomas William Leach – “The Wee”
Both Leach and Larry Doyle dropped in my revamp. I’m giving Tommy the edge on a greater career.
14) Lawrence Joseph Doyle - “Laughing Larry”
Bouncing back, for now. My numbers like him better than Childs. I thought that was due to career length, but they have a similar peak, and Doyle has a slightly higher prime. So I’ll stick with Larry.
15) Dick Redding – “Cannonball”
I’m relying very heavily on Chris Cobb’s projections, which demonstrate a substantial peak. He does well in James Vail’s review, as well. I’m still borderline on him, but he’ll probably get pushed out by the competition in coming years.

Other Top 10 Finishers
Clark Calvin Griffith
What can I say: I’ve got six pitchers ahead of him. His is an interesting mix, but the overall picture is not outstanding one way or the other. I do, however, like him way better than...
Wesley Cheek Ferrell
I’ll admit it, I’m confused. What has Ferrell got that Carl Mays doesn’t? Granted, Mays has a foul temper and an accidental homicide on his c.v. But I feel like Ferrell is gaining an unfair advantage from an abbreviated career. Consider: Mays leads Ferrell on career Win Shares, prime WS, Bill James ranking, gray ink, HOF Standards and HOF Monitor. Ferrell has a slight edge in black ink and WARP3. Oh, and Mays’ best comp is Stan Coveleski, Ferrell’s is Jack Stivetts. I just can’t pull the trigger on this guy.
George Edward Martin Van Haltren
I respect the Win Shares, but there are too many guys more worthy of a vote. He’s nearly interchangable with Jimmy Ryan. He’s good, but it’s not enough.
   49. TomH Posted: February 15, 2005 at 06:09 PM (#1146892)
Can somebody confirm the pronunciation of his name? Is it SOO-ull or SEE-well?
I don't know how Joe pronounced his name, but my in-laws live in Sewell, N.J., and they say SOO-uhl (of course, they also drink "wutr"). I believe it's an American Indian tribe.
   50. Buddha Posted: February 15, 2005 at 06:16 PM (#1146910)
Major re-evaluation.

1) Goslin: Long, productive corner outfield career. Similar to Simmons but without the time in CF.

2) Sisler: Still seems a bit underrated here. One hell of hitter, even after his injury. Still stumpin' for Gorgeous George.

3) Waddell: Still love the K's and the ERA+. Dominating pitcher with a dimestore discount head. He'll never make it, but I'll keep voting for him anyway.

4) Duffy: What a peak. More longevity than Hack Wilson.

5) Welch: Reevaluated him. We need more pitchers to go in. 300 wins is nothing to sneeze at. Neither is 500 innings pitched in one season. Seems to be almost on the level of his contemporaries who have made it.

6) Beckley: I have trouble placing Beckley. Never seemed to be in the upper-elite when he played, but he played for so long at a high enough level where I feel he deserves consideration.

7) Sewell: Great contact hitter. Like Beckley, he never seemed to be among the ultra-elite. However, unlike Beckly, he didn't stick around for almost 20 years BUT he did play a superb shortstop.

8) Bill Foster: NLers are difficult to place. Right in the middle seems about right to me for Foster.

9) Van Haltren: Duffy without the monster peak.

10) Sam Rice: Similar to Beckley, but played a corner outfield slot instead of first base back when first base was a lot tougher than it is now.

11) Cuyler: Similar to Duffy but without the enormous peak year. Similar to Rice and GVH. Have a hard time sorting out the three of them. Whenever I hear his name I immediately get "C.C. Rider" stuck in my head. So that knocks him down to 11 because I hate that song.

12) Beckwith: Seems to have a lot of support among the people who do research into the Nlers. Like some, I'm not so sure he would have put up those kind of estimated numbers in the bigs.

13) Rixey: Seems like a good place to put him. Reevaluating pitchers and trying to put more of them on my ballot. Tremendous innings pitched.

14) Grimes: Points for innings pitched. Points off for too many bad years thrown in with the good ones.

15) Hack Wilson: Love the peak years and always have a soft spot for players who drank themselves out of the league.
   51. Jim Sp Posted: February 15, 2005 at 06:45 PM (#1146950)
Manush and Lazzeri had nice careers, but aren’t particularly close. This year everyone gets bumped up two spots.

1)Goslin--comfortably over the line.
2)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.
3)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.
4)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.
5)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.
6)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, we’re not talking about Ed Kranepool here.
7)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.
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)Bill Foster--consensus seems to have him around Coveleski/Faber/Rixey, I had those guys around here, so he goes here too. Was #3 on 1943 prelim.
10)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
11)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
12)Cuyler--I think he’ll be below the in/out line.
13)Bancroft--Better than I thought.
14)Bresnahan--Best hitting year was as a CF, not a C, so he’s not quite as impressive as I thought at first glance.
15)Griffith—Comp is Marichal, plus he could hit.

Van Haltren--Good player, part of the OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
Hughie Jennings—If he played SS his whole (short) career, I’d be listening. He played a lot of 1B, though. His peak is impressive but it’s just not enough career.
Ferrell—one of the top 100 pitchers of all time, but not on my ballot currently.
   52. Michael Bass Posted: February 15, 2005 at 07:00 PM (#1146972)
WARP3 is the main tool. Also consider OPS+, ERA+, and the various playing time measures. Win Shares is ancillary, there are some weird things going on there, particularly with defense.

Ballot is pretty steady, I think, nowdays. Foster moves down a touch from last week, and the mid-ballot pitcher glut shakes up in general.

PHOM was redone this week; didn't like my old one at all. Now, the majority of me ballot has been PHOM'd. :) New are Wes Ferrell and Goose Goslin.

I'd also like to echo others thoughts: Thanks to John for all his work. As he is the one doing all the work, as far as I'm concerned he can do what he wants with the top of the threads. :) I do think there's possibly a little risk of newcomers being influenced by it, but the 50ish longtimers we have aren't going to be wavered by a few predictions and comments from John. Else Childs and York would have long since been in the HOM. ;) I'd also like to thank John (or whoever made the change) for the quick fix of the 1944 results link. Was perfect by the morning after I made the request.

1. Wes Ferrell (1945) (3) - I really like this guy. Has the monster peak, like Vance, but his prime is longer. 3 great seasons and 3 more really, really good seasons are enough to get a pitcher to the top no-brainer position on my ballot.

Much of the talk about Ferrell (his usage, whether he did or did not face advanced competition) has been a distraction from his amazing qualifications. Those being that his career WARP3 is the highest pitching total on the ballot. And he's not even a career candidate. WARP1 also puts him as the top guy on the ballot.

2. Hughie Jennings (1910) (5) - The argument I used for Caruthers all those years works even better for Hughie. Crammed so much value into a short career that he's more valuable than guys with productive careers twice or three times as long.

3. José Méndez (1932) (6) - While Waddell is moving down, Méndez is staying steady. Why? Because I like him more and more the more I read about him. As far as I can tell, the Cuban leagues, where he was by all accounts one of the best player, if not the best, were simply loaded with talent. HOMers, HOM candidates, and people who were good enough to at least merit mention were all over this league. And because there were only 4 teams, they composed a high percentage of the rosters. Maybe I'm going crazy here, but it seems to me that the level of competition in that 4 team league during that era was quite possibly as good as the majors. And Méndez excelled in it.

4. Joe Sewell (1939) (7) - Peak is not that high, but career is basically all prime. Good mix of offense and defense. I do love the shortstops, I admit.

5. Goose Goslin (1945) (8) - Great career numbers, but his peak feels light to me. I think he's more Zack Wheat than Harry Heilman (who was just short of no-brainer status). That said, Wheat is in my PHOM, and I tend to underrate these guys who had long careers at a high level that never quite reached superstar status.

6. John Beckwith (1940) (10) - I'm sold enough to move him up above Moore. Longer prime, peak not as great, but very good. I suspect he'd have ended up in a less stressful (and less WS-bountiful) position in the majors. Moves up not due to my liking him more, but due to my downgrading of some pitchers, who I'm having some trouble sorting out.

7. Rube Waddell (1926) (9) - Love the Ks, and his RA+ is very good (though obviously not as good as his ERA+, which is inflated). The intangibles argument holds no weight with me. Moves down a touch, as he didn't have quite as many big years as I'd like.

8. Willie Foster (4) - Moves down a bunch. Honestly, difficult to judge for me, because our best estimates are Win Shares and I'm a WARP guy. With that said, his peak doesn't seem quite high enough to me to justify a higher ranking, given his relatively brief career. Adjusting everything, he is nearly a dead ringer for Redding.

9. Clark Griffith (1927) (11) - Another big winners in WARP3 changes, as well as the look back at the first 3 decades of the majors. We need more 1890s players. Griffith and Jennings are the two we should be looking at. As others have pointed out, we don't need more 1890s OF; need more infielders and pitchers.

10. Dick Redding (12) - Of similar value to Foster, no longer see him as good as Méndez. I'm really stuck with these 4 pitchers. I think they all belong somewhere between 6 and 11 on this ballot, but ranking them is more or less choosing out of a hat.

11. Dobie Moore (13) - Really, anyone who has Jennings in their top 5 should have Moore somewhere on the ballot. I understand those who have neither, but Moore, while not Jennings, is close enough that there should never be more than 10 or so spots separating them. Probably a little more career than Jennings, a little less peak. Awesome hitting and defense from everything I've seen.

12. Wally Schang (14) - I took another look at him, and his OPS+ combined with a long catcher career makes him the top backstop candidate in the backlog.

13. Lave Cross (1928) (15) - A career/prime guy who does well. Having played catcher helps him a lot, as well. For those looking for 3B/C, this is an overlooked guy.

14. Fred Dunlap (1929) (--) - For 7 consecutive years, one of the top best players in baseball. Is there anyone else fitting that description who we haven't inducted? Excellent defense, very good offense. This is discounting his UA year waaaay down.

15. Bill Monroe (1930) (--) - Simply a great 2B from the early days of the Negro Leagues. All evidence I have seen points strongly toward him being a very, very good player. I have him ranked slightly ahead of Frank Grant, who we've inducted.

16-20: F. Jones, Veach, Williamson, Bond, Browning
21-25: Shocker, Buffinton, Sisler, Childs, Taylor
26-30: Maranville, Grimes, Luque, Cuyler, Lundy

Top 10 Returners not on my ballot

Rixey - Light on peak, and in the weak league, too. I'm with KJOK on the issue of season-to-season replacement. Pretending that a if Rixey had played 3 less averagish seasons, his teams would have used some AAA dud is just silly. Not that the averagish seasons don't have value, but using them as the primary reason for election?

Van Haltren - Way down on my ballot. I'd much prefer Jimmy Ryan, who also is not on my ballot. Also would prefer Poles, Duffy, Griffin. And of course Fielder Jones and Bobby Veach, who I think were the best of all these guys who have been around forever. Plus Cuyler now. As has been pointed out, while we need 1890s players, we don't need 1890s OFs.

Beckley - No peak. Never any better than an above average player. I've softened a bit on the old goat. He's in my top 50!
   53. Rob_Wood Posted: February 15, 2005 at 10:42 PM (#1147355)
Just a quick comment that I join the masses in effusively thanking John Murphy for all he does for the HOM! And I too like his ballot intros.
   54. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 15, 2005 at 11:00 PM (#1147379)
Maybe it is just me but I really have a problem with giving Cicotte extra credit for the years in which he was rightfully kicked out of baseball. Sure, there were those that got away, but Cicotte didn't. We are supposed to dwell on what actually happened as much as possible.

War Credit, by the way, is completely different than getting tossed out of the game for throwing a World Series. I would really hope you can differentiate between the two.
   55. favre Posted: February 15, 2005 at 11:06 PM (#1147383)
John, I hope you're not embarassed by all the praise you're getting. Truth is, our "thank yous" have been long overdue. You do great work on this site. I am very grateful.

While we're offering gratitude, Joe Dimino deserves a big thank you as well, for envisioning and organizing the HoM. The Hall has taken up considerable amounts of my time in reading and research, and I've loved every minute of it. It's been a real privilege to be part of this project.

Thank you, Joe, for getting this started. Thank you, John, for keeping it running so smoothly.
   56. Kelly in SD Posted: February 15, 2005 at 11:11 PM (#1147391)
Chris J.

Sorry about that. It was late and I wanted to get the posts finished. I still should have had the total right.

   57. karlmagnus Posted: February 15, 2005 at 11:23 PM (#1147402)
I do differentiate between war credit and Cicotte; I will be giving 50% credit for war years, but give only 25% credit for the rest of Cicotte's career. 50% war credit is why I also now have Rixey quite high, in spite of his low ERA+ and W/L.

I regard Cicotte as very unlucky and more sinned against than sinning; if the Red Sox had had the sense of a gerbil in 1912, he wouldn't have been traded and the Sox would have won at least 1 more AL pennant. From all the evidence. Cicotte was NOT some Hal Chase-type unquely corrupt player, and should not be treated as such. I too feel strongly about this.

John, I echo the gratitude of others to you and Joe, and my personal appreciation of your sense of humor and general good nature. You will, won't you put Cicotte in the HOM with a Red Sox cap when he's elected :-))
   58. ronw Posted: February 15, 2005 at 11:41 PM (#1147423)
Maybe it is just me but I really have a problem with giving Cicotte extra credit for the years in which he was rightfully kicked out of baseball.

jschmeagol, I have to support Karl's opinion on this one, although I personally don't give credit to Cicotte.

You have to carefully look at the other side. Some people don't agree that Cicotte was rightfully kicked out of baseball. Some feel he should merely have been suspended or fined.

I realize that you feel he was rightfully kicked out, and I don't have any problem with that opinion.

I am probably somewhere in between. Cheating was rampant in aughts and teens baseball. There is some evidence that players and managers like McGraw, Cobb, and Speaker probably participated in gambling and/or throwing games. Players were overworked and underpaid, and nothing was provided for them when they were finished. While I don't condone their behavior, I sympathize with them, as does Karl.

FWIW, even Joe Dimino once pushed Benny Kauff for the HOM, even though Benny was "rightfully kicked out of baseball." Joe, like me, believes that Landis went a bit overboard on that case as well.
   59. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 16, 2005 at 12:29 AM (#1147490)

I do hope that you aren't giving him credit because you don't think he should have been traded after 1912.

And what do you mean by 25%? Is this 25% extra tacked onto his career? 25% for each season you are giving him credit for having played? Your comments seem to indicate that you are giving him credit for some sort of late peak which seems extravagant. Sure a lot of knuckleballers were good late into their careers, but there are some that weren't. I cant' give him extra peak credit (actually I can't give him any credit but...) when he was kicked out of baseball.
   60. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 16, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1147493)
1945 Ballot

I’m considering a reconsideration of short-schedule players like Williamson once I see how Chris Cobb’s regression techniques evolve. This should help me find a better sense of Williamson in particular, but also of Browning, Jones, and Dunlap. I just want to be sure that they are properly enshrined in my pHOVG.

Also, I’m truly looking forward to learning more about Turkey Stearnes and Mule Suttles for the 1946 election.

1. GVH: Still the best non-NB career value on the board, with a peak that doesn’t embarrass anyone.

2. Hugh Duffy: Best peak on the board, with a career that doesn’t embarrass anyone.

3. Goose Goslin (Honk!): These three are all wicked close. Van Haltren's got the career, Duffy's got the peak, Goslin has the middle ground. Duffy's peak is more impressive than Goslin's career, and I've long prefered GVH to Duffy, so there's how I arrived at my ranking of them.

4. Bill Foster: I have him in the Stazzy Vanleski slot (or is it Dan Covance?). Roughly 3000 innings at 120 ERA+ or better. Ferrell’s innings fall a little short of to reach this area of my ballot, but I suspect the likes of Lemon and Newhouser will get here eventually.

5. Eppa Rixey: The GVH of pitchers, though with a little less career and peak.

6. John Beckwith: I’m guessing he finally gets his due somewhere in the vicinity of 1975. Big bat, athletic enough to handle short and third. I’m a believer. Last week in my preliminary ballot, I talked a bit about positional balance on my ballot. Part of me wonders if I should have Beckwith near Duffy. They are very similar types of candidates with respect to their positions. I don’t give much of any bonus to infielders, though when presented with choices between infielders and outfielders of obvious HOM meritude, I’ve gone to either side. For instance, I’ve had Frisch over Goslin, GVH, and Duffy the last two years, while in 1938 I had GVH and Groh 1 and 2 (though as candidates, they had less similarity than some of the three outfielders’ career patterns did to Frisch). I don’t know what any of this means other than that The ballot is bunched tightly, and I’m always in the act of reconsidering how I approach throwing infielders.

7. George Burns: Nifty peak, but not quite enough career to advance further up my ballot. His career looks more like Beckwith’s than, say, even Duffy’s does. In this case JB gets the nod.

8. Jose Mendez: Last week: Right where he’s always been. This week: bumped down a couple pegs after seeing that CC’s caveats.

9. Spots Poles: Great legs game (glove and baserunning), and he could hit some too. More similar to Max Carey than not, but I’ve been assuming all along that he had a better peak. Lately I’m down on Poles, and so I’d surmise I’m probably wrong about him.

10. Edd Roush: He’s right where he belongs. I think. You know, he’s a threat to someday enter the HOM since he’s had consistent support at the bottom half of a lot of people’s ballots, but I don’t see his time as coming until the mid 90s. Of course, that’s two real-time years down the road, and I could be run over by a pack of rampaging yaks, so I’m not going to worry for now about whether he’ll really, truly deserve it or whether he and Jimmy Wynn will have a timeline steel-cage match.

11. Tommy Leach: If only he’d played all his games at third, he’d probably rank a few places higher on my ballot. Of course, if he’d always been a 3B, he wouldn’t be on my ballot because he’d be a HOMer.

12, Hugh Jennings: Still clinging to life at the bottom of the ballot.

13. Dobie Moore: Lovvve that peak, his second year among my tallies. It’ll be interesting to see if any early Wreckers boxes/recaps show him with playing time and success. That could change my thinking on him considerably.

14. Wes Ferrell: We’ve been comparing him quite a bit to other pitchers, but I wonder if Dobie Moore and Hughie Jennings are an ever better point of comparison. I’m using the 9.5-seasons version of Moore myself, and we all know that Hughie didn’t have much to give outside of his peak. I suppose that since I’ve got Dobie and Hughie down here at the straggle-end of my ballot, then it’s apropos to have Ferrell down here as well.

15. Cupid Childs: He’s back and badder than ever. I do love his peak as well. A little deduction for his 1890 season slots him lower than the three short-career guys ahead of him.


Joe Sewell: I’m not an EOJS by any means, but I just don’t think he’s really all that much better than a few other middlemen, and I’m not persuaded by the FOJS that being the best SS in a down era for SS makes him ballotworthy. Particularly when Beauty received one last place vote in 1944. I guess I’ve never seen how anyone can have Sewell near the top of a ballot and not have Bancroft at least on the ballot.

I guess I’m officially an EO Jake Beckley, huh? I’ve never voted for him (IIRC), and I’m not about to start.

Clark Griffith: He’s part of a reconsideration I need to generally do for pitchers, and he’s either part of the Vance/Coveleski/Foster claque or else Vic Willis lite.

Heinie Manush: Or as we used to call him back in the day, Heinie My Toosh. He’s got nothing but timeline on Bobby Veach, and that’s a weak argument since Veach is basically Geo Burns lite.

Tony Lazzeri (EWBB name: Lapis Lazuli Lazzeri)
In this week’s episode of The Middle Infield Gang, will a newcomer’s arrival create dissention? Or bring the family new prosperity.

CRAB: Eh, who’s da new guy?

MUGSY: I dunno, but I don’t like his looks.

DA BOSS: Crab, Beauty, Laughin’ Larry, Dutch, Mugsy, Big Ed, Rabbit, Joey No K’s, King Richie, Pie Man, dis is da new guy just in from New Yawk, Tony Poosh ‘Em Up. He’s here to keep the heat off our backs while we make our big move into the southside.

RABBIT: I never trusted no New Yorkers. Tink dey knows everything just because’n dey won a couple-a dem Woild Serieses.

DA BOSS: Shut up over there. Anudder peep outta you, and you’ll be back to bustin’ knee caps and skulls in every two-bit laundrymat and tar-paper gin joint in the city instead of hittin’ up heavy rollers for big scores.
   61. karlmagnus Posted: February 16, 2005 at 12:42 AM (#1147505)
25% of a reasonable conservative estimate of the latter end of a Cicotte career that is extended somewhat but not excessively by being a knuckleballer and has him retiring with about 300 wins.
   62. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: February 16, 2005 at 03:30 AM (#1147741)
Sorry about that. It was late and I wanted to get the posts finished. I still should have had the total right.

No big deal. It ain't like I number the pitchers or anything.
   63. Rick A. Posted: February 16, 2005 at 04:00 AM (#1147794)
John Beckwith
Goose Goslin

1945 Ballot
1.Charley Jones – Truly great hitter who missed 2 years in his prime. Elected PHOM in 1926.
2.Pete Browning – 61% of value is prime, 89% of value is above average. Elected PHOM in 1929
3.John Beckwith – Very good hitter. New info on him moves him high on my ballot. Elected 1945
4.Goose Goslin – I’ve got Wheat as slightly better than Goslin. Still a solid HOMer though. Elected PHOM in 1945
5.Cupid Childs – Good hitter. Not as good defensively as McPhee. 84% of career above average. Elected PHOM in 1938
6.Hughie Jennings – 77% of value is prime alone. Unfortunately, that’s all he’s got. Still that’s enough to get him this high. Re-evaluated 1890’s infielders since they seemed to get beat up during their playing days. Elected PHOM in 1938
7.Eppa Rixey – Like his consistent above-averageness over Faber’s brief peak. Elected PHOM in 1940
8.Vic Willis – Very good pitcher. Moves up when compared to Faber and Rixey. Elected PHOM in 1942
9.Bill Foster – 3rd or 4th best Negro league pitcher. Moves down slightly
10.Bill Monroe – Very good second baseman, but I can’t seem to rate him over Childs. Re-evaluation moves him up. Becoming more and more convinced about him.
11.Wes Ferrell – At first glance, I had him off my ballot. Career is very short, but it is almost all peak. Close, but not as good as Vance.
12.Hugh Duffy – 82% of career is above-average. Great defense
13.Edd Roush – Majorly underestimated him. Very good centerfielder.
14.Dobie Moore – Impressive peak. Giving him more credit for army years. 10+ year prime at important position..
15.Burleigh Grimes – Slightly more peak than Rixey, but I like Rixey’s consistency a little more. Also, his run support is pretty high.

Required Disclosures

Clark Griffith Doesn't rate so well in my system, but he was a major over-achiever as a pitcher. I'm sure I'm underrating him, but I can't see him getting on my ballot.

George Van Haltren Very nice consistent player. A higher prime would've made all the difference.

Jake Beckley Back in my top 50. Never will make my ballot. No peak.

Off the ballot
16-20 Leach, Mendez, Redding, Sisler, Lundy
21-25 Cooper, Schang, McGraw, Williamson, Waddell
26-30 Mays, Taylor, Griffith, Poles, Tiernan
31-35 Bresnahan, Van Haltren, Doyle, Sewell, Traynor
36-40 Chance, Burns, McCormick, Bancroft, Griffin
41-45 F. Jones, Bond, Wilson, Long, Welch
46-50 R. Thomas, Cravath, Fournier, Konetchy, Beckley
   64. Kelly in SD Posted: February 16, 2005 at 07:57 AM (#1148086)
Chris Cobb:

Good point about how just a few runs per "season" can result in a goodly difference in career win shares. That reinforces a point I was trying to make. Welch had poorer defensive support than any HoM pitcher of his time. Consequently, he gave up a few more hits and runs. Consequently, his ERA+ is lower than those pitchers with better defenses behind them.
I definitely agree with you that ERA+ is not the best way to examine and rank early pitchers. There were too many differences compared with later baseball: leaving pitchers in blowouts, wider variance in team fielding to name two. However, ERA+ is one of the most, if not the most, popular reasons for not voting for Welch.

Also, I hope everyone pops over to Chris J.'s blog,, periodically because he has some great stuff that applies to some of the pitchers on the ballot. Specifically, his Marichal-Perry list of pitchers who were on the same team for several seasons yet received dramatically different offensive support. Not just because Welch is one of the 8 pairs.

Take a look at the difference b/t Rixey and Luque while they were teammates from 1921-1929. To summarize, while Rixey was slightly below "average" with a run support index of 98.97, Luque was supported at a level of 84.49. Does anyone know if the Reds laid down to a degree b/c Luque wasn't white? - Or did Luque face all the good pitchers? That difference is the second largest, next to Marichal and Perry.
   65. Kelly in SD Posted: February 16, 2005 at 09:55 AM (#1148134)
Pitcher comparison with the post 93 mob:

First: Who is similar to whom using similarity scores (courtesy of
I marked the current inductees in the HoM. You can see who you think has the most future HoM comparables.

Larry French
S Coveleski - HoM
Jim Perry
G Mullin
F Fitzsimmons
(top 6 over 900, down to 897 with Fitz)

Sadie McMahon
T Bridges
Jouett Meekin
General Crowder
Brickyard Kennedy
Guy Bush
Lon Warneke
Elton Chamberlain
Rick Sutcliffe
(top 6 over 900, down to 891 with Sutcliffe)

Faber - HoM
Dennis Martinez
Sam Jones
T John
(top 4 over 900, down to 865 with John)

McGinnity - HoM
S Coveleski - HoM
Jesse Haines
Silver King
(top 4 are over 900, down to 879 with King)

Coveleski - HoM
Chief Bender
Babe Adams
(all scores except Fitz were over 900)

Jack Powell
Faber - HoM
Robin Roberts
T John
(only Powell is over 900 (901), down to Jenkins with 838)

Hippo Vaughn
Doc White
Walsh - HoM
Vance - HoM
Bill Donovan
(top 2 are over 900, down to 859 with Drysdale)

Faber - HoM
Jim McCormick
Bob Gibson
Rusie - HoM
Wilbur Cooper
(top 2 are over 900, down to 853 with Cooper)

Any conclusions worth drawing? Rixey has the most unique career totals (arguably) over Waddell and Willis. Mays, Ferrell, Cooper have the least unique career totals. Thought it was interesting that Ferrell had several 1890s pitchers on his list while Griffith did not. Did the numbers somehow recognize that Ferrell was used (abused) like another era, while Griffith was not used like other pitchers in his time??

Re: above comment about Stivetts being Ferrell's most similar player.
Jack Stivetts:
1890: 41 ws, 2nd in AA, 7th in majors
1891: 46 ws, 1st in AA, 2nd in majors
1892: 49 ws, best player in baseball
1893: 25 ws, 8th best pitcher
1894: 33 ws, 6th best pitcher
1896: 29 ws, 8th best pitcher
His 264 win shares are the 5th most of the 1890s, only Nichols, Young and Rusie have more among pitchers.
That is 6 top 10s as a pitcher in the 1890s or 3 more than Griffith...
   66. Kelly in SD Posted: February 16, 2005 at 09:58 AM (#1148135)
Pitcher post part 2 looking at the number of times in the top 10 in their respective league.

W Cooper:
1916: 20, 6th t, Alexander 44
1917: 22, 4th, Alexander 40, Vaughn 24, Schupp 23
1918: 23, 4th, Vaughn 28, Grimes 25, Tyler 24
1919: 25, 5th, Vaughn 30, Adams 27, Alexander, Ruether 26
1920: 31, 3rd, Alexander 36, Grimes 32
1921: 27, 2nd, Grimes 29
1922: 27, 1st
1923: 21, 5th t, Luque 39, Alexander 27, Rixey 26, Morrison 23
1924: 24, 2nd, Vance 36

1929: 25, 3rd, Grove 28, Marberry 26
1930: 32, 2nd, Grove 37
1931: 28, 3rd, Grove 42, Earnshaw 29
1932: 26, 3rd t, Grove 33, Crowder 30
1933: 18, 8th, Harder 24
1935: 35, 1st, Best player in American League
1936: 27, 2nd, Grove 29

1918: 25, 2nd, Vaughn 28
1920: 32, 2nd, Alexander 36
1921: 29, 1st
1923: 21, 5th t, Luque 39, Alexander 27, Rixey 26, Morrison 23
1924: 21, 3rd tied with 3, Vance 36, W Cooper 24, Barnes, Rixey, Kremer 21
1927: 19, 10th, Alexander, Haines 28
1928: 30, 2nd t, Vance 32, Benton 30
1929: 23, 2nd t, Lucas 26, Clark, Malone 23

1895: 34, 4th t, Hawley 44, Young 37, Hoffer 35, Nichols 34
1896: 30, 6th t, Young 43, Cuppy 38, Nichols 33, Killen 32, Hoffer 31
1898: 32, 4th, Nichols 44, Young 34, J Tannehill 34
1901: 27, 3rd, Young 41, Miller 30

1916: 22, 5 th t, Ruth 37
1917: 30, 4 th, Ruth 36, Cicotte, 35, Bagby 34
1918: 25, 4 th, Johnson 38, S Perry 30, S Coveleski 29
1920: 27, 2 nd t, Bagby 34, Shawkey 27
1921: 35, 2 nd, Faber 37
1924: 20, 7 th, Vance 36
1926: 20, 6 th, Kremer 25

1916: 24, 3rd t, Alexander 44, Pfeffer 32
1917: 20, 6th, Alexander 40
1921: 22, 4th t, Grimes 29, W Cooper 27, Luque 23, Alexander 22
1922: 23, 2nd, W Cooper 27
1923: 26, 3rd, Luque 39, Alexander 27
1924: 21, 3rd tied with 3, Vance 36, W Cooper 24, Barnes, Grimes, Kremer 21
1925: 26, 3rd, Donohue 28, Luque 27
1928: 22, 7th, Vance 32

1902: 33, 2nd, Young 38
1903: 27, 3rd t, Young 38, Plank 28
1904: 32, 3rd, Chesbro 53, Young 35
1905: 35, 1st
1908: 21, 7th t

1898: 25, 10th t, Nichols 44
1899: 39, 1st
1901: 33, 1st
1902: 29, 2nd, J Taylor 32
1903: 19, 9th t, McGinnity 40
1906: 29, 2nd, T F Brown 35
1907: 20, 9th, Overall 32
1908: 20, 8th t, Mathewson 39
1909: 24, 5th t, Brown 36, Mathewson 34, Camnitz 30, Overall 30

I thought it would be appropriate to compare them to the enshrined from the era: Coveleski, Faber, Vance, Alexander, Johnson. I decided to leave off the latter two because it is just embarrassing.

1917: 29, 5 th t, Ruth 36, Cicotte 35, Bagby 34, Mays 30, Johnson 29
1918: 29, 3 rd, Johnson 38, S Perry 30
1919: 27, tied for 1 st or 2 nd depending on what you do with Cicotte 32, Johnson 27
1920: 32, 2nd, Bagby
1922: 22, 6 th t, Faber 31
1925: 23, 2 nd t, Johnson 26, Lyons and Pennock 23

1915: 21, 10 th t, Johnson 42
1920: 25, 5 th, Bagby 34, Coveleski 32, Mays and Shawkey 27
1921: 37, 1 st
1922: 31, 1 st

1924: 36, 1 st,
1925: 20, 5 th t, Donohue 28, Luque 27, Rixey 26, Scott 25, Alexander 20
1927: 25, 3 rd, Alexander and Haines 28
1928: 32, 1st
1929: 19, 7 th t, Lucas 26
1930: 26, 1st

So anything interesting?
Best in league:
Vance: 3
Faber: 2
Willis: 2
Cooper: 1
Ferrell: 1
Grimes: 1
Waddell: 1
Coveleski: 0
Griffith: 0
Rixey: 0
Mays: 0

Top 3 in league:
Grimes: 6 // 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3
Ferrell: 6 // 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3
Rixey: 5 // 2, 3, 3, 3, 3
Vance: 4 // 1, 1, 1, 3
Willis: 4 // 1, 1, 2, 2
Cooper: 4 // 1, 2, 3, 3
Waddell: 4 // 1, 2, 3, 3
Coveleski: 4 // 2, 2, 2, 3
Faber: 2 // 1, 1
Mays: 2 // 2, 2
Griffith: 1 // 3

Cooper is the most consistent with 9 straight years in the top 10.
Grimes had 5 years as one of the top 2 in his league.
Grimes has 8 top 10s in 12 years.
Rixey has 8 top 10s in 13 years with 1.5 years in WWI.
Ferrell has 7 top 10s in 8 years.
I would say Ferrell has the best peak of any of them (maybe Vance, but Vance didn’t have Grove in his league)
   67. Kelly in SD Posted: February 16, 2005 at 10:03 AM (#1148136)
pitcher post #3 looking at some win shares numbers and Chris J.'s numbers. HoMers underlined.

3 biggest years:
Willis: 101 (39+33+29)
Waddell: 100 (35+33+32)
Griffith: 96 (34+32+30)
Ferrell: 95 (35+32+28)
Vance: 94 (36+32+26)
Faber: 93 (37+31+25)
Mays: 92 (35+30+27)
Grimes: 91 (32+30+29)
Coveleski: 90 (32+29+29)
Cooper: 85 (31+27+27)
Rixey: 76 (26+26+24)

Ferrell looks mighty impressive considering the time when he pitched, Rixey not so much.

Career Win Shares:
Rixey: 315
Willis: 293
Faber: 292
Grimes: 286
Griffith: 273
Cooper: 266
Mays: 256
Coveleski: 245
Vance: 241
Waddell: 240
Ferrell: 233

Rixey looks much better over the long haul. Bottom 3 include 2 famous injury-ridden pitchers.

Win Shares per 275 innings pitched:
Ferrell: 24.4
Mays: 23.3
Vance: 22.3
Waddell: 22.3
Griffith: 22.2
Coveleski: 21.8
Cooper: 21.0
Willis: 20.2
Faber: 19.6
Rixey: 19.3
Grimes: 18.8

Ferrell very impressive. Rixey, Grimes, Faber not so much.

Defensive Suport (courtesy of Chris J.’s
Mays: 14.1
Cooper: 11.1
Waddell: 9.1
Willis: 8.8
Rixey: 8.6
Ferrell: 6.9
Griffith: 6.3
Coveleski: 4.8
Grimes: 4.1
Faber: 2.9
Vance: neg 1.5

Run Support Index:
Mays: 114.36
Grimes: 106.67
Griffith: 105.5
Ferrell: 102.76
Faber: 101.04
Coveleski: 100.57
Willis: 100.13
Cooper: 99.69
Rixey: 95.31
Waddell: 94.83
Vance: 90.47

Hmm... Mays certainly got great support didn’t he? Vance is the anti-Mays.
   68. karlmagnus Posted: February 16, 2005 at 01:28 PM (#1148180)
Kelly, how does Cicotte rank on these totals?
   69. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 16, 2005 at 06:30 PM (#1148801)
My ballot is still in flux for the next month. I'm working on different aspects of my system which will involve a combination of the two systems until I have the update complete. Therefore, I'm not going to campaign too hard for anybody for a while.

I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

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

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

1) John Beckwith-3B/SS/C (2): Marvelous infielder from the twenties. Appears to have been more "hot corner" guy than shortstop, but that doesn't really hurt him since third base was still mighty tough as a position. Whatever his defense lacked was surely made up (and then some) by a powerful bat. Better than any of the other eligible third basemen, IMO. I have him pegged at his position(s) multiple times as the best for many seasons among white and black players.

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

3) Cupid Childs-2B (5): Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896 and 1897.

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

4) George Van Haltren-CF/P (n/e): Another player who does well with my new system. Long career of quality play. Best NL leftfielder for 1889 and best AA leftfielder for 1891.

5) Jake Beckley-1B (11): Not much peak, but plenty of career. Better than his numbers suggest since first base was tougher during his time than during the ABC boys' era. Best major league first baseman for 1900.

6) Pie Traynor-3B (10): Best white third baseman of his time, but Beckwith was better. Best major league third baseman for 1923 (Beckwith was better), 1925, 1927, 1929 (Beckwith was better) and 1932.

7) Burleigh Grimes (9): Pitched for a long time behind crappy teams and defenses. Better peak, IMO, than Rixey or Welch places him slightly above those career guys. Best NL pitcher for 1921 and 1929.

8) Eppa Rixey-P (14): Before Spahn, he was the winningest lefty in the NL. Comparable to Faber, except Red had a better peak..

9) Mickey Welch-P (12): I have to admit that the 1880's had some fine pitchers. Best major league pitcher for 1885.

10) Frank Chance-1B/C (n/e): Another Phoenix! Best first baseman for the first decade of the 20th century. Even more so than Beckley, the Peerless Leader shouldn't be compared with the ABC boys or the post-1920 grouping of first baseman. The cream-of the-crop from Franklin Adam's famous trio. Best major league first baseman for 1903, 1904. 1905, 1906, and 1907 (close in 1908). Best NL first baseman for 1908.

11) Charley Jones-LF/CF (6): Takes a hit, but still kicking. He was playing a more difficult position than the one that it evolved into. I gave him a little more credit for his (unfairly) blacklisted years. Best major league leftfielder for 1877, 1879 and 1884. Best AA centerfielder for 1883. Best AA leftfielder for 1885 (close to being the best in the majors).

12) Ed Konetchy-1B (n/e): Best first baseman of the Deadball Era, IMO. The uber-stat systems don't measure first base well, so Konetchy is hurt by that. Best major league first baseman for 1910, 1911 and 1916 (very close in 1909 and 1912). Best NL first baseman for 1909, 1912 and 1919.

13) Vic Willis-P (7): Still ballot worthy, but not as much. Willis pitched a ton of innings at an above-average rate for a long enough time for his era. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

14) Tom York-LF (8): I don't know if York will be on my ballot next time. I'm not caving in to peer pressure, but I just see his career differently now. Long enough career and many times as the best at his position (when left field was more like centerfield today). Best leftfielder of the 1870's. Best major league leftfielder for 1873, 1875, 1877 and 1878 (extremely close in 1872 and 1881).

15) Goose Goslin (15): I'm not that impressed with him. He didn't really stand out at his position, yet can't use the Babe Ruth excuse that he is being unfairly compared (like Heilmann or Waner can). Best AL leftfielder for 1924. Best major league leftfielder for 1925 and 1927

Foster, Griffith and Ferrell are knocking on the door - will they enter my ballot at some time?
   70. Tiboreau Posted: February 16, 2005 at 09:08 PM (#1149167)
Dr. Chaleeko, the "Snapshots" were highly entertaining.
   71. Al Peterson Posted: February 16, 2005 at 09:23 PM (#1149211)
1945 Ballot. No new eligibles cluttering the top.

1. Bill Foster (3). If we're going to elect NeL players we could do much worse than this Foster.

2. Goose Goslin (4). Nine years top 10 in the league for Extra Base Hits.

3. Rube Waddell (5). Won six straight strikeout titles, top 10 in Ks per 9 innings 10 straight years - dominance you don't get everyday. In addition to major league service, he competed in PCL, AA, Western League throughout his career, having success but seemingly frustrating managers. One of the first AL superstars - his pitching was guaranteed to bring in a large crowd and help support the fledgling league.

4. Edd Roush (6). Holdouts have cost him election so far.

5. Jimmy Ryan (7). Let's see: good hitting CF, longish career, decent fielder. Yep, I like that combo.

6. Clark Griffith (8). Some tweaks to my pitcher rankings show him moving up amongst the populace. Is he HOM worthy is another question. Fills an era lacking a player or two in the HOM.

7. Dick Redding (9). Real close to Griffith so I'll place them side by side.

8. Pete Browning (10). Hitter with few rivals. Top 3 in batting average 9 times in 10 years. He hit in whatever league he played in. Star of the AA which is alright - I don't give extreme discounts for that league.

9. Hughie Jennings (11). SS with plenty of glove and bat in his prime, albeit for a short stretch of time. Master of the hit by pitch.

10. John Beckwith (12). Character issues shouldn't be his downfall. How you did between the white lines, that's what matters.

11. Hugh Duffy (14). Duffy bounces from on to off the ballot every couple of years. His on cycle is here. Nice peak argument is good, did work in one-league era.

12. George Van Haltren (13). Have to make an effort to keep Ryan and Van Haltren near each other. Just seems after thirtysome years they're like PB & J.

13. Eppa Rixey (15). Long career, lost a year to WWI, very good most of the time, outstanding rarely. That's a lot of IPs to overlook. Winningest LHP before some guy named Spahn replaced him.

14. Tommy Leach (18). Very good fielder in both CF and 3B with enough hitting to make him valuable.

15. John McGraw (16). Man knew how to get on base.

In contention:

16. Spotswood Poles
17. Jake Beckley
18. Mike Griffin
19. Wes Ferrell
20. Cupid Childs
21. George Sisler
22. Vic Willis
23. Kiki Cuyler
24. Tony Mullane
25. Joe Sewell
26. Bobby Veach
27. Roger Bresnahan
28. Jose Mendez
29. Mickey Welch
30. Fred Dunlap
31. Fielder Jones
32. Dobie Moore
33. Carl Mays
34. Ben Taylor
35. Urban Shocker
36. Wally Schang
37. Charley Jones
38. Dick Lundy
39. Hack Wilson
40. Frank Chance
41. Burleigh Grimes
42. Pie Traynor
43. Mike Tiernan
44. Harry Hooper
45. Addie Joss
46. Bill Monroe
47. Gavvy Cravath
48. Eddie Cicotte
49. Waite Hoyt
50. Ed Konetchy

Newcomers/Needed explanations:

Lazzeri falls just outside the top 50. Manush is not close at all – no love from me.

Beckley, Ferrell and Sewell are both between 16 to 25. My ballot might be a little OF rich so I’ll continue to revamp elements to get a nice balance.

Beckley has consistency but not as high as peak as some others.

Ferrell was a fine combination player who could hit and pitch. I don’t bow down to WARP3 as much as some other folks. By other measures he doesn’t stand quite as tall. Anyways, someday he’ll hit my ballot.

Sewell did trump the major league SSs in his 8 years. He just misses Joe Cronin so that’s kinda lucky. And the Negro League competition around his time would have been stiff. Where does he rank with Dick Lundy and Dobie Moore? How about John Henry Lloyd and Willie Wells? Doesn’t take much for the SS position to have a lot of solid candidates in his era. That is unless you want the era defined to just the 8 years in baseball history he manned the position.
   72. Kelly in SD Posted: February 17, 2005 at 06:29 AM (#1149955)
Because you requested it. And no, I am not going to do this for Leever.

1. Coveleski - HoM
2. Bender
3. Mays
4. Doc White
5. Chesbro
6. Shawkey
7. Silver King
8. Hippo Vaughn
9. Vance - HoM
10. Babe Adams
(top 6 over 900, down to 895 with Adams)

1913: 27, 3rd, Johnson 54, Russel 32
1914: 21, 7th, Johnson 38
1916: 19, 8th, Ruth 37
1917: 35, 2nd, Ruth 36
1919: 32, 1st, depending on if or how much of a discount you give for the World Series, Johnson and Coveleski are next with 27
1920: 24, 6th t, Bagby 34, tied with Shocker

Best in league
Cicotte: 1
tied with Ferrell, Grimes, Cooper, and Waddell

Top 3 in league
Cicotte: 3 // 1, 2, 3
ahead of only Faber, Mays, and Griffith

3 biggest years:
Cicotte: 94 (35+32+27)
Tied with Vance for 5th

Career Win Shares
Cicotte: 247
8th between Mays and Coveleski

Win Shares per 275 innings
Cicotte: 21.0
tied with Cooper for 7th

Of course, Johnson and Alexander rank ahead of everyone on the above 5 lists.

Defensive Supprt
Cicotte: 9.8
3 rd best between Cooper and Waddell

Run Support Index
Cicotte: 107.36
2 nd best between Mays and Grimes

Cicotte has better support than anyone other than Mays.
   73. Kelly in SD Posted: February 17, 2005 at 11:01 AM (#1150192)
2 part post looking at Clark Griffith and other pitchers of the 1890s. If someone else would like to add BPro numbers, please do. Chris J., if you have numbers for some of these, feel free to add as well.

Part 1.
Some notes on Clark Griffith and other pitchers of the 1890s. It is conceded by everyone that Nichols, Young, and Rusie were the 3 best pitchers of the 1890s. Is Griffith the 4th best as the FoCG claim? Let’s examine some numbers.

Start with win shares in the decade 1890-1899.
Nichols: 390
Young: 331
Rusie: 283
Stivetts: 264
Hutchison: 204
Breitenstein: 202
Frank Dwyer: 193 (who?)
Nig Cuppy: 180
Pink Hawley: 179
Frank Killen: 179
Griffith: 178
Jouett Meekin: 171
Brickyard Kennedy: 168

From this measure, it looks like Stivetts is the clear #4 pitcher of the decade. But I hear two “But”s out there. He pitched before the pitching distance changed and he pitched in the AA. Taking them one at a time.
Everyone would agree the AA was the weakest league in 1890 and 1891. How much should the numbers be downgraded? 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%? Considering the fact that 7 to 10% is the appropriate discount for 1944 and 1945 when over 500 players from the majors were in the military, I think 10% is about is far as I would downgrade his years. He would still have 255 win shares for the 1890s. Taking a 20% discount leaves Stivetts with 247 win shares.

Let’s look at the totals for just 1893 and later:
Nichols: 260
Young: 251
Breitenstein: 191
Rusie: 175
Hawley: 172
Griffith: 163
Kennedy: 158
Meekin: 150
Cuppy: 149
Dwyer: 141
Killen: 140
Stivetts: 128
Hutchison: 56

Just on raw numbers, Griffith is 6th, much closer than before, but still 23 win shares behind Breitenstein.
Let’s look at times in the top 10, league and overall (for 1890, 1891)
Nichols: 10 times for his league, 10 times overall.
Young: 9 times for his league, 9 overall
Rusie: 7 times for his league, 7 times overall
Stivetts: 6 times for his league, 6 times overall
Breitenstein: 5 times league
Hutchison: 3 times league
Dwyer: 4 times league, 3 times overall
Cuppy: 4 times league
Hawley: 4 times league
Killen: 2 times league
Griffith: 3 times league
Meekin: 3 times league
Kennedy: 3 times league

Now, where did the player finish in the top 10, chronologically
Nichols: 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 1, 5 (t)
Young: 6, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2 (t)
Rusie: 5, 4, 6, 2, 1, 7, 3
Stivetts: 2, 1, 1, 8, 6, 8
Breitenstein: 5, 5, 8, 2, 10
Hutchison: 1, 1, 3
Dwyer: 7, 10, 6, 10
Cuppy: 7, 8, 6, 2
Hawley: 7, 1, 9, 8
Killen: 1, 4
Griffith: 4 (t), 6 (t), 4
Meekin: 2, 9, 9
Kennedy: 6, 6, 8
   74. Kelly in SD Posted: February 17, 2005 at 11:12 AM (#1150194)
Post #2

The following numbers are from the STATS Baseball Sourcebook and baseball reference
Won-Lost records matter also:
Nichols: 297-151 .663
Young: 267-151 .639
Rusie: 233-163 .588
Stivetts: 191-125 .604
Hutchison: 167-145 .535
Killen: 161-128 .557
Dwyer: 156-138 .531
Kennedy: 154-131 .540
Meekin: 153-131 .539
Griffith: 152-92 .623
Cuppy: 150-88 .630
Breitenstein: 150-157 .489
Hawley: 142-147 .491

Rusie: 2.89
Nichols: 2.97
Young: 3.05
Clarkson: 3.27
McJames: 3.34
Baldwin: 3.37
Griffith: 3.47
Cuppy: 3.47
Rhines: 3.48
McMahon: 3.50
Hutchison: 3.59 (career)
Stivetts: 3.74 (career)
Killen: 3.78 (career)
Dwyer: 3.85 (career)
Kennedy: 3.96 (career)
Hawley: 3.96 (career)
Breitenstein: 4.04 (career)
Meekin: 4.07 (career)

ERA+ (career):
Nichols: 139
Young: 138
Rusie: 130
Cuppy: 127
Griffith: 121
Stivetts: 120
Dwyer: 115
Hutchison: 112
Breitenstein: 109
Killen: 108
Hawley: 107
Kennedy: 102
Meekin: 102

Innings Pitched:
Nichols: 3985
Young: 3721
Rusie: 3522
Weyhing: 2890
Breitenstein: 2757
Hutchison: 2743
Stivettss: 2696
Meekin: 2590
Hawley: 2501
Dwyer: 2501
Kennedy: 2480
Killen: 2457
Griffith: 2167
Cuppy: 2085

Win Shares/ 275 innings pitched
Nichols: 26.9
Stivettss: 26.9
Young: 24.5
Cuppy: 23.7
Griffith: 22.6
Rusie: 22.1
Dwyer: 21.2
Hutchison: 20.5
Breitenstein: 20.1
Killen: 20
Hawley: 19.7
Kennedy: 18.6
Meekin: 18.1

For whom did each pitch? How good were the teams for whom they pitched?
Breitenstein: StL AA 1891, StL N 1892-1896, Cin 1897-1900, StL N 1901
Cuppy: Clev N 1892-1898, StL N 1899, Bos N 1900, Bos A 1901
Dwyer: Chi N 1888-89, Chi P 1890, Cin AA 1891, Mil AA 1891, StL N 1892, Cin 1892-1899
Griffith: StL AA 1891, Bos AA 1891, Chi N 1893-1900, Chi A 1901-1902, NYY 1903-1907, Cin 1909, Wash 1912-1914
Hawley: StL N 1892-1894, Pit 1895-1897, Cin 1898-1899, NYG 1900, Mil A 1901
Hutchison: KC U 1884, Chi N 1889-1895, StL N 1897
Kennedy: Brooklyn 1892-1901, NYG 1902, Pit 1903
Killen: Mil AA 1891, WasN 1892, Pit 1893-1898, WasN 1898-1899, BosN 1899, ChiN 1900
Meekin: Lou AA 1891, Lou N 1892, Wash 1892-1893, NYG 1894-1899, Bos N 1899, Pit 1900
Nichols: Bos N 1890-1901, StL N 1904-1905, Phi N 1905-1906
Rusie: Ind N 1889, NYG 1890-1895, 1897-1898, Cin 1901
Stivetts: StL AA 1889-1891, Bos N 1892-1898, Cle N 1899
Young: Clev N 1890-1898, StL N 1899-1900, Bos A 1901-1908, Clev A 1909-1911, Bos N 1911

My conclusions: For the entire period of the 90s, Stivetts is my choice for 4th best. Though Griffith is very close. Actually, Cuppy is a good choice is well. Griffith has a much better career compared with any other candidate outside of the 1890s however. But, best pitcher of the 90s not enshrined? No. Best pitcher from 1893-1899 not enshrined? Probably. Though in context, I would prefer Willis and Ferrell; maybe Cooper or Waddell.
   75. TomH Posted: February 17, 2005 at 01:10 PM (#1150209)
Can't disagree with the analysis presented. Of course, more than one-third of Griffith's carer was AFTER 1899, so Clark's HoM argument is certainly NOT based on him being the "best pitcher of the 90s" in this limited sense. How about "best pitcher whose prime occurred in the 90s".
   76. TomH Posted: February 17, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1150303)
1945 Ballot
Review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 12 per year adjusted for league quality, or OPS+ over 95 adjusted for defense and timeline and speed. No real credit for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place.

I bumped the pre-1925 1Bmen up a notch and the CFers down a bit this ballot; GVH and Leach lose a tad, Beckey and Chance move up a hair.

I reiterate, once again, that we are short-changing the 1890s guys.

(x) indicates where I voted for them last ballot
[y] indicates their consensus rank from last ballot

1-Clark Griffith (5) [7]
Vastly, vastly underrated by conventional stats. I’ve said it so often and in so many ways, I’m getting tired of saying it.
2-Goose Goslin (3) [3]
Hitter! Nice long career. Defense not shabby either. I’m not thrilled to put him this high, but somebody has to get the #2 spot. Seems to be a consensus lower-tier-of-HoM, but it’s way too hard to justify NOT honoring him.
3-John Beckwith (7) [5]
He looks to me like the quality (defense and offense) of Killebrew, with a shorter career and some baggage. Which ain’t bad at all.
4-Joe Sewell (10) [11]
He may not have any one stat that defines him, but overall he won lots of ballgames for his team. Not quite Alan Trammell, but beats Dave Concepcion. Moves up this week as I ask the question “what is there NOT to like about him?” He hit great for a shortstop. He fielded great too.
5-Wes Ferrell (8) [8]
Value of at least Rube Waddell, even though they are as different as could be.
An ERA of 4.04 doesn’t seem impressive...until you compare it to the league/park average ERA of 4.72! When you add in the bat, he’s a very viable candidate.
6-John McGraw (9) [[absurdly low]]
RCAP isn’t a perfect tool, but it can’t be THAT far off that McGraw gets no mention from us.
7-Bill Foster (4) [4]
Consensus as one of the top NeL pitchers would put him #1 on my ballot. Maybe being Rube’s brother didn’t hurt his rep? Sketchy data does not support the anecdotes. Would like a longer career, too.
8-George Van Haltren (6) [9]
Hit. Ran. Played D. Pitched. Long career. Played in strong and under-represented 1890s. But was never the key player on his teams, which weren’t exactly perennial winners.
9-Cupid Childs (13) [19]
A fine hitting second sacker indeed, whose glove was okay too. Difficulty of playing a long career as an infielder in the 1890s gives him a few bonus points.
10-Rube Waddell (12) [15]
Six time leader in KOs, 3 ERA+ titles. Unearned runs drag him down a bit. We’ve already elected 8 pitchers from his prime – that nudges him down a bit. But his big KOs would have made him a bigger stud in most other eras, and that bumps him back up.
11-Roger Bresnahan (14) [26]
Similar to Chance and McGraw. Great while he played.
12-Pie Traynor (15) [34]
Not as good as Heinie Groh. I’m not into buying the ‘old guys’ wisdom hook, line, and sinker, but LOTS of people thought he was a great player, and that gives him a small boost.
13-Jake Beckley (off) [10]
Somewhere between Doggie Perez and Fred the Crime Dog McGriff. He’ll have a Ruff time getting an elect-me spot, though.
14-Tommy Leach (11) [16]
As a third baseman he’s high on my ballot. As an OFer he’s way off. He lands here. Looks really similar to Pie Traynor.
15-Frank Chance (off) [[way down]]
More Win Shares per game than Henry Aaron! Highest WS/yr among any ballot-eligible player by a large margin (>2 WS/yr)! I’m proud to have The Peerless Leader back on my ballot :)

Larry Doyle
Great hitter (check out the OWP). Dropped this week as I consider how much his problems throwing to first hurt the Giants.
Tony Lazzeri
Very similar to Doyle.
George Sisler
If only his severe injury had been even one or two years later :(
Dick Lundy
I’m still waiting for someone to make an effective case for him.
Eppa Rixey (off) [6]
115 ERA+ , in front of a good defensive team in the weaker league. Massive amount of career innings doesn’t quite do it.
Mickey Welch
Career looks a lot like Rixey’s.
Hughie Jennings
If we had a PEAK Hall of Merit, Hughie would be a shoo-in.

Wally Schang, Hugh Duffy, and Jimmy Ryan also all are very reasonable candidates.
   77. ronw Posted: February 17, 2005 at 04:23 PM (#1150348)
I just thought of one more reason why 1890's guys are being shortchanged.

It's the election schedule. We had one-man elections in 1906, 07, 08, 09, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, and 31. Most of the early one electee years were exactly when the 1890's guys became "shiny new toys".

Here are some of their debut years:
1904 - Griffin
1905 - Tiernan
1907 - Childs, Duffy
1908 - Jennings
1909 - Ryan, Van Haltren
1912 - Griffith
1913 - Beckley, Cross

I'm not criticizing the election schedule, but it seems that the schedule at least contributed to the generally-agreed 1890's shortfall. If the above years were two electee years, I think that many of the 90's candidates would now be enshrined.
   78. Chris Cobb Posted: February 17, 2005 at 04:41 PM (#1150363)

The elections schedule, in larger terms, was fair in that it made slots available in proportion to the number of teams playing.

If the 1890s guys got shortchanged (and I agree they did), it was because we didn't account sufficiently for increases in quality of competition in the 1890s over the 1880s and elected about three 1880s players in place of about three 1890s players.

It's not a fault of the system, it's a decision of the electorate. Once we reache the 1920s, competition differences started being taken very seriously by a number of voters, so the 1890s guys are again squeezed out.
   79. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: February 17, 2005 at 04:47 PM (#1150370)
Here's what I got for them:

Stivetts: 106.37
Griffith: 105.50
Weyhing: 104.19
Rusie: 102.71
Young: 99.97
Nichols: 96.87
Hutchison: 94.49
Breitenstein: 92.32
Hawley: 89.50

Nichols: +36.5
Young: +19.5
Stivetts: +16.0
Hutchison: +6.8
Griffith: +6.3
Hawley: +3.2
Weyhing: +3.2
Breitenstein: -0.3
Rusie: -2.7

slight edge for Nichols there (!!)

Jack (I)

Given what a lousy hitter he was, I'd say Weyhing had the best run support of the bunch.
   80. DanG Posted: February 17, 2005 at 05:03 PM (#1150397)
Best career WARP3 among 1890's pitchers

176.0 Young
106.0 Nichols
79.1 Rusie
71.9 Griffith
57.2 Breitenstein
44.5 Hawley
44.4 Stivetts
41.9 Killen
40.4 Hutchison
40.3 Kennedy
   81. Kelly in SD Posted: February 17, 2005 at 06:26 PM (#1150583)
Chris J. and Dan G.,

Thank you for your input.

Thought it might be interesting to see a difference b/t WARP1 and 3. Here are WARP1 #s and the percentage kept to WARP3:

Young: 194 // 90.7
Nichols: 121.7 // 89.1
Rusie: 92.8 // 85.2
Griffith: 83.2 // 86.4
Stivetts: 69.4 // 64.0
Breitenstein: 66.8 // 85.6
Hutchison: 54.7 // 73.9
Hawley: 54.1 // 82.3
Kennedy: 51 // 79.0
Killen: 48.9 // 85.7

Why is Stivetts "discount" so much larger than the rest? Does anyone with more insight into BPro's numbers know? I thought it could be because of his value before the pitching distance change, but Hutchison had 75% of his value before 1893 and he did not lose as much WARP.
I think I found it: WARP1 to WARP3 for 1891 when Stivetts was in the AA: 11.7 to 2.8. That seems a little drastic. Thought I would check a HoMer and 2 semi-popular candidate who played in the 1891 AA to see their "discounts:" Brouthers, Childs and Duffy.
Brouthers: 9.0 to 5.7
Childs: 9.0 to 5.5
Duffy: 9.9 to 7.2
Ok, did BPro mess up their translation from WARP1 to 3 for Stivetts? - because his reduction is a tad larger than that of Brouthers and Duffy. Stivetts was the best pitcher (by win shares) in the AA that year. If he loses 76% of his WARP, why do the hitters only lose, respectively, 37%, 39%, and 27% of their WARP? If the pitching is that unimpressive, shouldn't hitters lose more as well? And why the differences in the reduction between Duffy Childs and Brouthers - position or age? Position doesn't make any sense, Childs at second loses more than Brouthers at first?

   82. Max Parkinson Posted: February 17, 2005 at 07:38 PM (#1150722)

Without defending it's veracity, the reason that you'd see a difference for these players is that Davenport discounts the 3 parts of WARP (BRAR, FRAR and PRAR) differently.

1891 AA Warp 1-3 Discount

BRAR - 72.2%
FRAR - 53.1%
PRAR - 79.1%

Hope that helps...
   83. TomH Posted: February 17, 2005 at 08:02 PM (#1150784)
By the way, I'll be scarce for the next 3 weeks. Life will be busy, and I'm pretty sure (checking the new-eligible thread) the 1946 and '47 HoM classes will be made up of guys I won't be the least ashamed of, even if I don't give or take much from the discussion. Anyone tired of rants about Griffith, Sewell, Chance, Bresnahan, McGraw, or anti-Rixey rhetoric can hereby breathe the approriate number of sighs of relief :)
   84. Max Parkinson Posted: February 17, 2005 at 09:11 PM (#1150961)
Upon reconsideration, Kelly, I might be missing something. Didn't Childs play for Cleveland in the NL that year?
   85. DavidFoss Posted: February 17, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1151002)
Childs did play in the NL in 1891... Childs' big discount year is 1890. (AA in the three-league year)

14.8 --> 8.2

181 OPS+ as a 22 year old rookie. Just behing Denny Lyons (194) and ahead of Jimmy Wolf (167) and Spud Johnson (164).
   86. jimd Posted: February 17, 2005 at 09:29 PM (#1151004)
the reason that you'd see a difference for these players is that Davenport discounts the 3 parts of WARP (BRAR, FRAR and PRAR) differently.

IIRC, FRAR is discounted separately at each position also. The WARP-1 fielding value for each position changes over time (IF diminish in value as chances decline when groundballs are converted into pitcher strikeouts, OF move up and down as their relative chances rise and fall, etc.) OTOH, WARP-3 uses fixed ratios between the positions (like Win Shares), though it extends this to the individual OF positions also. (A major reason why it was kind to Sam Thompson; RF'ers are more important "for all time" then they were in the 1880's/1890's.)

Also, the fielding quality at each position can vary between leagues (though it usually doesn't vary by as much as does batting, or pitching which tends to vary the most).
   87. jimd Posted: February 17, 2005 at 09:46 PM (#1151028)
Also, there are two parts to the "discount". It's a linear transformation, not a simple discount. There is the replacement level, and there is the discount percentage. Many players in the weaker leagues (UA, FL, AA 1882-3, 1890-1) wind up with negative WARP-3 values because they were below "major league" level, and other marginal players wind up close to 0 because they were very close to the overall replacement level, though they had value in the context of their weak league. You can't model that conceptually with a simple percentage discount; some value proportional to playing time is subtracted to adjust for the difference in replacement levels.
   88. DavidFoss Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:17 AM (#1151674)
Something that hasn't been said yet about John Murphy. Its not just the great work he does, but the timeliness of the work. There have been many times where I have snuck away from the HOM for a few days, but John is always here, ready to post results or a new thread whenever they are needed. Thanks John.

War looks to be almost over. Probably another season will be lost, but hopefully we can play some full-strength ball in 1946.

1945 Ballot

1. Goose Goslin (ne-3) -- Ranks a bit above Wheat, but below Heilmann. Certainly worthy of induction, and it looks like this is his year.
2. Hughie Jennings (14-12-14-14-13-11-9-7-6-7-8-13-11-11-9-6-4-4-4-2-5-4) -- I like peak and boy does Hughie have peak. Quite durable inside his peak. Basically the best player in baseball for five years running. Not much outside that peak, though.
3. Clark Griffith (nr-15-12-10-8-7-9-10-14-nr-14-14-13-8-4-7-5) -- The plethora of borderline 20's candidates is making me think we may have forgotten about Clark. Solid numbers in an underrepresented era.
4. John Beckwith (nr-12-8-6) Convinced he's ballot-worthy by recent analysis and re-analysis. He was certainly a good hitter. Career length and true defensive position are my main concerns with him.
5. Bill Foster (ne-11-9) -- Bumps over the second-sackers this week. The numbers are in and they look about what I expected. Looks like he had a couple of fine peak seasons in there (though the regressing needed for translation evened them out a bit). Likely to be inducted this year and I'm OK with that.
6. Larry Doyle (nr-14-11-9-8-6-7-10-8-8-6-4-2-3-3-1-4-7) -- I think the electorate is underrating him. Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak, in fairly short career. Fielding was mediocre, but not as horrific as WARP suggests.
7. Cupid Childs (nr-15-12-10-9-8-9-14-12-12-10-8-6-6-5-3-6-8) -- Very comparable to Doyle. OPS+ is OBP heavy. Fielding was good, but not A-level.
8. Charley Jones (nr-nr-13-12-11-9-7-6-5-5-6-11-9-9-7-5-3-7-6-5-9-10) -- Unfairly blacklisted. Appears to be a hybrid or Pike/Stovey/Thompson, guys I've ranked fairly highly.
9. John McGraw (10-10-11-10-9-8-6-5-4-4-5-12-10-10-8-7-5-5-7-6-10-11) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. In fact, his OBP is 3rd all time. Playing time issues keepin him out of the HOM so far... in fact, he's down to just four ballots now!
10. Dick Redding (ne-12-10-8-9-10-7-12-12) -- 2nd best fastball of the 10's according to Neyer/James.
11. Wes Ferrell (ne-13) -- Tossing in some love for one of the last of the great hitting pitchers. Very nice peak, but not much else. If his arm would have held out a couple of more years, he'd have a much easier case. That could be said of quite a few pitchers, though.
12. Joe Sewell (ne-12-14-15-14-14-15) His RCAA numbers are good and earn him a place on the ballot. His RCAP numbers are a bit inflated due to his being 10 years older than Cronin/Vaughn/Appling.
13. George Sisler (ne-14-13-11-9-10-12-10-13-14) -- Peak candidate... before the injury (184 RC+) was a top-tier hitter, trailing only Ruth, Cobb, Hornsby, Speaker & Jackson with a big gap down to the next group of Heilmann, Youngs and Roush (155 RC+). After the injury, he was quite mediocre (103 RC+). Peak is high enough to make the ballot. His peak is shorter and lower than JJackson's which is what keeps him relatively low.
14. Roger Bresnahan (15-15-nr-nr-13-11-10-10-11-15-15-14-12-10-11-13-11) -- Great five year peak at C. 126 OPS+ is OBP-heavy. Didn't appear to play full-time outside his peak though... getting a small subjective boost due to catcher shortage from his era.
15. Eppa Rixey (ne-15) -- Not much peak, but I like his peak numbers better than Faber's. Decent ERA+ and pitched a long time.


Beckley -- Took a long look at him. Black Ink of 1. Top OPS finishes are 5-7-8-10.
Van Haltren -- Two 10ths and an AA-7th in OPS+ is not what I look for in a HOM outfield candidate. Win Shares fielding rating of B. Looks like the Hall of the Very Good to me.
   89. dan b Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:29 AM (#1151696)
1.Goslin (2) 4th best LF to date, best hitter on ballot. PHoM 1945.
2.Foster 3rd best NeL pitcher. PHoM 1945. John Murphy’s lead for this thread holds true for my PHoM.
3.Jennings (9) – PHoM in 1908. Played on 3 championship teams during his 5-year run as a superstar. 2nd in 3 and 5-year peaks. 1890’s underrepresented.
4.Beckwith PHoM 1940.
5.Rixey (9) More career value than any other pitcher in his era not named Johnson or Alexander put him in PHoM 1939. 4th in his era in Pennants Added.
6.Duffy (1). PHoM in 1912. 1890’s underrepresented.
7.Leach (6) 6th in 8-yr peak, 2nd in career. PHoM 1926.
8.Griffith (2) 4th best pitcher of 90’s belongs in, PHoM 1913. 1890’s underrepresented.
9.W. Cooper (4) Pennants added likes him. PHoM 1942.
10. Mays (5) Pennants added likes him. I like these guys better than Vance or Faber.
11.Roush (3) Composite rank better than any single component. PHoM 1942.
12.Bresnahan (21) SABR Dead ball era committee has him #1. PHoM 1928
13.Burns,GJ (4) 2nd in 3, 8 and 10 year peaks. 3rd best hitter on ballot.
14.Lundy Only Biz Mackey fared better in the Cool Papa’s survey.
15.Sisler (10) – 2nd best hitter on ballot.
   90. OCF Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:49 AM (#1151735)
26 votes, which is just about halfway home. No new voters yet this year. Average consensus score will be negative, probably -2 or -3.
   91. Rob_Wood Posted: February 18, 2005 at 03:49 AM (#1151736)
My 1945 ballot:

1. Goose Goslin -- head & shoulders above the rest
2. Jack Beckley -- I give him an 1890s boost
3. Bill Foster -- not as great as first thought, but still HOM worthy
4. Kiki Cuyler -- what's not to luv?
5. Tony Lazzeri -- joins the bunch of very good players languishing
6. Eppa Rixey -- has what I'm looking for
7. Joe Sewell -- I agree with TomH about Sewell
8. Edd Roush -- another very good centerfielder
9. George Van Haltren -- ditto, 1890s boost, and small boost for P
10. George Sisler -- overall still had a great career
11. Cupid Childs -- another 1890s boost
12. John Beckwith -- maybe should be higher
13. Larry Doyle -- receiving virtually no support
14. Clark Griffith -- would be a good addition to HOM
15. Hack Wilson -- a very strange player and career
   92. Tiboreau Posted: February 18, 2005 at 04:47 AM (#1151861)
1945 HoM Ballot:
1. Goose Goslin—While he doesn’t have the peak value of Charley Jones or Hugh Duffy, Goslin’s career value more than makes up the difference.
2. John Beckwith—His spot on my ballot is mainly based on Gadfly’s inestimable opinion on his hitting and Chris Cobb’s Win Shares projections.
3. Clark Griffith—A good balance between peak and career: His peak value is closer to Ferrell, Waddell and Mays than Rixey and Grimes, while his career value isn’t too far off the latter group and solidly ahead of the former.
4. Bill Foster—Considered by many to be the third best pitcher in the history of the Negro Leagues. Chris Cobb compares him to Dazzy Vance and Stan Coveleski, and since I know practically nothing about Negro League pitchers that’s a good enough comparison for me.
5. Charley Jones—A legitimate star of the ‘70s, I finally decided to give him credit for his blacklisted years, jumping him from just off the ballot to here.
6. Eppa Rixey—Did not have a great peak, but Eppa was consistently real good for a long time. I have rearranged pitchers due to a different balance of career vs. peak value than position players.
7. Hughie Jennings—Jennings has the highest peak of any of the available candidates. His peak also comprises of 73.4% of his warp1 and 70.1% of his WS. In the end, the brilliance of his peak outshines any questions I have regarding his career value.
8. Hugh Duffy—See comments on Edd Roush.
9. Edd Roush—Nearly indistinguishable from Duffy: 126 ops+ vs. 122; 109.7 warp1 and 315 WS (25.86 per 162) vs. 100.3 and 295 (27.51), giving Roush a slight career advantage IMO; 46.2 warp1 and 136 WS in best five consecutive years vs. 48.1 and 144, giving Duffy a slight advantage peak-wise.
10. Dobie Moore—Based off projections, estimates, and anecdotes, the Negro Leaguers are the wild cards of my HoM ballot. Called the "best unrecognized player" of the Negro Leagues by Bill James, and has been compared to Hughie Jennings.
11. Wes Ferrell—Comparable to Rube Waddell among peak pitchers, IMO. Waddell has the advantage in IP and ERA+; however, considering the difference in eras the gap in IP shrinks (if not balances in Ferrell’s favor), and his competent handling of the bat more than makes of the difference in ERA+, especially considering Waddell’s UER issues.
12. Gavy Cravath—"He played ball, and lived his life, with a minimum amount of effort and nervous energy." Cravath gets extra credit for his minor league performance, obviously, especially as the star of the Minneapolis Miners.
13. Rube Waddell—See comments on Wes Ferrell.
14. Larry Doyle—Siding with Win Shares interpretation of his defense, combined with an adjustment for Childs’s 1890 AA competition, gives Doyle the edge over Childs.
15. Carl Mays—Raised in estimation last "year" when I took another look at pitchers, the hardest position to come to grips with. Similar to Ferrell and Waddell, except his bigger seasons are spread among his lesser and not clumped together.

Jake Beckley—Very good career numbers, however, his peak numbers are the lowest of any candidate. Even with fielding adjustments, there are still other very good career, good peak guys I'd put ahead of him.
George Van Haltren—Had a long, solid career without ever being truly outstanding, so he falls just a few spots off of my ballot.
   93. Kelly in SD Posted: February 18, 2005 at 08:02 AM (#1152241)

Thank you for trying to explain it to me. I still think something is wrong at least with Stivetts numbers in 1891.
Could the drastic decrease from WARP1 to WARP3 (11.7 to 2.8) be caused by a lack of any other good pitchers in the 1891 AA? In other words, Stivetts had a great season (see good WARP1 score), but the other pitchers in the league sucked ass so badly that Stivetts' value is reduced significantly because of a lack of competition?
That could be why the position players (Brouthers and Duffy (Damn, don't know what I was thinking with Childs)) do not lose as many WARPs because the overall level of position players was better than that of the pitchers.
Is this what the numbers are trying to say?

(This is why I don't use BPRO numbers, by the way.)
   94. Kelly in SD Posted: February 18, 2005 at 09:24 AM (#1152280)
1945 Ballot part 1

1. Welch - PHOM 1901 – see posts this ballot thread. To summarize, the weight of the evidence leads me to believe he was as good as most of the pitchers already enshrined in the HoM, especially pre-1893.
His record against HoMers: 62-38.
Lack of defensive support compared to every other HoM pitcher pre-1893
Small difference in ERA+ is attributable to comparatively poorer defenses that played behind him.
Durability – 3rd most innings pre-1893
Wins – No person with this many wins is NOT a HoMer
Similar pitchers – most similar include: Radbourn, Keefe, Clarkson, Nichols, Seaver, and Plank among his top 8.

2. C Jones - PHOM 1906 - : I give full credit for the 2 and one-sixth black-balled years. 4th in peak (Jennings, Browning, Duffy), 1st in prime, 8th in per season, 7th in career. 4 times a Win Shares all-star, 3 times best in majors. 5 times a STATS all-star. OPS+ of 149 is 3rd (Browning, Cravath). Adjusted for season length, 9 20 ws seasons, 6 - 25+, 4 - 30+ and that is without giving credit for the missing years. 7th in black ink, 3th in grey ink. 8th most pennants added.

3. Browning - PHOM 1921 - Prime – 2nd behind Jones. Peak – 2nd behind Jennings. Season – 5th behind Chance, Cravath, Bresnahan, Seymour. 5 times a win shares all-star, 2 times majors. 8 times STATS all-star. OPS+162 is 12 points better than next highest among eligibles – Cravath. Only Duffy and Van Haltren have more pennants added.

4. Duffy - PHOM 1919 - Prime – 3rd (Jones, Browning). Peak – 3rd (Jennings, Browning). Career – 8th. Excellent defensive center fielder on one of the best defensive teams ever. Rates at an A+ with 4 gold gloves. Only Van Haltren has more pennants added. 5 times a Win Shares all-star. Only Cravath has more black ink.
2 times best position player in the league: 1893 tied with Delahanty, 1894.
3 other times in top 5: 1890 Players League (the strongest of the three) 2nd by 1 behind Ward; 1891 AA: 3rd behind Brouthers and Brown; 1892: 5th behind 2 HoMers Brouthers and Dahlen, Cupid Childs, and E Smith.
1895: 11th behind 5 HoMers. Tied with another HoMer – Keeler.
1897. 8th behind 6 HoMers and Jennings.
1898. 13th behind 7 HoMers. Tied with 2 other HoMers – Clarke and Wallace.
His Defensive Win Shares are NOT the result of playing centerfield. He actually spent only 40% of his time in center. He moved out of center because Billy Hamilton came to the team.

5. Goslin - PHOM 1945 - Long, consistent career. 6 times AL top 3 outfielder. 5 times top 5 position player in AL. 11 times 20+ win shares, 7 times 25+. Created 118 runs per 162 games. Only Van Haltren had more career win shares adjusted for season length. 10th highest peak.

6. Foster - PHOM 1945 – 3rd best NeL pitcher ever. That is a Hall of Meriter. I was rereading the NBJHBA and he makes the point about the number of great players in the Negro Leagues. He points out that Ernie Banks, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, and Roy Campanella came out of the NeL in 7 years. I’m not saying this depth continued back in history, but it didn’t just spring up out of the ground because the white majors stopped being racist, either. Foster was a great pitcher at a high level who had a long peak.

7. Van Haltren - PHOM 1939 - Career – Best. Prime – 5th (Jones, Browning, Duffy, Burns). What hurts him is his peak and seasonal numbers. 12 years with 20+ win shares. Adjust for season length and 9 are over 25. 2 times win shares league and majors all-star. Very consistent player.

8. Burns - PHOM 1938 - Steps back in front of Roush this time. 4th in prime (Jones, Browning, Duffy). 5th in peak (Jennings, Jones, Browning, Duffy). 5 times all-star and 3 times majors by win-shares. Great lead-off man (who have definitely been overlooked). 3rd in black ink (Cravath, Duffy). 12th in grey ink. 10 years with 20+ win shares. Best position player in league – 1914.

9. Mendez – Convinced he deserves to be this high by recently rererereading his thread. Pitched at a top level for a long time against excellent NeL competition. Added bonus of position play.

10. Moore - Great shortstop. Now giving some credit for seasons spent in the military. Excellent prime. Great hitter. Maybe not at the level of Beckwith, but still excellent production for a shortstop. Quite a bit better fielder than Beckwith.
   95. Kelly in SD Posted: February 18, 2005 at 09:26 AM (#1152281)
11. Willis – PHOM 1942 - 4000 innings with a 118 ERA plus. 4 times league all-star. Only Grimes had more Grey Ink. Best pitcher in league in 1899, 1901. Second best pitcher in 1902, 1906. More Grey Ink than 7 HoMers from post-1893 era.

12. Ferrell - No, I am not drinking the Kool-Aid. He has an excellent peak. I see him as the 3rd best pitcher of the period (Grove, Hubbell were better.) If Grove had not been in the AL, Ferrell would have led the league 3 times and finished 2nd 3 times instead of the 1 first, 2 seconds, and 3 thirds he ended up with. Ferrell handled a heavy workload for his time at a consistently top level.

13. Roush - PHOM 1940 - 11th in prime, 9th in peak, 10th in season. 9th in career. A solid to excellent player for a long period of time. An A- defender with 5 gold glvoes. 5 times a win shares all-star. 9 seasons with 20+ win shares.

14. Childs - PHOM 1932 - Biggest move up from raw numbers. Best second baseman in majors 1890-1896. Better than HoMer Bid McPhee every year. Also had 2 second bests afterward. If you want to discount his 1890 season in the American Association where he was the best player in the league you can, but even with a discount, he was the best second basemen in the game. Hub Collins had 3 fewer win shares in the National League – which lost most of its best players to the Players League also. The best in the Players League had 11 fewer. Tenth highest prime.

15. Leach: 5th in career win shares. A+ defense at Third and outfield. Key reason why Pittsburgh could place so many different pitchers in the rotation and they would all pitch well. 7 times a top 7 player in league.
Top 10 in league:
1902: 4th
1904: 6th tied
1907: 3rd tied
1908: 4th tied
1909: 7th
1913: 4th tied
1914: 4th

Next 15:
Jennings, Beckwith, (Terry), Poles, (Vance) Cooper, Griffith, Waddell, (Carey), Doyle, Sisler, Chance, Herman Long, Thomas, F Jones, Grimes, Bresnahan, Veach or Konetchy.

Manush: 45-50, just below Cuyler
Lazzeri: 60-65, 2B goes Childs, Monroe, Doyle, Evers, Lazzeri, Buddy Myer (is he eligible?), Pratt, McManus

Returning Top 10s Not on My Ballot:
Beckwith (17th): He and Jennings are that close to the ballot. I’ll take Leach and his defense and long prime over Beckwith’s power hitting. He and Jennings would have made the ballot had I not done some thinking about how to value pitchers.

Griffith (20th): Despite my Griffith-centric posts recently, he is a great pitcher. He just did not put up the numbers that the great pitchers of his era did. He had a very long run in his prime, but he lacks the big years that other pitchers had during his era.

Rixey: Verry consistent. Better run support than teammates. No big years. High in win shares only 26. Top 7 years is weak as well. Did have 6 all-star seasons, but never the best in even one year. Most every top pitcher of his era had a much higher peak.

Beckley: I really like him for his career. Some of the most impressive career totals. But his year-to-year performance were lacking big years or greatness or something. Many years over adjusted 20 win share level, but never over 25. Only the best at his position 1 to 3 times in his career. Brouthers, Connor, Anson, Chance, Harry Davis, Konetchy, Fournier, Sisler, Daubert, Terry, and Gehrig did better
   96. robc Posted: February 18, 2005 at 01:36 PM (#1152357)

The war in Europe is surely winding down but the invasion of Japan still awaits us. Who knows how many soldiers will be lost then? What we really need is some kind of superweapon to end it all of a sudden, but thats just wishful thinking.
   97. Brad G Posted: February 18, 2005 at 02:57 PM (#1152430)
Running a little late this week... here's my best shot:

1945 Ballot:

1.Goose Goslin- Last year, I had Goslin at #5 behind Foster and Duffy, acknowledging that I may have been under-rating his value. A second, less cluttered look, and less conservative placement results in his addition to my PHoM.

2.Bill Foster- Recent equivalency analysis may taint his stats slightly, but not enough to keep him out of the Hall, in my opinion. He’s gonna get the benefit of the doubt; reputation still weighs heavy.

3.Hugh Duffy- Career Win Shares = 295, Win Share 5-year Peak = 144 (!), Career WARP3 = 81, Career Runs Created = 1229, Black Ink = 38, Gray Ink = 147. A+ Centerfielder with 5 WS Gold Gloves, according to James, who ranks him #20 center fielder of all time. I’ve had him gracing my Hall since 1908.

4.George Sisler- Monster Career stats: Runs Created = 1477, Black Ink = 29, Gray Ink = 198. Pretty good pitcher, as well. Went into my HoM in 1938. Back at the top of my eligible 1B list.

5.Wes Ferrell- I severely underrated Wes last year. I believe his career WARP3 (82.5) leads all eligible pitchers.

6.Edd Roush- Looks great across the board: Career Win Shares = 314, WARP1 = 111.4, WARP3 = 82.3. Win Shares A- Defender.

7.Rube Waddell- Career Win Shares = 240; WS3 = 100, WS5 = 145, over 30 WS/season, Black Ink = 36, Gray Ink = 158.

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

9.Kiki Cuyler- Was Kiki better than Sam Rice? I’m not entirely convinced, but I definitely had him underrated last year. This time around his peak/prime gives him the slight edge.

10.Jimmy Ryan- Career WS = 316, Career WARP1 = 119, Career WARP3 = 84.5, Career Runs Created = 1338, B+ WS Defender. Awesome career, overlooked due to CF glut.

11.Sam Rice- Best career of eligible RFs. Career Win Shares = 327, Career Runs Created = 1467.

12.Burleigh Grimes- Super Ink scores: Black = 38, Gray = 213, will likely never reach the Hall.

13.Tommy Leach- Career Win Shares = 329, WARP1 = 113.7, WARP3 = 74.8.

14.Eppa Rixey- Black Ink = 10, Gray Ink = 175. 315 Career Win Shares.

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

Just off the list: I’ve got Beckwith close, but can’t muster enough to get him on the list with conviction yet.

   98. Dolf Lucky Posted: February 18, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1152687)
1 (3)Willie Foster--Best Negro pitcher? Maybe not, but very likely in the top 2-3. He's waited in the backlog long enough.

2 (4)Wes Ferrell--More career WARP than, say, Eppa Rixey, and the peak ain't even close.

3 (12)George Sisler--Not quite as dominant as I had thought, but that peak stacks relatively high.

4 (5)Joe Sewell
5 (6)John Beckwith--Due to defensive concerns, I'd have a hard time putting Beckwith above Sewell. However, a reconsideration of him means he'll probably be on the ballot for awhile.

6 (9)Goose Goslin--One of my favorite all-time players. Trying to be a bit cautious at first, but he'll probably move up once Gehrig and Frisch are gone.

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

8 (13)Burleigh Grimes--There's a new WARP adjustment, and Grimes appears to be the big winner, placing his career above other pitchers not named Vance. Obviously, not as peak-heavy as some of the others, and there were certainly some below-average seasons thrown in here, but I think that doesn't hurt a pitcher as much as it does a hitter.

9 (8)Donie Bush--Gets extra points for being a top-notch leadoff type.

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

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

12 (10)Roger Bresnahan--The last time we had a catcher with an OPS+ this high, that had a career length in the high teens, that played several other positions with some regularity, we voted him in right away (Buck Ewing).

13 (-)Carl Mays--Still pretty iffy on him, and I could be convinced that 7 pitchers on this ballot is too much.

14 (-)Kiki Cuyler--More carer, but less peak than Burns. Slot him here for now.

15 (-)George J Burns--Burns is near the top of the OF glut based on a better peak.

Dropping out: Duke Farrell

Top 10 ommissions: Clark Griffith is fairly similar to Cicotte, and could make it on at some point, but with 7 or 8 pitchers already ahead of him, it's doubtful. Not doubtful is that GVH, J-Beck, and Eppa all lack the requisite peak numbers to make my ballot.
   99. Mike Webber Posted: February 18, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1152827)
I am mostly using Win Shares with a bonus for peak seasons. Discounting pre-1893 pitching accomplishments, and giving catchers and middle infielders a boost.

1)GOOSE GOSLIN – This is the only player that I am dead solid positive he deserves to be a HOM inductee
2)TOMMY LEACH – Hit four triples in the 1903 World Series, four doubles in the 1909 Series, so I guess he had lost a step by then.
3)EDD ROUSH – The best of the outfield candidates due to his high peak.
4)GEORGE VAN HALTREN – Outfield is a glut, but I think he has to get some credit for his PCL time in the early 1900’s. J
5)EPPA RIXEY – If he had just one mind blowing season he’d be in already – like a couple of others on this list.
8)VIC WILLIS – Re-read BJNHA rankings of both, and discussed them with Joe D. and I see the arguments to put Griffith ahead of Willis
   100. Mike Webber Posted: February 18, 2005 at 06:08 PM (#1152839)
10)DICK REDDING – I decided to put the guys who’s records aren’t projected ahead of guess work guys. I will listen to the people who have studied it harder and put Foster ahead of Redding, but I’d probably take Redding in a Diamond Mind keeper league.
11)JIMMY RYAN – Solid win shares, solid peak, OF glut.
12)DOBIE MOORE – Love this guys story, it should be a movie.
13)JOE SEWELL – What if strikeouts were really as important as some sportswriters think? Joe would be Babe Ruth!
14)Hugh Duffy -

Next 10 –Maranville, Hooper, Rice, Lundy, Sisler, Beckwith, Cuyler, Beckley, Bancroft, and Grimes.

Newcomer Manush is at 26, Lazzeri is 35.

Ferrell, Jennings and Waddell all suffer due to career length in my system, I am still trying to find a balance between career length and peak.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 1.1144 seconds
41 querie(s) executed