"Lajoie developed blood poisoning from a serious spike wound on June 30"

"in early September, Waddell decided he didn’t like Andy Coakley’s straw hat and wrestled with the rookie pitcher to get it off him. In the process Waddell damaged his pitching shoulder... He would miss the World Series entirely."

John Patterson of the Cuban X Giants hit a fluke .400 out of step with his career numbers. Harry Buckner pitched okay.

The Philadelphia Giants were loaded with Pete Hill, Rube Foster, Grant Johnson and Charlie Grant. Rube Foster had a good season pitching including some time in Cuba. He played RF during off days and hit okay in 1905. Pete Hill batted .600 in 42 plate appearances and held his own in Cuba. Home Run Johnson hit okay at home but not well in Cuba. Danny McClellan was a two way threat for the Giants hitting well in the outfield and serving as the second pitcher. Charlie Grant had a 1905 that looks much better than his surrounding 1904 and 1906.

1905 prelim

1) Honus Wagner
2) Christy Mathewson - 3 shutouts in World Series
3) Cy Seymour
4) Mike Donlin
5) Roy Thomas
6) Elmer Flick
7) Rube Waddell
8) Rube Foster
9) Pete Hill
10) John Titus

11-15) Frank Chance, Irv Young, George Davis, Bill Bradley, Harry Davis
16-20) Sam Crawford, Topsy Hartsel, Socks Seybold, Cy Young, Fielder Jones

1905 prelim. Haven't looked at World Series yet. Not as
pitcher-dominant as recent years.

1. Mathewson
2. Wagner
3. Waddell
4. Seymour
5. Hill
6. Crawford
7. Reulbach
8. Young, Cy
9. Donlin
10. Flick


Foster and McClellan are still under strong consideration.

1905 MMP Prelim:

1) Honus Wagner
2) Cy Seymour
3) Christy Mathewson
4) Ed Reulbach
5) Mike Donlin
6) Rube Waddell
7) Roy Thomas
8) Rube Foster
9) Eddie Plank
10) John Titus

1905 is the first year of Cuban stats on seamheads. Carlos Moran looks decent.

Seamheads was down for a couple of days. I'm glad it's back up. It's a tremendous resource.

This is fun.

I don't know how you guys feel about it but I think it's blast learning about all of these oldtime players. There are a bunch of players I've never even heard of before cracking my consideration set: White Sox first baseman Frank Isbell, Senator left fielder Frank Huelsman, Cleveland center fielder Harry Bay and Athletics pitcher Andy Coakley. They all fell short of the top ten but it was interesting looking up their player pages. Then there are the veterans still contributing like Jesse Burkett (tied for 10th in runs created) and Willie Keeler (tied for 10th in OPS+). Again, it's not enough to crack the top ten but it's nice to see the old guys still hanging around. Plus, one of my favorite early players finally shows up: George Stone, the left fielder for the St. Louis Browns. His HOM case probably deserves minor league credit for several seasons prior to 1905. This is his first season as a regular and he makes my top 20. All of that is only in the AL.

On to the prelims...

1905 MMP Prelim Ballot- AL Only

1. Rube Waddell, P, Philadelphia Athletics: league leading 179 ERA+ to go with a robust 328 innings
2. Cy Young, P, Boston Americans: 2nd in ERA+ with 147 and top ten in IP with 320
3. Elmer Flick, RF, Cleveland Naps: 1st in OPS+ with 166 and third in RC with 86
4. George Davis, SS, Chicago White Sox: his calling card is defense (+14 fielding runs) but he also wields a decent bat (124 OPS+)
5. Harry Howell, P, St. Louis Browns: 129 ERA+ and 323 IP
6. Nick Altrock, P, Chicago White Sox: WAR hates him but I like his 131 ERA+ in 315 IP
7. Jack Chesbro, P, New York Highlanders: he hasn't fallen off the cliff yet; 133 ERA+ in 303 IP
8. Sam Crawford, RF/1B, Detroit Tigers: 3rd in OPS+ with 148 and 2nd in RC with 87
9. Danny Murphy, 2B, Philadelphia Athletics: one of Murphy's better seasons with the glove (+7) helps propel him onto the ballot; the 128 OPS+ doesn't hurt
10. George Stone, LF, St. Louis Browns: led the AL in Runs Created (89)

for those who count post-season, Mathewson added 1.35 wins (by WPA) with his three shutouts. That is about how mcuh Reggie Jackson added in his entire World Series career. Whether you count that as zero, or 1 win, or multiply by 5x importance and make it 7 wins....

WS WPA article linked:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/8/12/2358507/world-series-win-probability-added-leaders

I can sign on again so I'm back.
The usual blend of WAR systems, ranked 10 points for first, 9 for second, 8 for third and so on.
No adjustments. I'm still trying to figure out Negro Leagues Players so they are currently unranked.
Triple T prelim, 1905 style:

1-Wagner
2-Seymour
3-Matty
4-Rube
5-Turkey Mike
6-Cy Young
7-Irv Young
8-Wahoo Sam
9-Roy Thomas
10-Ed Ruelbach

There's a huge tangle from 11-13

Killian
George Davis
Gettysburg Ed
Chance
Titus


Question, because Frank Chance may make this difficult soon. How are player-managers being treated? Is there a management bonus? Especially in this era where Managers were so much more.

Question, because Frank Chance may make this difficult soon. How are player-managers being treated? Is there a management bonus? Especially in this era where Managers were so much more.

If I remember the initial discussions, we're not supposed to consider in-season credit for anything other than playing contributions. So no manager credit. However, I think it's permitted to take managing into consideration regarding playing time and prorate rate stats accordingly. I may be wrong on the latter point though.

1905 Prelim- NL Only

1. Honus Wagner, SS, Pittsburgh Pirates: Honus beats Matty by a nose; 2nd in OPS+ but +14 fielding runs from SS and another +4 baserunning runs are pretty nice
2. Christy Mathewson, P, New York Giants: 1st in ERA+ with 230 and 338 IP cracks the top ten
3. Cy Seymour, CF, Cincinnati Reds: 1st in OPS+ and RC
4. Ed Reulbach, P, Chicago Cubs: 209 ERA+ in 291 IP
5. Mike Donlin, CF, New York Giants: 3rd in OPS+ and 2nd in RC
6. John Titus, RF, Philadelphia Phillies: top five in both OPS+ and RC, a decent +4 fielding in right
7. Bob Ewing, P, Cincinnati Reds
8. Irv Young, P, Boston Braves: 378 IP leads the league but the 106 ERA+ is fairly pedestrian
9. Frank Chance, 1B, Chicago Cubs
10. Roy Thomas, CF, Philadelphia Phillies: it's not quite Mantle/Mays/Snider but this was a great year for centerfielders

1905 Prelim- Combined

It's a very NL-heavy top of the ballot.

1. Honus Wagner, SS, Pittsburgh Pirates: 2nd in OPS+ but +14 fielding runs and another +4 baserunning runs are pretty nice
2. Christy Mathewson, P, New York Giants: 1st in ERA+ with 230 and 338 IP cracks the top ten
3. Cy Seymour, CF, Cincinnati Reds: 1st in NL in OPS+ and RC
4. Ed Reulbach, P, Chicago Cubs: 209 ERA+ in 291 IP
5. Mike Donlin, CF, New York Giants: 3rd in OPS+ and 2nd in RC
6. Rube Waddell, P, Philadelphia Athletics: AL leading 179 ERA+ to go with a robust 328 innings
7. Cy Young, P, Boston Americans: 2nd in ERA+ with 147 and top ten in IP with 320
8. Elmer Flick, RF, Cleveland Naps: 1st in OPS+ with 166 and third in RC with 86
9. Pete Hill, LF, Philadelphia Giants: 1st in WAR according to Seamheads; outrageous 1.460 OPS for a 388 OPS+
10. John Titus, RF, Philadelphia Phillies: top five in both OPS+ and RC, a decent +4 fielding in right

11. George Davis, SS, Chicago White Sox: his calling card is defense (+14 fielding runs) but he also wields a decent bat (124 OPS+)
12. Rube Foster, P, Philadelphia Giants
13. Harry Howell, P, St. Louis Browns: 129 ERA+ and 323 IP
14. Nick Altrock, P, Chicago White Sox: WAR hates him but I like his 131 ERA+ in 315 IP
15. Carlos Moran, 3B, Alerta: 2nd in WAR to Pete Hill

"Voters should consider the player’s on-field contribution to Major League Baseball (MLB) team(s) in that season only."

The All Philadelphia team would be pretty damned good in 1905. Rube Waddell, Rube Foster, Eddie Plank, Pete Hill, John Titus, Harry Davis, Topsy Hartsel, Socks Seybold, Roy Thomas, Danny Murphy, Sherry Magee. They're all in my top 35. Tully Sparks made the consideration set too. I think Philadelphia tops New York, Chicago or St. Louis as the place to watch baseball in 1905.

The All-Philly team is a little outfield heavy. 6 OFs, 1 first baseman and 1 second baseman. They can mash but who's going to play defense?

Grant Johnson can play SS or 3B

Grant Johnson can play SS or 3B

I was just going by the players you mentioned in #16. But yeah, the all-city team is stacked.

Here's one possible starting line-up:

Pete Hill, LF, Giants- 1.460 OPS
Roy Thomas, CF, Phillies- 135 OPS+
Grant Johnson, SS, Giants- 1.031 OPS
John Titus, RF, Phillies- 152 OPS+
Harry Davis, 1B, Athletics- 137 OPS+
Danny Murphy, 2B, Athletics- 128 OPS+
Lave Cross, 3B, Athletics- 98 OPS+ (still putting up a 2.7 WAR at 39 years old)
Ossee Schrecongost, C, Athletics- 95 OPS+ (the weak link is still worth 2.6 WAR)

That leaves a bench of
Sherry Magee, LF, Phillies- 134 OPS+ (future HoMer getting his first full season at 20)
Topsy Hartsel, LF/CF, Athletics- 138 OPS+
Socks Seybold, RF, Athletics- 133 OPS+
Charlie Grant, 2B, Giants- could arguably start ahead of Murphy though his .852 OPS came against weaker competition
Bill Monroe, 3B, Giants- having a down year, but only 2 seasons removed from an OPS+ over 200
Red Dooin, C, Philllies- every team needs a back-up catcher even though his 75 OPS+ is 20 points below "Shrek"

And that means there's no room for
Hall of Famer Hugh Duffy (the Phillies 4th outfielder put up a 117 OPS+ in 15 games at 38)
Hall of Famer Sol White (on his last legs at 37 but still playing 1B in an infield of all-time greats)
Ernie Courtney (his 102 OPS+ is best among third baseman but he gives a lot of that back with -11 defensive runs)

The All-Philly team is just as stacked on the pitching side of things

Rube Waddell, SP, Athletics- 1.48 ERA (179 ERA+)
Rube Foster, SP, Giants- 1.13 ERA (244 ERA+)
Eddie Plank, SP, Athletics- 2.26 ERA (117 ERA+)
Danny McClellan, SP, Giants- 1.29 ERA (214 ERA+)

That's three HoMers and a Hall of Very Good pitcher in McClellan. Plus, 3 of the 4 can also hit with McClellan (.956 OPS) and Foster (.667 OPS) leading the way and Plank not far behind (.530 OPS)

The bullpen, if it needs to be used at all, would consist of:

Andy Coakley, P, Athletics- 1.84 ERA (145 ERA+ that's 3rd in the AL)
Tully Sparks, P, Phillies- 2.18 ERA (133 ERA+ that's 7th in the NL)
Emmett Bowman, P, Giants- 1.67 ERA (165 ERA+)

And that means there's no room for
Hall of Famer Chief Bender (who put up a relatively ineffective 94 ERA+ at 21)
Hall of Meriter Kid Nichols (still hanging around the Phillies rotation at 35, and putting up a 128 ERA+ in 138 innings- though I could see an argument for taking Nichols ahead of Bowman as the last reliever due to strength of competition)

Yikes! That's a deep team.

It's a very strange series. When I was on the radio occasionally, I used to use it as a trivia question: The Giants beat the Athletics in the 1905 Series. The Giants had a team ERA of zero. Yes, zero. They did not give up a single earned run. What is odd about this series? Answer: The Giants lost a game. Joe McGinnity gave up three unearned runs opposite an Eddie Plank shutout, and the Giants had to wait for Game Five to salt it away.

I have questions about giving Mathewson much Series credit, simply because he didn't pitch, really, any better than his teammates. They just had the As' offense overmatched. The only position player on either team who hit a damn was Roger Bresnahan, whose regular season isn't good enough to put him in competition. Really, the Series is pretty much a demonstration that the NL still had an advantage over the AL, which was still in its expansion phase. Next year, the AL will try playing guys recruited from the Deep South. This (Ty Cobb, followed by Tris Speaker) will work well, and recruiting the South will soon make the AL the stronger league. But not just yet. - Brock Hanke

Well, I don't know about that. Mathewson pitched three shutouts, two with the scores 3-0 and 2-0, so I think he did his part and more.

I'm sorry I've missed the last few elections, I like looking at this era of baseball. The Negro Leagues continue to be a problem here, with such little data, but Cuban play will begin to help that. Here's my prelim for 1905:

1. Honus Wagner
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Cy Seymour
4. Mike Donlin
5. George Davis
6. Topsy Hartsel
7. Pete Hill
8. Bill Dahlen
9. Rube Waddell
10. Sherry Magee

First off is either Miller Huggins or Danny McLellan, it's hard to decide between them and both were very close to Magee as well. Others within striking distance included Danny Murphy, Cy Young, John Titus, Rube Foster and Jose Mendez. Regino Garcia might also be worth a look, depending on how you look at catchers and their defence.

Yes, Matty did that. But Joe McGinnity only gave up three UNearned runs - his ERA was just as zero as Matty's. That's the point I am trying to make. EVERY pitcher in that Series had the hitters hogtied, basically on both teams, but especially the Giants. In that environment, the ability to pitch shutouts is, really, just a little bit above par. All it means is that you didn't give-up any UNearned runs. Some of the debit for unearned runs has to go to fielders, not to the pitcher. Remember, EVERY game in the Series was a shutout. The only one the Giants did not win was a shutout by Eddie Plank, against only unearned runs scored against McGinnity. In that environment, throwing a shutout is just not that impressive. In that Series, the pitchers, on both teams, were in near-complete control. Matty was in complete control. I'll give him credit, but only for the difference between near-complete and complete, not the difference between league average ERA and shutouts or something. - Brock

The Giants might have been lucky Waddell was not able to pitch, given that he would have pitched.

Brock - are you saying the Athletics were no better than an average NL team?

DL - No. I'm now having trouble understanding where I went off somewhere and became not clear. I'm talking about the 1905 World Series. Not the regular season. Not the Athletics with Rube Waddell. The World Series as it existed in 1905. That World Series had five games, all of them shutouts. Four for the Giants, one for the Athletics. In that environment, where every game is a shutout, the ability to pitch a shutout, while noticeable (the five games also featured at least one pitcher who gave up at least one run, or the games would have been tied), is simply not an outstanding credential. Someone did that, every game. Mathewson pitched three shutouts. McGinnity pitched one, plus another game where he only gave up unearned runs. Chief Bender (I checked, it was not Eddie Plank) pitched one for the Athletics. In that environment, pitching a shutout was par for a winning pitcher. It's what you had to do to win. That Mathewson pitched three shutouts, instead of one, gives him an advantage over McGinnity and Bender, but it's not a tremendous advantage. I will give Mathewson some extra credit for what he did, because he did it three times, instead of "only" once. But I am not going to give him overwhelming credit, because this particular World Series was dominated by shutouts.

There is an interesting larger context, which would take you into the regular season and the conditions of 1905 baseball in general. That context is that players, at this time, did not generally know a huge amount about the players in the other league. I'm certain they had some, and some of the players probably played against some from the other league in winter ball, but there was no TV then, and there were still hard feelings between the two leagues. I remember a quote from Connie Mack, long after this time, that he had never seen Honus Wagner play. How did that happen? How could Connie Mack, who was in baseball at the top end for almost Wagner's entire career, never manage to see Honus? Honus was in the NL. Mack was in the AL. Their teams never met in a World Series. Connie Mack simply never had a reason to go see Honus Wagner play.

This context does help make some sense of the 1905 Series. Mathewson pitched a very unusual pitch. Hitters in the NL had seen it before, so he didn't pitch a shutout every game there. The As had not. It's not all that surprising that they couldn't figure it out in three games. McGinnity pitched a collection of unusual pitches from a collection of unusual arm angles. Again, the As had never seen this before. It's not a big surprise they couldn't hit it. The Giant's hitters had never seen Chief Bender before. If the As had had Waddell, there might have been one or even two extra-inning shutouts. At this time, 1905, the NL probably didn't have anyone who threw as hard as Waddell (or Cy Young, for that matter). It might have taken them a couple of games to catch up to his speed. Pitch him against Matty, and the game might have gone on until someone made a crucial error.

The point I'm trying to make is that, in the 1905 WORLD SERIES, as opposed to the 1905 regular season, the pitchers, on BOTH teams, were in complete control, with the single exception of Andy Coakley, who was sent out there for a start because the As didn't have Waddell. The As pitchers, even without Waddell, pitched very well, except for Coakley, who would not have had a chance to get hammered if Waddell had been available. The Giant pitchers pitched very very well. So well that they gave up no earned runs at all. Neither Matty nor Joe. No earned runs at all. In that particular context, I'm not willing to give Mathewson a lot of bonus credit. Some, but not a lot. What am I supposed to say that would generate large amounts of extra credit? That Matty was a much better pitcher, in that series and with NO regard for any other time, than Joe McGinnity because a Giant fielder made an error behind Joe? That Matty was much better than Chief Bender because Bender only pitched one shutout (Bender, the As #3 starter, would also probably not have pitched if Waddell had been available)? That he was much better than the As pitchers because the As had to use their #3 and #4 starters? That he was much better than pitchers in the AL because his team scored 9 runs off Andy Coakley? Some small credit, yes. But I just do not see any case for giving Matty a large amount of credit. And I'm out of things to say. I don't know how to say this any more clearly. If it still doesn't make sense. all I can say is I'm sorry. I've done the best I can do. - Brock

Brock-
I think I understand what you're saying but don't agree with your conclusion.
Yes, there were a high number of shutouts that World Series but I would credit the pitchers for that.
(Well, I would if I gave postseason credit which I don't... and haven't voted in a few elections anyway).

Iieiam - You should take up voting again, whether I agree with you or not. Your votes were always informative and reasonable. - Brock

I'd say the World Series was dominated by shutouts because Mathewson did it three times. It's a bit of chicken and egg.

I also agree that lieiam should vote

DL - I understand now what the disconnect is. I think the World Series was dominated by shutouts because Matty pitched three, Joe pitched two (not counting unearned runs) and Bender pitched one. That's six shutouts in five games, which, of course, requires unearned runs. If you asked me for a reason, I'd say what I did above - it appears that the As just had no experience with the unusual pitches that Matty and Joe threw, and couldn't hit them. In a context, 1905, where offense wasn't exactly at a high point, this is unusual, but hardly a huge thing. I don't think this is a huge disagreement, but I was confused by the first couple of responses. Now, at least, I'm not confused. We've all been in disagreements before. - Brock

1905 World Series Stats

Player Name  G  AB  R  H  2B  3B  HR  RBI  BB  SO  BA  OBP  SLG  OPS  SB  E
Roger Bresnahan  5  16  3  5  2  0  0  1  4  0  .313  .500  .438  .938  1 1
Bill Dahlen  5  15  1  0  0  0  0  1  3  2  .000  .167  .000  .167  2 0
Art Devlin  5  16  0  4  1  0  0  1  1  3  .250  .294  .313  .607  3  1
Mike Donlin  5  19  4  5  1  0  0  1  2  1  .263  .333  .316  .649  1  0
Christy Mathewson  3  8  1  2  0  0  0  0  1  1  .250  .333  .250  .583  0  2 
Dan McGann  5  17  1  4  2  0  0  4  2  7  .235  .316  .353  .669  0  1
Sam Mertes  5  17  2  3  1  0  0  2  2  5  .176  .263  .235  .498  0  0 

Harry Davis  5  20  0  4  1  0  0  0  0  1  .200  .200  .250  .450  0  0
Topsy Hartsel  5  17  1  4  1  0  0  0  2  1  .235  .316  .294  .610  2  1
Danny Murphy  5  16  0  3  1  0  0  0  0  2  .188  .188  .250  .438  0  4
Eddie Plank  2  6  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  2  .167  .167  .167  .333  0  0
Socks Seybold  5  16  0  2  0  0  0  0  2  3  .125  .222  .125  .347  0  0

Pitcher Name  G  GS  ERA  W  L  SV  CG  IP  H  R  ER  BB  SO  WHIP
Christy Mathewson  3  3  0.00  3  0  0  3  27.0  13  0  0  1  18  0.519

Eddie Plank  2  2  1.59  0  2  0  2  17.0  15  4  3  4  11  1.118

Pretty clear that Roger Bresnahan is the best catcher in baseball in 1905

Has anybody worked on Pete Hill's MLE for 1905? I feel in my gut he belongs on my ballot, but I just can't pretend to know exactly where without some analysis first.