As someone firmly in the anti-timeline segment of the electorate and who has a problem with statistical systems that unfairly grade earlier generations of players compared to today (I'm looking at you, WARP3! :-), I do have a problem with not taking into account the standard deviation of a league. IOW, if the major leagues expanded to 50 teams next year, the spread between the best and worst players would increase without any doubt. We just couldn't ignore that and treat Albert Pujols' 260 OPS+ or Johan Santana's ERA+ of 270 the same way that we treated their stats in 2006. Regression would have to be used, IMO.

But is it right?

I have my doubts that this is historically correct. Jim Creighton was a sensation and was regarded as the greatest and most influential baseball player ever, becaue he flouted the rules about serving up the ball for hitters to hit it. IOW he made it hard for hitters to hit the ball, he tried to get them out. The powers that be found it impossible to enforce the rules, that is, to make a judgment about what was permissible and what was not, and his style of pitching became the norm pretty much immediately.

I don't think anyone says pitching didn't matter at all, just that it mattered a lot less
than it does now. At least that's what I'm saying. Creighton didn't make the HOM because his pitching wasn't valuable, but because he only managed to pitch for 3 (?) years before dying. Sure, it's just a theory. I don't know that we can ever prove how much of 1880s baseball was pitching, fielding or hitting.

But as long as we're fair to all eras, we should be fine as far as the HOM is concerned.

As someone firmly in the anti-timeline segment of the electorate and who has a problem with statistical systems that unfairly grade earlier generations of players compared to today (I'm looking at you, WARP3! :-), I do have a problem with not taking into account the standard deviation of a league. IOW, if the major leagues expanded to 50 teams next year, the spread between the best and worst players would increase without any doubt. We just couldn't ignore that and treat Albert Pujols' 260 OPS+ or Johan Santana's ERA+ of 270 the same way that we treated their stats in 2006. Regression would have to be used, IMO.

Were MLB to expand to 50 teams overnight, we'd have a clear test of these various theories about standard deviations and league quality and translations a flattening peaks and whatnot. Unfortunately, until that happens. . . .

By all means, if one has evidence of the standard deviation of various stats, and knows how much they should be used to regress stats for top players, then that's a reasonable argument and I'd love to see it.

Not putting a player on your ballot because "high OPS+s were easier back then," I don't think is reasonable.

This timelining argument seems to be skirting the essential merit of a tool like OPS+ -in fact, any stat with a '+' at the end of it - one that measures a value as compared to a league average of that same value. The plus does nothing but to compare to mean average. What the '+' does not do is compare across time. A single player may put up an OPS+ of 125 in 2 consecutive years, but be far more effective as compared to a zero baseline in one year than another.
This is where a metric (WAPR/s, WS, your own derivative) can come in to help. OPS+, and ERA+ are nice tools, but cannot be the sole components of a tool box.
Away from the theoretical and into the practical; OPS+ should ot be used to compare two similar type candidates (career - Brock and Beckley, bat - Cravath and Jones) when from different eras as the meaning of the +'s are vastly different.
In comparing similar era guys (say Jimmy Wynn and Reggie Smith) the tool, as a means of comparison, has much more meaning.

"high OPS+s were easier back then,.

It's not a question about "back then"- high OPS+s are easier once again in the 1990s-2000s, whether due to expansion or some other reason, and it will be just as reasonable to take this into account when comparing future HoM candidates such as Jason Giambi to his historical counterparts as it is in judging the 1880s candidates.

One last question re C Jones:
One or two posts seemed to suggest that he had no way of knowing that the punishment would be so severe.
That leads me to ask: What was Jones' stance during the suspension? Was he trying to plead his case, or seek lesser punishment, or just drop the matter - or was he still pushing for his pay?

As noted before, I don't begrudge him wanting his money. But if he had a way to get back into the game, but chose not to take it, that might affect my 'credit' issue.

>if he had a way to get back into the game, but chose not to take it, that might affect my 'credit' issue.

That's silly. Again, replace Charley Jones with Curt Flood. "The stupid idiot acted on principal! No credit!"

That's silly. Again, replace Charley Jones with Curt Flood. "The stupid idiot acted on principal! No credit!"

That's not silly at all, that's exactly the approach I'm taking! Principle is lovely, but if you could have played but chose not to for "principle" then you don't get any credit.

I wouldn't give HOM credit for Flood, either.

I'm interested in picking the best players, crediting them with their play at the highest league they're permitted, assuming they had no say in playing at any higher level.

If Jones could have chosen a path to playing but didn't take it, that's relevant.

Why would be it more noble to insist on getting paid 100 pct of one's salary, and thus not playing, than taking a year off to tend to a terribly sick child, parent, etc.? Wouldn't the latter guy get credit? Will we have to start reading Ryne Sandberg's mind to figure out if he gets 'missed year' credit?

Why would be it more noble to insist on getting paid 100 pct of one's salary, and thus not playing, than taking a year off to tend to a terribly sick child, parent, etc.? Wouldn't the latter guy get credit? Will we have to start reading Ryne Sandberg's mind to figure out if he gets 'missed year' credit?

I see a very clear difference between Baker/Sandberg and Jones/Flood. One is a humane decision, one is a labor decision. Baker/Sandberg wittingly chose to take zero value for at least one season. People take leaves of absence from their workplace under similar circumstances. Jones unwittingly cost himself 2.25 years or so in a labor dispute, not for a leave of absence.

The decision-making tree is totally different, and it's reflected in a question I asked previously. If Charley Jones had really thought he'd lose 2.5 years of income and playing time, would he have done it? I don't think that's likely. But Frank Baker knew it. So did Sandberg (who retired after all). So they took the time off. No credit from me.

The easiest way to contextualize Jones is in light of Flood. I think Curt Flood knew that he had some likelihood of losing some or all of the remainder of his career. Why? Because ownership had consistently shown for about 100 years that they would do what it took to silence player dissent and keep the players disempowered in the contractural process. If he lost, his career would be seriously jeopardized. In 1879, however, there was little precedent for ownership's militant refusal to fairly bargain with players. Some surely, but nothing like the systematic suppression of player rights that Flood and Marvin Miller could easily document by 1970. With little, if any, sense of the militancy of ownership's then-still-evolving stance (remember, the reserve clause was still being created), how could Jones know? I believe it's more than likely he couldn't have known.

Returning from the 19th century to consider a late 20th century issue:

With voting due to begin tomorrow, here's the most pressing issue that I see:

Should any of Kaat, Campaneris, or Tenace be placed somewhere in the backlog or should their candidacies be immediately dismissed? Is there anyone here who is planning to vote for any of those three, of for any other new candidates beyond Bench, Yaz, Perry, and Jenkins?

"Immediate dismissal" does happen to many candidates these days - is it right for these three?

As a longtime lurker, I guess my feeling is, Curt Flood had to have known he was hurting his chances at the Hall of Fame not just from a political standpoint but also from a counting stats / playing career standpoint. In fact, that makes his sacrifice just that much more noble: he was giving up a chance to accumulate the stats that might one day amount to recognition by the HoF.

Now Curt Flood wasn't getting into the Hall, anyway, so this question is kind of unfair, but what if it had been Willie McCovey? At the end of '68, Willie only had 1100 hits and 268 HR. He had a great OPS+ (153), and he was 30 years old. It was pretty clear even then that barring something major, Willie was on his way to a HoF career. But at the moment he did not have it. And if Willie stepped off the field and never played again, you would be hard-pressed to say that he didn't know exactly what he was giving up - not just his livelihood of the day, but the glory of tomorrow, too. I think rewarding him for those unplayed games is a nice sentiment, but it probably goes against what the player was really saying: that until things are fair, this game and his career were things he was not proud of, because of his treatment.

Kind of hard to put into words, but that's my own thoughts on it.

I believe it's more than likely he couldn't have known.

What if Jones should have known, but didn't? What if Jones thought the odds were 50/50, and took the gamble? What if he thought there was a 75% chance he'd get his way and a 25% chance of disaster? 85/15?

The problem with your approach is that it forces us to divine the intentions and thought processes of a guy who was playing ~125 years ago. It implies that there are causes that are worthy, and should be rewarded with credit (labor causes) and causes that aren't, and deserve no credit. It forces us to impose 2006 values on 1880, or any other time we want to look at.

By refusing credit in situations like Jones or Floods we sidestep the arbitrariness of judging the merits of a player's choice, and we insure that all players will be judged equally, if crudely. Your approach is necesarily fraught with bias and inconsistency from voter-to-voter.

It forces us to impose 2006 values on 1880, or any other time we want to look at.

But isn't the attitude that Jones's play for an independent team doesn't count an imposition of 2006 values? What did the situation look like in 1880? How could Jones have known that if he played for the NL his records would be recorded for all time in the record books, but if he played for an independent team his play would be completely forgotten, treated as if he hadn't played at all. The notion that the NL was the "major" league and the independent teams were worthless is very much a 2006 belief and value. At the time, the NL was a four year-old league, economically strapped, had lost its franchises in New York and Philadelphia, and was playing in smaller cities like Troy, Worcester, and Providence. Although it was the best league, it did not yet have a monopoly on top baseball talent. To say that the NL was the only worthy place to have played during 1880-1882 is merely to reflect modern beliefs and prejudices.

OCF asked With voting due to begin tomorrow, here's the most pressing issue that I see: Should any of Kaat, Campaneris, or Tenace be placed somewhere in the backlog or should their candidacies be immediately dismissed?
--
I don't wish to uttelry dismiss these fine set of 3, but it's difficult for me to see Kitty Kaat and Campy as more then Hall of Very Gooders; they don't crack my top 40. Tenace is very intriguing, but I cannot place him on the ballot over the recent catchers Munson and E Howard that have not made my top 15. I hope he sticks around for a few weeks more of discussion, although there are precious few comparisons coming up that will match him solidly. Maybe Brian Downing will be the closest match??

Quick factoid: Tenace won a WS MVP with a great, great performance. But outside of that WS, he slugged under .140 in post-season play.

From the Chicago Dail Tribune, September 8th, 1880:

"Had [Jones]made the same demand when the club was in Boston, and it had not been complied with by the Boston management within a reasonable time, he would have just ground for complaint; but he made his demand when the team was away from home, when h knew it was not customary to do more than to allow players a few dollars now and then for spedning money, and when to abandon the team and refuse to play was wholly unjustifiable. No club pays its players their salaries when on the road or away from home, and Jones, knowing this to be the invariable practice, must have expected a refusla when he demanded of Harry Wright his salary in full, and must havd acted as he did with the express intention of leaving the team...It is knowne that Jones was anxious to leave Boston and go to Cincinnati, and it is probably he took this means of bringing about a rupture..."

Robby wrote:

>The problem with your approach is that it forces us to divine the intentions and thought processes of a guy who was playing ~125 years ago.

Then Robby wrote:

>Jones, knowing this to be the invariable practice, must have expected a refusla

Which is it?

I'm with Brent.

Today MLB players play in a stable environment other than the occasional work stoppage, for which most of us adjust. He has every opportunity for a stable and uninterrupted career. He gets paid enough that he has no reason to consider alternative employment. He has 30 opportunities to make a ML roster (there is virtually no reason ever to worry about MiL credit anymore), He comes up, he plays, he stays as long as his abilities justify it and he retires with a resume that is what it is. No unknowns, no holes other than injuries, really, no tough choices other than whose millions to accept.

It was not always so. Through the 1950s many many players had to make tough choices about where or even whether to play. the opportunities to miss playing time for reasons other than the classic baseball reason (injury) are relatively many. Teams go belly up. Payment is cut or withheld. Whole leagues go belly up. And so forth.

Players post-1050 or so do not have those experiences on their resume. Failing to adjust for them in some way or other is just exactly analogous to NOT adjusting for season length.

If players from pre-1950 (those who experienced some of these things) are going to be evaluated fairly versus modern players, I believe we should consider who they were and what they did (or could have done in a more stable environment) from the moment they come on to the radar until they are clearly not capable of playing at replacement level any more. To judge independent leagues, army teams, barnstorming and the like as of no value at all is to render those players of no value at all, which based on their surrounding years, we know to be false. Dismissing what we now regard as not-MLs out of hand is imposing 2006 values on things. The players in question did not know what we know today.

In order to judge them fairly we need to consider their entire careers. To do otherwise is no better than failing to adjust for season-length. And if we did that then we might just as well have voted on top 225 players of "all time" without regard to era or chronology. Then we would not be the Hall of Merit.

Sunny,

Of course the second quote you attribute to 'zop is actually a quote from a contemporaneous newspaper. I think if anything it shows that the idea of Jones as a victim was not widely held at the time, expecially if Jones did this with a move to Cincy in mind. If what Jones alledgely did, made a salary demand in order to be allowed to change teams, was common or had the chance to become common than I can see why the team acted in the way that they did. When teams in the biggest markets can't cut it you can't have players jumping ship whenever they choose, it would doom the league. It may have had less to do with a miserly owner and more to do with league perservation, especially since I keep hearing how the league happened to be on the brink. Assuming this is all true it does cast Jones in a slightly different light, one that in the context of 1880 looks less noble than when Curt Flood did something similar in a league that was by no means on the brink. That's the problem with trying to figure out which act was noble and which was not, there is usually a very good argument that any noble act was in fact unnoble and vice versa.

Did the Chicago Daily Tribune have any connections to the Boston ownership? Ownership in general?

OCF,

I have Kaat and Tenace in my top 50. Tenace seems very close to Munson for me, its a toss up between the two. As for Kaat, I like him more than I liked Ruffing but not as much as I liked Wynn and Rixey. I don't think either are particularly HOM worthy.

Camapaneris was better than Aparicio but not someone who will stick around in my consideration set.

Re Campaneris, Kaat, and Tenace:

I expect all three will pick up at least a few votes, but I will not be voting for any of them.

I agree with Mark S. that Campaneris was better than Aparicio; I also like him a bit better than Fregosi. Campaneris was the best shortstop in the AL during his prime, between the end of Fregosi's peak and the arrival of Yount, that's not enough.

His assessment of Tenace as very close to Munson also seems about right. Tenace was an outstanding hitter for a catcher, but his relatively short career, his indifferent defense, and his splitting time at first base, where his offense is very good but not outstanding, are enough to keep him outside of my top 50 eligibles. Because catcher is such a difficult position to evaluate, we shouldn't forget about etiher Tenace or Munson, but I'm far from voting for either at present.

Kaat I see as only a fraction below my all-time in-out line. He had a handful of truly outstanding years, a lot of good years, and a lot of filler innings at the end of his career. I see him as very similar, when context is adjusted for, to Burleigh Grimes, who has consistently attracted enough support to remain part of the conversation, but not enough to look like he might eventually be elected. Kaat likewise should stay part of the conversation.

I agree with Mark S. that Campaneris was better than Aparicio; I also like him a bit better than Fregosi.

Same here, guys.

On his ballot, John Murphy wrote about Gaylord Perry:

. Close to being the best major league pitcher in 1972;

Which sent me off looking to see who was any better - and the reference has to be to Steve Carlton.

Now here's a question: was Carleton's 1972 the best single season by a pitcher between Gibson's '68 and Gooden's '85? And where does Perry's 1972 rank in the that time - as high as second?

Now here's a question: was Carleton's 1972 the best single season by a pitcher between Gibson's '68 and Gooden's '85? And where does Perry's 1972 rank in the that time - as high as second?

Perhaps. Carlton & Perry each have 340+ IP which gives them workhorse points. The main competitors are Seaver 1971, Wood 1971 and Guidry 78. Palmer 1975 is pretty good as well.

Did the Chicago Daily Tribune have any connections to the Boston ownership?

Possible but unlikely.

Ownership in general?

Definitely worth investigating. Even if the Tribune was not connected with Hulbert (league president and Chicago owner), individual sportswriters might put out the league "spin" on the Jones affair. Isolated quotes on this kind of situation are hard to evaluate out of their overall context.

****

1880 was a tense year in owner/player relations. During the 1870's, the players enjoyed total free agency. Contract was up, sign wherever the player wanted, no restrictions. Small market International Association teams might look for well-known NL players to make a splash, as did the major independents. It had been a players market.

In 1880, the IA had been weakened by the NL adding the best IA clubs to its own roster. The NL took this opportunity to try out Soden's idea, a "reserve list". Each team could reserve two players, and the other NL teams agreed not to sign them. Cincinnati attempted to "lowball" its two big stars; Deacon White held out til past midseason in 1880, and Cal McVey never came back, deciding to go to California instead. (Meanwhile, King Kelly, unreserved, signed with Chicago, widening the big hole in the Cincinnati offense.) I don't know who Boston reserved and how they handled the renegotiations, but if Jones were one and Boston was that ham-handed, it's possible that this created a background of hard feelings between the player and the team.

A few more Charley Jones things...

1. I guess that it is possible that Boston ownership and the league did nto act completely out of a desire to gain a win over a player but also because with the league in so much turmoil, a loss could have contributed to its downfall. Jones doesn't even need to have had the thought of jumping to Cincy in order for this to be valid, ownership just had to think that this was teh reason he did it to make the case that a victory was needed for league survival. This is, of course, where context comes into play.

2. A few voters on the ballot thread have either not given Jones full credit and still ranked him above Charlie Keller. I know that Adam Schafer said that even with no credit he would rank Jones about 10 places above Keller. I really can't see this at all. Even with full credit I dont' think he was as good as Keller but that is arguable I guess. Without full credit he is missing a prime year or two that he needs to be considered as Keller and Kiner's equal. Remember a career 149 OPS+ does not take into account an AA discount and this isn't even mentioning the idea that Jones maynot have done as well in full seasons or that it may have been easier to post high numbers in his era, as has been discussed in this thread. With war and 1 year of MiL credit (not 2) Keller has 7 MVP level seasons and another two at an all-star level. Can Jones really compete with this? I give him 4 MVP seasons and even with full blacklisting credit he only has four (though both of those years are close). I am wondering if teh blacklising and the shiny OPS+ aren't causing us to overrate Jones to the detriment of more modern players who should be ranked ahead.

With war and 1 year of MiL credit (not 2) Keller has 7 MVP level seasons and another two at an all-star level. Can Jones really compete with this? I give him 4 MVP seasons and even with full blacklisting credit he only has four (though both of those years are close). I am wondering if teh blacklising and the shiny OPS+ aren't causing us to overrate Jones to the detriment of more modern players who should be ranked ahead.

I count 6M and 3A for Keller (difference is probably 1940), but your point is well-taken. Jones was MVP level from 1877-1880 (4) and all-star level 1876,83-85 (4) with a solid 1886 (no all-star with discount). So what to project for 81-82? Split the difference and it 5M & 5A for Jones, (though it could be 4M/6A or 6M/4A). Keller's got nothing outside of the top 9 except for his injury decline.

I do vote for both (and Cravath too).

I do vote for both (and Cravath too).

Same here and they are all recipients of some form of credit.

Remember Chicago was the home of the then "White Stockings" run by William Hulbert. Hulbert was the Commissioner of the National League from 1877 to 1882. Hulbert was instrumental in wresting control of teams away from players and placing it squarely in the hands of ownership. Hulbert was the one who signed many of the Boston NA team players for the 1876 season during the 1875 season. He then declared that widespread team-jumping by players was a significant detriment to the success of the NA, pulled his team out at the end of the season and formed the National League.

I would like to know what connections the Chicago Daily Tribune had with the baseball team. In Total Ballclubs, they mention that newspapers in Chicago led the charge for Boston's ownership, while newspapers in other cities were almost all for Jones.

Good research.

I would like to know what connections the Chicago Daily Tribune had with the baseball team. In Total Ballclubs, they mention that newspapers in Chicago led the charge for Boston's ownership, while newspapers in other cities were almost all for Jones.

Good research.

Best I can tell, the Tribune was anti-Jones, the Cinci+Cleveland papers were pro-Jones, and the Boston papers fell somewhere in the middle. It's slow going to find these articles, since "Jones" isn't exactly a unique name and newspapers of that era only printed the last names of baseball players. Plus, even when I hit a relevant article, I have to transcribe it by hand. I hope to post a bunch of relevant articles to the discussion in a non-backlog year so that voters can make a more informed decision regarding credit.

If anyone wants to look for themselves, look for papers b/w Sept. 4 and Sept. 10, 1880, then scattered editorials and stuff later on.

I'm back! This is my first ballot since the spring of '05, and I'm looking forward to having daily internet access for at least the next few months so that I can become a regular voter again.

I revamped my earlier ranking system slightly to include more emphasis on peak. I'm still a career-centric voter, and I feel that IP and PA are very underrated metrics of a player's value. Long-term production is very important to a franchise, and I feel that long-career players deserve credit even for average production. I did de-emphasize Win Shares from my earlier ballots, resulting in my old favorites like Mickey Welch dropping significantly--I am still, however, a good fried of Burleigh Grimes. I give all players a final score out of 100 to determine where they fall on my ballot.

Here is my preliminary ballot:
1. Carl Yastrzemski: 78.8. Yaz was a great outfielder for a long time, and he does well in my system.

2. Johnny Bench: 74.8. Both Bench and Yastrzemski have claims of being the best at their position for their era. Yaz's great fielding gives him the slight edge in my opinion.

3. Gaylord Perry: 74.8. Not much of a peak, but his longevity keeps him in an elect-me slot. Amazing that a guy with vaseline all over his hands fielded so well.

4. Burleigh Grimes: 72. Grimes and Perry, together on my ballot. They're very similar, with Perry's career length giving him a slight edge.

5. Ferguson Jenkins: 71.8. Jenkins was known as a dominating pitcher, but his best seasons still fall shy of the two pitchers ahead of him.

6. Orlando Cepeda: 71.6. A fairly durable hitter with a good glove. I was a bit surprised to see him this high on the list, but he did have a pretty good peak.

7. Jake Beckley: 69.2. I still think he'd be already in the HOM if he'd made it to 3000 hits. One of the great hitters of his generation.

8. Charley Jones: 69. Here's an old-timer who never made my early ballots. Produced nearly as much offensive value as Beckley in roughly half the playing time.

9. Dick Redding: 68.8. At least as good as Rube Foster, and definitely the best NeL pitcher not yet elected.

10. Edd Roush: 68.4. The man with the big stick also had a decent glove, and a long career that scores well in my system.

11. Quincy Trouppe: 68.2. I believe he ranks well ahead of Bresnahan, as the solid #2 catcher on the ballot.

12. Pete Browning: 67.2. Another early player who benefits from my new peak credits. Browning has the highest peak ranking of any player on my ballot. If he'd played 20 seasons, he'd be at the top of my ballot.

13. Nellie Fox: 66.8. Not a lot of offensive value, but longevity and excellent fielding keep him on the ballot.

14. Reggie Smith: 66.4. Orlando Cepeda lite. A good glove, and some good years at the plate, but didn't rack up the Black and Gray Ink like Cepeda.

15. Alejandro Oms: 66. A good hitter and a very good fielder. I could see moving him up a bit on future ballots, but I'll be cautious for now.

Next in line:
16. Jim Kaat: Interestingly, the 16-time gold glove winner's range factor scores don't look all that great when compared with Gaylord Perry or Grimes.
17. Bucky Walters
18. Tommy Leach
19. Hugh Duffy
20. Carl Mays

Missing from my ballot:
23. Ken Boyer: Very little offensive peak, and only medium career length. I'd take Tommy Leach ahead of Boyer.
25. Jimmy Wynn: A better hitter than Boyer, but Wynn was less dominant at his position. Close to Jake Beckley, but with a shorter career.
39. Dobie Moore: Simply too short of a career. I don't believe he played long enough to produce enough value to merit induction.
50. Charlie Keller: See Moore, Dobie.

Your comments appreciated--please remember I'm rusty at this!

>I'm rusty at this

Staub is not eligible for a few more years yet ;-)

Welcome back JH!

jh,

Are you giving Keller any war and/or minor league credit? And do you give Moore any wreckers credit? With that they have careers that aren't really really short, in fact their primes were as long as, if not longer than, Charley Jones who you have in your top 10. Plus, Keller has more seasons at a very high level than Jones. Also, are you giving Yaz more credit for his defense than Johnny Bench? How is that even close to possible?

3. Gaylord Perry: Not much of a peak, but ...

What's a peak, anyway?

In what follows, I'll list the best five seasons for a number of pitchers on the RA+ Pythpat system. [Note: these are non-consecutive.] For each season, I'll give the equivalent W-L record, and then a third number: the third number is the equivalent FWP on a season-by season basis. (The equivalent FWP were calculated on the equivalent wins and losses before rounding.)



So Perry doesn't quite have a top 4 seasons like Koufax or a top 5 like Gibson or Roberts - but he's got a top 2 that will stand up there with a lot of people.

(Of course, he's #3 on your ballot and he was #3 on my ballot; we're not actually arguing about anything.)

Welcome back, jh!

Your ballot looks good. You can post it on the ballot thread at any time.

From the Sinins BB encyc, RCAP leaders during Bando's career, except the few poor seasons at beginning and end:
1968-1978
RCAP RCAP
1 Joe Morgan 566
2 Rod Carew 413
3 Reggie Jackson 362
4 Willie Stargell 340
5 Pete Rose 323
6 Johnny Bench 318
7 Willie McCovey 269
8 Reggie Smith 252
9 Sal Bando 249
10 Carl Yastrzemski 229
11 Hank Aaron 225
T12 Bobby Bonds 220
T12 Tony Perez 220
14 Ted Simmons 219
15 Frank Robinson 210
16 Dick Allen 196
17 Mike Schmidt 188

There have been a lot of good 3Bmen since 1965, but even using position guys as his comparison, he comes out lookin pretty good.

TomH, how much of that is due to endpoints that are particular to Bando? How does Boyer stand up from 1955 to 1965? What about Dick Allen's 1964-1974? You conveniently stopped at Bando's good seasons, but the endpoints leave out several quality seasons for Allen while including two of his partial and sub-average seasons.

Well Boyer was nto the offensive player that Bando was. I agree with the endpoints thing, but for me it's defense that sets Boyer apart from Elliot and Bando.

My post was not meant to compare Bando with Boyer or Allen, but of whom in my eyes were MORE worthy candidates than Sal. I DO think the numbers show that Bando was one of the dozen best players in MLB when he was in his long prime, and thus I'm surprised he hans't garnered more support.
Allen's best 11 years crush most everyone. Boyer's 1956-66 stretch is listed below, but actually he looks better over his best 8 years. And of course his defense adds to his value.

RCAP RCAP
1 Mickey Mantle 725
2 Willie Mays 590
3 Hank Aaron 522
4 Frank Robinson 405
5 Eddie Mathews 403
6 Al Kaline 262
7 Ernie Banks 230
8 Ted Williams 227
9 Harmon Killebrew 220
10 Norm Cash 216
11 Rocky Colavito 204
12 Orlando Cepeda 193
13 Willie McCovey 175
14 Dick Allen 155
15 Joe Torre 152
16 Roger Maris 142
17 Yogi Berra 141
18 Ken Boyer 137

Responding to a few things above regarding my ballot...

are you giving Yaz more credit for his defense than Johnny Bench? How is that even close to possible?

I'm looking at Range Factor compared to the league average--Bench was a slightly better defensive catcher than Yaz was a defensive outfielder. But their games at other positions push Yaz ahead, I think. Yaz played nearly 800 games at 1B and 3B and was great, Bench played about 450 games at 1B, 3B, and OF, and was lousy. I don't think you can ignore that about 20% of the time, Bench was providing a range of about 25% less than the league average at his position. He ends up looking league average for his career. Meanwhile, Yaz was providing defense well above the league average for 25% of his games.

Yaz
OF - 2076 G, 1.99 RFg vs. 1.91 Lg
1B - 765 G, 9.11 RFg vs. 8.40 Lg
3B - 33 G, 3.18 RFg vs. 2.68 Lg
Career - 2874 G, 3.90 RFg vs. 3.64 Lg

Bench
C - 1742 G, 5.80 RFg vs. 5.59 Lg
3B - 195 G, 2.01 RFg vs. 2.44 Lg
1B - 145 G, 7.03 RFg vs. 8.51 Lg
OF - 111 G, 1.35 RFg vs. 1.92 Lg
Career - 2158 G, 5.32 RFg vs. 5.32 Lg

So Perry doesn't quite have a top 4 seasons like Koufax or a top 5 like Gibson or Roberts - but he's got a top 2 that will stand up there with a lot of people.

I agree, but Perry has the bad luck of me arbitrarily choosing to look at everyone's top 5 seasons. A 2-season peak is a little too close to 1 peak season, which does not a HoM player make.

Are you giving Keller any war and/or minor league credit? And do you give Moore any wreckers credit? With that they have careers that aren't really really short, in fact their primes were as long as, if not longer than, Charley Jones who you have in your top 10.

I'll have to take some time to look at this more closely. Keller and Moore might bump up a few spots. Their primes might be as long as Jones, but I'm not sure they're as high. I'll post my final ballot after I review those two.

Jones vs. Keller:

OK, let’s start with the documented evidence. Here are the careers of the two players without any credits, using OPS+ when they were full-time players (both players have one season where they played 2/3 of the games, which are included in this list):

Jones:
183 68 68(AA) 58 57(AA) 56 54 47(AA) 34 32(AA), 06(AA) Total seasons:11

Keller:
168(’43) 63 62 59 44 41 Total seasons: 6

In terms of prime, Jones was pretty bad in his last season—a 37-yr-old playing CF hitting 106 OPS+ in the AA. So, we’re really looking ten prime seasons for Jones, vs. six for Keller. Those AA seasons need a discount, as does Keller’s 1943 season. Jones beats Keller handily in prime and career. Peak? Jones’ best season was better than Keller’s, at least by OPS+. But I concede that OPS+ has its flaws, particularly comparing across eras.
Jones clearly beats Keller in seven-year-peak; in a three-or-five year system, it will depend on what adjustments you make.

Now, let’s start giving credit. Two years of war credit: that brings Keller to eight prime seasons. Minor league credit: I think this problematic. I do give some minor league credit to players who debuted later in age—i.e, Cravath—if there is evidence that they were held back unreasonably. But Keller was 22 when he debuted, a pretty standard age for a rookie. To be fair, I was unable to find the arguments for Keller minor league credit, and I know some people give at least one. Let’s be generous, and give Keller two years credit. That brings the length of their primes to even, ten seasons to ten.

Defense? Win Shares sees them as about the same. Jones played over two hundred games in center, and 19th century defense is tricky using WS, so I would be inclined to give Jones the edge. But if you want to say they’re even, I’ll buy that.

Peak? Again, I couldn’t find Keller’s MiL data, but during the war years Keller likely would have had a couple of more seasons of 150-160 OPS+. Again, I have no difficulties choosing Keller over Jones using a strict peak argument; I’m not convinced that it’s obvious, but it’s certainly reasonable.

However, there’s this to consider: Jones debuted at 26. He was born in North Carolina, and debuted when major league baseball was primarily a regional sport. Did geographical factors prevent him from having even more prime seasons? The fact that he was a star in professional baseball at both age 26 and age 36 makes me think this may have been the case. I don’t give Jones credit per se; he may have been just a late bloomer. But in a close call, I am more likely to give Jones the benefit of the doubt. That, and the slight edge I give to Jones in defense, is enough for me to choose him over Keller in this case—although it is close, and I could others going the other way.

But we haven’t given Jones any credit yet. You give Jones credit for blacklisting, and his prime is back on top, twelve seasons to ten. He had five seasons above 150 OPS+ before he was blacklisted, and two afterward (plus a 147 season), although those did come in the early AA. Even with an AA discount, he played at a star (though not MVP) level. Jones still has a clear advantage.

Basically, there are three scenarios in which I can imagine preferring Keller to Jones:

1) Using a system that weights peak heavily (although, again, I don’t think it’s obvious that Keller’s is higher)
2) Giving Keller substantial war and minor league credit, while not giving any credit to Jones for his blacklisted years
3) Timelining

I don’t happen to give Keller any minor league credit, except full credit for his rookie season, although I do give him war credit. Therefore, I have Jones substantially ahead of Keller—although Keller did make a significant jump in my rankings after this analysis, and is now in my top 20. Is there anyone who can direct me to the arguments for MiL credit for Keller?

Arrrgh...That should read:

...looking AT ten prime seasons...

...I think this IS problematic..

...I could SEE others...


I need a friggin' editor.

jh,

I have to question the wisdom of giving Yax much credit for 33 games at 1B. I also wonder if RF is a great way to measure catcher defense. Finally, Bench's years at 3B and 1B were at teh end of his career and for catchers the end of a career generally means beat up knees. For OFers it usually jsut means they are a little slower. I still have to disagree with Bench not being much more valuable defensively than Yaz.

As for Keller and Jones, there are factors that may depress Jones' peak a little. The tail end of it was played in the weaker league of his time, there is the theory that big nubmers were easier to put up in his time (and it seems to have happened again in the 1990's) and that some regression may be needed when extrapolated short seasonsin to long ones. They are all small adjustments but they make Keller's peak look as long and more impressive to me.

Oh, and i am obviously not saying you shouldn't be posting your ballot (I don't have that power and if I did I wouldnt' anyway), just questioning a few things...;-)

AND ...give at least one YEAR of credit...

Geez.

Basically, there are three scenarios in which I can imagine preferring Keller to Jones:

1) Using a system that weights peak heavily (although, again, I don’t think it’s obvious that Keller’s is higher)
2) Giving Keller substantial war and minor league credit, while not giving any credit to Jones for his blacklisted years
3) Timelining

Since I have Keller one slot higher than Jones, yet don't follow any of your three points, you have to think up #4 now, favre. ;-)

Scenario #4 (the happily-named-Grandma system):

5) Charlie Keller-LF (4): Best ML right fielder for 1940. Best ML left fielder for 1943.

6) Charley Jones-LF/CF (5): Best major league leftfielder for 1877, 1879 and 1884. Best AA centerfielder for 1883. Best AA leftfielder for 1885 (close to being the best in the majors).


Clear preference of Keller to Jones because...Murph prefers spelling "Charlie" to "Charley"?

Seriously, John, I'm not sure why you have them ranked this way, based on the information you've given. So what is scenario #4? (I wouldn't have asked, but you did bring it up... ;])

I'm with Favre on this one. His thinking and mine are very close.

James Newburg MLE'ed Keller's last two seasons in the Minors and they came out to 28 and 30 (maybe 31) WS, respectively. And since 30 WS was considered by Bill James to be an MVP level season I would think that the above is ample reason to give Keller MiL credit for at least one of those seasons.

And as I mentioned in a post above, there needs to be a league adjsutment and I think it is prudent to adjust for standard deviation issues and to regress a little when extrapolating short seasons into long ones. This also hurts Jones peak. Plus, there is a decent argument for not giving him credit for his blacklisting years, much better than any argument for not giving Keller credit.

As for Keller not being the best LFer in the Majors very often, there was this other guy named Ted Williams who was a contemporary, not to mention Stan Musial. Should Keller be punished because two of the three best LFers of all time were contemporaries?

And yes, I know that Musial also spent a good deal of time in RF and at 1B. However, if I am not mistaken he was playing LF in the early to mid 1940's no?

How important was OF defense in the 1870's and 1880's? I know that during the 1890's there is an argument that it wasn't as important as there were fewer flyballs. Does this go for the two decades prior as well? If so, then some stats may be overrating OFers from this time just the same way they are underrating 3B and 1B.

Scenario #4 (the happily-named-Grandma system):

5) Charlie Keller-LF (4): Best ML right fielder for 1940. Best ML left fielder for 1943.

6) Charley Jones-LF/CF (5): Best major league leftfielder for 1877, 1879 and 1884. Best AA centerfielder for 1883. Best AA leftfielder for 1885 (close to being the best in the majors).


Clear preference of Keller to Jones because...Murph prefers spelling "Charlie" to "Charley"?

Seriously, John, I'm not sure why you have them ranked this way, based on the information you've given. So what is scenario #4? (I wouldn't have asked, but you did bring it up... ;])

:-D

First of all, when I make my rankings, I don't base them on how many times they led their positions. Ossie Screckengost led the AL many times at catcher. Whoopdedoo! :-) Seriously, I just like adding that information to my ballot.

I think, overall, that Keller was slightly more dominating than Jones when you factor in the proper credit for both of them among their peers at their respective positions. Since I do like Charley and have him pretty high on my ballot, I'm confident that you will allow me that prerogative. :-)

How important was OF defense in the 1870's and 1880's? I know that during the 1890's there is an argument that it wasn't as important as there were fewer flyballs. Does this go for the two decades prior as well? If so, then some stats may be overrating OFers from this time just the same way they are underrating 3B and 1B.

Not very important, and yes, Win Shares would likely over-rate OF defense in those years.

Yaz was considered a disaster at third base.

The Sox tried him there in the spring of 73. Rico Petroceli was hurt maybe? Yaz had 1 error for every 3 put outs he made. They tried two other guys there that year also, neither of which worked either, which was a shame because Danny Cater's .313 average then had to ride the bench most days.

karlmangus could likely lend more light here.

..no that Johnny Bnech at third base was any better. He was a bigger disaster over there.

That is what I figured KJOK. Does WARP do a similar thing? Obviously this would nto effect anyone who measures peak by OPS+ or Eqa, but it does lend credence to the thought that Keller was probably at least equal of Jones in the field in terms of total value. However, I would think that calling Jones more valuable in the field seems more wrong than the other way around if that makes any sense.

Mark:

“James Newburg MLE'ed Keller's last two seasons in the Minors and they came out to 28 and 30 (maybe 31) WS, respectively”

I’m thinking about this one. Without having looked at the argument again (I wish I knew where it was), I don’t see giving a 20-year-old credit for a big year in the minors. Now, a 21-year-old who a) had a big year previously and b) was playing in the Yankees farm system in the 1930s does have a case. My question is: if you’re giving a 22-year-old rookie credit for minor league play, who else are you giving it to? Because—correct me if I’m wrong-- debuting at age twenty-two in the 1930s simply isn’t unusual. Bob Elliott debuted at age 22 in 1939; anyone checked his minor league statistics?

“And as I mentioned in a post above, there needs to be a league adjustment and I think it is prudent to adjust for standard deviation issues and to regress a little when extrapolating short seasons into long ones. This also hurts Jones peak.”

No doubt that comparing peaks between 1870s and 1940s outfielders is a tricky business—it’s even trickier for these two guys, because there is a lot of credit involved. As I said, I think stating Keller has a higher peak is perfectly reasonable.

“Plus, there is a decent argument for not giving him credit for his blacklisting years, much better than any argument for not giving Keller credit.”

Yes, which you’ve done a good job articulating on this thread. I just don’t buy it. Jones was blacklisted—passive voice—in the prime of his career for, as far as I can tell, having the gall to ask to be paid. He was a star before the blacklisting, and a star after. I think his argument is stronger than that of a twenty-one year old waiting in the minors.

“As for Keller not being the best LFer in the Majors very often, there was this other guy named Ted Williams who was a contemporary, not to mention Stan Musial. Should Keller be punished because two of the three best LFers of all time were contemporaries?”

I was just asking John what his reason was for having Keller just above Jones, since his ballot lists position dominance. No, I agree—position dominance shouldn’t hurt Keller.

“How important was OF defense in the 1870's and 1880's?”

So, in an absolute sense, Keller would have been a more valuable fielder. Fair enough. In comparison with their contemporaries, which is more what I'm interested in, Keller and Jones would seem to be about equal. I have been giving Jones a slight defensive edge because of his time in CF, but I'm reconsidering now.

"Since I do like Charley and have him pretty high on my ballot, I'm confident that you will allow me that prerogative. :-)"

yeah, what the hell...

:]

That is what I figured KJOK. Does WARP do a similar thing?

As far as I can tell, WARP and Fielding Runs handle changes in the volume of fielding plays at a position a little better than Win Shares, which uses a very fixed distrubution across time.

I give Keller one year of MiL credit. Considering his age and the fact that many many players have had fabulous years in the MiL, I think one year is plenty, unless we're going to go back and look at everybody's record and considering handing out MiL credits to lots of other guys.

And I've never given Jones blacklist credit, though philosphically I believe that one should give him 2 years of credit for that. It's just that as a peak voter, it doesn't make much difference to me.

They're both in my top 10 right now and both are PHoM. But I like Jones a little better.

Favre,

I give Keller only one season of credit, but I think his performance in the first year really gives him a godo argument for the second year. If you think that MLB average (roughly 15 WS) is a 'hey look at me season' then 28 certainly counts as one and the next year shoudl count for Keller. As for Elliot I am open to credit, but to be fair Kelelr was blocked and playing at a VERY HIGH level in the minors. Age isnt' something I am concerned about. Overall I think we agree on a few of these issues, or at least see the others point. However, we disagree as to who was better and because of that... ... ... well, I am obviously right! ;-)

"Overall I think we agree on a few of these issues, or at least see the others point. However, we disagree as to who was better and because of that... ... ... well, I am obviously right! ;-)"

Obviously.

:]

Now I'm really curious as to Bob Elliott's minor league stats. He came up and mashed in his September callup.

The Sox tried him there in the spring of 73. Rico Petroceli was hurt maybe? Yaz had 1 error for every 3 put outs he made. They tried two other guys there that year also, neither of which worked either, which was a shame because Danny Cater's .313 average then had to ride the bench most days.

It was late August and September of 1973. Petrocelli went down for the season in mid-August. They played Cater at 3B for a couple of weeks but then it looks like they wanted to get Cecil Cooper into the lineup which meant benching Cater and shifting Yaz to 3B. Cooper had hit well in AAA in 1972 and 1973. Cooper ended up being a fine hitter, just not in 1973. Yaz ended up having two 3-error games and wouldn't play another game at 3B after that. Cater wasn't a great fielding option either, but a Cater-3B/Yaz-1B infield was probably the best option there.

Sox came in second, but it was 8 games behind the speedily rebuilt Orioles. The 3B-situation likely wasn't the decided factor in the race.

As far as I can tell, WARP and Fielding Runs handle changes in the volume of fielding plays at a position a little better than Win Shares, which uses a very fixed distrubution across time.

Win Shares also uses a very fixed distribution between pitchers and fielders across time, which would tend to "undervalue" defense in high-BIP eras.

-- MWE

I can't see giving Elliott minor league credit. His first three years were in the South Atlantic League, where he had triple crown stats around .300, 10, 90 each year. Not especially good in the high-offense 1930's. In 1939, he spent time in two Class AA leagues, mainly the IL, where he had a .328 BA and 51 RBI and got promoted at the end of the year. He obviously wasn't a star when he broke in to the Majors; his OPS+ his first two full years were 112 and 105, which are nothing special for a corner outfielder.

40 minutes left in tonight's "Numb3rs" episode.
It's about steroids and SABRmetrics finding a way to prove thru numbers if a guy is using.
Pretty positive about SABR, although it also claims that some 1993 paper proved that Shoeless Joe was innocent (didn't he get thrown out several times on the bases?).

Of course, if Diane Farr isn't enough reason to get you to watch already....

ok, rest of the episode was Ok, even a mention of Bill James.

I'll make sure to catch that ep on the reruns Howie, thanks! I used to watch Numb3rs, but then I stopped. Not sure why.

Anyway . . . I fell a little behind on evaluating the non-candidates and finally got to John Matlack - he was pretty good. There's definitely a peak there too. He's not a candidate or anything, but I get him in there with Ed Lopat, Spud Chandler and Jack Chesbro, which is better than I would have expected.

His 1974 has to be one of the best years ever posted by a pitcher with a losing record. I just remember the guy from 1980-83 that was pretty much done.

Did Rudy May do any military service? He wasn't that bad in 1965 - seems weird that he would just vanish until 1969. I also never knew that he whiffed 10 in a 1-hitter in his big league debut! I remember him very fondly from my first team that I ever followed, the 1980 Yankees, when he won the ERA title . . .

Gotta love the baseball cube (www.sports-wired.com), May pitched 9 games in 1966 in AA/AAA, 14 in HiA in 1967 and 22 in AA in 1968, so he must have gotten hurt and gone back to the minors to figure it all out. Even if he was in the military those years, it doesn't appear he would have been in the major when he wasn't serving.

Another Rudy May tidbit - his bullpens were a complete disaster for him - by far, the worst bullpen support I've seen. They cost him 30.7 runs over the course of his career - the second highest I've found is 19.5 for Sam McDowell.

If you have access to Comcast digital cable, you don't have to wait to see the Numb3rs episode. Thanks Howie.

It might have had an episode about baseball but Numb3rs still sucks.