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, March 07, 2005

1947 Ballot Discussion

Our 50th election!

1947 (March 13)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

391 127.2 1925 Lefty Grove-P (1975)
325 113.1 1923 Gabby Hartnett-C (1972)
258 73.9 1926 Buddy Myer-2B (1974)
223 62.7 1923 Charlie Root-P (1970)
222 61.7 1925 Freddie Fitzsimmons-P (1979)
175 51.5 1927 Bump Hadley-P (1963)
170 51.8 1932 Jo-Jo Moore-LF (2001)
159 50.2 1931 Joe Vosmik-LF (1962)
149 49.4 1928 Spud Davis-C (1984)
150 36.9 1927 Danny MacFayden-P (1972)
121 39.8 1928 Leo Durocher-SS (1991)
111 34.2 1932 Bill Swift-P (1969)
112 30.5 1933 Odell Hale-2B/3B (1980)
104 32.9 1933 Monte Pearson-P (1978)

1947 (March 13)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

80% 22-45 Jud Wilson-3B/1B (1899) #4 3b - 0 - 11*
00% 20-41 Connie Rector-P (??) 1 - 1*

Players Passing Away in 1946

Age Elected

60 1936 Smokey Joe Williams-P
59 1933 Walter Johnson-P

Age Eligible

62 1939 Jack Quinn-P
57 1924 Jeff Tesreau-P
42 1945 Tony Lazzeri-2B

As always, thanks Dan and Chris!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 07, 2005 at 01:40 AM | 127 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: March 08, 2005 at 01:13 AM (#1186843)
hot topics
   2. OCF Posted: March 08, 2005 at 01:53 AM (#1186912)
Lots of pitchers. Here are the RA+ Pythpat equivalent records and the "big years bonus" (amount by which the equivalent record exceeded 15 FWP in per year.)

Grove       295 143   141
Root        201 156    12
Fitzsimmons 195 163     0

Both Root and Fitzsimmons display a common career path for good pitchers of this generation: a prime when they were fairly young in with 220-270 IP per season (well, Root once topped 300), with maybe an injury-crisis year in there somewhere, followed by a long, useful post-prime career at < 200 IP per season, but with continuing effectiveness in rate stats. The regular schedule of our times, along with our rigid rotation, (not to mention our pay scale for ex-stars) has pretty much killed off this kind of usage for older pitchers. If anyone were to try it, it would probably still work.

Root and Fitzsimmons were both fine pitchers. They share the problem of being directly comparable to Ted Lyons.

I haven't worked up Hadley.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 08, 2005 at 01:54 AM (#1186915)
Do we need threads for Root and Fat Freddie?
   4. The Honorable Ardo Posted: March 08, 2005 at 05:05 AM (#1187330)
Prelim '47 ballot:

Three top candidates:
1 (new): Grove
2 (new): Hartnett
3 (new): Jud Wilson

Then, the fun begins:
4 (3): Beckwith
5 (6): Averill
6 (7): Griffith
7 (4): Roush (league quality deduction)
8 (5): Suttles (Reggie Jackson-lite)
9 (8): Lundy
10 (9): Rixey
11 (10): Sewell
12 (12): Mendez
13 (13): Duffy
14 (15): Beckley
15 (off): Redding
16-20: Sisler, Ferrell, Schang, Leach, Ned.

Sisler and Ferrell fall off of my top 15.
   5. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 08, 2005 at 06:06 AM (#1187405)
Just did the grunt work for MOWPs for Root & Fitzsimmons (& Hubbell) but am currently too tired to do anything more.

Fun fact: as a Dodger, 29 of Fitzsimmons 97 starts came against Pitt and 17 more vs. Philly.

From 1939-onward 35 of his 58 starts were against those teams. He also had 7 vs. Boston, 7 vs. StL, 5 vs. Cin (4 in 1939), and 2 vs both the Cubs and Giants.
   6. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 08, 2005 at 06:11 AM (#1187418)
Also, vs. .600 or better teams, Fitzsimmons had 41 starts, and his teams went 15-26. Root had 41 starts and his teams went 21-20.

In pennant race games (defined as how a pitcher did against teams who were 10 games or fewer out of first if their team was within 10 games of first or better at the end of the year) Root also bests Fitzsimmons. Both had lots of such starts due to the tight pennant races of the 1930s NL. Root's teams were 52-39 when he started and Fat Freddie's teams went 36-36.
   7. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 08, 2005 at 06:13 AM (#1187425)
As long as I'm lookin' it up: Hubbell's teams were 58-44 in pennant race games he started in. They were 31-41-1 vs. .600 teams.
   8. jhwinfrey Posted: March 08, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1187898)
Here's my preliminary ballot:

1. Lefty Grove -- best pitcher on the ballot by far.
2. Jud Wilson -- Great-hit, no-field, long-career beats Hartnett's good-hit, great-field, short-career for me.
3. Gabby Hartnett -- With Hartnett, Mackey, Dickey, and Gibson becoming eligible, will Bresnahan & Schang's support disappear?
4. Jake Beckley
5. Mickey Welch
6. Eppa Rixey
7. Mule Suttles--I'm very happy he received so much support in '46. Hope he doesn't have to wait too long.
8. Burleigh Grimes
9. John Beckwith
10. Tommy Leach
11. Dick Lundy
12. Dick Redding
13. Jose Mendez
14. Carl Mays
15. Ben Taylor--Wow, these ballots are getting better every year. I had Taylor at #3 not too long ago. Only Leach has jumped ahead of him, otherwise he's just been pushed down by newcomers.

The rest of the '47 crop:
31. Freddie Fitzsimmons: Behind Ferrell and ahead of Cooper. Fitz wasn't the hitter that Ferrell was, but he was more durable and a better fielder.
86. Charlie Root: Decent career but never a dominator.
Buddy Meyer doesn't make my top 100.

The newcomers push Jimmy Lyons, George Bradley, and Willie Kamm out of my top 100.
   9. andrew siegel Posted: March 08, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1188019)
I'm proud to say I will have voted in all 50 elections. Does anyone know how many others can make that claim?

I'm not posting a prelim right now b/c/ I have no idea what to do with Wilson and am very confused as to whether I have Suttles and Beckwith (and Moore and Lundy for that matter) appropriately placed.
   10. Rusty Priske Posted: March 08, 2005 at 04:29 PM (#1188064)
Not quite for me. I started in 1900 so this will be my 48th election.
   11. Chris Cobb Posted: March 08, 2005 at 04:57 PM (#1188139)

There may be reasons to put Jud Wilson ahead of Gabby Hartnett, but Hartnett's "short career" surely isn't one of them. He did play in the majors for 20 years.

Wilson played 24 years in the NeL, but it's unlikely that he would have logged quite that many years in the majors.
   12. TomH Posted: March 08, 2005 at 05:11 PM (#1188158)
Since I am so far out of sync with the typical HoMie voter on John McGraw, I went back and tried a fresh look to see if somehow I had painted an unfairly rosy picture of Mugsy.

The throwing MLB infielders who ranked in the top 40 on our ballot in 1946 were Traynor, Leach, Sewell, Jennings, Doyle, Childs, and then McGraw bringing up the tail. Childs, Jennings, and McGraw were centered mid-late 1890s, Leach 1905-10, Doyle teens, Sewell and Traynor mid-late 1920s.

Method A: WARP
Take WARP3 (accounts for ‘everything’) and subtract 2.5 WARP per year as replacement level. This also serves as a ‘roster cost’ for those guys (like McGraw!) who didn’t play as much. Any year below 2.5 WARP3 gets zero (not negative credit), so poor years are not counted against a player. This gives me “wins above fairly high replacement level”

Results: Sewell 56 Jennings 50 Traynor 47 Leach 46 Childs 45 McGraw 42 Doyle 33

Sewell wins this round.

Method B: Win Shares
Take career WS and subtract 13 WS per 162 games. Calculation, using NBJHA #s: WS * (Wsper162 – 13) / WSper162. WS does not account for schedule and league quality. Divide answer by 3 to get “Wins above fairly high replacement level”

Results: Leach 49 Doyle 49 Sewell 41 Childs 40 McGraw 40 Traynor 38 Jennings 37

Pretty close overall, with Leach and Doyle on top.

Method C: RCAP
Use RCAP but zero out any negative seasons. Still need to account for league quality, league scoring, and defense

McGraw 459 Childs 372 Sewell 351 Jennings 319 Doyle 278 Traynor 225 Leach 178

Now, the deadball guys had fewer runs to work with (especially Leach, but he had the lowest league quality), and the two top guys were not gold glovers. Still, it’s hard not to put Sewell and Mugsy at the top of this list, and Traynor/Leach/Doyle at the bottom.

If I attempted to make a composite of the three methods, it would show Sewell ahead and Doyle behind, and the others in the middle. All closely bunched, which is I guess why we have them splayed out all over our ballots.

Yes, Sewell’s poor comtemp SS help him out with RCAP, but he still faired well with WS and WARP, where this wasn’t an issue. Yes, we’ve elected a lot of SS, so I can see bumping him down a bit for that.

We are shy on the 1890s infielders. We are also shy overall on third baseman. When you add those two factors in, it’s hard not to put John McGraw at least in the middle of this list, if not higher.

Did McGraw have a peak? Well, who had the highest RCAP single season in the first 44 years of the NL? You guessed it. The only one in the AL to beat McGraw’s 100 in 1899 (that’s what a Bonds-like .574 OBP, 83 pts above the 2nd best major leaguer will do for ya) was Nap Lajoie’s 101 in the weak 1901 year. Until the Ruth guy came along.

McGraw had a 5 year run 1897-1901 of the highest RCAP in the majors. The guys who finished 2nd thru 8th were Lajoie, Delahanty, Wagner, Burkett, Flick, Davis, Keeler – an impressive group, eh? Hughie Jennings, who also gets lots of press for his great 5 year peak, did NOT have the highest RCAP for his best run 1894-98. He finished third behind Delahanty and Hamilton.

I don’t expect everyone to climb on the Musgy bandwagon. It CAN be difficult to justify voting for a guy with 462 career RBI. But after makin a list and checkin it twice, I am more confident than before that McGraw is a legit borderline-HoMer.
   13. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 08, 2005 at 06:43 PM (#1188323)
I just ran through the 1950 eligibles and it appears that from 1947-1950 we have anywhere from 6-8 newbies getting elected. That leaves Wilson, Lyons, and Bell out (he is 1950 right?). Two of those three are very likely to get in, though Suttles will be close as well. It is very possible that we we haev the same backlog (plus a few guys like Suttles and Ferrell) in 1951 that we had going into 1941.
   14. Daryn Posted: March 08, 2005 at 07:15 PM (#1188398)
For anyone who is concerned, one way or the other, regarding the number of NeLers we are electing, the Jud Wilson thread is a must-read. Both sides of the argument are being presented.

I think we are doing a good job -- within the range of what makes sense numerically -- and it does seem clear (as I have always thought without conducting the research) that there is no direct link between population numbers and representation of certain groups among the elite of baseball.

Plus, Jud Wilson was pretty good. I think 3/4ths of Pete Rose is a good analogy.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 08, 2005 at 07:28 PM (#1188419)
I'm proud to say I will have voted in all 50 elections. Does anyone know how many others can make that claim?

I know Joe and I can.
   16. OCF Posted: March 08, 2005 at 07:38 PM (#1188435)
For what it's worth, I have Root ahead of Fitzsimmons, but it won't really matter because he won't make my ballot. For white pitchers of this generation - and I'm using a pretty sloppy definition of "this generation" - my not-yet-fully-thought-out pecking order goes:

Grove > Hubbell > [Ferrell, Warnecke, Bridges, Lyons, Gomez, Ruffing] > Dean > the others

The work is going to come with untangling the names in that bracket. But Root and Fitzsimmons are down there in "the others," even though they did both have, as I said, fine careers.
   17. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 08, 2005 at 07:49 PM (#1188466)
I would have all 50, but Joe called the 1900 (I think) election early and I missed it, but it was my fault for not keeping up with the thread.
   18. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 08, 2005 at 07:49 PM (#1188468)
Here's something I can't explain at all and was hoping someone else could:

Pittsburg in the 1930s . . . .

Eppa Rixey started 19 of his final 40 games against them from 1931-3.

Charlie Root started 6 of his last 95 games against them from 1934-38, including none from 1935-7.

Freddie Fitzsimmons started 29 of his 97 games as a Dodger against them from 1937-43.

   19. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 08, 2005 at 07:58 PM (#1188491)
Eppa Rixey started 19 of his final 40 games against them from 1931-3.

Freddie Fitzsimmons started 29 of his 97 games as a Dodger against them from 1937-43.

My best guess is that they both suffered from an acute case of Pennsyl-mania in the '30s. (rimshot and get dragged off of stage with a hook).
   20. Chris Cobb Posted: March 08, 2005 at 08:00 PM (#1188500)
That leaves Wilson, Lyons, and Bell out (he is 1950 right?).

Cool Papa Bell will be eligible in 1948.

Grove > Hubbell > [Ferrell, Warnecke, Bridges, Lyons, Gomez, Ruffing] > Dean > the others

Nice value summary! I agree that Fitzsimmons and Root are definitely in "the others." I'd add Gomez into "the others" as well.
   21. jimd Posted: March 08, 2005 at 09:21 PM (#1188651)
Pittsburg in the 1930s . . .

Their lineup was loaded with good lefties with the Waners, Vaughan, 1B Gus Suhr, and occasional others (Woody Jensen, the other corner 1934-7). Might influence choice of SP.
   22. jhwinfrey Posted: March 08, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1188661)
There may be reasons to put Jud Wilson ahead of Gabby Hartnett, but Hartnett's "short career" surely isn't one of them. He did play in the majors for 20 years.

I give season credit based on games played as a percentage of team's games...since Hartnett only averaged about 100 games a season, he only gets credit for 13 full seasons from me. That's a short career indeed for my ballot, which only has one career shorter--Mickey Welch, who threw at least 15-16 seasons worth of innings in his 12.9 seasons. After Hartnett, the next-highest non-pitcher with a shorter career in my rankings is #18, Edd Roush.

And no, I don't expect catchers to play 154, but I feel that I account for this with positional bonus points. All this is academic of course, since I whole-heartedly support Hartnett for the HoM.
   23. jimd Posted: March 08, 2005 at 10:01 PM (#1188723)
The 29 voters of 1898:
Howie Menckel     Rick A.          Joe Dimino
Andrew Siegel     KJOK             Jeff M
Mark McKinniss    Rob Wood         John Murphy
Carl Goetz        David            Al Peterson
Sean Gilman       thebigeasy       jimd
MattB             TomH             Devin McCullen
Philip            Brian Hodes      Michael D
Marc              Adam Schafer     Esteban Rivera
RobC              dan b            DanG
RMc               ed phatyou

If I'm not mistaken, 19 are still active, though some have changed their handles. How many have never missed an election? All I can say is that I haven't (yet).
   24. OCF Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:07 PM (#1188829)
I started voting in 1904 so this will be my 44th. I have ballot tallies back to 1916, although 1918 and 1919 are missing. My list of consensus scores goes back to 1921. There are 77 different voters who cast at least one ballot in the years 1921-1946.

The voters of 1898 cast votes in 1946 except for:

Carl Goetz - last voted in 1930
MattB - no votes in the 1921-1946 period
Philip - last voted in 1944
Robc - last voted in 1944
RMc - has become sproradic. Voted in 1927, 1930, 1934, and 1944.
David (unless that is David Foss?)
thebigeasy - no votes in 1921-46 unless I missed a name change.
Brian Hodes - Brian H (is that the same person?) last voted in 1939.
ed (TheGoodSamaritan?) - last voted in 1934
Michael D - last voted in 1934
   25. jimd Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:26 PM (#1188852)
I believe that MattB is now known as PhillyBooster.
   26. EricC Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:42 PM (#1188869)
1947 prelim

Mr. Anti-consensus' top 2:

1. Lefty Grove
2. Gabby Hartnett

Grove plus his minor league years vs. Johnson? Too close to call, but if forced to pick, I'd go with the Big Train.

3. Wally Schang

With Hartnett, Mackey, Dickey, and Gibson becoming eligible, will Bresnahan & Schang's support disappear?

Not a chance (at least for me).

4. Joe Sewell
5. Earl Averill
6. Mule Suttles
7. Sam Rice
8. Jose Mendez
9. Roger Bresnahan
10. Jud Wilson

Note that Beckwith is conspicuously absent. I vote for the NELers that I think were best, not the ones that get the most attention. It's becoming increasingly clear that Beckwith got enormous benefit from ballot timing. With the flood of better NEL candidates arriving, people will readjust their opinion of him in the hierarchy, even if it means that some will drop him off their ballots for a few years.

11. Wes Ferrell
12. Eppa Rixey
13. Waite Hoyt
14. Buddy Myer
15. Pie Traynor
   27. Howie Menckel Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:47 PM (#1188879)
I've answered every bell so far.
Hell, never having had a sick day in my life so far (and I'm 43) has been the tougher task.

You can't spell 'relentless' without 'Menckel.'

Ok, you can, but maybe you shouldn't!
   28. Mike Webber Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:48 PM (#1188880)
Which player is most likely to be the first HOM inductee that is still alive? I mean alive in 2005 or 2006?
   29. DavidFoss Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:51 PM (#1188888)
David (unless that is David Foss?)

Nope... I found the sight around 1901 or so. Lurked for months until someone convinced me to submit a ballot. Posted my first ballot in the early 20s. Got a few shoo-in election in before the big gap.
   30. DavidFoss Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:55 PM (#1188898)
Which player is most likely to be the first HOM inductee that is still alive? I mean alive in 2005 or 2006?

We used to debate that. I'm thinking it was concluded that it would probably be Bob Feller, but I can't recall exactly.

Next year (1948) is the first of DanG's lists that has living members on it. We've lost Harry Danning since he posted that, but there are a few others still alive. None of them are ballot worthy, but its still fun.
   31. OCF Posted: March 08, 2005 at 11:58 PM (#1188905)
Posted my first ballot in the early 20s.

1923, to be exact. Had +22 consensus scores in your first two years.
   32. I was saying Boo-urns Posted: March 09, 2005 at 12:38 AM (#1188959)
1898 ballot revisited

1. Deacon White
2. Paul Hines
3. George Gore
4. Ross Barnes
5. Charley Radbourn - elected in 1905
6. George Wright - elected in 1901
7. Ezra Sutton - elected in 1908
8. Hardy Richardson - elected in 1905
9. Al Spalding - elected in 1906
10. Ed Williamson - still appears on the ballot, but unlikely to be elected
11. Joe Start - elected in 1912
12. Pud Galvin - elected in 1910

13. Cal McVey - elected in 1914
14. Tip O'Neill - dropped off the ballot in 1919, hasn't been back since
15. Lip Pike - was eventually elected in 1940
16. Charley Jones - still has a bit of support, but unlikely to be elected
17. Mickey Welch - has some support, might make it someday, but unlikely
18. Fred Dunlap - on and off the ballot
19. Jim McCormick - support is dwindling, might drop out soon
20. Dave Orr - dropped off the ballot in 1907
21. Abner Dalrymple - dropped off in 1899
22. Jin Whitney - last spotted on 1939 ballot
23. Tom York - dropped off in 1946, will he be back?
24. Tommy Bond - still shows up near the end of the ballot
25. Harry Wright - dropped off (for good?) in 1932
26. Jim Creighton - last seen on 1907 ballot
27. Levi Meyerle - dropped off in 1932
28. Bobby Mathews - dropped off in 1934
29. John Clapp - dropped off in 1899
30. Hugh Nicol - dropped off in 1899
31. Dickey Pearce - enjoyed a remarkable surge, was elected in 1931
32. Billy Sunday - dropped off in 1899
33. Candy Cummings - dropped off in 1899
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2005 at 12:54 AM (#1188979)
I believe that MattB is now known as PhillyBooster.

   34. sunnyday2 Posted: March 09, 2005 at 01:00 AM (#1188987)
In honor of now having for the first time a consideration set of 100 players. These are not necessarily my top 100 as the set includes everybody who got a vote the past two years. The top 85 or so I might vouch for, more or less. But here goes. (HoM/not PHoM inserted parenthetically.)

C- Hartnett 2 Bresnahan 30 Schang 62 Schalk 84 Clapp 96 (I s’pose Petway should be in there somewhere…)

1B- Sisler 5 Suttles 6 Beckley 41 Chance 47 Bottomley 60 Taylor 63 Orr 64 Fournier 87 Konetchy 93 H. Davis 99

2B- Doyle 8 Childs 22 Monroe 32 Dunlap 37 Lazzeri 42 Myer 45 Evers 54 N. Allen 68 (and in process) Pratt 92 (forgot Sol White who should be somewhere between Monroe and Allen)

SS- Jennings 3 D. Moore 4 Sewell 15 Lundy 16 Bancroft 20 Maranville 49 Tinker 55 Bush 88 (probably should be more SSs like Peck, Chapman, Art Fletcher… I guess I have spent the most time on SSs, trying to balance glove and bat, and therefore feel good about the rank order, so I’ve probably dropped people from consideration who should probably somewhere in the 75-100 range; have been less confident at other positions and so kept more of the hangers-on around for comparative purposes; see especially 3B)

3B- Williamson 11 Beckwith 13 J. Wilson 19 (and in process) Traynor 27 Leach 29 (Sutton) J. Johnson 71 McGraw 72 L. Cross 77 Marcelle 80 Nash 83 Lyons 86 L. Gardner 94 H. Zimmerman 100

LF- C. Jones 21 (Stovey) Veach 28 NL Burns 46 (Kelley, Sheckard, Pete Hill) Manush 69 H. Johnson 74 O’Neill 76 York 97

CF- Roush 10 Averill17 Browning 18 H. Wilson 24 Duffy 26 Berger 40 VHaltren 43 Poles 51 Ryan 56 F. Jones 78 C. Seymour 79 Griffin 85 H. Wright 95

RF- (Keeler) Cuyler 34 Tiernan 48 S. Rice 53 Cravath 66 Chino Smith 67 Hooper 73 Babe Herman 91 (is he eligible?) Arlett 98

P- Grove 1 (Vance overlooked, shoulda been PHoM by now, first backlog slot) Waddell 7 Bond 9 Joss 12 Cicotte 14 Griffith 23 Mays 25 Ferrell 31 McCormick 33 Redding 35 Rixey 36 Welch 38 Dean 39 (Faber somewhere in the 30s but no idea exactly where) Mendez 44 Luque 50 Grimes52 Willis 57 W. Cooper 58 Mullane 59 Shocker 61 N.Winters 65 A. Cooper 65 Whitney 70 Jim Creighton 75 (respect for all eras) (Pud Galvin) Hoyt 81 Leever 82 Quinn 90 (John Donaldson should be in there somewherebut probably not above Jim Whitney)
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: March 09, 2005 at 01:04 AM (#1188994)
Oh, and there maybe should be more catchers on the hot 100 but it depends on how much of a bonus they get. I'm giving progressively less of a bonus as the years go by, and the above list is based on my current bonus. Certain catchers like Jack Clements (and Clapp) would rate higher if I was still using the 19th century catcher bonus.

At the rate we're building our backlog, I should have a bona fide top 100 eligibles in another 3-4 years.
   36. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 09, 2005 at 01:05 AM (#1188996)
That get eaten?

Turns out that Fitzsimmons and Hubbell ahd one of the most extreme cases of Marichal-Perry Syndrome I've seen. Only Marichal & Perry themselves are more severe, and it's a close call there.

Fitzsimmons: 116.97 RSI in 262 starts
Hubbell: 99.18 RSI in 312 starts.

Wow. Imagine how good Hubbell's W/L record would've been if it was the other way around?
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: March 09, 2005 at 01:06 AM (#1188997)
PPS. Did Joe Vosmik have a couple impressive years or were they strictly a "sign o' the times"?

PPPS. Charlie Root could make my top 100, haven't looked at him yet. Probably not Fat Freddie.
   38. Rob_Wood Posted: March 09, 2005 at 03:42 AM (#1189242)
I too have voted in all elections to date. I imagine that there are a dozen or so of us.
   39. Brent Posted: March 09, 2005 at 03:56 AM (#1189253)
In # 12, Tom H wrote:

Did McGraw have a peak? Well, who had the highest RCAP single season in the first 44 years of the NL? You guessed it. The only one in the AL to beat McGraw’s 100 in 1899 (that’s what a Bonds-like .574 OBP, 83 pts above the 2nd best major leaguer will do for ya) was Nap Lajoie’s 101 in the weak 1901 year. Until the Ruth guy came along.

McGraw’s 1899 season was clearly very good for a pre-WWII third baseman—OPS+ of 168, albeit with only 117 games played (out of 154 scheduled and 152 played by Baltimore). But the greatest season relative to his position in the first 44 years of the NL? It hardly seems likely. Every season from 1904-09, Wagner had an OPS+ of 168 or higher and played at least 132 games at a more difficult position. (Of course, offensive levels were much lower during Wagner’s prime, which points to a major problem with RCAP—runs are units that depend on the offensive context—but even without adjusting for the difference in offensive context, it hardly seems plausible that McGraw in 1899 created more runs relative to the average third baseman than Wagner in 1905 created relative to the average shortstop, for example.

So what exactly is RCAP? I think someone asked this question on one of the threads a week or so ago, but I’m not aware that the question was ever answered.

I’m aware the RCAP comes from the Lee Sinins sabermetric baseball encyclopedia (which I don’t own), and I believe it stands for “runs created above position.” So when I read that McGraw’s RCAP for 1899 was 100, I assumed that his record would show 100 more RC for that season than the average third baseman. Yet checking the numbers, it is obvious that must _not_ be how it is defined.

According to bbref, McGraw tallied 95 RC for 1899. Obviously, the average third baseman didn’t create –5 runs. But bbref uses the simple RC formula, so I turned to the STATS All-Time Handbook, which uses the recent, more sophisticated RC formulas. It shows McGraw with 134 RC for 1899, so I decided I’d check to see if the average third baseman earned only 34 RC. That was not the case--only two “regular” third basemen were credited with fewer than 34 RC—Hartman and Atherton—and both of them were really part-time players, playing fewer than half their team’s games. In fact, one regular third baseman, Jimmy Williams, actually created more runs that season than McGraw:

Runs created in 1899 by regular 3B:

John McGraw (Bal) 134
Doc Casey (Bro) 69
Billy Lauder (Phi) 71
Jimmy Collins (Bos) 94
Charlie Irwin (Cin) 41 (90 gms)
Jimmy Williams (Pit) 148
Harry Wolverton (Chi) 65 (99 gms)
Tommy Leach (Lou) 67
Lave Cross (Cle-StL) 75
Fred Hartman (NY) 21 (50 gms)
Charlie Atherton (Was) 28 (65 gms)
Suter Sullivan (Cle) 46

So how should we interpret McGraw’s 100 RCAP? Assuming it doesn’t represent an error, the only other possibility that I can think of is that Sinin may have normalized these data for differences in games played by expanding McGraw’s record to a full 154 game schedule. Does anyone know? If that is what he did, then I think one really shouldn’t add RCAPs without re-weighting them to represent actual games played.

My big problem with McGraw's candidacy is the large number of games missed during his prime seasons. Is it possible that RCAP is masking these missed games?
   40. DavidFoss Posted: March 09, 2005 at 04:29 AM (#1189303)

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    John McGraw                 101   
2    Jimmy Williams               78   
3    Honus Wagner                 46   
4    Bill Bradley                  5   
5    Kid Carsey                    1   
T6   Harry Wolverton               0   
T6   John Puhl                     0   
8    Win Mercer                   -1   
T9   Zeke Wrigley                 -2   
T9   Otto Krueger                 -2   
11   Pete Cassidy                 -3   
T12  Bill Coughlin                -4   
T12  Charlie Harris               -4   
T12  Frank Martin                 -4   
T12  Tommy Leach                  -4   
16   Dave Fultz                   -7   
17   Fred Hartman                 -9   
18   Charlie Atherton            -13   
19   Jimmy Collins               -14   
T20  Lave Cross                  -18   
T20  Harry Steinfeldt            -18   
22   Charlie Irwin               -19   
23   Billy Lauder                -23   
24   Suter Sullivan              -29   
25   Doc Casey                   -30   

RCAP                           RCAP    
1    John McGraw                 100   
2    Jimmy Williams               75   
3    Honus Wagner                 43   
4    Bill Bradley                  4   
5    Kid Carsey                    1   
6    John Puhl                     0   
T7   Harry Wolverton              -2   
T7   Otto Krueger                 -2   
T7   Zeke Wrigley                 -2   
T10  Win Mercer                   -3   
T10  Pete Cassidy                 -3   
T12  Charlie Harris               -4   
T12  Bill Coughlin                -4   
T12  Frank Martin                 -4   
15   Tommy Leach                  -6   
16   Dave Fultz                   -8   
17   Fred Hartman                -10   
18   Charlie Atherton            -14   
19   Jimmy Collins               -17   
T20  Charlie Irwin               -20   
T20  Harry Steinfeldt            -20   
22   Lave Cross                  -21   
23   Billy Lauder                -26   
24   Suter Sullivan              -31   
25   Doc Casey                   -33   

RUNS CREATED                    RC     
1    Jimmy Williams              165   
2    John McGraw                 160   
3    Honus Wagner                136   
4    Jimmy Collins                89   
5    Lave Cross                   77   
6    Billy Lauder                 69   
7    Doc Casey                    67   
8    Tommy Leach                  66   
9    Harry Wolverton              62   
10   Win Mercer                   58   
11   Harry Steinfeldt             52   
12   Suter Sullivan               48   
13   Charlie Irwin                39   
14   Dave Fultz                   30   
15   Charlie Atherton             28   
16   Bill Bradley                 24   
17   Fred Hartman                 21   
18   Charlie Harris                8   
T19  Frank Martin                  5   
T19  Otto Krueger                  5   
21   Kid Carsey                    4   
T22  Bill Coughlin                 1   
T22  Pete Cassidy                  1   
T22  Zeke Wrigley                  1
   41. Michael Bass Posted: March 09, 2005 at 04:31 AM (#1189304)
Pretty easy ballot this week, except for Wilson, who is not included in my prelim below (gonna wait for WS). Myer is top 60-70. The two pitchers would struggle to take my top 100. The top two are "duh" territory.

1. Grove
2. Hartnett
3. Ferrell
4. Jennings
5. Mendez
6. Sewell
7. Beckwith
8. Dean
9. Waddell
10. Suttles
11. Griffith
12. Redding
13. Moore
14. Schang
15. Averill

Re: Wilson, I like what I see a whole lot so far. My best guess now is above Beckwith, and possibly up to #3.
   42. DavidFoss Posted: March 09, 2005 at 04:33 AM (#1189308)
A couple of things jump out:

-- The RC numbers are different that the ones report at bb-ref. Not sure why that is.

-- RCAA/RCAP seem to be out-normalized. Could McGraw's gawdy OBP's be breaking the formula somehow? Are these numbers not effectively "lineup adjusted"?
   43. OCF Posted: March 09, 2005 at 05:00 AM (#1189340)
The formulas I'm using come from that same Stats handbook (or another edition of it.) What I've been doing is this:

Take the RC (and yes, I have 134)

Estimate the number of outs (I've just been using RC/(RC/27) to get that, unless its a small season.)

Figure out what the park-adjusted number of runs league average run production would be for that many outs; subtract from RC to a raw RCAA. For McGraw 1899, that's 80. For Wagner 1905, that's 78. I am not worrying about RCAP; I'll take position into account later.

Figure a runs-to-wins conversion factor based on the run environment with PythPat scaling. I started out just dividing by the run environment, but I decided that was too friendly to extreme low run environments (e.g. Chance) and too unfriendly to extreme high run environments (e.g. McGraw).
Apply this conversion to turn the raw RCAA into a number something sort of like wins. For McGraw 1899, I get 7.2, and it's his best single season. For Wagner 1905, I get 8.5 and he has three seasons better than that.

This procedure does not particularly penalize McGraw (or Chance) for missing time within the season; it just adds up the value above average for the time they did play. In trying to deal with this as a value measure, I realize that I must also separately account for time played, which is the big reason McGraw isn't on my ballot.

Some samples of seasons that come out as 7.1, 7.2, or 7.3 by this method, like McGraw 1899:

Keeler 1897
Wagner 1901
Crawford 1907
Jackson 1920
Cravath 1915
(Sisler 1920 was 7.0)
Ruth 1929
Youngs 1920
Hornsby 1927
Heilmann 1927
Klein 1933
Foxx 1934
Berger 1933
Ott 1929

This is, of course, a list of very big years. Mcgraw gets into that range by consuming very few outs and thus having a faboulus RC/27.
   44. Howie Menckel Posted: March 09, 2005 at 05:08 AM (#1189349)
The challenge for me figures to be Wilson vs Suttles for Nos. 3-4.
   45. Rusty Priske Posted: March 09, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1189731)
Prelim (Jud Wilson is VERY prelim)

PHoM: Lefty Grove & Mule Suttles

1. Lefty Grove

2. George Van Haltren

3. Mule Suttles

4. Eppa Rixey

5. Gabby Hartnett

6. Jake Beckley

7. Mickey Welch

8. Tommy Leach

9. Edd Roush

10. Hugh Duffy

11. George Sisler

12. Sam Rice

13. Dick Lundy

14. Dobie Moore

15. Jimmy Ryan

16-20. Averill, Monroe, Childs, Powell, Griffith

21-25. Mullane, J.Wilson, Streeter, Grimes, Hooper

26-30. Sewell, Doyle, Poles, White, Gleason
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2005 at 03:15 PM (#1189767)

1) Grove
2) Hartnett
3) Beckwith
4) Bresnahan
5) Childs
6) Duffy
7) Van Haltren
8) Beckley
9) Quinn
10) Schang
11) Traynor
12) Grimes
13) Rixey
14) Welch
15) J. Wilson (I expect him to sail up to the top of my ballot by the election, but I'll keep him here for now until Chris works his magic)
   47. andrew siegel Posted: March 09, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1189786)
VERY, VERY Preliminary Ballot:

(1) Lefty Grove (new)-- Turns out he's not the best pitcher of All-Time and might not even be second best. Oh well, still an all-time top 25 player.

(2) Gabby Hartnett (new)-- If you haven't done it yet, read Steve Treder's wonderful pair of articles normalizing offensive levels in the AL and NL for the 1930s. Turns out that Hartnett was pretty damn close to Cochrane as a hitter. His defensive edge and career length push him ahead of Cochrane (and the joined-at-the-hip Ewing) and into fourth place on my All-Time catcher list (behind Gibson, Berra, and Bench).

(3) Jud Wilson (new)-- I assumed that he was a just-off-ballot type and really wanted him to be (I liked the balance on my recent ballots), but every bit of evidence points me to the conclusion that he is one of the top ten negro leaguers of All-Time. The Keepers of Negro League Memory really screwed this one up. He had value similar to George Sisler's at Sisler's peak and kept that value for most of a 20-year career. Would have had over 3,000 hits in the majors with 100 walks per year and average power for a 1B. Ranks with Bill Dahlen, Cristobal Torriente, Ross Barnes, and maybe Ron Santo as the best players not in the Hall of Fame.

(4) Mule Suttles (2nd)-- Might still move down a bit, but has great durability and longevity for a hitter of his ability. Roughly similar in peak value to Greenberg (who was not nearly as good as his unadjusted numbers), worse than Mize. Though they had slightly different skill sets, Eddie Murray might be the closest comp in overall value and career pattern.

(5) Hughie Jennings (4th)-- Getting difficult to figure out what to do with the 1890s stars, given the much longer careers of the 1920s and 1930s guys. After all, five Willie Mays years compares much more favorably to a full career when a full career is 13 or 14 years than when it is 18 or 19.

(6) Wes Farrell (5th)-- Holding steady. I'm convinced that his 8-year run ranks in the top 20 such runs of all-time and I value 7 or 8 year prime very heavily in ranking pitchers.

(7) John Beckwith (10th)-- The hardest guy for me to place. On a per game basis, he had more offensive value and more defensive value than either Wilson or Suttles. But between his off-the-field troubles and his much shorter career I can't see ranking him above them. Might deserve to be 5th, however.

(8) Hugh Duffy (6th)
(9) George Van Haltren (7th)
(10) Cupid Childs (8th)

(11) Earl Averill (14th)-- Checks the peak, prime, career, and league quality boxes. Only thing holding him back is the sense that when you include the Negro Leaguers his era will be wildly over-represented.

(12) Eppa Rixey (12th)--Very strong candidate, but the competition is getting fierce.

(13) Charley Jones (9th)--See him a little less favorably each week; hope that I'm not just giving up on an unpopular candidate.

(14) Edd Roush (11th)--Good candidate, just not as many plusses as the guys above him.

(15) Dobie Moore (13th)-- If you give credit for the Army years, his career was long enough to get him on the ballot given the fact that his peak was among the top 5-8 of All-Time among SS's.

I think Grimes, Sewell, Chance, and Lundy are above my in/out line but squeezed off the ballot. The next set (Willis, Beckley, Sisler, Ryan, Bresnahan, Schang, Mendez, Redding, and Griffith) wouldn't be bad choices either.
   48. PhillyBooster Posted: March 09, 2005 at 03:30 PM (#1189793)
Oddly, someone registered the name "MattB" before me. So here I am, until I can think up some cleverer handle that incorporates a baseball player's into a three word phrase.
   49. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 09, 2005 at 04:15 PM (#1189870)
The Current Fantasy, until some WS projections come down on Wilson.

1. Super Grover
2. Flabby Gabby
3. Beckwith
4. GVH
5. The Jud
6. Mule
7. Duffy
8. Rixey
9. Burns
10. Mendez
11. Poles
12. Earl Averill Incandenza (which contemporary literature fans are with me on that one?)
13. Roush
14. Tommy "Robin" Leach
15. Jennings

Where I'm currently hung up is the Beckwith, Wilson, GVH, Suttles area. I like them all better than MacDuff, but I'm clinging to GVH's careertastic totals....

I'm ranking Beckwith first among the four (for now), because a dominant-hitting throwing infielder impresses me more than a CF and a 1B.

So then it's GVH, who has Eddie Murray's peak, prime, and extended prime, but with Simmons's career total. Or it's Suttles who looks to me like he's got Wally Berger's peak and prime, but with Max Carey's extended prime and career totals.

For the moment, I'm taking the player at the more difficult defensive posiiton, though I'm not entirely confident in that assessment for this reason: Suttles appears to have been an impact player in his leagues, while GVH was a second-tier star.

Then I've got to figure out what to do with Wilson. I'm sure we'll learn more later, but I have creeping doubts about how long he would have lasted in the majors. Are all 20-something of his seasons realistically translatable? If not, how will that effect my picture of his value and meit? I just don't know yet.
   50. DavidFoss Posted: March 09, 2005 at 04:19 PM (#1189884)
Super Grover

Wow... two who go by "Super Grover" in the HOM?

The next big debate will be "Who's Cuter? Lefty or Pete?"
   51. Jeff M Posted: March 09, 2005 at 05:40 PM (#1190073)
I'm proud to say I will have voted in all 50 elections. Does anyone know how many others can make that claim?

I haven't missed one, though I almost forgot to submit a ballot last week.

Going deeper, of the 1898 voters (listed in post #1188723), how many were around for the initial formation discussions...i.e., before HoM moved to the Baseball Primer? Maybe only Joe can answer that. I know I was there and I'm pretty sure Howie, Mark McKinnis, MattB/Philly, Marc/Sunnyday, John Murphy and TomH were there. Not sure about others b/c it has been going on so long. I don't mean to slight anyone by not remembering...certainly Andrew, KJOK, etc. have been around since long before the first election.
   52. Dolf Lucky Posted: March 09, 2005 at 05:49 PM (#1190087)
Yeah, I've voted in every election, and was there at the very beginning of the discussions. The only thing I really remember is that I tended to disagree with Joe a lot.
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2005 at 06:13 PM (#1190144)
I know I was there and I'm pretty sure Howie, Mark McKinnis, MattB/Philly, Marc/Sunnyday, John Murphy and TomH were there.

I was there at the beginning, but I lost interest there for a while because the process was starting to drag out so I didn't help out with the actual writing of the Constitution. When I decided to revisit the HoM, the ballot discussion for '98 was just starting, so I lucked out by being a charter member.

I remember going crazy trying to come up with a viable system so I would have a ballot created for the inaugural election. I can tell you I didn't get too much sleep during that period. :-)

BTW, David Jones was there at the beginning, too (he helped set up the projections for many of the 19th Century players).
   54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2005 at 06:14 PM (#1190148)
KJOK also helped out with those projections, IIRC.
   55. David C. Jones Posted: March 09, 2005 at 06:27 PM (#1190181)
Yeah, I disappeared for a year or two. It's been tough catching up. This is my third ballot, and will be the first time that I will be able to devote the attention I feel is necessary to properly weigh all the candidates going back to 1871. So my ballot, just as a forewarning, might look very different than it has up to this point. When I came back, my first, visceral reaction was that there were too many 19th century players already inducted. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that I have been more or less not paying much attention to the remaining 19th century guys, and also since I was travelling last week I didn't really have the resources to do all the statistical research needed to get a good baseline. This week my goal is to get a top 50 ranked, incorporating all the significant candidates left. I ran some numbers last night, using both Win Shares and WARP, and I do have a couple of quick comments:

1.) I still don't see why Joe Sewell is more deserving of support than Dave Bancroft


2.) George Burns's numbers are stronger than anticipated for me, although I think league quality of the NL in the 1910s factors in with that. But even considering that, he's still better than I had thought, at least by WARP and WS.
   56. Howie Menckel Posted: March 09, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1190192)
I got in a few months before the first election. I was amazed at the detail already laid out for how to do it, but I noticed it was being held up so it would be 'more perfect.'
So I did some hard lobbying in the 'let's just start already' vein...
   57. jimd Posted: March 09, 2005 at 06:47 PM (#1190209)
HOM before Primer? You guys have seniority.

I've been here since the initial threads on Primer, throwing in my two cents on ballot structures, 19th century players, etc.; all of the stuff that interests me more than baseball from 1920-1960. (Exploring the Negro Leagues has been interesting, but they don't hold the same charm for me as does the 19th century.)
   58. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 09, 2005 at 06:48 PM (#1190210)
So congrats to the Golden Anniversary voters! I envy your length of enfranchisement!

As it was I was a (mal)lingerer on primer and sometimes chipper-inner to HOM discussions before the constitution process started. I think I was using my real name as my screen name then (Eric Chalek). In fact, I'd gone as far as starting to assemble some kind of voting system that was more like a rotisserie scoring system than anything else. At that point, I was gearing up for the innaugral election---of 1906.

Then, like John Murphy, I lost procedural interest (as well as moved, got married, took a new job, etc etc etc), but unlike him, I didn't check back in until around 1925ish (just after Plank and Crawford). So I was quite surprised to see 1898 as the date of the first election!
   59. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 09, 2005 at 07:05 PM (#1190236)
Damn guys. I remember hearing about the Hall of Merit and even reading the thread that announced that Bill Dahlen had been elected. I was out of the country at the time going by teh pseudonym MAS, which are my initials.

One thing I have alwasy old are most of you guys? While Primer itself has plenty of younger posters, I would imagine that at 23 I am one of the younger HOM guys.


Which WARP are you using? If you go by WARP3, Sewell is comfortably ahead of Bancroft because of league quality issues. I do agree taht WS has teh two as similar, which is one reason why Joe Sewell hasn't made an appearance on my ballot and isn't likely to do so in the near future.
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 09, 2005 at 07:08 PM (#1190240)
how old are most of you guys?

I hit the big 4-O in June.
   61. Andrew M Posted: March 09, 2005 at 07:14 PM (#1190253)
Dr Chaleeko--Earl Averill Incandenza? Watch out for Les Assassins des Fauteuils Rollents.

Since I'm here, my preliminary ballot.

1. Grove
2. Hartnett
3. J. Wilson (.431 OBP in 8500 ABs?)
4. GVH
5. Beckwith
6. Griffith
7. Duffy
8. Rixey
9. Suttles
10. Doyle
11. Roush
12. Childs
13. Moore
14. Waddell
15. Averill (not sure he shouldn't be ahead of Roush and Duffy.)
Next: Ferrell, Burns, Jennings, Ryan
   62. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 09, 2005 at 07:21 PM (#1190268)
There I am trailing behind John Murphy again. I turn the big three-oh in April!

Andrew M--glad to see fellow DFW fans out there!
   63. andrew siegel Posted: March 09, 2005 at 07:24 PM (#1190270)
Soon to be 34.
   64. karlmagnus Posted: March 09, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1190279)
55 in July -- yuck! Am I the oldest or merely the most senile?
   65. TomH Posted: March 09, 2005 at 08:03 PM (#1190353)
I'm 44, and senility is hitting early. I was in the mix near the beginning, but only because some kind people pointed the discussion out to me. Yes, I've made all 50 ballots.

Off the subject, SABR published an article of mine this week that can be accessed at
   66. ronw Posted: March 09, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1190363)
I'll be 33 soon. I'd wager that our average is about 35-40.

Don't we have an "introduce yourself" thread for this sort of thing?

Back on topic, my boring prelim is going to be:

1. Grove
2. Hartnett
3. Wilson
4. Beckwith
5. Suttles

and the rest who stand little chance of being elected for a while.
   67. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: March 09, 2005 at 08:28 PM (#1190407)
One month younger than Dr. C.

First voted and began contributing in 1915, last voted in 1936 and have continued to contribute since then.
   68. jimd Posted: March 09, 2005 at 08:36 PM (#1190422)
Old enough to remember Koufax striking out 10 of the first 13 Yankees up in Game 1 of the 1963 Series. (But not as old as karl.)
   69. DavidFoss Posted: March 09, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1190439)
Soon to be 34.

This will be me in August.
   70. DavidFoss Posted: March 09, 2005 at 08:48 PM (#1190446)
60 1934 Smokey Joe Williams-P
59 1933 Walter Johnson-P

Nitpick here... SJ was inducted in 1936.

Hard to believe we lose both of these two greats in the same year.
   71. PhillyBooster Posted: March 09, 2005 at 09:20 PM (#1190520)
HOM before Primer? You guys have seniority.

I was surprised the site was still up, but Joe's pre-Primer Mostly Baseball site is still there.

I am an old 31. (Old, because I have two daughters.)
   72. Al Peterson Posted: March 09, 2005 at 09:51 PM (#1190586)
Appears I was here for the 1898 ballot and I think every one since. Its funny looking back - trying to sort through ballot creation and how hard I thought it was in, say, 1905. People now have consideration lists that number 75-100 players.

I'm 34 and growing old waiting for the Tigers to get good again.
   73. EricC Posted: March 09, 2005 at 10:36 PM (#1190684)
I'm 38 years old, been voting since 1911, and have no connection with Eric Chalek except for having the same first name and last initial.
   74. David C. Jones Posted: March 09, 2005 at 11:50 PM (#1190785)

Which WARP are you using? If you go by WARP3, Sewell is comfortably ahead of Bancroft because of league quality issues. I do agree taht WS has teh two as similar, which is one reason why Joe Sewell hasn't made an appearance on my ballot and isn't likely to do so in the near future.

Yeah, I noticed that, but I'm not sure what to make of WARP3. I'm generally in agreement that the league Sewell played in was of higher quality than the league Bancroft played in, but quantifying that difference is troublesome to me, and I'm not sure how they did it. Players didn't switch leagues that often back then, so I'd be interested in seeing the pool of statistics that went into determining the WARP3 difference.

As of now, I think the non-adjusted WARP and WS stats show the two as about even. I'd put Sewell ahead of Bancroft based on league quality issues, but I can't see that those quality issues would be so severe as to make Sewell as popular a candidate as he is (always one of the top 10 returnees, it seems), while Bancroft gets a couple votes here and there. I can't see how the difference between the two would be that large.
   75. Chris Cobb Posted: March 10, 2005 at 12:07 AM (#1190825)
I can't see that those quality issues would be so severe as to make Sewell as popular a candidate as he is (always one of the top 10 returnees, it seems), while Bancroft gets a couple votes here and there.

Well, most voters who don't see much difference between Sewell and Bancroft have them both off-ballot, so their view isn't hightlighted by the voting system. Those voters who use WARP3 or some version of the RCAA/RCAP measures that have been discussed quite a bit recently see Sewell, by those measures, as being both ballot-worthy and well ahead of Bancroft.
   76. Jim Sp Posted: March 10, 2005 at 12:28 AM (#1190859)
Spud Davis is the best live-ball player that I’d never heard of.

1)Grove--Baltimore credit makes him an easy #1.
2)Hartnett--Essentially tied with Grove based on ML stats, what an underrated player.
3)Suttles--Suttles, Beckwith, and Wilson may move quite a bit by ballot time.
4)Averill--Looks like a HoMer to me even without PCL credit, but I do give him some PCL credit as he was obviously major league quality before arriving in the majors. Compare him to Goslin: Averill has a higher OPS+ (133/128), and is an A+ CF vs. a C+ LF. Goslin has career length, mostly because Averill plays in the PCL for a while.
5)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.
6)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.
7)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.
8)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. He made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
9)Jud Wilson--maybe a tad behind Beckwith? Probably will rise by the time I make my final ballot.
10)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.
11)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.
12)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.
13)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
14)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
15)Cuyler--I think he’ll be below the in/out line.

Ferrell—one of the top 100 pitchers of all time, but not on my ballot currently.
Griffith In my PHoM but off the ballot.
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.
Sisler--I don’t see his case being very strong. His peak was not long enough to merit election, though he certainly was a great hitter for a few years.
Hugh Duffy—Good hitter, great fielder. Duffy, Van Haltren, and Ryan are even in my estimation, but off the ballot.
   77. sunnyday2 Posted: March 10, 2005 at 01:53 AM (#1191012)
karl, I've got you beat by about six months. Already double nickels. You know what they say: 55, Man Alive.

Now you know why karl and I don't always take the time to fashion those nice ways of saying things like Chris Cobb and you other young whippersnappers. We don't HAVE the time.

I remember listening to Harvey Haddix' perfect game on the radio, laying in bed, supposed to be asleep on a summer night. And I don't care what some F-ing rules guy decided a quarter-century later. It was an F-ing perfect game.

And not to echo old man river, karlmangus...but to echo old man river, doesn't anybody wonder about 3. Wilson, 4. Suttles, 5. Beckwith? It strikes me as too much of a good thing.
   78. DavidFoss Posted: March 10, 2005 at 02:16 AM (#1191047)
doesn't anybody wonder about 3. Wilson, 4. Suttles, 5. Beckwith? It strikes me as too much of a good thing.

We have tended to steer away from gluts in the past. They electorate is quite divided about the guys 6 & up, though. Lots of great candidates still coming up in the next few years. We'll see how things go.
   79. Chris Cobb Posted: March 10, 2005 at 02:35 AM (#1191080)
On the Wilson - Suttles - Beckwith thing, I'll add that if the electorate as a whole had valued Beckwith as highly as they do now when he became eligible, he would probably have been elected in 1941 and there wouldn't be an appearance of "too much of a good thing" now. Bill Terry, in my view, reaped the benefits of our caution on Beckwith, though others might see Dazzy Vance as the beneficiary.

I'll also add that we had Pop Lloyd - Joe Williams - Christobal Torriente all showing up together in 1934. That was a better trio than this one, and we didn't finish electing them until 1937. We have seen, over the whole course of the project, that the flow of talent, the flow of player types and groups, to the HoM isn't smooth and regular.

Finally, I have the top 1890s guys interspersed with the top NeL eligiblees on my ballot, but the apparent flaws in their careers, and a bit too much time-lining, are keeping them down.
   80. Dolf Lucky Posted: March 10, 2005 at 02:53 AM (#1191113)
I'm 28. Modeled my swing after Eric Davis.
   81. Mike Webber Posted: March 10, 2005 at 03:50 AM (#1191194)
I turned 37 March 7, but to keep me from feeling too old I am headed to Arizona for Spring Training next week where 37 is half the average residents' age.
   82. Michael Bass Posted: March 10, 2005 at 04:00 AM (#1191211)
I'm 27 (28 in October); I, like Dolf, modeled my swing after Davis (and Strawberry). Unfortunately, a was a scrawny beanpole, so that didn't help much.
   83. Howie Menckel Posted: March 10, 2005 at 04:01 AM (#1191213)
Re 1906 vs 1898:
When Joe moved up the 'opening year,' someone busted his chops that it might help his favorite early player. Player might have been Deacon White.

Overall, I am amazed at how good the 'year by year' election inductee selection process is.
The lone nitpick I can recall is perhaps not allowing Rusie types to be eligible 'til age 40 or 42 or whatever. But that's not really a big deal, and it's impossible to lay out all angles before the thing actually plays out.
   84. Howie Menckel Posted: March 10, 2005 at 04:05 AM (#1191222)
My swing favorites were Bobby Tolan (arms WAY over his head, and a waggle), Joe Morgan's chicken flap, and Willie Stargell and Willie McCovey stances.
Who else here is a southpaw?

Eric Davis? Geesh, I kept him for 20 units in fantasy ball off his 8 hr, 18 rbi, .246 in 1985. Kind of silly, but he gave me a .277, 27 hr, 71 rbi, 80 sb performance the next year, so it was worth it!
   85. Kelly in SD Posted: March 10, 2005 at 08:03 AM (#1191486)
33 this June. I started lurking in the 1920s after getting burned out on the Lounge. I did some research on Retrosheet/BBRef and posted on a couple of issues: Welch's career, Waddell and unearned runs, Joss's career. I hesitated to vote b/c it seemed like everyone had this vast store of 19th century baseball knowledge (this was during the run-up to Pearce's election.) But, I was hooked and my first election (late, but they counted my vote anyway.) was McGinnity's enshrinement. Now I think I am here forever. Can you get paid for this?
   86. Adam Schafer Posted: March 10, 2005 at 03:44 PM (#1191742)
I'm 26. Started having my eye on the project months before the first election. Although I was not an active participant, I checked in regularly in anticipation of the 1st election. I think I missed 1 election since the beginning. I had my prelim in, but had to leave town unexpectedly and didn't get a final ballot in. Although I don't have time to post very often, I do read all of the posts and have been lurking around for all of the elections.
   87. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 10, 2005 at 03:57 PM (#1191760)
   88. jingoist Posted: March 10, 2005 at 04:10 PM (#1191786)
Mostly an observer (fairly addicted to your project I might add) and an occasional poster.
I came late to the SABR party but always felt that guys were getting "cheated" out of MVP awards because they didn't have the best BA or RBI totals (nobody even thought about OBP or OPS or OPS+ in the 1960's or 70's).
I'll be 60 in September and am afraid that I'll die before my Pirates ever get good enough to win another WS.
Good luck to you all; your postings are a tonic in a world that's a bit bleaker than it was when I was a teenager.
   89. Daryn Posted: March 10, 2005 at 06:35 PM (#1192018)
I just bought and read, A Game for All Races, An Illustrated Guide to the Negro Leagues, and it doesn't add any new insight but it does provide some great pictures, literally and figuratively, of the men we are considering and the fluctuating times they lived in. It is quite amazing they were able to pile up the stats when from game to game and year to year they didn't know where they'd be playing, who they'd be playing with and for and even who their opponents would be. It must've made advance scouting a bear.

All that said, I am not sure how to place Wilson, Suttles and Beckwith, but I have decided on the above order for now. I also have increased by enthusiasm for Redding (but not necessarily changed his placement on my ballot), who by all accounts was considered to be a true pitching star in blackball.


1. Grove – he was pretty good. I like the 9 ERA+ titles.

2. Hartnett -- close call for me between first and second. With hindsight, I know that Berra, Bench and likely Irod will all slightly surpass him. But at the time of this vote, he is neck and neck with Dickey, Cochrane and Ewing as the best of all-time, and I don’t think Grove is that close to #1 at his position. Not that any of that matters for the purposes of our project.

3. 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.

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

5. Jud Wilson -- with a little luck he'd have got 3200 ML hits with lots of walks. With no luck, he'd still make my ballot. This placement is somewhere in between.

6. Eppa Rixey
7. 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.

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. Mule Suttles – I can’t really peg him. He is somewhere between Stearnes (number 2 on my ballot when elected) and Monroe. I almost put him right behind Beckwith and I almost put him just ahead of Wilson.

11. George Sisler
12. Sam Rice – I have dropped Sisler and Rice from their spot under Beckley due to concerns over the value of Sisler's post sinus career and Rice's stats within the context of his times.

13. 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.

14. John Beckwith – 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 Cobb’s estimate. I've jumped him over five guys, all of whom would be on the wrong side of my in/out line. Not sure if he'll stay this high.

15. Clark Griffith – 921 similarity score with mcginnity, who was 1st on my ballot when elected. He is barely better than Ferrell, Hoyt (who I am surprised is not making any ballots), Mendez, Joss, Dean, 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, dislike the unbalance created by extreme advocacy.
   90. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 11, 2005 at 02:19 PM (#1193726)
Off-topic question, but does anyone have a big spreadsheet with the win shares by decade or anything at all that lists the win shares by season for players with substantial careers (say 150 or more WS)?

If so, are you willing to share it with me at


eric : )
   91. DanG Posted: March 12, 2005 at 02:09 AM (#1194975)
I've been here since pre-blog days, picking up on Joe's idea in December 2001. I have voted every election and I echo Jimd's words: throwing in my two cents on ballot structures, 19th century players, etc.; all of the stuff that interests me more than baseball from 1920-1960. (Exploring the Negro Leagues has been interesting, but they don't hold the same charm for me as does the 19th century.)

I've contributed a lot more to the procedural discussions than the player analysis because I just don't have the time at age 45 as I did at 25.
If only Bill James had hired me instead of Jim Baker.
   92. Rick A. Posted: March 12, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1195151)
I'm 36.

I've voted in every election so far. I saw Joe's "Something Better" article when it was first posted, and kept tabs on the HOM every so often until it started. Heck, the HOM even outlasted my last job.

1947 Prelim
1. Lefty Grove
2. Gabby Hartnett
3. Jud Wilson
4. Mule Suttles
5. Charley Jones
6. Pete Browning
7. John Beckwith
8. Cupid Childs
9. Hughie Jennings
10. Eppa Rixey
11. Vic Willis
12. Bill Monroe
13. Wes Ferrell
14. Hugh Duffy
15. Edd Roush

16-25 Lundy, Moore, Mendez, Redding, Grimes, Leach, Schang, Averill, Sisler, Cooper
   93. Howie Menckel Posted: March 12, 2005 at 04:39 AM (#1195282)
interesting how many of our most important cogs have not actually been 'every-year' voters. I guess those guys are 'peak' choices for the HOF of the HOM voting.
I'm probably the Jake Beckley of the crop. Very consistent, but alas neither the peak nor the prime blow anybody away....
   94. ronw Posted: March 12, 2005 at 08:33 PM (#1195908)
I've been voting every year since 1911, so I've missed 13 elections.

I don't think this applies this year, but did any of the eligibles serve in WWII and were good players at the time of service. Buddy Myer was essentially done when the war started.

Next year this may or may not apply to Gehringer (although he was probably done anyway). However, each year until Spahn is eligible we should ask the question, "Did World War II take away a significant portion of this player's career?"
   95. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 12, 2005 at 09:46 PM (#1196014)
However, each year until Spahn is eligible we should ask the question, "Did World War II take away a significant portion of this player's career?"

It should be asked once, twice and thrice.
   96. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 12, 2005 at 10:08 PM (#1196030)
Since we are on this subject, how much credit does hank greenberg deserve for 1941. Greenberg volunteered for the military after the 1940 season. He was not drafted, nor was there a draft going on. In fact most of you could probably figure out that the beginning of the 1941 season was months before Pearl Harbor and our invovlement in the war.

Now Greenberg did a very noble thing, I believe he did it because of Hitler's crimes against Jews, and he should be commended for it even today. I would like to think that, if I had been in his shoes, I would have made the same decision to fight for my country and my people (is that offensive to jews?) instead of playing baseball. However, he did go in willingly.

There was a bit of discussion about Dobie Moore (i believe) a while back in which the point was made that his decision ot join the army was a voluntary one, a career choice, and thus he should not recieve full credit for his army years. Or at least the ones that don't coincide with WWI. This is analogous to a player deciding to become a cancer researcher in the middle of his peak years. Yes, cancer resarch is very commendable and yes, it is much more important than baseball, and yes it generally pays less money. But it was a career choice and credit shouldnt' be given to that player for the years missed.

I am not really against giving Greenberg credit for that season and it is unilkely to be a deciding factor in his candidacy. I just wanted to make the argument that maybe he shouldn't recieve credit for it and see how it flies.
   97. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 12, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1196031)
By the way, I am for giving full war credit to players who missed time between 1942 and 1945.
   98. DavidFoss Posted: March 12, 2005 at 10:15 PM (#1196036)
Gehringer did indeed join the Navy. I did not know that. I agree that he was basically done anyways, though.

Here I was thinking that the first crop of affected candidates were actually going to be the ones who were *helped* by the war. Old guys who stayed home and played against weaker competition. Anyone newly eligible from 1949-51 automatically qualifies for some level of discount.
   99. Gary A Posted: March 13, 2005 at 03:24 AM (#1196314)

Dobie Moore (and Rogan and the other members of the 25th Infantry Wreckers) were essentially in the army to play baseball. I'm not sure what they were doing in late 1917 and 1918, at the height of mobilization for the war, but the rest of the time they were playing (sometimes against fairly stiff competition, like PCL teams).
   100. Brent Posted: March 13, 2005 at 04:29 AM (#1196376)
In 1940 Greenberg didn't volunteer, he was drafted (according to this biography).

I don't think it would have made any difference to me if he had volunteered rather than having been drafted, but the draft was instituted a year or two before Pearl Harbor and Greenberg was the first star player drafted.

During the 1950s we will run into many players whose careers were interrupted by a peacetime draft.
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
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.9495 seconds
41 querie(s) executed