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 20, 2006

1973 Ballot Discussion

1973 (April 3)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

261 89.5 1950 Whitey Ford-P
225 76.6 1952 Dick Groat-SS
210 78.0 1948 Curt Simmons-P
178 67.7 1952 Lew Burdette-P
157 67.9 1950 Vern Law-P
154 61.7 1952 Stu Miller-RP
172 54.3 1951 Smoky Burgess-C/PH (1991)
183 43.2 1954 Bill Skowron-1B
143 54.7 1953 Johnny Podres-P
151 47.2 1957 Jim Landis-CF
142 48.5 1957 Earl Battey-C (2003)
136 42.4 1959 Johnny Romano-C
123 44.8 1957 Billy O’Dell-P
115 43.7 1957 Jack Sanford-P (2000)
114 39.3 1958 Bob Shaw-P
127 34.2 1957 Jerry Lumpe-2B
103 40.7 1950 Johnny Klippstein-RP
122 32.4 1956 Jackie Brandt-CF
108 33.7 1956 Eddie Bressoud-SS
099 33.4 1959 Jim O’Toole-P
103 28.6 1958 Don Demeter-CF

Players Passing Away in 1972

Age Elected

83 1933 Zack Wheat-LF
72 1947 Gabby Hartnett-C
53 1962 Jackie Robinson-2B

Age Eligible

96 1916 Freddy Parent-SS
91 1921 Davy Jones-LF
84 1929 Donie Bush-SS
84 1930 Jeff Pfeffer-P
81 1936 Dave Bancroft-SS
80 1932 Johnny Rawlings-2B
79 1931 Allan Russell-RP
78——George Weiss-HOF GM/Club President
76 1935 Jack Smith-CF/RF
73 1942 Alvin “General” Crowder-P
72 1941 Pie Traynor-3B
71 1943 Vic Sorrell-P
70 1945 Moe Berg-C
69 1942 Watty Clark-P
67 1947 Danny MacFayden-P
65 1946 Dick Coffman-RP
65 1952 Rollie Hemsley-C
56 1958 Dizzy Trout-P
53 1961 Eddie Waitkus-1B
47 1969 Gil Hodges-1B

Upcoming Candidate
38 1978 Roberto Clemente-RF

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 20, 2006 at 02:28 AM | 153 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 21, 2006 at 01:04 AM (#1909190)
Hot topics.
   2. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#1909240)
5 of the last 7 electees have been pitchers, fwiw.

this time I'll just list guys with 25 pct+, alhough anything of at least 10 pct is included in the positional total

HOM batters by percentage of games played at position

C (8.90) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Santop 75 (Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28)

1B (13.84) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25

2B (11.15) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25

3B (7.23) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40

SS (15.18) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28

OF (40.62) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30

SP (37.18) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25

INF:: 55.20
OF::: 40.62
P:::: 37.18

1B + OF:::: 54.46

C-2B-3B-SS: 42.46
P + C:::::: 46.08

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching weight of players like Ruth or Caruthers.

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.
   3. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 01:59 AM (#1909299)
offering up the NL HOMers from 1940-66....
(min 10 G, * is parttime)
1940 (11) - Hartnett*, Waner, Ott, Hubbell, Vaughan, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Mize, Slaughter, Reese
1941 (12) - Hartnett*, Waner, Ott, Hubbell, Vaughan, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial*
1942 (11.7) - Waner, Ott, Hubbell, Vaughan, Foxx*, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial
1943 (8) - Waner, Ott, Hubbell*, Vaughan, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick, Musial
1944 (6) - Waner*, Ott, Fox*, Hack, Medwick, Musial
1945 (4) - Ott, Foxx, Hack, Medwick
1946 (9) - Ott*, BiHerman, Hack, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn*
1947 (12) - Vaughan*, Greenberg, BiHerman*, Hack*, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider*
1948 (12) - Vaughan*, Medwick*, Mize, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider*, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts*
1949 (10.9) - Mize*, Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*
1950 (10) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin
1951 (10) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin
1952 (10) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*
1953 (10) - Slaughter, Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin
1954 (9) - Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin
1955 (10) - Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin*, Koufax*
1956 (10) - Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin, Koufax*
1957 (8) - Reese, Musial, Spahn, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Koufax*
1958 (7) - Reese*, Musial, Spahn, Snider, Ashburn, Roberts, Koufax
1959 (6) - Musial, Spahn, Snider, Ashburn, Roberts, Koufax
1960 (6) - Musial, Spahn, Snider*, Ashburn, Roberts, Koufax
1961 (6) - Musial, Spahn, Snider*, Ashburn, Roberts*, Koufax
1962 (6) - Musial, Spahn, Snider*, Ashburn, Roberts, Koufax
1963 (5) - Musial, Spahn, Snider, Roberts, Koufax
1964 (4) - Spahn, Snider*, Roberts, Koufax
1965 (3) - Spahn, Roberts, Koufax
1966 (2) - Roberts*, Koufax
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#1909301)
offering up the AL HOMers from 1940-66....
(min 10 G, * is parttime)

1940 (17) - Simmons*, Lyons, Grove*, Foxx, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin, Dickey, Averill*, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser*
1941 (15) - Lyons, Grove*, Foxx, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin, Dickey, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser
1942 (12.7) - Lyons, Foxx*, Ruffing, Gehringer*, Cronin*, Dickey, Appling, DiMaggio, Doerr, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser, Wynn
1943 (8) - Simmons*, Cronin*, Dickey, Appling, Doerr, Boudreau, Newhouser, Wynn
1944 (5) - Cronin*, Doerr, Boudreau, Newhouser, Wynn
1945 (6) - Ruffing*, Appling*, Greenberg, Feller*, Boudreau, Newhouser
1946 (12) - Ruffing*, Dickey*, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser, Wynn*, Lemon*
1947 (11.5) - Ruffing*, Appling, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby*, Berra*
1948 (12) - Paige*, Appling, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra
1949 (12.1) - Paige*, Appling, DiMaggio*, Feller, Doerr, Mize*, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra
1950 (12) - Appling*, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Mize, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra
1951 (12) - Paige*, DiMaggio, Feller, Doerr, Mize, Boudreau, TWilliams, Newhouser*, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra
1952 (8) - Paige, Feller, Mize*, Newhouser, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra
1953 (8) - Paige, Feller, Mize*, TWilliams*, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra
1954 (8) - Feller*, TWilliams, Newhouser*, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Slaughter*
1955 (7) - Feller*, TWilliams, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Slaughter
1956 (7) - Feller*, TWilliams, Wynn, Lemon, Doby, Berra, Slaughter
1957 (6) - TWilliams, Wynn, Lemon*, Doby, Berra, Slaughter*
1958 (6) - TWilliams, Wynn, Lemon*, Doby, Berra, Slaughter*
1959 (4.8) - TWilliams, Wynn, Doby*, Berra, Slaughter**
1960 (3) - TWilliams, Wynn, Berra
1961 (2) - Wynn*, Berra
1962 (2) - Wynn, Berra
1963 (2) - Wynn*, Berra
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:02 AM (#1909304)
and the Negro Leaguers..
1940 (8) - JWilson, Stearnes, Suttles, Gibson*, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella*, Irvin
1941 (7) - JWilson, Suttles, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella*, Irvin
1942 (8) - JWilson, Wells, Paige, Gibson, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella, Doby
1943 (6) - JWilson, Gibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, Doby
1944 (5) - Gibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella
1945 (8) - JWilson*, Wells*, Gibson, Paige, RBrown, Leonard, Campanella, JRobinson
1946 (6) - Wells*, Gibson, Paige, Leonard, Campanella, Irvin, Doby*
1947 (4.5) - Wells*, Paige, Leonard, Irvin, Doby*
1948 (3) - Wells*, Leonard, Irvin
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:22 AM (#1909349)
The NL has 8 to 12 HOMers in every year from 1902-42 (except for only 6 in 1918, 7 in 1920-21 and 14/13 in 1932/33).
The dip from 1943-46 is 8/6/4/9.
Then the same 10 to 12 NL HOMers number also applies from 1947-56 (except for 9 in 1954).
So far they're 6 to 8 from 1956-62.

The AL had 10 to 13 HOMers in every year from 1902-24 (except for 14 in 1909 and 1916, and only 9 in 1915 and 1920).
Then it's 16 to 18 AL HOMers from 1925-42 (except for 15 in 1930 and in 1941; 19 in 1937; and 13 in 1942).
The dip from 1943-45 is 8/5/6.
Then it's 12 AL HOMers from 1946-51.
So far they're 6 to 8 from 1952-58.

The Negro Leagues had 2 to 4 HOMers from 1902-1909.
Then it's 6 to 8 from 1910-1921, and 9 in 1922.
Then it's 12 or 13 from 1923-30, and 14 in 1931.
Then it's 7 to 11 from 1933-42.
Then it's 5 to 8 HOMers from 1943-47, and 3 in 1948.
   7. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#1909354)
To clarify: NL had 8 to 12 HOMers 1902-42, and 10 to 12 from 1947-56 (with noted exceptions). Sorry.
   8. Paul Wendt Posted: March 21, 2006 at 04:48 AM (#1909823)
INF:: 55.20
OF::: 40.62

1B + OF:::: 54.46
C-2B-3B-SS: 42.46

The first line should be
INF:: 56.30
   9. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 12:43 PM (#1910207)
As usual, Paul is correct...
   10. TomH Posted: March 21, 2006 at 12:52 PM (#1910224)
all Pitchers.. 27.7%
C-2B-3B-SS 31.7%
1B-OFers.... 40.6%
   11. Rusty Priske Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:19 PM (#1910309)

PHoM: Sandy Koufax & Quincy Trouppe

1. Willard Brown
2. George Van Haltren
3. Cool Papa Bell
4. Biz Mackey
5. Jake Beckley
6. Mickey Welch
7. Tommy Leach
8. Dobie Moore
9. George Sisler
10. Edd Roush
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Nellie Fox
13. Tony Mullane
14. Quincy Trouppe
15. Minnie Minoso

16-20. Ryan, Redding, Childs, Rice, White
21-25. Smith, Streeter, Sewell, Strong, Gleason
26-30. Kiner, Doyle, Greene, Monroe, Browning
47. Ford
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:40 PM (#1910344)
>C-2B-3B-SS 31.7%
1B-OFers.... 40.6%


And that's not even getting into the pitchers.
   13. Chris Cobb Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:14 PM (#1910393)

2 pitchers in your top 15, 5 in your top 30 and none of them post-1900 major-leaguers?
   14. Chris Cobb Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#1910397)
all Pitchers.. 27.7%
C-2B-3B-SS 31.7%
1B-OFers.... 40.6%

Anybody know the Coop's splits according to these divisions? I'm sure they have a higher percentage of pitchers than we do, but I'm curious about where they are on the IF/OF split.
   15. DL from MN Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:31 PM (#1910425)
I was considering a discount to pitching because my ballot was filling with pitchers but I guess I won't.

1973 Prelim ballot
1. Cool Papa Bell
2. Whitey Ford
3. Bob Johnson
4. Billy Pierce (comparison btwn him and Ford is interesting)
5. Ralph Kiner
6. Tommy Bridges
7. Joe Gordon
8. Biz Mackey
9. Dutch Leonard (forgot to consider previously)
10. Minnie Minoso
11. Jake Beckley
12. Virgil Trucks (added war bonus)
13. Quincy Trouppe
14. Charlie Keller
15. Bob Elliott
16. Chuck Klein
17. Willard Brown
18. George Van Haltren
19. Gavy Cravath
20. Joe Sewell
21-27. Jones, Lazzeri, Mendez, Waddell, Trout, Friend, Ryan
28-35. Sisler, Roush, Moore, Oms, Leach, Willis, McGraw, Hodges

I'm concerned about Willard Brown's gathering support. I've seen people credit his defense as great because he once played SS. Gary Sheffield used to play in the infield also and his defense is terrible. If you review Brown's thread you'll see he was often inattentive and lackadaisical with one mention of him reading a magazine in the outfield. I'll give the guy his due with the bat but I'm far from convinced he was even an average fielder.

Also, this is the year for everyone putting it off to re-evaluate Cool Papa Bell. Stop procrastinating, he might go in before you figure him out.

Finally, I'm going to have a hard time understanding ballots that have Whitey at the top and Pierce in the 30's. They're pretty close in value and were both LHP in the same league. Whitey was better overall - 9 top 10 ERA+ v. 7 for Pierce and more innings per season. However, Pierce was better than Whitey in 1953 and 1955 and may have had the best peak season of either. Both had relief appearances throughout their careers.
   16. andrew siegel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 04:27 PM (#1910522)
I"ll go DL one better--I think that Ford, Koufax, Pierce, Drysdale, and Bunning are largely a matched set when you make all the proper adjustments. Ford is probably the best of the bunch--he'll be somewhere between 5 and 7 on my ballot; Drysdale is probably the worst--he'd be somewhere between 17 and 19. But they are all very close.
   17. Chris Cobb Posted: March 21, 2006 at 05:13 PM (#1910637)
I see it as about 20 ballot spots between Ford at the top of this group and Drysdale at the bottom.

Ford is just a bit better by Pierce in every aspect of his game. With proper war credit, he has about one season more innings pitched. His effectiveness as a pitcher was a bit better (3.79 DERA vs. 3.96 DERA). He was a bit better as a hitter (.186 EQA vs. .164 EQA). He was a bit better as a fielder (13 FRAA vs. -14 FRAA). None of these differences are huge, but when you take them all together, there's a considerable amount of daylight between Ford and Pierce. It will amount to 10-12 ballot spots in my rankings, with Ford at #1 and Pierce making my ballot for the first time around 11-14.
   18. DL from MN Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:06 PM (#1910747)
Who was the better bunter and baserunner? With an EQA difference of .186 v .164 that could matter.

I agree that the evidence points to Ford being better than Pierce, but it doesn't put a lot of room between them either.

I believe Pierce had more leveraged relief innings than Ford which could make up some of the war difference. It probably should be discussed elsewhere more thoroughly but I don't think Pierce has been outed as altering the surface of the ball. It is possible that skillful cheating is why Ford was better than Pierce.

It is too bad Bill James didn't write a chapter about Billy Pierce v Whitey Ford.
   19. karlmagnus Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#1910781)
Why's Gordon better than Stephens, whom almost nobody supports and will make my ballot in '73? I see them as fairly close, but Stephens had a longer career even after reasonable WW2 credit and played a tougher defensive position.
   20. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#1910819)
Funny, I have that group of pitchers in a different rank order:

Bunning, Ford, Drysdale, Pierce

However, I do have them all within 17 slots of one another, so the point holds that they are all very alike.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1910823)
Why's Gordon better than Stephens, whom almost nobody supports and will make my ballot in '73?

Gordon was much more durable than Stephens. If Vern had stayed in the lineup more after '51, he most likely would have been HoM bound.

but Stephens had a longer career even after reasonable WW2 credit and played a tougher defensive position

Stephens career was longer in years, but if you give reasonable WWII credit to Gordon, he would have wound up with more games played than Stephens in two seasons less.

Stephens wasn't a bad shortstop, but Gordon was far better defensively at his position.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:38 PM (#1910837)
Bunning, Ford, Drysdale, Pierce

I have it Wilhelm, Ford, a tie between Bunning and Drysdale, and then Pierce at the present time.

BTW, it looks like Ford will be #4 on my ballot in '73 after reasonable military credit.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:44 PM (#1910863)
Both right. Gordon was an A gloves, Stephens a B. But Stephens played a more valuable defensive position (they even moved Pesky to the hot corner in deference to Stephens). So Stephens ended up with 74 career defensive WS and Gordon 70.

Of course if you adjust both of them for WWII, (I'm guessing here but) Gordon probably ends up ahead about 83-72.

To me, the career total WS are pretty indicative of these three guys:

1. Doerr 308
2. Gordon 287
3. Stephens 258

All three at their peaks were solid MVP candidates, though Doerr clearly drops to #3 for peak and on that basis I do have Gordon rated just ahead of Doerr.
   24. sunnyday2 Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:50 PM (#1910888)
PS. I'm gonna bite on Ford, Koufax, Drysdale, Pierce and Bunning, just not right now. I can't imagine that Lemon, Newcombe (properly adjusted) maybe Sal Maglie (properly adjusted), Marichal, Kaat, Tiant and Tommy John, just to name some guys from the '50s and '60s, aren't essentially in the same bucket. Maybe Trucks and Trout and...and...and....

IOW this is classic borderline territory *except for the guys who have ass-kicking peaks.*
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:51 PM (#1910889)
No disagreement with anything that you posted, Marc, That sounds about right to me.

What hat would Stephens where in the HoM, BTW? I think it's "flip a coin" time.
   26. DavidFoss Posted: March 21, 2006 at 07:11 PM (#1910938)
What hat would Stephens where in the HoM, BTW? I think it's "flip a coin" time.

I'd vote for Browns. He spent an extra year there, faired better in MVP Voting and picked up a pennant. Win Shares would probably agree (I can check when I get home, though). Depends on how much of a war *discount* you impose on him, of course.
   27. sunnyday2 Posted: March 21, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#1911036)
   28. karlmagnus Posted: March 21, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#1911052)
Since the Indians got Speaker, the Red Sox should get Stephens. Not all the close ones should be decided in the same direction!
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#1911064)
I think he should wear a Mets cap since we haven't got one yet!
   30. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#1911161)
I will have Ford in my top four (with Childs, Duffy, and Redding) and Pierce downa round 27. Thing is, there isn't a whole lot of difference between #1 and #27. I will look again at Pierce, but I think that Ford has an even greater case for extra credit on usage patterns than Pierce, yet another small but definable edge.

Right now my pitching list is:

(ballot line)

That is by memory so I am probably forgetting someone. There are only three pitchers on my ballot but I was a long time supporter of both Rixey and Griffith while Koufax and Wynn were both high ballot guys for me as well (so were Spahn and Roberts but that is true of everyone). I will take another look at some pitchers but I doubt that any will do more than move up in my backlong, Waddell is down around #22.
   31. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#1911467)
Forgot about Walters, he is between Redding and Dean and in my PHOM.
   32. jimd Posted: March 22, 2006 at 12:44 AM (#1911507)
Anybody know the Coop's splits according to these divisions?

101 BBWAA electees:

Arm: 33
Mathewson, Johnson, Young, Alexander, Hubbell,
Grove, Pennock, Lyons, Vance, Feller,
Ruffing, Koufax, Wynn, / Spahn, Ford,
Roberts, Lemon, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale,
Wilhelm, Hunter, Palmer, Perry, Jenkins,
Seaver, Fingers, Carlton, Niekro, Sutton,
Ryan, Eckersley, Sutter

Bat: 36
Cobb, Ruth, Speaker, Sisler, Keeler,
Gehrig, Ott, Foxx, Heilmann, Waner,
Terry, DiMaggio, Greenberg, Williams, Medwick,
Musial, / Clemente, Mantle, Kiner, Mays,
Kaline, Snider, Aaron, FRobinson, Killebrew,
Brock, McCovey, BWilliams, Stargell, Yastrzemski,
Jackson, Perez, Winfield, Puckett, Murray,

Glove: 32
Wagner, Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby, Frisch,
Cochrane, Traynor, Gehringer, Maranville, Dickey,
Hartnett, Cronin, Robinson, Appling, Campanella,
Boudreau, Berra, / Banks, Mathews, BRobinson,
Aparicio, Bench, Morgan, Carew, Schmidt,
Brett, Yount, Fisk, Smith, Carter,
Boggs, Sandberg

Some of the individual classifications are debatable, some have significant splits (Banks, Killebrew, Carew, Yount, Molitor to name a few). But a more detailed analysis isn't going to move the percents more than a point or two.
   33. jimd Posted: March 22, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#1911551)
Veteran's Committee

Arm: 28
Radbourn, Spalding, Chesbro, Griffith, McGinnity,
Plank, Waddell, Walsh, Brown, Nichols,
Bender, Clarkson, Rixey, Faber, Grimes,
Keefe, Galvin, Coveleski, Hoyt, Haines,
Marquard, Gomez, / Welch, Rusie, Joss,
Newhouser, Willis, Bunning

Bat: 37
Anson, Brouthers, Clarke, Delahanty, Duffy,
Kelly, O'Rourke, Burkett, Chance, McCarthy,
Crawford, Wheat, Carey, Hamilton, Roush,
Flick, Rice, Manush, LWaner, Cuyler,
Goslin, Combs, Beckley, Hafey, Hooper,
Kelley, Youngs, / GKelly, Bottomley, Thompson,
Averill, Connor, Wilson, Klein, Slaughter,
Doby, Cepeda

Glove: 29
Wright, Ewing, Bresnahan, Collins, Jennings,
Evers, Tinker, Wallace, Baker, Schalk,
Ward, Bancroft, / Herman, Lindstrom, Sewell,
TJackson, Kell, RFerrell, Reese, Vaughan,
Doerr, Lombardi, Schoendienst, Lazzeri, Rizzuto,
Fox, Davis, McPhee, Mazeroski

NeL: 30

Arm: 11
Paige, Dihigo, RFoster, Day, BFoster,
Rogan, Williams, HSmith, RBrown, Cooper,

Bat: 10
Leonard, Irvin, Bell, Charleston, Stearnes,
WBrown, Suttles, Torriente, Hill, Taylor

Glove: 9
Gibson, JJohnson, Lloyd, Dandridge, Wells,
Mackey, Wilson, Grant, Santop,

Totals: 225

32% Arm: 72=33+28+11
37% Bat: 83=36+37+10
31% Glove: 70=32+29+9

The imbalance appears to come from the VC's preference for OF'ers. Gloves were largely left out of the VC's excesses of the 60's and early 70's. They would benefit during the 80's and 90's.
   34. jimd Posted: March 22, 2006 at 01:35 AM (#1911557)
Note: Ashburn is missing from the list of "Bats".

Arm = Pitcher
Bat = OF+1B
Glove = C+SS+2B+3B
   35. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:26 AM (#1911781)
Referring to Pierce and Ford:

"Both had relief appearances throughout their careers."

Pierce was used in relief more than Ford. Pierce had 32 saves, and relieved 153 times, 80 of those (and 12 saves) were 1945-48, 1963-64, when he was not a regular starter.

Ford relieved Ford relieved just 60 times in his career, 52 after his first season, and only had 10 saves for his career (9 after his first year).

So if giving little plusses and minuses, I'd give Pierce a slight 'leverage' nod. IIRC the RSI data says that like Ford, Pierce (and Bucky Walters) was spotted against the best teams much more than normal.

I have him somewhat ahead of Pierce (who was #5 on my ballot last year). I think Ford is a hair ahead without any war credit - very similar peak, better career. Giving him two seasons of war credit pushes him comfortably ahead on career.

I have Beckley, Cravath and Easter as my top returnees. Going to be tough to decide where Ford places among them, but I'm leaning towards #1.

I think Pierce's comparing well to Ford should be a point in his favor that should open some eyes in the electorate as to Pierce's viability. It's not something that should drag Ford down towards where Pierce is now, which is way too low.
   36. Paul Wendt Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#1912356)
So if giving little plusses and minuses, I'd give Pierce a slight 'leverage' nod. IIRC the RSI data says that like Ford, Pierce (and Bucky Walters) was spotted against the best teams much more than normal.

Was there a "vogue" for such spotting?
Was the pitching rotation fully established only in the 1960s?

Spotting pitchers (by opposing team, time of day, or ballpark) almost inevitably diminishes their workload. In the 1960s, the supposed heyday of the 4-man rotation, there is a workload increase.

Other factors: number of offdays (down in the 1960s?), doubleheaders (still high in the 1960s?)
   37. DavidFoss Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:05 PM (#1912385)
Other factors: number of offdays (down in the 1960s?), doubleheaders (still high in the 1960s?)

When did air travel become the norm? Did the long train rides necessitate more off-days?
   38. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: March 23, 2006 at 04:17 AM (#1913157)
In response to the Palmeiro/Beckley comment from jschmeagol regarding WS differences . . .

I should be doing this but Palmeiro's five year peak in WS is 31,31,30,26,25 and Beckley's is 25,25,24,23,23 when schedule adjusted. Those aren't even close. You have to add Ozzie Smith in his prime defensive credit to get Beckley anywhere near Palmeiro in years 1-3. I see a difference of 23 WS (7.67 W) over five years, that is a big deal.

Again, sorry I shouldn't be hijacking this thread. I understand a career argument of Beckley and am not saying that your vote is wrong just that those peak adjustments dont' go far enough to really effect things.

Palmiero and Beckley, WARP1, adjusted to 162 games, sorted highest to lowest:

Palmiero Beckley
  10.3    10.0
   9.0     9.7
   8.9     8.5
   8.5     8.8
   8.4     8.6
   7.9     8.6
   7.5     8.6
   7.1     8.3
   6.8     7.5
   6.1     7.4
   5.9     6.9
   5.4     6.9
   5.3     6.0
   5.2     5.8
   5.1     4.8
   4.9     4.8
   4.8     4.6
   3.1     4.6
   2.0     1.8
---     ---
122.5   132.4

leaguewhich removes pitchers from both leaguesso DH is not an issue:

Palmiero (132 OPS+)  Beckley (125 OPS+)
AVG .288/.269 (+.019) | .308/.275 (+.033)
OBP .371/.339 (+.032) | .361/.341 (+.020)
SLG .515/.421 (+.094) | .435/.366 (+.069)

EQAPalmeiro .295Beckley .290

Palmeiro 81Beckley 62 (prorated to 162 games)

Palmeiro 97 SB 40 CS 134 SH+SF
Beckley 315 SB 
XX CS 145 SH 

I'm not sure why Beckley gets such a raw deal in Win Shares, but I think you have to at least split the difference between WARP and WS, especially with WS being unreliable with 19th century players.

You quote Beckley's career high at 25 but I get his top 5, adjusted to a 162 game season at:

27, 25, 24, 23, 22. I think I know what you are doing - you need to adjust for decisions, not games when using Win Shares - tie games don't produce any win shares. Note to everyone on this, if you are using games, you are underrating players from shorter seasons when prorating WS. I emphasized that hoping it might catch an extra eye or two. I also used the decimal WS for batting, fielding and pitching individually from the digital edition, so that might be slightly more precise.

Beckley played in the strongest available league until the early 1900s, when he was in his mid-30s, so there isn't any quality of league discount for him either. But you could discount his league 7.5% for his career and he'd still be even with Palmeiro on WARP1.

I don't see how you can't call them a wash. Palmeiro was a slightly better hitter (a little more OBP, the SLG is basically the same, proportionally), but giving a reasonable adjustment for 1B defense being more important in Beckley's era would push them even - at least.
   39. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 23, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1913505)
Doesn't FRAA already adjust for the fact that defense is more important during Beckley's time? Wouldn't adjusting that again be double counting?
   40. Chris Cobb Posted: March 23, 2006 at 03:23 PM (#1913555)
Doesn't FRAA already adjust for the fact that defense is more important during Beckley's time? Wouldn't adjusting that again be double counting?

No, FRAA does not adjust. FRAR is where contextual adjustments for the relative value of pitching vs. fielding vs. hitting takes place in WARP. However, WARP makes _very_ few changes in the relative value of the different fielding positions, which is a shortcoming, I thnk.

If you want to get a clear sense of how WARP handles fielding value, it's really helpful to look at their team pages, where you can get postion-by-position breakdowns of value.

Here's a Beckley vs. Palmeiro team fielding breakdown, comparing 1893, when Beckley was a great defensive first baseman, 18 FRAA in 132 g, to 1993, when Palmeiro was a great defensive first baseman, 19 FRAA in 162 games.

What I'll show is the number of FRAR an average player at a given defensive postion would be in a full season. Remember that the numbers for 1893 are for 132 games only!

Pos -- FRAR 1893 // 1993 * Change
Pitcher -- 10 // 10 * 0
Catcher -- 61 // 34 * -27
First Base -- 16 // 11 * -5
2nd Base -- 42 // 28 * -14
3rd Base -- 30 // 16 * -14
Short -- 41 //26 * -15
Left Field -- 26/16 * -10
Center -- 28 // 21 * -7
Right -- 14 // 17 * +3
   41. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 23, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#1914122)
Incidentally, Clay Davenport has an article up today talking about the equation for figuring EQA and WARP, in which, if I'm understanding it correctly, he's saying that he's considering a pythagenpat-style change to better correct for extreme run environments.

Someone else with better understanding of ppat will have to verify if that's an accurate statement; that's just how it struck me.

Anyway, the effect appears to be increasing or decreasing the most extreme seasons at less than 10 runs, but by the same token, it seems like it could have a pretty strong effect on the deadball and 1960s players.
   42. Jim Sp Posted: March 24, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#1915005)
Bridges vs. Walters is an interesting comparison.

Bridges has a very consistent 12 year prime, Walters has a shorter eight year prime. War credit plays a key role here. Bridges' major league career was essentially ended by serving two years in WW2. Walters career ERA+ of 115 is inflated on the other hand by a 146 ERA+ in 1944 and a 140 ERA+ in 1945. Bridges' career ERA+ of 126 is significantly higher overall.

There are other interesting contrasts...Walters gets substantial hitting credit (but his infield time doesn't move him much toward the HoM), while Bridges is very effective with a "Sunday pitcher" workload at the tail end of his prime. Walters' peak is definitely higher than Bridges.

Myself I prefer Bridges, but it looks like Walters is heading for election and Bridges won't get there.
   43. Howie Menckel Posted: March 24, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1915190)
Jim Sp,
I might well consider Bridges before Walters.
They both have demerits in my system, but I may not be the only one who doesn't vote for Bridges but who doesn't disregard him either.

Is Bridges the Bob Johnson of pitchers?
   44. jingoist Posted: March 24, 2006 at 04:25 AM (#1915329)
Not nearly as smitten with Walters as Pierce.....that's the guy who really deserves another look.
The voters loved Newhouser 'cause he dominated during his peak which coincided with the war years 44-46.
I think Pierce was Newhouser ten years later.

Couldn't really say that Bridges is the Bob Johnson of pitchers as Detroit was an excellent team during Tommy's peak years, wining 2 pennants and a second place finish during his 3 year peak.

Poor old Indian Bob struggled playing for the cellar-dwelling Athletics for all those years.
I've always thought the electorate has shorted Bob and Chuck Klein (and Eddie Roush too).
   45. Chris Cobb Posted: March 24, 2006 at 04:46 AM (#1915383)
Re Bridges:

I would say that he truly fits the pitcher profile that has been under discussion on the 1972 ballot results thread: medium career, medium peak. He has a lot of very good years, but no great years, and even with war credit he wouldn't reach 3200 innings for his career. Altogether, he falls a little short.

Re Bridges vs. Walters:

Bridges' career ERA+ is very nice, as is his DERA, and both are better than Walters', but both WARP and win shares conclude that Walters' superior hitting (and, in WARP, his fielding) more than make up for Bridges' advantage purely as a pitcher.

If Walters is a borderline candidate, a pitcher with a great but short peak, a very good prime, and a good career, Bridges is just out of serious candidate range. His peak isn't close to Walters, his prime is maybe a little better, and his career is a little less valuable, even with some war credit.
   46. Jim Sp Posted: March 24, 2006 at 05:13 AM (#1915483)
By the way, this might have been discussed before but how does warp separate out pitcher's fielding from their overall pitching results? And is it even worthwhile to do so?
   47. Howie Menckel Posted: March 24, 2006 at 05:33 AM (#1915568)
Well, I'm more a Pierce fan than either Walters or Bridges....
   48. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: March 24, 2006 at 09:52 AM (#1915769)
I've got them:

1. Pierce

2. Walters
3. Trucks
4. Bridges

But I could be convinced Bridges should move up. Bridges and Trucks both get significant (2 years) war credit from me.

Trucks is a guy who doesn't set off any bells and is easy to overlook. But he adjusts incredibly well. War credit, DERA, etc.. He's a guy that reminds me to plug in the numbers of as many people as possible into the system, just in case. People should give him a second look, with an extra 400 quality innings he moves way, and there's a peak there too.
   49. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: March 24, 2006 at 09:56 AM (#1915770)
Referring back to Chris's chart in #40 - I do give WARP credit for recognizing the difference between LF and RF in the 19th century. RF was basically what DH is today. I know Rob Dudek did a study awhile back (don't think it was published anywhere) that showed replacement level RF then hit better than DH do today. It was that study that first turned me on to the 3B more valuable than 2B thing as well.

Which reminds me, while WARP catches the LF/RF thing, it misses the 2B/3B issue completely.
   50. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: March 24, 2006 at 09:56 AM (#1915772)
And I just noticed, it rates 2B higher than SS in 1993? What's up with that?
   51. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 24, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#1915820)
Pierce, Mendez, and Walters, for a HOM that never falters!

Pierce, Walters, and Mendez; do what the numbers says!

Mendez, Walters, and Pierce, they're better than Ambrose Bierce!
   52. karlmagnus Posted: March 24, 2006 at 02:31 PM (#1915836)
Cicotte, Welch and Beckley, you'll have a better HOM direckley...

This is easy if you cheat a little!
   53. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 24, 2006 at 02:36 PM (#1915843)
Easy, huh?

Let's see you do Klippstein, Waitkus, and Schoendienst.... ; )
   54. karlmagnus Posted: March 24, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#1915891)
Klippstein, Waitkus, Schoeney, just load them on your gurney....

It doesn't work so well with non-English surnames, where the sound combinations don't exist in normal English words. Ichiro would be equally a problem, as would Martinez, though Ortiz/squeeze and Clemente/plenty show that not all latin names are impossible. (suzuki/spooky would work...)

Please DON'T make me spend the morning thinking of more of these; it is impossible to resist the challenge and nothing else would get done.
   55. DL from MN Posted: March 24, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#1915902)
> Is Bridges the Bob Johnson of pitchers?

I have them both in my top 10.
   56. Jim Sp Posted: March 24, 2006 at 04:51 PM (#1916041)
Continuing a reevaluation of pitchers, here's a list of pitchers who aren't getting any votes now, but I could see someone making a case for.

Joe Wood--I expected an extreme peak voter to make his case, it never happened though.
Andy Cooper--HoF committee liked him, we still don't know why.
Sal Maglie--intriguing candidate, lost many years to war and blacklist
Dolf Luque--his case has been made in the past, I expect him to return to some ballots soon
Silver King, Nig Cuppy, Noodles Hahn--reaching now, but peak voters who like Dean could make a case for them too.

Also there are a number of Bill James top 100 pitchers who aren't getting any votes, off the top of my head (don't have the book handy, this list might be wrong):

Larry French
Mel Harder
Ed Reulbach
Eddie Rommel
Urban Shocker
Lon Warneke

none of these guys have done well in previous elections, and none are getting votes now.

Luque I think will be back on a significant number of ballots, and when we get the HoF info on Andy Cooper that discussion will restart. Otherwise I don't see any of these guys making a big comeback.
   57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 24, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#1916406)
I have Shocker in my top 50, and he has been as high as #20 for me, but never really a serious guy. I also had Rommell in my top 50, but he has dropped out as I have started to lean less on DERA.
   58. Cblau Posted: March 25, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#1917168)
Dr. C,
I have to disagree with your assessment of Ambrose Bierce. He may not have the career, but if you are a peak voter, The Devil's Dictionary alone should be enough to get him in the HOM for writers (WHOM?)
   59. Kelly in SD Posted: March 25, 2006 at 10:13 AM (#1917603)
Two comments:

1. I just posted a long item about Whitey Ford. It demonstrates that Stengal definitely spotted Ford. It also has info about record against top teams, bullpen records, and records against various HoMer/good pitchers.

2. Re: Beckley/Palmeiro Comparison.
I may be the most vociferous anti-Beckley voter so take this with a grain of salt. I understand pro-Beckley voters comparing him to Palmeiro because before the steroids hit, Palmeiro looked like a sure-fire HoFer and, with 3000+ hits and 500+ homers, probably a HoMer. I thought he'd be a HoMer on my system and I was wondering how to differentiate the two.
Well, I ran Palmeiro through my system.

I should have trusted the voters making the comparison. Palmeiro is Beckley moved forward 100 years. There is no chance in hell of him getting close to my Personal Hall of Merit. His peak does not compare to existing HoMer first basemen, nor does it compare to his cohort group: Bagwell, McGwire, Thomas, Giambi, or McGriff. His prime is not close to the primes demonstrated by the existing HoMer firstbasemen either. And his per season numbers pale in comparison to existing HoMers.
This is with no deduction for being on roids.

There is a huge amount of air that needs to let out of his numbers - both for league context and team/home park context.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: March 25, 2006 at 01:15 PM (#1917647)
Comparing modern players like Raffy to our historical lists (like existing HoMers) is dangerous. Sure they (many of them) compare nicely on career records (WS, HRs, whatever, given the wonders of modern medicine) and sure their raw peak numbers (HR, RBI, etc., in a high run environment) also compare favorably.

But too many modern players test out that way and we can't elect them all. The 6th best 1B of the last 20 years should not rate ahead of arguably the best 1B of a period of equal length exactly 100 years earlier. i.e. Beckley has never been on my ballot but based on comparisons to their own respective contemporaries Beckley would have to rate ahead of Raffy.
   61. Kelly in SD Posted: March 25, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#1917881)
I agree with you. I have seen multiple posts comparing Beckley to Palmeiro. I wanted to make the point that being comparable to Palmeiro is not going to earn any points from me.

Of course, looking at rank among contemporaries runs into the problem when there is a dearth or concentration of talent - like with Beckley and Palmeiro. During most of Beckley's career, he was competing with the likes of Dan McGann, Fred Tenney, and Frank Chance for best first baseman. Palmeiro has had to compete with Will Clark, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Jason Giambi, Fred McGriff, and Mark McGwire.
   62. Howie Menckel Posted: March 25, 2006 at 07:28 PM (#1917913)
Kelly, the question is whether Beckley just played during a weak time for a position, or if the difficulties of the position itself - C being the most prominent longterm one - have a lot to do with it.

I have concluded that 1B in Beckley's era was a very important and difficult position to play, not as hard as C but a but like we think of with 3B.
Even in a good year, it's hard for me to picture Palmeiro's defensive production having as much to do with his team's success as Beckley did. Beckley was known for making some wild throws at times, but I think his defense in handling bunts and such was topnotch. That adds a lot of value, and the lack of longterm rivals in the 1900s is noteworthy.
Sure, somebody always would wind up having a better year, but their teams couldn't count on them from year to year. You had to have Beckley to have that kind of security.
   63. sunnyday2 Posted: March 25, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#1917943)
I may have to move Beckley up because I am saying this, but I don't think it's a coincidence. Either 1B was a tougher position than we think or the managers of that era were all morons. Not to say it might not be the latter. Years later some old baseball men were still calling Hal Chase the greatest 1B ever.
   64. karlmagnus Posted: March 25, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#1917961)
Chase is an interesting case, given the HOM has no anti-sleazeball rule. He was regarded as an outstanding defensive 1B, which was still more important then than today (he's a decade later than Beckley but still dead-ball.) If you compare 1B to CF, he comapres quite well with Harry Hooper and Max Carey, the latter of whom we elected. He presumably LOOKED Ozzie-like defensively, so without the gambling and with another couple of years he'd presumably be in the HOF and possibly the HOM. He was OPS+ champion in 1916 for the Reds, which I hadn't realized.
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 25, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#1918011)
I may have to move Beckley up because I am saying this, but I don't think it's a coincidence. Either 1B was a tougher position than we think or the managers of that era were all morons. Not to say it might not be the latter.

In the end, it's a moot point if they were morons, since the team with the first baseman that's 40% better than average at that position is still going to be more valuable than the center fielder 20% better than average, regardless of their stats. Simulation baseball will back me up on this point.
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 25, 2006 at 09:08 PM (#1918016)
As for Beckley/Raffy, Palmiero appears to have the better peak even after factoring in an Inside Baseball Era boost for Beckley, but I thing Eagle Eye had the more impressive career length for his time. I think it's damn close.
   67. rawagman Posted: March 26, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#1918971)
2 questions as a relative newcomer:
1) Is there something glaring that I'm missing in voting for Hugh Duffy so much higher than the rest of you (those who voted for him at all?)
2) Is ther HOM just about the on-field production? Do other contributions to the game have weight in these things? I ask in referance to Roger Bresnahan. Based purely on his playing, he wouldn't make my top-fifteen. Add in his other things (ie. shin-guards) he breaks the top ten.
   68. OCF Posted: March 26, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#1919027)
1. If you're mesmerized by that 1894 season, consider carefully the >7 run per game context. It was a good offensive season, the the best in the league that year, but it wasn't an all-time great season.

2. Just the on-field production. Broadening the scope of that would help Frank Chance a lot more that it would help Bresnahan. Note also that George Gibson caught as many games as Bresnahan, and that Bresnahan, a notorious umpire-baiter, probably hurt his team be getting ejected from games.
   69. sunnyday2 Posted: March 26, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#1919039)
Also if you adjust short seasons to 154 or 162 you've got to ask yourself whether a player could necessarily play all of the extra (hypothetical) games and whether they could maintain the same rate of production if they did. I have mixed feelings about that myself. I don't adjust all the way out to 154 or 162, I assume that players playing (as an example) 98 games out of 100 probably would not play 151 games out of 154 and would not maintain the same rate of performance. This is more true of pitchers and catchers than of others, of course.

On top of that, Duffy's second best OPS+ season (149 in 1891) was in the decidedly inferior AA. That season needs about a 10 percent discount.

Having said all of that, Duffy is hanging around #20-25 on my (off) ballot.
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: March 26, 2006 at 06:38 PM (#1919159)
Yes, Beckley career OPS+ 3 pts higher in a much longer career.
Beckley played in the relatively far tougher NL in 1891 while Duffy was beating up on the AA Washington Statesmen and the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers (no kidding).
   71. Kelly in SD Posted: March 26, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#1919325)
No. I have Duffy 5th on my ballot. Duffy was the best player in his league two times and in the top ten several more times.
Defensively, Duffy was regarded as a fantastic defender by everyone who saw him. 100 years later, defensive metrics say the same thing. If you agree with Win Shares, he is an A+ defender. Many posters have commented that Win Shares is too friendly to CF, but Duffy was only a CF in roughly 40% of his games. He was just that good.
Win Shares also sees him as comparable in peak and prime to many CF in the HoM.
If you don't like WS, Duffy does have a black ink score of 38 which is fourth among eligible players. Black ink is for leading the league in various categories. His grey ink is 11th among eligibles. Grey ink being in the top 10 in various categories.
Duffy was a key contributor, often the best position player, to the great Boston teams of the 1890s that won the pennant in 1892, 1893, 1897, and 1898. Also, his Boston team won the AA pennant in 1891.
In 1891, he was the 3rd best player on his team behind Tom Brown - an excellent AA career player and Dan Brouthers - a first ballot HoMer.
In 1892, he was the best position player on the team.
In 1893, he was the best position player on the team.
In 1894, he was the best position player on the team. (They finished 3rd)
In 1897, he was the third best position player on the team behind HoMers Jimmy Collins and Billy Hamilton.
In 1898, the same.

There is nothing wrong with voting Duffy highly.

Currently, I am finishing a Keltner list for Charley Jones. Hugh Duffy is next.
   72. DavidFoss Posted: March 26, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#1919376)
Shortly after he became eligible, Duffy was grouped with Van Haltren and Jimmy Ryan as the "OF Glut" and they effectively split each others votes for about 20 years. The electorate ended up electing guys like Sheckard & Thompson instead. Since then Ryan has slipped out of the picture... if that would have happened back then it would have helped the other two, but since then generations of other guys have become eligible.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: March 26, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#1919434)
There is a pretty good "glut" of CFers in any case and I think they continue to split votes. Off the top: Duffy, GVH, Pete Browning, Roush, Oms, Bell, Poles, Hack Wilson, Berger... I don't even think of Ryan as backlog anymore, nor Dom DiMaggio, though obviously others do. Averill rose to the top of this group and another of these guys may yet. Duffy is a credible candidate, to be sure, but so are several others.

This is pretty similar to the crowd at SS, and 2B is almost as bad. Odd that there is not a crowd at C or 3B, though those positions have fewer HoMers.

Still, for me, sorting out the SS and 2Bs is not that hard. Sorting out the CFers is very hard.
   74. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 27, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#1920003)
I will have Duffy #3, he had a very nice peak, even when league strength (most of his career was in the 10 team 1890's so any net negative discount seems odd) and run environment are factored in. I do discount his WS peak a littl ebit because it isn't that far behind say, Jennings, and I believe Jennings was the far superior player at his peak. That said, very nice peak, decent career.
   75. Howie Menckel Posted: March 27, 2006 at 12:53 AM (#1920066)
Duffy was an excellent outfielder, no question about it.
But how much is that worth, in any era?

I think Beckley contributed MORE defensively than Duffy did, WS be damned.
That's ultimately what this is about, that and the fact that Beckley rarely was his league's best first baseman.

I can respect a high vote for Duffy; he belongs in the discussion, for sure.
   76. Mark Donelson Posted: March 27, 2006 at 02:25 AM (#1920179)
As a fellow peak voter, can you tell me your reasoning for putting Ford high on your ballot? Neither he nor Pierce (I agree with those who say they're very close) are getting there in my current analysis. For the record, I am giving war credit, but it's not helping much.

Is it all about usage patterns? Aren't Pierce's similarly skewed toward good teams?
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: March 27, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1920195)
I'm a Pierce fan and think he's a HOMer, but Ford strikes me as close to the controversial 'no-brainer' description as they come.
Not an unbelievable peak or career tally, I guess, but he's prime-rific for sure.

Beckley, Bell, Redding, Pierce - lots of guys I want in the HOM, but I can't rank any of 'em ahead of Whitey Ford next week....
   78. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 27, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#1920201)

Well the difference between the two placements I have for Ford and Pierce (#4 and #24) are admittedly very close. I am also giving Ford a good bit of credit for being spotted against the Yankees biggest rivals though I am not sure I can really quantify it.

While I am a peak voter I am not quite as ideological when it comes to pitchers for whatever reason. I currently support Dick Redding over Jose Mendez and havd had Eppa Rixey, Ted Lyons, and Early Wynn in my top 10 (Lyons when we had a much stronger ballot). I guess it is because I see a long pitching career as more of a skill than a long career as a position player since the act of pitching itself shortens one's career while the act of paying 1B, SS, or CF does not do this as explicitly.

There was no way that Ford was as good at his best as Keller, Moore, Kiner, and Browning so maybe I should take another look. I do, however, think that he was better than his WS #'s show and the other two peak pitchers that I support (Dean and Walters) came in eras where ptichers had more WS per season so that needs to be adjsted for (or WARP, or whatever you use).

I guess in some way it is a matter of faith that I am a little more right than the numbers on this one.

Oh, and I am a Yankees fan ;-)

P.S. I am not actually putting Ford high because of my being a fan of the greatest baseball franchise ever.
   79. Mark Donelson Posted: March 27, 2006 at 04:32 AM (#1920416)
Heh. I'm a Yankees fan too, actually, which is making this election difficult for me. Luckily, it appears Ford has plenty of support without me... ;)

It does seem we differ on pitchers, as Rixey, Wynn, Lyons, et al. were also not too near my ballot, and still languish pretty far from my pHOM. Ford will do a bit better, but only a bit (and Pierce may get a boost from where I've had him in the past).

Thanks for explaining!
   80. Paul Wendt Posted: March 27, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#1920836)
If you compare 1B to CF, he comapres quite well with Harry Hooper and Max Carey, the latter of whom we elected. He presumably LOOKED Ozzie-like defensively,

On 1Bmen in 1912 or so, Baseball Magazine acknowledged the once marvelous play of Hal Chase but observed that his day as the best man on the job was done. About three men in each league were in his class or better, a few of them clearly better in the field. BBMag named Chase the All-America (both leagues) 1Bman 1908-1911, thereafter named him to the All-NL team in 1917.

Marc sunnyday & Ast. Editor John Murphy:
>>I may have to move Beckley up because I am saying this, but I don't think it's a coincidence. Either 1B was a tougher position than we think or the managers of that era were all morons. Not to say it might not be the latter.
In the end, it's a moot point if they were morons, since the team with the first baseman that's 40% better than average at that position is still going to be more valuable than the center fielder 20% better than average

This may be where merit and value part ways.

Odd that there is not a crowd at C or 3B, though those positions have fewer HoMers.

A backlog or glut is more likely at a position with many first-tier players. This group elected Heinie Groh and Stan Hack promptly, in part because of a shortage at 3B. At Cooperstown they are in the foyer, in the glut.
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 27, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#1920906)
This may be where merit and value part ways.

Paul, you wanted this evaluation stuff to be clean and easy? :-)
   82. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2006 at 04:46 PM (#1920938)

I vote highly on Duffy. I see him as a better player relative to the candidates at his position than I see many other players. He's got a very nice peak, he's got a decently long career, was a good fielder, etc.... On the other hand, I don't think he's anything like a first, second, or third tier HOMer, he's nearer the in/out line than not.

As to Bresnahan, many of us offer catchers a bonus that helps us see them on a scale similar to other positions where durability is more normal. I do so to the tune of 30% up to a particular number of Plate Appearances (the number being defined as what I consider a "full season" and only offering incrementals above it to avoid overprojection).
   83. Kelly in SD Posted: March 28, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1922833)
This is a cross-post from the Charley Jones thread. Charley Jones Keltner List. I have tried to be objective, but I am one of Jones' best friends.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
I don't have access to any primary sources for the years when Charley Jones played. The closest I have is a copy of Spink's The National Game from 1911. In it, he provides commentary about most of the good players back to the National Association. He usually only has good things to say. His comment about Jones is short. It says that he was one of the hardest hitters of his day, was a stalwart player, knew all the finer points of the game, he could field and throw finely, and he was his team’s home run hitter.
But, even without any primary sources, I believe that he was never regarded as the best player in the game. During his career, I believe the best players were considered to be George Gore, Paul Hines, Cap Anson, and John Ward

2. Was he the best player on his team?
Often he was. Using win shares, let’s see what we find.
<u>1876</u>: <u>He was</u>. Teams had 65 – 70 decisions. The Reds finished 9-56, which is below even Win Shares’ replacement level. Jones was the team’s only good player. Jones led his team with 9 win shares. The Cubs were an all-star team and dominate the top 10 lists that year, but Jones shows up in top 10s for Slugging, Adjusted OPS+, Doubles, Home Runs, and Extra Base Hits.
<u>1877</u>: <u>He was</u>. Teams had 57 – 60 decisions. The Reds finished 15-42 in last again. Jones tied with Jack Manning, the shortstop, for best player on the team with 8 win shares. It took Manning 57 games to do that, while Jones needed 38. Jones is better by rate. Lip Pike and Jack Manning show up in some top 10 lists. Jones has a better Avg, OBP, SLG than either, but doesn’t qualify b/c of insufficient PA.
<u>1878</u>: <u>He was</u>. Teams had 60 decisions. Reds were second best in league, 37-23. He had 12 win shares, most by a position player, better than Cal McVey, King Kelly, Deacon White, and Lip Pike – all HoMers. He is in the top 10, often top 5, in Avg, Slg, OPS, R, H, TB, 3b, HR, RBI, OPS+, Runs Created, and EBH.
<u>1879</u>: <u>He was</u>. Teams had 70-84 decisions. He is now with the Braves, second best in the league, 54-30. He had 21 win shares, 4 more than any other position player. He is top 10, often top 5 in Avg, OBP, SLG, OPS, R, H, TB, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, BB, OPS+, RC, and EBH.
<u>1880</u>: Kicked off team after playing 66 games before being kicked off the team. Teams had 80-84 decisions. Jim O’Rourke (HoMer) was best on team with 17 win shares. Jones ended with 12 win shares. He is in the top 10 in Avg, OBP, SLG, OPS, HR, RBI, and OPS+.
1881: Blacklisted
1882: Blacklisted
<u>1883</u>: <u>He was</u>. Teams had 96-98 decisions. He is now with the Reds in the American Association, third best in the league, 61-37. He had 18 win shares. He is top 10, often top 5 in OBP, SLG, OPS, TB, 3B, HR, RBI, OPS+, RC, and EBH.
<u>1884</u>: <u>He was</u>. You could argue for John O’Reilly at first base. At worst, they are tied. Teams had 104-109 decisions. Reds are 5th in a 12 team league, 68-41. He had 27 win shares. He is top 10, often top 5 in AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, R, H, TB, 3B, HR, RBI, BB, OPS+, RC, EBH, and Times on Base.
<u>1885</u>: <u>He was</u>. Teams had 108-112 decisions. Reds are 2nd in an 8 team league, 63-49. He had 24 win shares. The shortstop, Frank Fennelly, had close numbers – you could argue they were tied or Fennelly is slightly ahead. Jones walked more and had very good range in the OF while Fennelly hit for a lower average and was average defensively. He is top 10, often top 5 in AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS+, R, H, TB, 2B, 3B, HR, OPS+, RC, EBH, and ToB.
<u>1886</u>: <u>Probably not</u>. Teams had 135-139 decisions. Reds are 5th, 65-73. The keystone combination of Fennelly and Bid McPhee are the best players on the team, but Jones is a solid 3rd with 18 win shares. Top 10 in only OPS, BB, and HR.
<u>1887</u>: Played with 2 teams, so no. Top 10 in HBP only. Age 37 year.
1888: No, 6 games, final season.

I believe Jones was consistently the best position player on his teams for 10 years, from 1876 to 1885.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Win Shares sees Jones has one of the top 2 or 3 outfielders in the National League or American Association in 1879, 1883, 1884, and 1885. This bridges the 2 years of the blacklisting. The other great outfielders by win shares during the first 10 years of the NL/AA are all HoMers or solid candidates: King Kelly, Paul Hines, George Gore, Jim O’Rourke, and Pete Browning. STATS has him an all star 5 times.
How do these totals compare to other players of the era – remembering Jones missed 2 years of his prime?
Jim O’Rourke: 7 WS and 7 STATS (includes other positions)
Harry Stovey: 4 WS and 7 STATS
Paul Hines: 7 WS and 5 STATS
George Gore: 5 WS and 5 STATS
King Kelly: 8 WS and 8 STATS (includes other positions)
Pete Browning: 5 WS and 8 STATS
Charley Jones: 4 WS and 5 STATS
Jones is definitely in the argument for best outfielder of the first 10 years of the NL/AA.
   84. Kelly in SD Posted: March 28, 2006 at 06:13 PM (#1922844)
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Hard to say definitively as all the pennant races occurred between 115 and 130 years ago and I am not going to go through newspapers day-by-day.
Definitely not in <u>1876 and 1877</u> as the Reds finished last.
In <u>1878</u>, the Reds were 2nd, 4 games behind Boston. Boston and Cincinnati split 12 games. Cin started out strong, going 11-3 putting them up on Boston’s 6-3. In June and July, Cin dropped behind going 11-15 while Bos went 20-7. Cin tried to close, going 15 - 5, but Bos held on going 15-9. The team performed well in the pennant race.
In <u>1879</u>, the Boston Red Caps were 2nd, 5 games behind Providence. Prov was 29-18 on July 31 and Bos was 27-20. Bos got fire, going 27-10. Unfortunately, Prov was hotter, going 30-7. Prov won the season series, 8 – 4. After the games of Sept 23, Bos was 2 games behind Prov, 55-24 to 53-26. Prov won 4 of the last 5 to win the pennant. Boston did very well over the last two months of the season, but not well in the final 5 games to decide the pennant. They were outscored 47 - 26.
<u>1880</u>: He was kicked off the team for September.
<u>1881</u>: He was blacklisted
<u>1882</u>: He was blacklisted
<u>1883</u>: Cin finished 3rd, 5 games behind Philly. The team was between .600 and .667 in all five months so they were consistent. They beat Philly 9 out of 14 times they played. They played Philly 7 times after Aug 20 and went 5-2. Cin was 5.5 games out at the start of Sept. They had their best month, but only gained a half game.
<u>1884</u>: Cin finished in a tie for 4th/5th, 8 games out. 2nd through 5th were between 6.5 and 8 games out. Cin was .500 or worse against all four teams ahead of them. They were in 5th, 8.5 games out at the start of September. They went 18-8 to end the year, but gained only a half game.
<u>1885</u>: Cin finished second, 16 games out. There was no pennant race.

I don’t know how Jones did individually, but his teams generally finished strong. As he was the best position player on these teams, give him however much credit you want. I would argue that this question is definitely not a negative one for Jones, but I don’t think it would be fair to count it as a positive either.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Jones one of the 7 oldest players in the AA from the time he returned in 1883, so I would say yes. Jones played 103 games out of 136 at age 37 with a 106 OPS+ in 1887. He was a part timer at age 38 and then retired. I believe it was rarer for a player to play that long in the 1880s than it is today. Jones’ prime lasted from age 26 (his second year in organized ball) through age 36. He had a long prime at a very high level. His career length is a positive.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Merit?
Depends on who you ask.
According to the HoM voters in 1972, no one thought so, but he did receive 3 votes worth bonuses.
Per Career Win Shares, <u>adjusted for Wars, schedule length, giving credit to Negro Leaguers and blacklisting credit</u>:
384 - George Van Haltren (344 unadjusted)
370 - Willard Brown (328 w/o war credit)
370 - Cool Papa Bell - pending new translations
351 - Jimmy Ryan (316 unadjusted)
348 - Jake Beckley (318 unadjusted)
346 - Sam Rice (327 unadjusted)
340 - Alejandro Oms (NeL translations)
340 - Mickey Vernon (296 w/o war credit)
338 – Minnie Minoso (283 w/o NeL credit)
336 – Charley Jones (161 w/o schedule and blacklist credit)
335 - Tommy Leach (328 unadjusted)
329 - Harry Hooper (321 unadjusted)
326 - Ben Taylor (NeL translations)
324 - Hugh Duffy (295 unadjusted)
322 - Rabbit Maranville (302 unadjusted)
321 - Edd Roush (314 unadjusted)
310 - Bob Johnson (287 without a year of minor league credit)
305 - Fielder Jones (290 unadjusted)
(I have Spots Poles, Dick Lundy, Bill Monroe, and Bus Clarkson between 300 and 325 but some of these are from very sparse actual numbers.)

However, career totals are not everything.
His 3 year peak (<u>adjusted for schedule length, but no credit for blacklist years</u>) is 98 WS. I have that as the 4th highest.
102 – Pete Browning (schedule adjusted, 75 without)
102 – Charlie Keller (no WWII credit)
101 – Hugh DUffy (sched adjusted, 90 without)

His prime (<u>best 7 years for me</u>) is 211 schedule adjusted win shares and 230 with blacklist credit (132 w/o adjustments). That is the best among backloggers.

Jones is tied at <u>14th in Black Ink with 20 points</u>. This doesn't include NeL'ers.
Jones is <u>5th in Grey Ink with 162 points</u> behind Sisler 198, Minoso 189, Veach 170, and Beckley 165. Jones racked up the Grey Ink in 10 regular seasons. Sisler had 15, Minoso had 12, Veach had 12, Beckley had 17.
Jones is tied for 4th in OPS+ behind Browning, Keller, Cravath, and tied with Kiner.

Jones is tied for 10th in STATS all-stars (he is missing 2 prime years) with 5
Jones is tied for 24th in WS all-stars (he is missing 2 prime years) with 4.

I don't see enough evidence to declare Jones the best, but he is definitely at the top.

I believe many baseball observers would say that Cool Papa Bell and George Sisler would be the best players in history whom we have not inducted.
   85. Kelly in SD Posted: March 28, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1922848)
7. Are most of the players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Merit?

Tough question because of the changes in the game. Jones started play when teams played just 70 games a year and never played in a league with more than 140 scheduled games. I don’t know what Jones was doing before 1875 when he played 13 games with the Keokuk Westerns and the Hartford Dark Blues. The talent pipelines were not exactly organized. Also, Jones was blacklisted for two full seasons and part of a third. In consequence, he only has 881 career games played, or less than 5.5 seasons at 162 games.
But, based on the season lengths when he played compared to the games he played he has:
1876: .98
1877: .98
1878: 1.00
1879: .99
1880: .77 – blacklisted in August
1881: Blacklisted
1882: Blacklisted
1883: .92
1884: 1.00
1885: 1.00
1886: .90
1887: .75
1888: .05 (token apps)
Total: 9.34 seasons. At 162 games a season, that is 1513 games. From age 26 to 37, he appeared in 93% of his team’s games, so he was very durable. All this is to point out there is a tremendous adjustment that needs to make to his numbers. Then add in the 2+ years of blacklisting at 93% of 83 and 85 games, or add 1.86 seasons to 9.34 to get 11.2 seasons or 1814 games.
Depending on how you adjust for season length and blacklisting, you could be adding over 900 games to his career – basically doubling it.

I looked at the players with similar OPS+s and found Elmer Flick who had a 149 OPS+. He played 1483 games, but adjusted by games per season, he had 9.95 seasons.
Flick had 302 seasonally adjusted career win shares, Jones had 268 + 2 seasons of blacklist credit at an average of 1878-1880 and 1883-1885 for a total of 336.
Flick’s best three years in a row are 96 also seasonly adjusted 96. Jones had 69 seasonally adjusted to 98 (no blacklist credit here).
Flick’s 7 year prime is 215 seasonally adjusted to 223, Jones is 131 that is seasonally adjusted to 211 and including blacklist credit it goes to 230.
Both are C defenders.
Flick is a STATS all-star 6 times, Jones 5
Flick is a WS all-star 5 times, Jones 4
Flick is +.066 OBP over league, Jones is +.051.
Flick is +.098 SLG over league, Jones is +.108.

Food for thought.
   86. Kelly in SD Posted: March 28, 2006 at 06:19 PM (#1922865)
8. Does the player's numbers meet Hall Of Merit standards?

I don't know. When I first started in the HoM, I was told to judge each election separately and not to focus on Least Common Denominator arguments.
But let's look at few different standards.
<u>Bill James Hall of Fame Standards</u>: Jones scores a 16. His total is severely limited by the shortness of the seasons during his career and the two blacklisted seasons.
<u>Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor</u>: Jones scores a 26. His total is severely limited by the shortness of the seasons during his career and the two blacklisted seasons.

Looking at achievements among left field electees to the Hall of Merit. I am looking at position because my spreadsheets are not set up to allow an easy comparison all elected HoMers, but position by position is not too difficult.
<u>Unadjusted by War credit or schedule evening Win Shares</u>: Left field HoMers range from Jackson's 294 to Musial’s 604. Jones has 161.
<u>Adjusted for war, schedule and blacklisting (War and blacklist credit based on 3 years on each side of break and schedule straight line adjusted</u>): Medwick’s 305 to Ted Williams’ 733. Jones, with 336, is ahead of Medwick, Jackson, Joe Kelley, and is within 15 of Harry Stovey and Jimmy Sheckard.
<u>Win Shares per 648 PA</u>: HoMers range from Williams’ 37 to Goslin’s 23.8. Jones’ 26.4 is ahead of O’Rourke, Simmons, Stovey, Kelley, Sheckard, Goslin, Wheat and Medwick.
<u>Win Shares Prime</u> – best 7 seasons: HoMers range from Williams’ 298 to Monte Irvin’s 187 or Goslin’s 197. Jones’ 230 would place him sixth among elected HoMer LFs: Williams 298, Musial 283, Delahanty 249, Jackson 246, O’Rourke 238 and ahead of Simmons, Clarke, Stovey, Magee, Kelley, Sheckard, Goslin, Wheat, Irvin, and Medwick.

Some people are not fans of Win Shares, so let's move on.
<u>STATS All-Stars</u>:
Williams: 16
Musial: 13
Delahanty: 8
Magee: 8
Simmons: 8
O’Rourke: 7
Stovey: 7
Jackson: 6
Clarke: 6
Burkett: 5
Goslin: 5
Medwick: 5
Jones: 5
Irvin: ?
Wheat: 4
Sheckard: 2
Kelley: 1
Williams and Musial missed time due to WWII and Jones missed time due to blacklisting

I don't know of another source other than win shares so that I can provide another view of yearly all-stars. But another point-of-view is always good.
Williams: 10
Musial: 12
Delahanty: 7
Magee: 4
Simmons: 5
O’Rourke: 7
Stovey: 4
Jackson: 7
Clarke: 5
Burkett: 5
Goslin: 6
Medwick: 5
Jones: 4
Irvin: ?
Wheat: 6
Sheckard: 3
Kelley: 4
Williams and Musial missed time due to WWII and Jones missed time due to blacklisting

Williams: 190
Musial: 159
Delahanty: 152
Magee: 137
Simmons: 132
O’Rourke: 134
Stovey: 143
Jackson: 170
Clarke: 132
Burkett: 140
Goslin: 128
Medwick: 134
Jones: 149
Irvin: ?
Wheat: 129
Sheckard: 120
Kelley: 133

<u>Black Ink</u>:
Williams: 122
Musial: 116
Delahanty: 55
Magee: 35
Simmons: 23
O’Rourke: 25
Stovey: 56
Jackson: 14
Clarke: 8
Burkett: 31
Goslin: 10
Medwick: 41
Jones: 20
Irvin: ?
Wheat: 8
Sheckard: 19
Kelley: 2
Williams and Musial missed time due to WWII and Jones missed time due to blacklisting

<u>Grey Ink</u>:
Williams: 326
Musial: 390
Delahanty: 230
Magee: 210
Simmons: 215
O’Rourke: 288
Stovey: 210
Jackson: 186
Clarke: 160
Burkett: 174
Goslin: 200
Medwick: 226
Jones: 162
Irvin: ?
Wheat: 227
Sheckard: 124
Kelley: 122
Williams and Musial missed time due to WWII and Jones missed time due to blacklisting.

Jones is definitely better some of the left fielders we have inducted.

9. Is there evidence to suggest the player was SIGNIFICANTLY better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

As argued elsewhere, I believe there are a number of things to suggest he was better than his numbers.
<u>One</u>. Allowance made for the drastically <u>shorter schedule</u>. Jones did not play in a season scheduled over 100 games until he was 34.
<u>Two</u>. Allowances made for the <u>blacklisting</u>. Jones requested his pay when it was due. The team was on a road trip. The custom was for teams on road trips to not pay the paychecks until they returned back home so they would not have to carry large amounts of cash. Jones requested his pay amount. Things escalated. He jumped/was suspended from the team during the road trip in August of 1880. He was blacklisted by the team/NL. The blacklist held for the 1881 season. The AA did not want to challenge the blacklist during its first year of operation so Jones sat out 1882 also.
<u>Three</u>. The <u>1876 Reds were a disaster</u>. They were 9-56. That is below any analysis sytem’s replacement level. Any analysis system that is tied to wins (both Win Shares and WARP, I think) will reduce Jones’ value unless it allows for negative values. Jones was clearly above replacement, finishing in the top 10 in SLG, 2B, HR, OPS+, and EBH.

Other things not caught by statistics that could hurt/hinder.
<u>Stolen bases</u>. We don’t have caught stealing information, but I have no reason to believe there is any missing value here.
<u>Ground Into Double Plays</u>: Don't have the information to see if he was Jim Rice or Craig Biggio.
<u>Hitting and Running / Small ball</u>: The hit and run did not exist during his career. We have no sacrifice information here. Jones was a power hitter so I would not expect to find significant value or demerits here.
Also, I have no information regarding whether Jones was considered a "brainy" player or if he was a flake.
<u>Clutch</u>: I have no information about whether he was considered clutch or not. His teams generally performed well in pennant stretches.<u>
   87. Kelly in SD Posted: March 28, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#1922874)
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Merit but not in?

Some voters say Jones, some say Minoso, some say Kiner, some say Bob Johnson, some say Keller. I’m not sure each of the five is rated the best on at least one person’s ballot, but it’s close.

My top 10 eligible left fielders are George Burns, Augie Galan, Bob Johnson, Charley Jones, Charlie Keller, Ralph Kiner, Heinie Manush, Orestes Minoso, Bobby Veach, and Tom York.

<u>Career Win Shares</u> (schedule adjusted/war credit/minor league credit for screwy team management.) and unadjusted totals.
336 – Jones – 161
323 – Minoso – 283
310 – Johnson – 285
298 – Burns – 290
285 – Manush – 285
271 – Veach – 265
263 – Keller – 218
262 – Kiner – 242
250 – Galan – 263
208 – York – 107 (York also has credit due him for 1871-1875 that I don’t have here)

<u>Peak</u> - 3 consecutive years - adjusted for season length only
102 – Keller
98 – Jones
97 – Burns
97 – Kiner
91 – Galan (I reduce for WWII down to 81)
88 – Veach
85 – York
81 – Manush
79 – Minoso
76 - Johnson

<u>Per 648 Plate Apps</u>:
30.9 – Keller
26.4 – Jones
25.2 – Kiner
24.8 – Minoso
24.6 – Galan
23.8 – York
23.6 – Veach
23.3 – Johnson
23.1 – Burns
22.4 - Manush

<u>STATS all-stars then Win Shares All-Stars</u>:
6 – Johnson - 4
6 – Kiner – 4
5 – Jones – 4
4 – Minoso - 7
4 – Keller - 4
2 – Burns - 6
2 – Veach - 4
1 – Galan - 4
1 – Manush – 3
1 – York - 2

152 – Keller
149 – Jones
149 – Kiner
138 – Johnson
130 – Minoso
127 – Veach
122 – Galan
121 – Manush
119 – York
114 - Burns

<u>Black Ink</u>:
52 – Kiner
33 – Burns
22 – Veach
20 – Jones
15 – Manush
15 – Minoso
11 – Galan
5 – York
4 – Keller
0 - Johnson

<u>Grey Ink</u>:
189 – Minoso
170 – Veach
162 – Jones
161 – Johnson
145 – Kiner
142 – Manush
135 – Burns
110 – York
96 – Galan
85 - Keller

York – A-
Galan, Minoso, and Veach are in the B range
Everyone else is in the "C" range.

<u>Win Shares Gold Gloves</u>:
3 - York and Jones
1 - Galan and Burns
0 - everyone else

11. How many MVP-type seasons did the player have? Did the player ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

<u>First</u>, there was no MVP award during his career so could never have won one. Jones’ teams never won a pennant, though they did finish 2nd three times.

<u>Second</u>, from my examination of his career, it does appear he had MVP-caliber seasons.
In <u>1878</u>, he was best position player on the Reds and tied for the fourth best position player in the game. In a 60 game season, Paul Hines led with 15 win shares. Jones was tied with 3 others with 12.
In <u>1879</u>, he was the best position player on the 2nd place Boston team. In an 84 game season, he accumulated 21 win shares that year, second among position players to Paul Hines’ 22.
In <u>1884</u>, he was the best position player on his team, and tied with Dave Orr for being the best player in the league with 27 win shares in a 112 game season.
In <u>1885</u>, he was the best position player on his team, and was third in the league with 24 win shares behind Pete Browning and Dave Orr, with 24 win shares in a 112 game season.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did the player have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other player who played in his many go into the Hall of Merit?

There were no all-star games during his career.
How many all-star type seasons did he have? Jones was one of the 3 best outfielders in his league in 1879, 1883, 1884, and 1885. In 1878, he was the fourth best position player in the NL (tied) but behind 3 outfielders – Paul Hines 15, Orator Shaffer and Tom York 13. In 1876, he had 9 win shares, but that was the 9-56 team. He accounted for one-third of the team’s win shares. No position player did as well.
Did he finish in the league’s top 10?
1876: No, but see above. The team was so bad that it cost him win shares because the teams was below replacement level – if that has any meaning in 1876.
1877: No, tied for 11th with 9
1878: Yes, tied for 4th with 12
1879: Yes, 2nd with 21
1880: No, blacklisted with 12 – if prorate, he finishes about 10/11th
1881: Blacklisted
1882: Blacklisted
1883: Yes, tied for 7th with 18
1884: Yes, tied for 1st with 27
1885: Yes, 3rd with 24

I would argue from the above that he was one of the best players in his league for 10 straight years.

13. If this man were the best on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I would say yes. The key is “could.” When a player is among the top 5 players in his league, a team could win the pennant if that player was the best player on the team.
The 1878 team was 2nd by 4 games. Tommy Bond and Will White were very comparable #1 starters, but Boston was more efficient with their runs – being 5 games over projection compared with Cincinnati’s 2 games.
The 1879 team was 2nd by 5 games. Tommy Bond and John Ward were very comparable #1 starters, but Providence had the advantage over Boston in #2 men, Bobby Mathews over Curry Foley.
The 1885 team finished second, but they were trying to compete with the St.Louis who were starting Dave Foutz and Bob Caruthers while they were throwing Will White, Larry McKeon, and Bill Mountjoy.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipement? Did he change the game in any way?

I don't know of anything.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guideline, instructs us to consider?

Non-applicable, but I have no information that Jones was an #######, a killer, a racist, a gambler, had a bad temper, frequently assaulted people, or a convicted violent felon. He did like to drink, but so did 75% of the league at that time.
   88. The Honorable Ardo Posted: March 29, 2006 at 03:39 AM (#1923700)
So I looked at my 1951 ballot, and the highest-ranked player not yet elected was... Dick Lundy! Yuck. My "top-10" returnees would be:

1. Lundy
2. Roush
3. Sewell
4. Sisler
5. Beckley
6. Bell
7. Mendez
8. Mackey
9. Van Haltren
10. Bridges

My thoughts have changed during my Rip Van Winkle 22-year nap. These players strike me as under-rated candidates:

C: Quincy Trouppe
2B: Joe Gordon
3B/OF: Tommy Leach
P: Billy Pierce

A full sample ballot will follow.
   89. The Honorable Ardo Posted: March 29, 2006 at 05:37 AM (#1923753)

There are a lot of candidates right on the in/out curve.

My top 15 (NOT including OFs):

1. Ford
2. Mendez
3. Gordon
4. Trouppe
5. Pierce
6. Leach
7. Schang
8. Redding
9. Fox
10. Sisler
11. Sewell
12. Mackey
13. Joss
----------in/out line
14. Doyle
15. Bridges

Catchers: Quincy Trouppe's later years matched or exceeded Roy Campanella's early years. The man could hit well; unlike Ernie Lombardi, he could run well too.

Schang's OPS+ is 117 in 6423 PA. Mackey's "good" phase is estimated at 113 OPS+ in 6040 PA. Advantage Schang.

Lombardi's defensive statistics look below-average, but not awful, to me. He would be ranked between 16-20 on my list.

First base: I once had Sisler #1, arguing that he could have been a star pitcher (111 IP at 124 ERA+, most of it at ages 22-23). I won't go so far now, but I strongly believe he is an HoMer.

Beckley suffers when I see his best offensive seasons are in the 1890 PL and the watered-down 1901-03 NL.

If Ben Taylor belongs in my top 15, please do make a case. I don't know much about him.

2B, SS, 3B, and pitchers to follow.
   90. The Honorable Ardo Posted: March 29, 2006 at 06:22 AM (#1923773)
Second Base: We elected Bobby Doerr (7093 PA, 115, -1 war). His historical and statistical rival, Joe Gordon (5707 PA, 120, -2 war), also an excellent defensive player, deserves induction.

Then the backlog gets messy. We have three hitters:
Cupid Childs (6758, 119, one-league 1890's)
Larry Doyle (6509, 126)
Tony Lazzeri (6297, 121)
and the fielding whiz, Nellie Fox (9232, 94).

Fox's offensive production, in light of the integrated, 16-team 1950's, is not HoM-subpar. He comes first.

I rank the three hitters Doyle-Childs-Lazzeri. Doyle could flat-out rake. His range looks bad, but why didn't McGraw move him down the spectrum? Every single one of his MLB games is at 2B, and he gets a modest boost for that.

Shortstops: The hardest.

Dobie Moore is out of my set. He seems no better than Jennings in no longer of a career, and I consistently opposed Jennings's induction during the 1940-51 ballots.

Lundy's revised and less heady MLE (9160, 92) creates an interesting Dave Concepcion (9640, 88) parallel: both could hit for power, neither could draw many walks. He would be #16 on my above list, just on the "out" side of my line.

This leaves us with:

Sewell (8529, 109, some time at 3B)
Stephens (6497, 115, needs severe war discount)
Bancroft (8244, 98)
Rizzuto (6711, 93, -3 war; rational credit puts him ~ 8400 PA, 94 OPS+, very near Bancroft)
Long (7674, 94, one-league 1890's)
and Maranville (11256, 82)

Sewell's hitting puts him in my top 15, but his NeL contemporaries (Lloyd, Wells) keep me from ranking him any higher. Bancroft, Rizzuto, and Long are, in time context, highly similar - in the 251-300 all-time range. I'd select Lundy first.

Ozzie Smith (10778, 87) was a notch better than the Rabbit on O, a notch better on D, and two notches better on quality of play. Maranville made too many outs for my taste.

To recap, Sewell/Lundy-Rizzuto-Bancroft-Maranville-Moore-Long-Stephens.

Third base: Here, there are fewer candidates. As a baseline, we elected Stan Hack (8506, 119) without much fuss.

I've always been a fan of Tommy Leach (9051, 109, equal 3B/CF), but the weak 1901-03 NL hurts him worse than Beckley. Take out those three years, and you have the normal aging curve of a player who didn't quite hit enough for the HoM. Now he did produce at that time, and I still prefer him over Sewell, but I'm bumping him down from #6 to #11.

Bob Elliott (8190, 124) was an average fielder. Like Vern Stephens, he needs a severe war discount. He's in the 251-300 all-time range. So is Pie Traynor (8293, 107), a good fielder with great range for 3B but many errors.

Pitchers and outfielders follow tomorrow.
   91. TomH Posted: March 29, 2006 at 12:59 PM (#1923818)
Third base: John McGraw (5000ish PA in the schedule-shortened 1890s), VERY OBA heavy 135 OPS+)
   92. karlmagnus Posted: March 29, 2006 at 01:55 PM (#1923836)
Beckley doesn't have an obvious "best" season -- as his detractors whinge incessantly, he lacks an obvious, Mount Fuji-shaped "Peak." In 1890, he was in the PL, which I think we've agreed was the best of the 3 leagues that year. However his fine seasons in 1893 Pittsburgh and 1899-1900 Cincinnatti were against tough competition; indeed since 1900 had a single 8-team league you can argue it was the toughest competition ever faced -- he was 6th in BA and 5th in total bases that year in all of baseball.

Dead ball outfielders had a pretty easy life, and infielders a correspondingly tough one, particularly in the 1890s when every at-bat against the Orioles was likely to turn into a full scale rumble. One of our esteeemed colleagues has produced figures showing that 1B was a less offensive position in 1890-1920 than even CF today; it was closer to a modern 3B.
   93. TomH Posted: March 29, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#1923906)
I'm going to L.A. for a brief business trip next week. I'm free Tuesday evening the 4th. Anybody in that area? Insight on how to get a Dodger game ticket?

(my emails are
H:, W:
   94. The Honorable Ardo Posted: March 29, 2006 at 06:57 PM (#1924289)

I'll admit my biases right off. I timeline pitchers much more steeply than hitters because of the decreased share of defense over time in the 50% of baseball that is run prevention.

Also, preventing runs means more to me than throwing innings. Replacement-level innings are readily available throughout baseball history. As an aside, where can I find a list of pitchers ranked by career RSAA?

Short career, live ball (IP, ERA+)
Ford (3170, 132)
Pierce (3306, 119)
Walters (3104, 115)
Bridges (2826, 126)

The best candidates, in my book. Ford is an easy inductee.

Pierce pitched very well in a high-competition, low-IP environment. He is also part of the "Drysdale bunch" of similar W/L records. Looking at the whole group, Pierce comes out on the HoM side of the cluster:
Drysdale (3432, 121) +
Blue (3343, 108) x
Tiant (3486, 114) ?
Pappas (3186, 110) x
Hunter (3449, 104) x
Bunning (3760, 114) ?
Kevin Brown (done at 3256, 127) +

Walters has a nice peak and a nice story, but his war years - esp. 1944 - need discounting.

Bridges is a tough nut to crack, not least because of his unusual 1938-43 usage pattern (no doubt influenced by Ted Lyons' 1935-42 usage). In fact, correcting for Bridges' better team defense, Bridges has about 2/3 of Lyons' career. That puts him in my top 15 list, but just short of the HoM.

Short career, pre-1920
Cicotte (3223, 123)
W. Cooper (3480, 116)
Waddell (2961, 134)
Joss (2327, 142)

Mendez and Redding are better than any of these guys.

Cicotte gets a moral and practical discount - regardless of his reliance on paraffin, he threw away an HoM-trajectory career in 1919.

Wilbur Cooper looks 'better' than the Pierce/Drysdale group when people don't pay attention to context. The live ball made a later transition to the NL than the AL, so his 1920-24 success doesn't impress me.

Joss saved a lot of runs! Even with my timelining, it's hard to explain Koufax (2324, 131) in the HoM and Joss struggling to make ballots.

Long career
Welch (4902, 113)
Willis (3996, 118)
Grimes (4180, 107)

We elected Early Wynn (4564, 106). I won't call him an outright mistake; I will call him the very last pitcher I would induct. With timelining, Mickey Welch, whom we are not rushing to induct, resembles Wynn.

Grimes is a notch below these two. Vic Willis, to my surprise, is a notch above them, deserving of HoM induction. I'd add him to my top 15 list between Sewell and Mackey.

Redding and Mendez both are HoM-quality. Redding (latest MLE 3556, 114) resembles Willis to me: a fastballer and innings-eater who pitched mostly for mediocre teams. Pitching in the nineteen-teens, with a higher quality of play, puts him above Willis.

Mendez (latest MLE 3001, 119) is one of my elect-me candidates. He has two points indicating he may be better than the MLE:
1) His dominance in the Cuban League.
2) His outstanding record against white-major competition.
   95. The Honorable Ardo Posted: March 29, 2006 at 07:02 PM (#1924305)
Two notes:

Outfield analysis will have to wait for the 1974 discussion.

I forgot two players not in my top 15: Rube Waddell (gave up too many unearned runs) and Roger Bresnahan among catchers (could rake at 5374-126, but caught almost 500 fewer games than Schang and was a subpar defender when not catching).
   96. TomH Posted: March 29, 2006 at 08:38 PM (#1924520)
Ardo, for RSAA you can purchase Lee Sinins encyclopedia on CD... or I can email you a list :)

I'll be away on business next week. The discussion process for the 1974 ballot does not look difficult; I will say my short piece here:

1. Mantle
2. Mathews
3 thru 15. other

Larry Jackson - nice career, I admit knowing very little about him, doubt he will make my ballot.

Eddie Mathews (note the spelling, class) is criminially underrated by the general baseball fan. Compared with the best third sacker ever, Mike Schmidt, he was
- as good a hitter, probably just a tad better
- career of equal length
- not as good with the glove

Yes, he didn't do nearly as well with MVP voting, but that is mainly because
a. check out his competition for said award; played wrong league, wrong time
b. he was a bit more consistent than Schmitty, without quite the peak
c. his team had a lot of shoulda woulda coulda years

anyway, he is a top-20% HoMer. I'd take him over Mathewson and Foxx among other studs we've honored.
   97. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 29, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#1924566)
Eddie Mathews (note the spelling, class) is criminially underrated by the general baseball fan.

Ain't that the truth, Tom. The greatest third baseman before Schmidt deserves better.
   98. DavidFoss Posted: March 29, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#1924574)
Sharing a spot in the lineup with Hank Aaron probably helped keep him out of the spotlight. (Becoming eligible the same year as the Mick continues that theme). I'll wait until he gets a thread before I continue the love-fest. :-)
   99. jingoist Posted: March 29, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#1924609)
"I'd take (Eddie Mathews) over Mathewson and Foxx"

I really, really like Eddie too but not better than Schmidt or Foxx (don't understand the comparison with Mathewson; that's like saying I like blondes better than collies).

Foxx was an absolute beast (no pun intended) who would have owned the 1930's AL (some claim he did) if it wasn't for Ruth and Gehrig.
Foxx won 3 MVPs to Eddies 0 (came in 2nd twice, I'll give you that).
Eddie wasn't the best player on many of his teams (Aaron or Spahn were better from 61 to 63; Adcock in '56).

We need 3rd basemen in the HoM; Eddie will go in with flying colors no worries there.
   100. Mark Donelson Posted: March 29, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#1924710)
don't understand the comparison with Mathewson; that's like saying I like blondes better than collies

Is Mathewson the blonde or the collie?
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
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.7117 seconds
62 querie(s) executed