Of course it matters who goes into the HOM; we are in the process of making the HOF look like amateurs. And not-Grandma has an EXCELLENT sense of humor. Guys, let's all be NICE to one another!

To 98:
I'll just quote Lee Marvin again and leave it at that. I was taught never to argue with psychosis.

To 98:
I'll just quote Lee Marvin again and leave it at that. I was taught never to argue with psychosis.

Gadfly, you're going to be talking to yourself off this site if I have anything to do with it. I'm not putting up with this crap anymore. If I end my association with the HoM over your antics, then so be it.

Ewwwwww. Threats. What is your problem? Roid rage? How current, just like Jose.

Well, talking to Murphy and David Foss is pointless, but I will bow to the will of the majority. Am I a humorless bastarrrd as John Murphy asserts? Should I be banished to the outer darkness?

Or is John Murphy evidently a couple hundred bricks short of a load?

Am I trying to add to the discussion or am I simply making my pronouncents from up high (Mount Olympus? I like that) as David Foss accuses. Am I unbearable and insufferable?

Will no one rise to my defense?
Father, why hath thou forsaken me?

Man, you can't pay for comedy like this.

I contributed to the escalation of rhetoric in this thread, for which I apologize (I am just remarkably tired of the demographics argument; I have to learn to put it on ignore).

Gadfly has certainly spun well out of control at this point, and I have no interest in defending him. I do note it as interesting however that the escalation of rhetoric began with karl referring to Gadfly's argument as having "no rationale" and being "delusional". And except for favre, no one has called him on this.

John,

Before you respond, please just drop it. I don't want to lose either of you from the project. John, you practically run the thing, and Gadfly has a ton to add from an information perspective.

There is nothing to be gained from continuing along this path, and a lot to be lost. Let's stop now.

Sorry for helping to escalate things, guys. I probably replied a few times too many.

gadfly,

However little the HoM matters in the larger world, it succeeds as a project only insofar as the participants respect the game, and each other.

I _greatly_ appreciate your contributions to the HoM project and I hope you'll continue to be a part of it, but you should recognize that your comments to John Murphy have been unfair and are a rather egregious transgression of the etiquette of discussion here. In a discussion where the presumption is that everyone is trying to be as fair to all the players as possible, accusing someone of deliberately distorting the facts is a serious thing, so it is unsurprising that John has taken offense at your remarks. Ridiculing him for taking offense and ridiculing us for taking our small project seriously doesn't help matters.

John Murphy invests uncounted hours in keeping the Hall of Merit going for no money and small thanks, because he believes in the project and its commitment to fairness. He respects the game. He deserves an apology rather than harrassment for it.

I hope we can quickly get back to talking about the players rather than quarreling with each other.

I'll keep it simple. I don't want either of you to leave the project. I respect both of your contributions and the Hall of Merit would be worse off if either of you left.

"I do note it as interesting however that the escalation of rhetoric began with karl referring to Gadfly's argument as having "no rationale" and being "delusional". And except for favre, no one has called him on this."

I think this is because we have all gotten used to this from karl...I mean Sam Leever?

(I want to point out right at the top that what I just waid WAS a joke.)

Chris Cobb-

I guess I will address my comments to you since you have always seemed to be the voice of reason, as far as I can see.

I will apologize to anyone who thinks I was denigrating the HOM. Obviously, since I look at the site often, post here sometimes, and have actually learned a lot here, I have valued the site. I have always thought this site was great.

In no way did I mean to ridicule anyone 'for taking (this) small projeect seriously.' As my own passionate arguments on the site should prove, I have also taken the project seriously. However, in this thread, I am of the opinion that some people have been taking the subject way too seriously, to a bizarre extent.

I have noticed before quite a bit of animus to my positions. Despite this, which I understand, I have always tried to have a respectful give and take with anyone who wished to have a respectful give and take with me (including Karl Magnus who had the tendency to frustrate the hell out of me).

I note that you contend that my comments to John Murphy have been unfair and a transgression to the thread's etiquette. You claim that I accused him of deliberately distorting the facts, i.e calling him a liar. You say I have ridiculed him for taking offense.

You believe that I owe John Murphy an apology, rather than harrassment, for my allegations.

I have reread the thread in its entirity to see, and consider, if this is true.

From rereading the thread, I believe:

1) that I quite fairly ARGUED with John Murphy that his 8 to 6 formulation (and the implications of that formulation) was incorrect;

2) that I never accused John Murphy of being a liar, simply of being mistaken;

3) that John Murphy was over-sensitive and took it upon himself to be offended over what was, in my view, nothing important;

4) that John Murphy would not let the subject drop despite my efforts to drop it, change it, or diffuse it with humor;

5) that my attempts to use humor to diffuse the situation backfired because, basically, John Murphy is humorless;

6) that John Murphy, who evidently runs this thread, is unable to stomach anyone disagreeing with him;

7) that, far from harrassing John Murphy, I have been harrassed by him, as posts 198 and 203 and several previous posts clearly show;

8) That my post 204 may be 'out of control' but is completely justified by John Murphy's posts 198 and 203;

9) That, far from owing John Murphy an apology, I am owed one by him;

10) That such apology will never be forthcoming.

Of course, in the real world, John Murphy evidently runs these threads (something I did not know but would not have changed my posts), and no one will rise to my defense. I notice that you, yourself, could not bring yourself to condemn any of John Murphy's posts.

I must admit that I was somewhat surprised that no one was willingly to argue my side before, but now the reason is evident.

I have no wish to participate in any thread or discussion run by such a person and respectively decline my membership.

I wish all the people here, that I think highly of, all the best.

When I was at college in Britain, many many years ago, we used to run a Eurovision Song Contest knockoff called the Eurovision Insult Contest, the one who totally lost it when insulted being declared the loser. FRIGHTFULLY good training for later life!

May I suggest, Gadfly that on reflection you might consider 202 and 204 rather good entries for such a contest, to which others (who didn't wish to enter such a contest) might reasonably object.

Just a suggestion.

I was hoping this discussion would return to meaningful dialogue regarding the validity of Chris’s projections. Gadfly – stick around and debate Chris on what the appropriate discount should be. As an electorate we are putting a lot of faith in Chris’s efforts, but if it can be shown that his numbers error on the conservative side, NeL players we have assumed to be inner circle greats are going to be left out. A HoM without Mackey and Bell would be a shame if Chris’s numbers take us there and you can show that his numbers are wrong.

Help us out on this, and don’t let John bother you. He’s gotten fired up before and has always settled down after a day or two :)

Every six months or so a handful of our members work themselves into a lather and hurl epithets at each other with the end result that someone valuable quits this project. I don't know whether you guys have stressful lives that make you over-sensitive when you come on this thread or have lives with so little conflict that you need to manufacture some, but--PLEASE--calm the f--- down. Gadfly was (and I hope will again be) a valuable member of our group from whom I learned a lot. Whereever the fault may lie, we are the worse for his absence.

What andrew said.

10) That such apology will never be forthcoming.

(takes a deep breath)

Gadfly, all I want from you is an acknowledgement that I wasn't cherry picking my numbers so as to fit an agenda (which I don't have since I don't know if the amount of NeL HoMers from the twenties is too high, low or just right - that's why I was asking questions). I'm not asking for an apology, only that you revise your assertion.

In return, I apologize for flying off the handle. There are certain times where my temper can't be controlled. When it's a question of my character, that may be the #1 time.

If you feel my method of slotting NeL payers by decade is wrong in this regard, that's fine. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on anything. God knows that it won't be the first time with the electorate.

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I appreciate your efforts here. That was sincere. I'd like to end this and turn back the clock a couple of days.

As for the rest of you, I apologize for this going on. I enjoy debating all of you about anything concerning baseball, but not when it comes to actual anger. I can't say if I will be able to curb my temper in the future, but I'll try my hardest.

John, you WERE insulted, repeatedly. I don't think you need to apologise at all. Having said that, I agree that the optimum outcome is apologies all round (which you have more than delivered)and a reversion to our previous happy state of dispute about the subject at hand, with rhinoceros hide skins when necessary!

John,

As ever, said like a gentleman. If this is your uncontrollable temper at its worst, I'd like to have the number of your anger-management expert.

: )

I came to BTF to talk baseball and to exchange information. I didn't come to win arguments, or to continually be able to assert that I'm right and my opponents are wrong. Out on Primer, there are a few posters - I won't name them, but you know who I'm talking about - who do come to win arguments and claim victory. The can make parts of Primer unpleasant, and I mostly avoid their threads.

Part of what attracted me to the Hall of Merit was the wonderful combination of civility and depth to the discussion. In part, the civility comes from the long term commitment this project demands. Whether I win or lose today's argument, you and I will be back to argue a different point next week - the sides of the argument may well have shifted.

Even though the specific flash point today has come between John Murphy and Gadfly, karlmagnus is not an innocent bystander. He has as long a history of being irritating here as anyone. I do the voter studies - consensus scores and related items - partly out of sheer amusement, but partly to help those who are out of touch with the group reexamine their own work.

At the moment, the furthest out is yest. We know yest - he's prisoner of conventional wisdom. Too much in love with batting average, with total hits, with unadjusted stats. In some ways, he's the voice of the Hall of Fame. I think some of us only bother to argue with him over such things as Sisler in the mid-20's because he makes an easy target.

But karlmagnus is a different story. karl is loud, strident, and he has been below average consensus (often well below) every year of my records except 1934. Everyone here - everyone, without exception - picks and choses what evidence to present. Everyone here has some biases that cannot help but being expressed within the evidence we present. In some cases, attachment to a favorite method leads to results in tune with that method. For instance, KJOK likes RCAA and RCAP, and that leads him to value certain players like Chance and McGraw more than most of us do. That's OK - we understand what he's doing. However, it is really only with karlmagnus that I get the sense that he picks his candidates first and his arguments to suit what he has already decided. karl - we've heard all of the arguments you've put out there for Beckley. Yes, 1st base was more important defensively in his time than it would be later, yes, he had a very long career as a quality player. We've taken all of that into account already - that's why he's as high on the ballot as he is. Don't beat us over the head with the rest of it. We (well, the electorate - not me) sided with you on Caruthers. Don't push your luck.

Gadfly's voting record is far more complicated. Yes, he reserves his greatest rhetorical passions for defending the Negro League players - but he's also the best friend of Gavy Cravath. He clearly likes cases in which a substantial chunk of a player's value falls outside the major leagues (or outside the most respected major leagues - he also voted for Tony Mullane this year.) If he were to stay or return, I wouldn't be surprised to see him stumping for Japanese players some day.

Tthe immediate dispute has to do with the quantitative representation of Negro leaguers in their own times. The point about presenting the data by birthdate or playing dates is a small point. One's choice about how to present it does shape perceptions - that much is inevitible. Presntation without bias is impossible. Gadfly was ham-handed to use the words "cherry-picked" in his attempt to change the presentation. Clumsy and strident, but I truly don't think he intended to impugn John's integrity. And in that, I think John overreacted. But, Gadfly - even if John did overreact, and even if you meant no disrespect (which I believe), it wouldn't hurt for you to apologize.

Since Chris Cobb's work has been extraordinarily important to us, it should be constantly questioned and constantly reexamined. Chris understands that himself. As for Gadfly's "33%" argument: I can't prove that Gadfly is wrong, and neither can Chris. We don't have certainty here, and we won't have certainty. But it's a case that Gadfly must argue carefully and coolly if he's going to win converts to his point of view.

What representation are we going to have from the Negro leagues? Bear in mind that all the numbers that Gadfly and John were arguing about are very, very incomplete. As we expand to 3 elected per year, we will come back and revisit things. We will come back to pick more 20's-30's white players. Averill? Rixie? Ferrell? Maybe all of them? We will come back to pick some more Negro League players that are already eligible - Redding? Mendez? Lundy? Bell? Mackey's candidacy is very much alive, even if we didn't take him on the first ballot. As Joe Dimino exhorted us, let's not forget that he was a catcher.

OCF, except where there's an obvious 1st balloter, the top of my ballot has gone Beckley-Welch-Sisler-Cicotte-Browning since Carutehrs was elected in 1930 (well, Sisler's a little later). Your observations are thus not independent of each other; until the electorate gets a rush of blood to the head and elects these five, I will be off consensus. This is known as consistency, and could perhaps suggest that "consensus scores" are not a very useful statistic.

except where there's an obvious 1st balloter, the top of my ballot has gone Beckley-Welch-Sisler-Cicotte-Browning since Carutehrs was elected in 1930

None of Beckley, Welch, Sisler, Cicotte, or Browning was an obvious 1st balloter when he first came on the ballot. In fact, we're going to have at best 80-100 "obvious" candidates, and we have other good but not slam-dunk candidates coming onto the ballot in every year. I hope that this comment does not mean that you are making an a priori assumtion that your five good-but-not-obvious candidates will always be better than each new year's good-but-not-obvious candidates.

No, others fit in within the group sometimes; Jud Wilson was #4 on my ballot last year, for example. But I find relatively few candidates as good as or better than these five, and my voting reflects that.

"85. Joe Dimino-

Do you really think that a baseball player's birth year is irrelevant? You have got to be kidding, right. I can't even begin to explain all the things wrong with that statement. Somebody help me here, I can no longer cope."

To the argument you and John are having yes I do think it's irrelevant and no I'm not kidding. It is absolutely irrelevant. I've already explained my reasons - try explaining yours . . . there are cases where birth year is relevant (like when you are projecting players) - this is clearly not one of those cases. Once the numbers are in the books it is when they played that is important.

Birth year could be relevant in an individual case, like Gavy Cravath's, for example. He's one of the top dozen or so hitters ever in his late 30s, this is relevant because we have no major league data to go on for his mid-20s, things like that.

16. John Murphy-

I would be a small man indeed if I did not come the other half of the distance and also apologize to you after you came halfway and apologized to me. I never meant in any way to question your character, only your methodology, and apologize to you for any misunderstanding.

With a name like Murphy, I assume you are at least part Irish. As my maternal side is Irish, I have a wee bit of a black temper too (not to mention black humor). Not that I am blaming this on my heritage, but I would be totally unaware if I did not admit I like to argue and fight a little bit too much.

Unfortunately, while I may think it all in good fun (like growing up with my brother again), I know others do not always take it that way (it is probably a very good thing that the Lord made me quite large and frightening looking). Not to get all gushy or anything, but I generally just like everyone here because you all have the interest I do.

No one who passionately likes baseball can be all bad.

In the future, I will try not to be so strident and possibly insufferable as I may have been in the past. Hopefully, I will be able, from this point on, to be a little more sensitive before I get too insufferable.

Both of my ex-wifes would probably be puking at this point, but I will try.

So I respectfully request to revoke my revocation of my membership in the Hall of Merit, unless anyone, excepting Karl Magnus, has an objection.

17. Karl Magnus-

I love you too buddy.

19. OCF-

LOL. Shigeo Nagashima and Sadaharu Oh are definitely on my list. When can we start talking about Eiji Sawamura (he died in 1944)?

23. Joe Dimino-

I think I will just wisely pass on this subject.

As anyone who has read my posts should know, I think there is, or almost is, a Hall of Fame caliber player of African-American or Latin descent for every Major League Hall of Fame caliber player that played from 1920 to 1950 or was born from 1890 to 1920.

To finally actually get back to the thread at hand, I have always comped Biz Mackey to Gabby Hartnet. The similarities in their careers, right down to their nicknames (Biz is from Busy, because evidently Mackey would never shut up behind the plate), are pretty comprehensive.

And yes, I do know that Hartnett's name was given in sarcasm, but then later proved to be only too true. Ah nuts, there I go being insufferable again.

One final note-

I would like to thank Daryn, Eric, Joe, and Kelly for their e-mails requesting that I not be such a cement head and rejoin. It meant a lot.

Gadfly:

Ah, you're Irish! That was the problem. :-D

Of course, my Italian side has been known to blow a gasket or two. :-)

Seriously, I'm glad that this is resolved. You're a valuable member of the team. As my family's genealogist, I know how difficult it is digging up information for the rest of us. Besides, your apology shows that you're a good guy after all.

As for my methodology, I have no problem with your disagreeing with it and explaining why. You should have seen some of the disagreements the electorate has had in regard to some of my ranking systems for creating my ballots. Unfortunately, they were right on a number of occasions. :-(

If I'm wrong, I have no problem accepting it and adapting.

Both of my ex-wifes would probably be puking at this point, but I will try.

LOL

To finally actually get back to the thread at hand, I have always comped Biz Mackey to Gabby Hartnet. The similarities in their careers, right down to their nicknames (Biz is from Busy, because evidently Mackey would never shut up behind the plate), are pretty comprehensive.

That may be reasonable, Gadfly. The problem that the electorate has is that we are trying to balance the numbers with the anecdotal evidence. As much as my choices are weighted by Chris' MLE's, I still give some weight to how the player was perceived at the time.

In some ways, it was easier to rank a Home Run Johnson or Louis Santop (both of whom I loved when they were eligible) because we didn't have conflicting data.

Why am I the only one to be ignored in welcoming you back? I wouldn't DREAM of not welcoming you back provided you (i) promise to be nice to John Murphy (you don't have to be nice to me, I know that's too much to ask) and (ii) vote for Jake Beckley.

SEE what a reasonable person I am really ! :-))

One of the issues that has arisen is that of the MLE calculation undervaluing the best NeL players. I believe this occurs because the mathematical transform used is too simple for the problem at hand.

The Chris-Cobb translations use a one-part transform; i.e. values are reduced by a percentage. The Davenport WARP-2 translations use a two-part transform.

A constant value is removed from the rate in the weaker league to map to zero the rate which is equivalent to a replacement level player in the stronger league; then a percentage adjustment is applied to scale the values from the weaker league appropriately. When this transform is applied to players in the weaker league, those that couldn't play in the stronger league get negative WARP-2 numbers, those at replacement level get close to 0, and those above get varying amounts of value. Ordinary players lose much more of their value than super-star players (that is, they appear to get hit with a much higher percentage reduction). This allows the model to better handle situations like Barry Bonds playing AAA ball.

Are there enough data points in the integration period to derive this kind of transform reliably for NeL/MLB? That I don't know.

What kind of data points would you need?

How does WARP decide what is the "constant value" that should be removed?

Glad to have you back Gadfly - also glad to see that we are all getting along. In my note to Gadfly, I mentioned that my loud Italian family has many a shouting match, but at the end of the fight we realize we all love each other, we say we're sorry, drink beer and be merry . . . . glad to see this family can take the same approach :-)

"One of the issues that has arisen is that of the MLE calculation undervaluing the best NeL players."

Actually what this sounds like is that we undervaluing the peaks and overvaluing the career length. I imagine if we apply this going forward the peaks will be higher, but many years on the front and back end of Negro League careers will drop off the chart.

Actually what this sounds like is that we undervaluing the peaks and overvaluing the career length.

Question: if that's the case, is that actually helping NeLers (since our group tends to favor career more than peak)?

If we placed more of an accent on peak, but less on career, would that actually reduce the numbers of NeLers?

We've been pretty good about discussing the various aspects of each player's decline and deciding when to cut them off (or when to offer no credit for early seasons). So it's probably possible that we're undercrediting the peak by spreading the wealth among too many seasons.

I'd bet this is probalby the true for Lundy and Bell than for Taylor or Mackey. I say this because I9s is the source for Taylor and may (or may not) have already accounted for this in creating a set of projections, and because so much of Mackey's career value is clumped into just 13 or 14 years that the effect might be somewhat diminished.

Conversely, Lunday and Bell had longer productive peaks, primes, and extended primes over which their value could be distributed, so they would be more likely to have some of their peak value siphoned off to surrounding seasons.

I also think Beckwith's peak might be a tad low, but I'm not sure that I have a good hypothesis for why.

I also think Beckwith's peak might be a tad low, but I'm not sure that I have a good hypothesis for why.

This is the one point that Michael Bass convinced me of above. MLE's were just not designed for MVP-like seasons... that it would be almost impossible for a Ruth/Hornsby to go to AA or AAA and play well enough for his numbers to translate to the same high peaks that they actually obtained in MLB. An MLE-OPS+ of over 140 (say) just screams "promote me" but doesn't necessary represent an accurate translation any more.

This peak adjustment doesn't apply to the two biggest cases where the MLE's didn't meet our expectations (Mackey & Bell), though. Those periods of near-average or below-average play wouldn't be affected by that adjustment.

I do agree that Beckwith's peak is undervalued by the WS estimates taht we have. Of course his WS estimates aren't the lastest ones either so maybe that is part of the problem as well. I would take maybe 8-12 WS from his lower seasons and spread them out among his top 2-4 seasons. That may not sound like much but adding say 4 WS to a guy's best season is a big deal.

that it would be almost impossible for a Ruth/Hornsby to go to AA or AAA and play well enough for his numbers to translate to the same high peaks that they actually obtained in MLB.

Only if you insist on modeling the MLE transform as a straight percentage.

What kind of data points would you need?

I'm pretty sure that the Davenport transforms are based on regression techniques, something that I'm aware of conceptually, but am not well versed in calculating.

Are there any trained statisticians in the house?

How does WARP decide what is the "constant value" that should be removed?

Replacement level. Players who would be at replacement level in the stronger league have positive value in the weaker league. That positive value (expressed as a rate) would be the constant removed.

*******

The data points you already have may be the basis for a regression. Currently, I believe you average the percent reductions of your samples. A regression might show a pattern where the stronger players have less of a percent reduction than the weaker players; the regression line would yield both the constant and the modified reduction percentage.

At the moment, the furthest out is yest. We know yest - he's prisoner of conventional wisdom. Too much in love with batting average, with total hits, with unadjusted stats. In some ways, he's the voice of the Hall of Fame. I think some of us only bother to argue with him over such things as Sisler in the mid-20's because he makes an easy target.

I like batting average because to me it shows the most merit I agree with everyone here that a walk is almost as valuble as a hit except I don't think that it's as meritable. The pitcher pitching wildly is obvisly less meritable then a hit no matter how cheap a hit it is. Even reaching base on a error has value but I don't see anyone here taking it in to considaration. btw I do think that some or in some cases most walks are meritable which is why I do factor it in to my ballot.

I do adjust stats to some extent though it's around half of the standered here because there are some factors to time and parks that I think would be irellavent to that paticular player or in some cases I'll think that taking advantige of the park or time to be meritable.

please don't call me the voice of the Hall of Fame even though I'm closer to it then most because the day Hains, Marquid, George Kelley, McCarthy come close to my ballot is the day I quit the Hall of Merit.

and it's Sisler in 1925 and 27 that I'm trying to make get the proper credit though I think he was good in other years I can see why others think not unlike those 2 years.

The data points you already have may be the basis for a regression. Currently, I believe you average the percent reductions of your samples. A regression might show a pattern where the stronger players have less of a percent reduction than the weaker players; the regression line would yield both the constant and the modified reduction percentage.

Interesting. I don't see any such pattern in the data as I have it, but a sophisticated stastical analysis might reveal patterns that can't be observed by direct inspection. Or there may be other sources of distortion (AL/NL strength differences or complex park effects) that are concealing the strength pattern. It would be nice to be able to find out.

I have some additional biographical information on Mackey that I thought I'd share, since I'm pretty sure that right now this is the only thread in the world dedicated to Biz Mackey located in a public forum. I've been searching through the 1932 Philadelphia Tribune, just started tonight actually, and so far I've found things that are only of historical interest, nothing related to performance on the field.

Anyway, earlier I alluded to Mackey testifying in Los Angeles in the spring of 1932 in a civil suit brought by a woman against a boxer. The Tribune, a black newspaper, had an article on this in the April 14 issue:

Biz Mackey Is Star Witness In Balm Suit

Reveals Wild Orgies With Ofay Cutie In Attempt Of Latter To Sue Boxer

Neal Pullen Involved

Los Angeles (CA) -- In a scathing tirade of condemnation against Rhea (Betty) Hill, Judge Pacht dismissed her $160,000 suit against Ace Hudkins, nationally known boxer, for breach of promise and assault and battery.

But the Hudkins boys, four in number, are very popular with the colored fight fans, so just a few days before the trial they learned of some of the plaintiff's past visits alone in the colored district and sprang three surprise witnesses whose testimony really won the case for Ace.

Two of these were colored. "Biz" Mackey, famous Hilldale catcher, and Ralph Love, a singer. The third was Lonnie McIntyre, a dark Hawaiian.

The case seemed to pivot about a beating alleged by Betty to have been received by her at the hands of the prize fighter. This is said to have occurred on September 1, 1930. Previous to this she had charged he had seduced her and promised marriage.

McIntyre, with the first of a series of sordid tales of immorality, related how his wife had caught them in her own bedroom in Watts following a 24-hour party down at San Pedro. She had beaten the plaintiff with a steel ukelele, bruising her face and head. This accounted for an alibi for Ace that date, as it was proved the girl had his car and he did not know where she was. Mrs. McIntyre on the stand corroborated the same, even though she is at present separated from her husband.

Mackey on Party

The sensation of the day occurred when Ralph Love and Mackey took the stand in succession. Ralph told how the girl, accompanied by her colored maid, had accosted him in the morning last fall and suggested a wild party. They went to Neal Pullen's, also a noted baseball player, and leaving there went to another house drinking and carousing till daylight. Mackey was induced to join the party, then drive them back to town to the Dunbar Hotel, where Love, the mistress and the maid spent the night, Mackey returning to his home.

All On Ofay Girl

All at the white girl's expense, another carousel and tour of booze joints began next day continuing until that night. A white hotel keeper and store keeper also testified as to her disorderly conduct and tendency to fall and get hurt when drinking. Mrs. Clyde Hudkins, sister-in-law of Ace, testified as to an intention or promise of marriage on Ace's part.

The girl having testified the Saturday previous remained away from the courtroom on the final day but the judge failed to spare her even though her mother was present.

"This has been a relation of one of the most sordid tales I have ever heard in this court and although Love's testimony is positively disgusting it proves the fallacy of any alleged seduction on Ace's part."

End of Story

Reading through the issues of the Tribune, it was easy to see why Mackey would decline to travel across the country to report to Hilldale. The papers openly spoke of the league's tottering financial status, (editorials were written stating that the league would never survive the summer, and these were being published while Mackey was still in California)
By the first weeks of May, the club owners were already reneging on the contracts with their players, and giving them only a percentage of the gate instead of the agreed-to salary. The Hilldale club was drawing very poorly, and tried to boost attendance at games by lowering ticket prices, but it seems not to have had much positive effect. Given all this, it is easy to see why Mackey would decline to travel across the continent to report to a club on the brink of financial collapse.

I have the microfilm for a few more weeks, and will keep looking through it to see if I can find any other interesting articles or tidbits, related to Mackey or any other players who are currently under consideration here.

Biz Mackey's Real Stats

CORRECTED LINK:

Biz Mackey's Real Stats

Please click through for my latest Biz Mackey MLEs.

The Negro Leagues Database is missing some info on Biz, and his MLEs will be updated as new stuff comes to light.

Looking at 57.3 WAR currently.