Discussion is up. You will see a ballot thread, for some reason it double posted and I had to close that one.

I expect this list to change a LOT. Lots of NGL players and early players with different reputations now.

Very prelim, as you mentioned, lots of NGL players to evaluate. This group will be extra sensitive to how we weight defensive contributions as well.
1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb

3. Mickey Mantle
4. Tris Speaker

5. Joe DiMaggio
-Mike Trout-

6. Oscar Charleston

7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Turkey Stearnes

9. Duke Snider
10. Billy Hamilton
11. Cristobal Torriente
12. Carlos Beltran
13. Jim Edmonds
14. Pete Hill

15. Andruw Jones
16. Paul Hines
17. Andre Dawson
18. Larry Doby
19. Willard Brown

20. Max Carey
21. Jim Wynn
22. Kenny Lofton

Borderline In:
23. Alejandro Oms
24. Jim O'Rourke
-Cesar Cedeno-
-Willie Davis-
-Tommy Leach- - if he's at CF.

Borderline Out:
-Bernie Williams-
-Dale Murphy-
25. Earl Averill
-Andrew McCutchen-

Close But Not Cigar:
26. Richie Ashburn
27. George Gore
28. Pete Browning

A swath of guys ahead of the bottom 3, not in particular order:
Jesse Barfield, Wally Berger, Ellis Burks, Mike Cameron, Johnny Damon, Eric Davis, Hugh Duffy, Lenny Dykstra, Kirk Gibson, Curtis Granderson, Mike Griffin, Sam Jethroe, Chet Lemon, Fred Lynn, Carlos Moran, Amos Otis, Vada Pinson, Kirby Puckett, Cy Seymour, Andy Van Slyke, Hack Wilson

29. Lip Pike
30. Cool Papa Bell
31. Edd Roush

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb
3. Tris Speaker
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Joe DiMaggio

---Mike Trout to date---

6. Oscar Charleston
7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Jim Edmonds
9. Turkey Stearns
10. Andruw Jones
11. Billy Hamilton
12. Carlos Beltran
13. Willard Brown
14. Duke Snider
15. Cristóbal Torriente
16. Pete Hill
17. Kenny Lofton
18. Larry Doby
19. Jim Wynn
20. Andre Dawson
21. Paul Hines

---Willie Davis, PHoM---

22. Jim O'Rourke
23. Max Carey
24. Alejandro Oms
25. Richie Ashburn

---My PHoM line---

26. Earl Averill
27. Pete Browning
28. George Gore
29. Edd Roush
30. Cool Papa Bell
31. Lip Pike

A lot of guys I wouldn't have in my PHoM, and only one that I have in my PHoM that hasn't yet been inducted here.

I do not understand how Lip Pike got inducted. I need to re-assess everyone with a * by their name (half the list)

1) Ty Cobb
2) Willie Mays
3) Tris Speaker
4) Mickey Mantle
5) Joe DiMaggio
6) Oscar Charleston*
7) Turkey Stearnes*
8) Ken Griffey Jr
9) Billy Hamilton
10) Jim O'Rourke*
11) Cristobal Torriente*
12) Duke Snider
13) Carlos Beltran
14) Jim Edmonds
15) George Gore*
16) Max Carey
17) Larry Doby*
18) Richie Ashburn
19) Pete Hill*
20) Earl Averill*
21) Kenny Lofton - in/out line
-- Tommy Leach
22) Andre Dawson
23) Jim Wynn
24) Alejandro Oms*
25) Willard Brown*
-- Dom DiMaggio
26) Edd Roush
27) Pete Browning*
28) Andruw Jones
29) Cool Papa Bell*
-- Brett Butler
30) Lip Pike*
-- Cesar Cedeno, George Van Haltren, Chet Lemon
31) Paul Hines*

We are way heavy inducting centerfielders

I'm not a voter, and certainly haven't dug as deeply into players' careers as you all have, but -

By bWAR (I know, but certainly a good starting place for such discussions) Trout has 4 seasons better than DiMaggio's best. You would have to go their 10th-best seasons (a year Trout only had 241 PA) before you find one that DiMaggio was better than Trout - and in each's best thru 9th best, Trout was far superior (many by 2+ wins).

So to those who have DiMaggio ahead - what tells you that even "hit by a bus" Trout's career isn't as good as DiMaggio's?

31) Paul Hines*

We are way heavy inducting centerfielders

What gets Paul Hines in the basement? Realizing the asterisk.

Is your in/out for positions normally around the ~21 level.

Feels like we are at least +3 over my in/out line as well for CF.

5. TDF, trained monkey Posted: February 16, 2023 at 04:56 PM (#6117478)
I'm not a voter, and certainly haven't dug as deeply into players' careers as you all have, but -

By bWAR (I know, but certainly a good starting place for such discussions) Trout has 4 seasons better than DiMaggio's best. You would have to go their 10th-best seasons (a year Trout only had 241 PA) before you find one that DiMaggio was better than Trout - and in each's best thru 9th best, Trout was far superior (many by 2+ wins).

So to those who have DiMaggio ahead - what tells you that even "hit by a bus" Trout's career isn't as good as DiMaggio's?

Joe D was hurt by his park, on defense and as a terrific road relative hitter, raw bWAR isn't fully capturing this.

For players from his time era, TZ regresses defensive value, penalizing DiMaggio for an area he excelled in.
Rbaser / baserunning from his time era is also a bit rudimentary, other studies suggest additional pickup in value.

With all that being said, I can still see an argument for Trout ahead of DiMaggio based upon how you weigh all these factors, along with league strength and war credit.
Another solid Trout like season in 2023 and I'd move him ahead of DiMaggio.

CF prelim

1. Willie Mays

2. Ty Cobb

3. Tris Speaker

4. Mickey Mantle

5. Joe DiMaggio
6. Oscar Charleston
7. Ken Griffey Jr.

8. Duke Snider
-- Martin Dihigo -- (I have as CF)
9. Turkey Stearnes
10. Andruw Jones
11. Billy Hamilton
12. Carlos Beltran
13. Kenny Lofton
14. Jim Edmonds
15. Cristobal Torriente
16. Pete Hill

17. Andre Dawson
18. Richie Ashburn
19. Jimmy Wynn
20. Lary Doby
-- Chet Lemon --
21. Earl Averill
22. Willard Brown
-- Kirby Puckett --

23. Paul Hines
24. Jim O'Rourke
25. George Gore

26. Pete Browning

-- pHOM line --

-- Cesar Cedeno --
27. Max Carey
-- Willie Davis, Fred Lynn, Kiki Cuyler --
28. Alejandro Oms
-- 9 other CFers --
29. Edd Roush
30. Cool Papa Bell
-- 6 other CFers --
31. Charley Jones (is he not a CF in HOM?)
-- I don't know how many guys because Pike doesn't even make my ranking set --
32. Lip Pike

We have inducted way too many CFers, and not even the right ones.

So to those who have DiMaggio ahead - what tells you that even "hit by a bus" Trout's career isn't as good as DiMaggio's?

3 seasons of WWII credit

What gets Paul Hines in the basement? Realizing the asterisk.

Is your in/out for positions normally around the ~21 level.

I haven't season-length adjusted Hines yet.

21 1B, 23 2B, 22 3B, 24 C, 23 LF, 28 RF, 30 SS - all those extra spots are pitchers for me.

heh - atop my ranking of CFs in real-time 2008 I wrote: "more "Should they really be in the HOM?" than any other position"

that said, I believe our 5 newcomers to this ballot are:

Carlos Beltran
Jim Edmonds
Ken Griffey Jr.
Andruw Jones
Kenny Lofton

re Charley Jones: he just finished last in our new LF rankings

as for DiMaggio, fill in the blanks re OPS+ for ages 28-29-30, with "before "and "after" actual figures:

128
166
139
184
173
185
147
XXX
XXX
XXX
142
154
164
178 (missed first half of season due to bone spurs)
151
116

3 seasons of WWII credit

Should DiMaggio get a year of MLE credit as well?

He was a top flight hitter at age 19 in the PCL, league MVP level at age 20, then is excellent at age 21 for the Yankees?

I do not understand how Lip Pike got inducted.

He may well be a mistake, but how much credit are you giving him for pre-NA play? His case was certainly made on the basis of his having been a top professional by 1867.

No time to post on his election history and the moment, but hopefully later this evening.

13. Kenny Lofton
-- pHOM line --
27. Max Carey

With Lofton, a TON of the weight in his profile is carried by how TZ views his defense.

Career WARs:
B-R - 68.4
B-G - 53.8
B-P - 50.6
T-T - ~44

His home/road splits, playoff performance, and "clutch" situational value don't move the needle.

Giving him an MVP level 1994 and league strength gets him just above my borderline group.

How's everyone feel about him not getting a contract coming off a ~3 win campaign, does this help in at least a tie-breaker sort of way?


I added Carey to highlight as an earlier version of Lofton, though he has the reverse, TZ isn't loving his D, while others are more favorable.

Career WARs:
B-R - 55.3
B-G - 67.4
T-T - ~44 (missing age 20-25 seasons), if you split 50/50 his B-R/B-G WAR, his adjusted total is ~59 wins.

Carey is high on the all-time assists leaderboard, where B-R and B-G aren't capturing this value well.

For seasons where available, Sean Smith's updated OAA analysis has Carey at +123 runs vs TZ at +50.

It was only 1 WS, but Max was fantastic, with a 458 / 552 / 625 slash line in a tight WS victory for the Pirates.


Maybe Carey isn't ahead of Lofton after adjusting for league quality or other factors not mentioned, but I share the post for those to be careful on these guys not to run with a Baseball-Reference only or centric case.

Bleed, you are right, I made a mistake. Carey is actually #23 for me, between Brown and Hines. Not a huge move, and in any case still well behind Lofton for me. By fWAR Lofton has a 2 WAR edge, but what really hurts Carey moreso than career WAR comparisons is his best seasons don't reach 6 WAR, even. Lofton has 4 seasons as good as Carey's best (by fWAR cuz I have that up), plus one of those seasons with some strike credit. And Lofton having higher career bWAR/fWAR despite 1600 fewer PAs shows how the peak cases of these two players go. Carey was consistently good and never great by WAR.

but what really hurts Carey moreso than career WAR comparisons is his best seasons don't reach 6 WAR, even

Depends on your metric of choice.

Baseball Gauge credits him with 67.4 WAR, or ~68 if you schedule adjust 1918.

Adjusting 1918 to 154 games, he's at > 6 WAR each year 1916, 1917, 1918.

He has 2 additional 5 win seasons, 4 4 win seasons, 3 3 win seasons, 2 2 win seasons.

With having so many career assists, I think it's likely reasonable that he's missing some defensive value to his ledger for his throwing arm as well.
If he were a modern player with R-Of credit, how much additional credit would he get, 4, 5, 6 wins?

Prelim:

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb
3. Tris Speaker
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Joe DiMaggio
6. Oscar Charleston
-- Mike Trout
7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Turkey Stearnes
9. Billy Hamilton
10. Duke Snider
11. Cristobal Torriente
12. Jim Edmonds
13. Carlos Beltran
14. Larry Doby
15. Jimmy Wynn - It looks like I'm quite high on him, but he really isn't substantially ahead of the next group.
16. Pete Hill
17. Andruw Jones - I've come around a little on him, even if I still think he's a bit overrated.
18. Paul Hines
19. Kenny Lofton
20. Max Carey - Good discussion on him above. He will likely improve when we get estimated PBP data for him.
21. Richie Ashburn
22. Jim O'Rourke
23. George Gore
24. Andre Dawson
-- Willie Davis
25. Earl Averill - I need to go back over his case for Minor League credit. I might have him more in the Ashburn territory.
26. Alejandro Oms
-- Dom DiMaggio
27. Willard Brown - The last MLEs moved him away from awful choice to plausible one. Wouldn't be shocked if he improves more going forward.
28. Pete Browning
-- <Metric ton of guys>
29. Cool Papa Bell
30. Lip Pike - I really don't have a good handle on him at all, but I don't think he's as dire of a candidate as he looks initially. I don't think there is anyone better from the 1860s/70s that we haven't elected, we just elected too many guys from that era. Going to give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him out of the basement.
31. Edd Roush - I think this is the worst overall HoMer. In my CF rankings, the next guy after him is Ellis Burks.

I will echo others in saying there seems to be a little more fat at this position than at the other two outfield spots (particularly right field, which I found to be appropriately tight). I'd definitely have fewer 19th-century guys, though I'll admit that as someone who's spent hours constructing all-time Jewish baseball teams I have a soft spot for Lip Pike. Also, Edd Roush looks like a weak pick, but am I wrong that he was on the wrong end of a WAR adjustment at some point? I remember at one time seeing him as at least borderline, in a way that's tough to justify now.

On another note, here's a train of thought that haunted me a little in making this list: Most of us would agree Willie Mays is the greatest Black baseball player of the 20th century and possibly of all-time. And we might marvel at what a coincidence it is that he came along precisely at the moment when he was able to play in an integrated league that would allow us to maximally appreciate him. Which should naturally make us wonder... What would Mays's career have looked like if he'd come along a little earlier, when he wouldn't have been able to compete in the AL or NL? And we might conclude... Well, it would have looked a lot like that of Oscar Charleston. And then we'd be forced to consider, what if Charleston was actually the best center fielder ever and no one knows it?

As you can see, I don't have Charleston No. 1 (or No. 2 or No. 3 or even No. 4) on my list here, but the thought experiment has made me feel awfully humble about our ability to accurately integrate Negro Leagues players into this exercise.

Anyway, here's my preliminary list, subject to change. I feel good through about No. 11 and then it becomes kind of a mess. I seem to be higher on the Negro Leagues guys than others here, relying heavily on Hall of Stats ratings, but am open to counterarguments.

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb
3. Tris Speaker
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Oscar Charleston
6. Joe Dimaggio
7. Ken Griffey Jr
8.  Turkey Stearnes
9.  Cristobal Torriente
10. Duke Snider
11. Carlos Beltran
12. Pete Hill
13. Larry Doby
14. Willard Brown
15. Andruw Jones
16. Kenny Lofton
17. Andre Dawson
18. Billy Hamilton
19. Jim Edmonds
20. Richie Ashburn
21. Jim O’Rourke
22. Alejandro Ohms
23.Max Carey
24. Jim Wynn
25.Earl Averill
26. Cool Papa Bell
27. Pete Browning
28. George Gore
29. Paul Hines
30. Ed Roush
31. Lip Pike

Quite a bit of variance for where Richie Ashburn is showing up. Skepticism of his defensive numbers, given the flyball tendencies of his staff and the huge CF in Shibe Park? Kelly Leak Syndrome? Note for his 8 year peak he had a .406 OBP, something that other low-power candidates on the list didn't do, and 70 points better than in Andre Dawson's peak. [Other than a 19th century guy of course] Also note there has been quite a bit of quibbling about Kenny Lofton and yes Jim Edmonds' defensive stats as well.

18. Alex02 Posted: February 17, 2023 at 11:52 AM (#6117595)

Also, Edd Roush looks like a weak pick, but am I wrong that he was on the wrong end of a WAR adjustment at some point? I remember at one time seeing him as at least borderline, in a way that's tough to justify now.

On another note, here's a train of thought that haunted me a little in making this list: Most of us would agree Willie Mays is the greatest Black baseball player of the 20th century and possibly of all-time. And we might marvel at what a coincidence it is that he came along precisely at the moment when he was able to play in an integrated league that would allow us to maximally appreciate him. Which should naturally make us wonder... What would Mays's career have looked like if he'd come along a little earlier, when he wouldn't have been able to compete in the AL or NL? And we might conclude... Well, it would have looked a lot like that of Oscar Charleston. And then we'd be forced to consider, what if Charleston was actually the best center fielder ever and no one knows it?

1. Willie Mays
5. Oscar Charleston

16. Kenny Lofton

19. Jim Edmonds

29. Paul Hines

30. Ed Roush

On Charleston, he transitioned to 1B at age 33 and his hitting tailed off some, I don't think he approaches the Mays level, but I agree with your sentiment about assessing Negro League candidates.
Fortunately, Dr. C will be unveiling soon an improved MLE process for us!

John DiFool2 brought up Jim Edmonds, thanks John, while Lofton is ahead of Edmonds with Baseball-Reference, Jimmy kicks Kennys butt by other defensive measures. In aggregate, I feel much more comfortable with Edmonds as a mid-tier HOMer, having him neck and neck with Carlos Beltran.

Another ballot with Paul Hines REALLY low, if you don't schedule adjust for him, I can see a low placement, though maybe not this low. Trying to schedule adjust, I see him as a mid-tier candidate.

On Roush, he was elected during the time when Win Shares and some level of WARP from Baseball Prospectus in its previous forms were the flavor dujour.
Dan Rosenheck pushed hard for Roush to be excluded with his WARP system, and current WARs are unfavorable to him.
I will note, his case does have added nuance with holdout/management issues, and research suggests that Greasy Neale was a ball hog, making Roush's defensive numbers look worse than they deserved to be in some areas.
Even giving him a bump for these things, I don't see getting him above #29 overall.
I have him deadlast, giving Pike credit for being a very early great in the pre-NA time, and Cool Papa Bell as someone, while WAY overrated by history, probably would have translated as better than Roush.

Quite a bit of variance for where Richie Ashburn is showing up. Skepticism of his defensive numbers, given the flyball tendencies of his staff and the huge CF in Shibe Park? Kelly Leak Syndrome? Note for his 8 year peak he had a .406 OBP, something that other low-power candidates on the list didn't do, and 70 points better than in Andre Dawson's peak. [Other than a 19th century guy of course] Also note there has been quite a bit of quibbling about Kenny Lofton and yes Jim Edmonds' defensive stats as well.

I think AShburn is a perfectly fine HoM, but I get where some might have concerns. A lot of his value above the fringier borderline ends up being in-season durability - compare him to Chet Lemon. Essentially the difference boils down to Ashburn playing every single day. That's valuable, for sure, but if you use something like WAA to look at peak, Ashburn ends up looking exactly like Chet Lemon. And if you are a career voter, Ashburn just didn't last all that long, even if his total volume is decent.

Based on Dan R's fielding wins, here are the center fielders in my consideration set who accumulated the most defensive value (using my own estimates after 2005, war credit, etc)

Speaker 19.2
Andruw Jones 16.1 (7 wins less than RField)
Mays 13.5
Carey 12.9
Dom DiMaggio 12.6
Hugh Duffy 9.9
Fielder Jones 9.9
Lofton 8.8
Chet Lemon 8.1
Beltran 7.2
Mike Cameron 7.2
Ashburn 6.3
Edmonds 6.2
Willie Davis 6
Joe DiMaggio 4.9
Hamilton 3.9

What really kills Cool Papa Bell are the new estimates of his defense. He's Lofton at the plate.

What really kills Cool Papa Bell are the new estimates of his defense. He's Lofton at the plate.

So then the question becomes how much we trust defensive metrics from games 90 years ago for which we don't even have full statistical records, right? I'll defer to you guys a little on this since I'm not terribly in the weeds with defensive metrics for earlier eras, but I'd think those estimates would deserve a couple grains of salt given not only their limitations but also the smaller sample sizes for Negro Leaguers.

Bell is below my line*, but if I wanted to make his case it would basically be: reasonable HOM candidate with the bat, historically great base-stealer, strong reputation defensively that available stats undermine but can't decisively disprove, plus a dollop of pitching value for good measure. That's at least a case worth entertaining, no?

*at least under HOM rules... if I were actually starting my own Hall I'd allow for a little legend and sentimentality, but that's neither here nor there

Another ballot with Paul Hines REALLY low, if you don't schedule adjust for him, I can see a low placement, though maybe not this low. Trying to schedule adjust, I see him as a mid-tier candidate.

I'll give Hines, Gore and Browning all closer looks before posting my final ballot. Already, I'm realizing I forgot to discount Browning for the fact his best years came in the AA, which would probably bump him down to 29 or 30.

My initial ranking of Hines reflected that he has a relatively low WAR/162 (even leaving off his last few years) that he ranks poorly in various measures of peak, and that he was rarely among the top five players in his league in a given season. But I'm far from a Paul Hines expert, so I'd be happy to hear your case for moving him up.

Bell is below my line*, but if I wanted to make his case it would basically be: reasonable HOM candidate with the bat, historically great base-stealer, strong reputation defensively that available stats undermine but can't decisively disprove, plus a dollop of pitching value for good measure. That's at least a case worth entertaining, no?

His case is definitely worth entertaining.

I think the Doc makes a case that Bell was fine as a baserunner, but not historically great here.
https://homemlb.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/the-speed-of-legend-the-myths-and-some-truths-about-cool-papa-bell/

Between what we see from his range/Seamheads data, he doesn't appear to be an elite defender, maybe a good to excellent one in his 20s, but below average in his 30s.
https://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/player.php?playerID=bell-01coo&tab=metrics

I'll give Hines, Gore and Browning all closer looks before posting my final ballot. Already, I'm realizing I forgot to discount Browning for the fact his best years came in the AA, which would probably bump him down to 29 or 30.

My initial ranking of Hines reflected that he has a relatively low WAR/162 (even leaving off his last few years) that he ranks poorly in various measures of peak, and that he was rarely among the top five players in his league in a given season. But I'm far from a Paul Hines expert, so I'd be happy to hear your case for moving him up.

Agree on Browning, it helps Gore stay or vault ahead of Browning.

Regarding Hines, his WAR/162 is impacted by his decline phase happening when league schedules were much longer.

If you adjust leagues to 154 game schedules, looking at his 17 year prime (1873-1889).
Baseball-Reference - 79.9
Baseball Gauge - 83.4

Top seasons:
B-R: 8.10, 7.7, 7.2, 6.5, 6.3, 6.2, 6.1, 5.4, 4.2, 4.2
B-G: 10.8, 8.6, 7.3, 7.1, 7.1, 5.8, 5.3, 5.3, 5.2, 4.7

Length adjustments to bWAR for Browning, Gore, Hines, and Pike using this method, which I prefer to straight-line adjustment (partly because I developed it as an alternative to straight-line adjustment):

Hines: 67.5 career, peak 7.3 6.7 6.3 6.0 5.5 5.2 5.2
Gore: 53.3 career, peak 7.4 6.4 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4
Browning: 49.3 career, peak 7.5 6.6 6.5 6.1 5.1 (not sure if bWAR adjusts for league strength or if their adjustment is accurate here)
Pike 33.2 career, peak 8.7 5.6 5.4 (not including pre-league numbers, obviously)

Speaking of length adjustments, don't forget that two of Roush's peak years and one of Carey's were shortened by WW1 (Carey missed half the season in 1919). Also true of Cobb and Speaker, of course, but they don't need the help as much. Plus Dawson in '81... and Lofton in '94... man, CF has a lot of these.

I will never understand Andruw Jones in the top 10 CF of all time. I zero out all of his seasons past age 30 to help his cause and he's still not anywhere close to the in/out line. Easily the worst bat on the list and I cannot buy peak defensive seasons that have him twice as valuable in CF as Willie Mays when he had similar numbers for putouts.

I consider myself a Jones skeptic relative to the average HoM voter, but I think that sells him a little short - he was a solid 120 wRC+ hitter in his prime, and while I'm not sure his glove was +25-30 runs, I will buy it at +15-20 runs, which actually makes him quite similar to Richie Ashburn. It's pretty tough for me to see Jones substantially behind Ashburn - he's weaker on the basepaths, but makes up for it with CF being higher up the defensive spectrum, and with a plausibly better glove too.

I don't have him in my top ten, but I can see someone buying his glove having him in with the rest of the middle class CF (I have that group as Hamilton, Snider, Torriente, Edmonds, and Beltran). Really, I think the most noticibly thing is how small that middle class is.

My prelim:

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb
3. Tris Speaker
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Joe DiMaggio
6. Oscar Charleston
7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Turkey Stearnes
9. Duke Snider
10. Cristobal Torriente
11. Billy Hamilton
12. Carlos Beltran
13. Pete Hill
14. Kenny Lofton
15. Richie Ashburn
16. Andruw Jones
17. Paul Hines
18. Jim Edmonds
19. Andre Dawson
20. Lary Doby
21. Jimmy Wynn
22. Jim O'Rourke
23. Earl Averill
24. Pete Browning
25. Willard Brown
26. George Gore
27. Max Carey
28. Alejandro Oms
29. Lip Pike
30. Edd Roush
31. Cool Papa Bell

From #1:

And if you are a career voter, Ashburn just didn't last all that long, even if his total volume is decent.

Shorter career than many on the list, <8,500 PA, but enough to amass 64 WAR (BBRef).

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb
3. Mickey Mantle
4. Tris Speaker
(Mike Trout)
5. Oscar Charleston
6. Joe DiMaggio
7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Billy Hamilton
9. Turkey Stearnes
10. Cristobal Torriente
11. Jim Edmonds
12. Willard Brown
13. Pete Browning
14. Larry Doby
15. Carlos Beltran
16. Pete Hill
17. Duke Snider
18. Andre Dawson
19. Paul Hines
20. Andruw Jones
21. Jimmy Wynn
22. Kenny Lofton
(Chet Lemon)
23. Richie Ashburn
(Bernie Williams)
24. George Gore
(Cesar Cedeno)
25. Lip Pike
26. Jim O'Rourke
27. Alejandro Oms
28. Earl Averill
(Kirby Puckett)
29. Max Carey
(Hugh Duffy)
(Willie Davis)
30. Cool Papa Bell
31. Edd Roush

Since I'm in the process of overhauling my system, and I'm re-evaluating position-by-position as we're doing this, I don't know exactly where my PHoM line would be, but I'm guessing it would be somewhere around the Pike-O'Rourke-Oms line. There's a sizable gap between Oms and Averill for me, so from Averill on down they are all poor inductees, imo.

I consider myself a Jones skeptic relative to the average HoM voter, but I think that sells him a little short - he was a solid 120 wRC+ hitter in his prime, and while I'm not sure his glove was +25-30 runs, I will buy it at +15-20 runs, which actually makes him quite similar to Richie Ashburn. It's pretty tough for me to see Jones substantially behind Ashburn - he's weaker on the basepaths, but makes up for it with CF being higher up the defensive spectrum, and with a plausibly better glove too.

I agree with Jones behind Ashburn and I have Ashburn as borderline in because his career is not that long. I don't have any difference in the defensive spectrum for CF during Ashburn's career versus Jones' career.

I just got done updating my schedule adjustment for Jim O'Rourke and have him at 78.7 WAR, 35.5 WAA. That's without any credit at all for 201 games as a catcher.

The 2019 MLE career lines for NGL CF from Dr. C

PLAYER NAME POS HOF HOM PA Rbat Rbaser Rdp Rfield WAA WAR WAR/650 
CHARLESTON, O CF Y Y 11330 590 32 0 26 57.6 95.0 5.5
HILL, PETE CF Y Y 10450 411 8 0 28 43.3 81.7 5.1
STEARNES, T CF Y Y 9690 527 1 0 30 50.0 81.2 5.4
OMS, ALEJANDRO CF N Y 10110 424 -3 0 -13 36.1 72.7 4.7
TORRIENTE, C CF Y Y 8660 464 9 0 -21 42.0 72.0 5.4
BROWN, WILLARD CF Y Y 9930 338 16 1 19 32.6 67.7 4.4
DOBY, LARRY CF Y Y 7407 360 17 22 24 42.0 66.4 5.8
IRVIN, MONTE CF Y Y 7367 338 6 -13 73 37.5 63.5 5.6
SALAZAR, LAZARO CF N N 8530 299 12 1 56 31.7 63.4 4.8
BELL, COOL PAPA CF Y Y 11390 243 22 0 -18 21.1 58.1 3.3
JETHROE, SAM CF N N 9413 172 63 9 8 24.7 57.3 4.0
POLES, SPOTS CF N N 7450 198 10 0 44 21.9 51.1 4.5

Data from the 2022 database update

Player Name SEASONS FIRST LAST G PA RBAT RBASER RDP RFIELD RPOS RAA WAA RREP RAR WAR
Oscar Charleston 23 1924 1937 2784 11890 595 42 8 28 -85 589 58.7 371 960 97.9
Turkey Stearnes 18 1929 1940 2524 10850 532 9 11 23 -56 519 50.3 338 857 85.2
Pete Hill____ 20 1910 1923 2671 11030 366 33 0 32 -74 357 40.9 344 700 81.4
Cristobal Torriente 17 1924 1928 2157 9090 464 23 0 2 -64 426 45.8 283 710 77.3
Willard Brown 21 1948 1955 2447 10600 377 11 -2 19 -46 360 35.8 362 722 73.2
Alejandro Oms 19 1921 1935 2467 10530 345 8 5 -1 -52 305 30.7 360 664 68.7
Larry Doby___ 17 1947 1959 1775 7419 337 18 26 17 -19 381 38.6 226 604 61.7
Cool Papa Bell 23 1937 1946 2943 12630 201 32 21 -28 -56 169 17.1 394 562 58.4
Sam Jethroe__ 21 1944 1958 2729 11653 113 48 17 10 -18 170 17.6 373 543 57.6
Monte Irvin__ 18 1942 1956 1830 7615 311 7 -11 40 -43 304 30.9 250 554 57.5
Lazaro Salazar 21 1942 1952 2207 9450 158 5 13 2 -49 129 13.6 323 451 48.5
Spotswood Poles 15 1910 1923 1894 7910 75 54 0 26 -55 99 11.6 270 370 42.4

 30. Jaack Posted: February 18, 2023 at 01:15 AM (#6117742)
I consider myself a Jones skeptic relative to the average HoM voter, but I think that sells him a little short - he was a solid 120 wRC+ hitter in his prime, and while I'm not sure his glove was +25-30 runs, I will buy it at +15-20 runs, which actually makes him quite similar to Richie Ashburn. It's pretty tough for me to see Jones substantially behind Ashburn - he's weaker on the basepaths, but makes up for it with CF being higher up the defensive spectrum, and with a plausibly better glove too.

I don't have him in my top ten, but I can see someone buying his glove having him in with the rest of the middle class CF (I have that group as Hamilton, Snider, Torriente, Edmonds, and Beltran). Really, I think the most noticeable thing is how small that middle class is.

Spot on for the middle class, the 9-13 group, Griffey normally comes in at #7, Stearnes potentially at #8 (awaiting Doc's latest updates). We then have the middle class of easy HOM picks, clearly ahead of the lower levels. I have the same 9-13 group, Pete Hill's Seamheads are REAL strong, I've put him in this group for now.

I'm with you, a noticeable step down to Andruw Jones, Andre Dawson, then contextualizing early ball players (Paul Hines, maybe Jim O'Rourke) and Negro Leagues (Larry Doby for sure, and possibly Willard Brown).

As to Andruw Jones, his TZ/DRA rates place him in the 8-9-10 group. With a bit less favorable, Kiko's stat and Baseball Prospectus FRAA still leave Andruw at ~60 WAR. With it being peak/prime heavy, I'm fine with Jones in the ~15 area.

 37. DL from MN Posted: February 18, 2023 at 10:21 AM (#6117768)
Data from the 2022 database update

Thanks for sharing these DL!

33. Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Posted: February 18, 2023 at 09:11 AM (#6117758)
13. Pete Browning

17. Duke Snider

24. George Gore
26. Jim O'Rourke

29. Max Carey

Great to see you Michael...with the new methods, interested to see Pete Browning with this much separation from contemporaries George Gore and Jim O'Rourke. What vaults Browning?

Snider typically resides closer to #10 overall, what sinks him lower?

My obligatory Max Carey looks to be ahead of the lower bucket, would like to see how your peak/prime system analyzes him, he is certainly a career/prime guy, Enos Slaughter probably had the same issue with right fielders.

Player Name MMP Points (15 points = unanimous MMP)
Willie Mays 181.90
Ty Cobb 154.60
Tris Speaker 129.56
Mickey Mantle 124.89
Mike Trout 112.96
Joe DiMaggio 72.88
Oscar Charleston 61.21
Ken Griffey Jr. 48.63
Duke Snider 46.58
Billy Hamilton 43.95
Andrew McCutchen 34.81
Dale Murphy 33.80
Larry Doby 24.94
Carlos Beltran 21.77
Richie Ashburn 20.88
Jim Edmonds 19.43
Andre Dawson 18.47
Pete Hill 16.06
Cristobal Torriente 15.10
Cesar Cedeno 14.96
Josh Hamilton 13.49
Jim Wynn 13.34
Cody Bellinger 13.25
Turkey Stearnes 13.24
Kirby Puckett 12.96
Hugh Duffy 12.78
Andruw Jones 12.76
Earl Averill 12.31
Vada Pinson 11.83
Monte Irvin 10.75
Kenny Lofton 10.18
Bernie Williams 4.80
Cool Papa Bell 2.04
Max Carey 2.00
Dom DiMaggio 2.00
Edd Roush 1.86
Chet Lemon 0.36
Mike Cameron 0.36

Just wanted to ask the group - how are people accounting for Lip Pike's pre-1871 career? Without it he's hopeless (he's basically a century+ older Brady Anderson for me once I account for season length). Making any sense of the limited stats from the 1860s is well beyond me, but I just wanted to know about what people were crediting him for (if you do).

fwiw, this was my Browning comment the first time around (in real time 2008)

18. PETE BROWNING - Yes, I am offense-oriented. Look at the 1890 PL season. Browning, at age 29, leads the league in OPS+ by 13 pts over 32-yr-old HOMer Connor, followed by a 22-yr-old Beckley and HOMers Ewing, Brouthers, Gore, O'Rourke at 6-7-8-9. Ewing is 30, Brouthers is 32, Gore is 33, O'Rourke is 39. Browning by all accounts is 'an old 29' due to his health and alcohol problems. Yet in his chance to play in a HOMer-laden league, he dominates. I am supposed to assume that as a younger player he wouldn't have been able to post big numbers in the NL rather than the AA? Seven OPS+s above 163. 10 seasons as a regular, a good number for the era. This lousy fielder played some 16 pct of his career in the infield.

Odd to be commenting more on the bottom of the ballot than the top. There's quite a bit of consternation about the lower picks here. I'd agree there are mistakes, but I don't think they are as egregious as some comments suggest.

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb
3. Mickey Mantle
4. Tris Speaker
5. Oscar Charleston - He was not the same player in the 1930s as earlier, but I think NeL contraction in the early 1930s disguises his value a bit in his later career.
6. Joe DiMaggio
7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Cristobal Torriente
9. Turkey Stearnes -- The top players in Negro-League history are concentrated at centerfield.
10. Jim O'Rourke -- A career-value candidate, his peak isn't all that impressive, but his career value the best of the 19th-century after the ABCD boys (adding George Davis to the famous trio of first-basemen). I have O'Rourke at 79.6 season-adjusted career WAR. A player can't get to that level without being significantly above average for a long time. Pete Rose is an interesting comp for O'Rourke, I think.
11. Billy Hamilton
12. Pete Hill
13. Carlos Beltran
14. Paul Hines --Strong peak and career value; Beltran and Snider are pretty close comps, I think.
15. Duke Snider
16. Andruw Jones
17. Jim Edmonds
18. Andre Dawson
19. Larry Doby
20. Kenny Lofton
21. Richie Ashburn
22. Willard Brown
23. Max Carey
24. George Gore
25. Jimmy Wynn
26. Alejandro Oms
(Chet Lemon)
--in-out line--
(Willie Davis, Bernie Williams, Vada Pinson, Fred Lynnm, Cesar Cedeno)
27. Lip Pike - just below the in-out line. Definitely a big star in his time. It's not clear that he was great before 1869, and that leaves him just a little short. A defensible choice when elected in 1940, however: the Hall of Merit as sequentially elected and the Hall of Merit as constructed all at once will not always be in agreement. Pike was the last pre-1880 player to be elected, so, historically, the electorate set the in-out line for this period at Pike.
(Kirby Puckett, Dale Murphy, Mike Cameron)
28. Earl Averill - I give him one year of credit for PCL play; like Pike he is just below the in-out line
(Tommy Leach)
29. Pete Browning - How he looks depends on how the AA is viewed. It was definitely lower in quality than the NL, with more difference between the quality of the leagues than ever existed between the NL and AL. I use the Baseball-Reference discounts and apply them to fWAR also, and that leaves Browning a bit short. Given the greater awareness of historical context when Browning was elected, his election was more clearly a mistake at the time of his election in 2007 than Pike's was when was elected. 2008 was a backlog election, but it's surprising in retrospect to see that Browning got more support than Andre Dawson, who was the third electee that year. So far on the prelims, only extreme-peak-voter Michael J. Binkley's Anxiety Closet has Browning over Dawson, who is definitely stronger in career than in peak.
(Lenny Dykstra, Brett Butler, Devon White, Johnny Damon, Torii Hunter, Mike Griffin, Willie Wilson)
30. Edd Roush -- a Win-Shares-driven mistake, but he takes a big hit from bWAR's league-strength adjustments that may or may not be entirely justified.
(Roy Thomas, George Van Haltren, Andy Van Slyke, Ray Lankford, Jimmy Ryan)
31. Cool Papa Bell -- elected on the basis of a reputation that the compiled statistics don't appear to bear out.

42. Jaack Posted: February 18, 2023 at 03:37 PM (#6117817)
Just wanted to ask the group - how are people accounting for Lip Pike's pre-1871 career? Without it he's hopeless (he's basically a century+ older Brady Anderson for me once I account for season length). Making any sense of the limited stats from the 1860s is well beyond me, but I just wanted to know about what people were crediting him for (if you do).

Great question, giving him a bump allows him the chance to be above Bell and Roush, though it would take considerably more to get to the next level, Ashburn/Gore/Browning, that all have an argument for HOM, or are at least pretty darn close for me.

I think I'm through my first round of adjustments

1) Cobb
2) Mays
3) Speaker
4) Mantle
5) DiMaggio
6) Charleston
7) Stearnes
8) Jim O'Rourke - moves up, a very good career candidate
9) Billy Hamilton
10) Ken Griffey Jr
11) Cristobal Torriente
12) Pete Hill - up 7 spots
13) Paul Hines - really hadn't worked him up before
14) Duke Snider
15) Carlos Beltran
16) Jim Edmonds
17) Willard Brown - had him pegged as a minus Andre Dawson, I like his bat a lot more looking through the latest MLEs. Likely to PHoM this year.
18) Max Carey - great glove, great baserunning
19) Larry Doby
20) Richie Ashburn
21) Alejandro Oms
22) Earl Averill
23) Kenny Lofton
24) George Gore - moves down but still above the line
- in/out line -
-- Tommy Leach
25) Andre Dawson
26) Jim Wynn
27) Cool Papa Bell
-- Dom DiMaggio
28) Pete Browning
29) Andruw Jones - I agree with Ashburn minus
-- Brett Butler
30) Edd Roush - I was over-crediting him
31) Lip Pike

Great to see you Michael...with the new methods, interested to see Pete Browning with this much separation from contemporaries George Gore and Jim O'Rourke. What vaults Browning?

Snider typically resides closer to #10 overall, what sinks him lower?

My obligatory Max Carey looks to be ahead of the lower bucket, would like to see how your peak/prime system analyzes him, he is certainly a career/prime guy, Enos Slaughter probably had the same issue with right fielders.

Even with an AA discount, I have Pete Browning with a much better peak than either Gore or O'Rourke. The total mWAA (negative seasons zeroed out) is fairly even for the three - 33.7 for Browning, 30.4 for Gore, and 33.4 for O'Rourke. But Browning separates himself by mWAG - 10.9 for him, 4.9 for Gore, and only 1.6 for O'Rourke. HE also has more bonus points than the others - I have him as the best position player in his league 3 times (vs. once for Gore and none for O'Rourke) and he made my yearly all-star team 5 times (3 for Gore, also 5 for O'Rourke).

As for Snider, 11 (Edmonds) through 17 (Snider) are packed really tightly together on my list. For reference, Mays has 232 points in my system, Mantle has 153, Griffey has 83, and the 11-17 tier only varies from 57 points at the top to 53 points at the bottom. So within margin of error, those could really be in any order - it's just that I have to put an ordinal for each name instead of just grouping them in tiers.

For Carey, as was with kcgard2 earlier, the high peak just isn't there in my system. He gets a borderline-ish 30.5 mWAA, but only a paltry .9 mWAG.

In response to Jaack's query about how we are accounting for Lip Pike's pre-NA career:

My approach is to model his pre-NA seasons based, more or less, on his later levels of play, aligning early seasons with later ones as best I can, based on the existing data.

Pike was 26 in the NA's first season in 1871, and players tended to start and peak earlier in those days, so I would expect to see a general trajectory of value upward during his early seasons. Pike's first recorded season was 1866, his age-21 season, so we have five years to account for. The pre-NA data is scanty and difficult to interpret because it lacks both a league context and the kind of batting line leading to batting and slugging averages that we rely on post-1871. The data I am interpreting for Pike is derived from Marshall Wright, The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870, published in 2000. I don't have the book (although it is still in print and I really should own a copy), but some data from it was shared in the discussion threads here (possibly still findable in the archives). In 2004, I copied and saved some key posts by David Foss on the top players pre-1871, and so the data on which my evaluations of Pike are based date from that time. it's possible that someone has subsequently compiled and published data that is more complete or that is processed into more fully, but if that has happened, I am not aware of it.

Here's a quick seasonal review of the data set

1866: Pike, a New York native, plays professionally (but paid under the table) for the Philadelphia Athletics. He is recorded as appearing in 16 games for a team that went 23-2. Pike was third on the team in runs/game at 6.25 (yes, the game looked different in those days). He finished behind Dick McBride (6.41), who would go on to be one of the top pitchers in the NA, and a fellow named Hayhurst (6.31) He played 2B-OF-3B. Pike was distrusted, however, as an out-of-towner, so he was not invited back for 1867.

1867: Pike begins the season with the Irvington, NJ club, but plays only 6 games for them before he catches on with the New York Mutuals, one of the two top teams in the New York area (the other being the Brooklyn Atlantics). On the Mutuals, Pike finished second in r/g with 3.90, trailing only Fred Waterman (3.93), who would become a member of this first, and most dominant professional team of all time, the undefeated 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, and would go on to be a very good player, if not a star, in the National Association. The Mutuals finished the season with a record of 23-6-1. Pike appeared in 21 games with the Mutuals, playing OF-3B-2B-1B, and he appeared in 6 games with Irvington.

1868: Pike spends a full season with the Mutuals. The Mutuals go 31-10 on the season. There are records of Pike for 25 games, all in the outfield. He is only 7th on the team in r/g, with 2.4 (the leader averaged 3.02 r/g, but Pike was 4th in hits/game and 3rd in total bases/game (the statistical record is expanding!), 3.28 h/g and 4.36 tb/g. A player named McMahon led the Mutuals in h/g and tb/g with 3.58 and 4.51, respectively. Notably, Pike's tb/h, at 1.32, was higher than McMahon's 1.26, and is the first indicator of Pike as a power hitter.

1869: Pike moves to the Brooklyn Atlantics, the other top team in New York. The Atlantics were a great team, and have the distinction of being the first team (in 1870) to beat the Red Stockings. They were one of the teams that went fully professional this year when the rules governing professional players were changed. Overall, the team went 40-6-1, and their record against other professional squads was 15-6-1. Pike finished 3rd on the team in r/g (4.02), 5th in hits/g (3.65), and 2nd in total bases/g (6.77). The team leader in all these categories was fellow future HoMer, Joe Start, who scored 4.41 r/g, had 4.41 h/g, and 7.41 tb/g. Pike's strengths as a player are becoming clearer in this stat line. His higher r/g than h/g suggests that he was especially good at reaching on errors, which is consistent with his reputation for great speed, and his total bases per hit, at 1.85, was 10% higher than Start's, an indication that he was a leading power hitter. That year, he played second base, and is recorded as appearing in all games.

1870: Pike is again with the Atlantics. As competition among the top professional teams stiffens, the Atlantics' record dropped to 20-16 versus professional opponents (they were 41-17 overall. Their two-year record of 46-1 vs. amateur teams shows how far the game had stratified and why the time was ripe for a fully professional league). In stats reflecting only professional games, Pike was 4th on the team in h/g (2.33) and first in tb/g (4.25). As far as I have been able to find so far, his tb/h of 1.82 was the highest of any player that season. That may also be true of his 1869 season, but I haven't been able to check that. In 1870, I know that it was higher than Levi Meyerle (1.69), who would lead the NA in OPS+ in 1871 (Pike would be second), George Wright (1.66), who was the game's best all-around player, his teammate Joe Start (1.51), and Fred Waterman (1.49), among players for whom I have both hits/game and tb/game available. Wright and Waterman were the two top hitters on the Red Stockings, so although this is by no means a complete list of player performance, it is definitely a collection of players who were top hitters at the time. Pike again played second base; the records I have do not indicate the number of games in which he appeared.

My take on the data for a projection of Pike is as follows. I would credit him with beginning his career as an average player in 1866. He followed that with an above average season in 1867. 1868 was an off year in which he might have been injured, so I'd credit him with another average season. 1869 looks like a breakout year, in which he was definitely a star in the league, and in 1870 he was in the running for best player in the league. To make things simple, I align Pike's levels of play, season by season, with later seasons as follows:

1866 = league average
1867 = 1872 value
1868 = league average
1869 = 1871 value
1870 = 1874 value

I would project all of those seasons out to 140 games, which is what I regularize all pre-1898 seasons to for purposes of comparison. I am going to look more closely at 1869 to see just how well Pike's power number compares to other players. I think it's going to be fairly consistent with 1870, but I still need to check it out. My placement of Pike on my preliminary ballot is indeed preliminary--I haven't gone back and looked at the data i've shared here in over a decade, so I need to see how these estimates for the first part of Pike's career shake out with bWAR 2.1.

If anyone knows of better, more recent data sources on Pike and pre-NA players more generally, I'd be glad to learn about it.

shorter version of CC's post above:

You can't simply judge Pike on his 'visible record,' which I fear some relative newcomers may be doing.

he also notes that Pike was the last player of his era elected, so we didn't fall in love with him, either.

Pike put up a massive 192 OPS+ in 1871 at age 26.
even before one takes the limited data from earlier years, does anyone think that he just emerged from a cocoon that very year? he was a great hitter.

his life and career were unusual - I compared him to Richie/Dick Allen in my 2008 ballot vote.

I'm not arguing for anything like top 15 status on this CF ballot for Pike. but he's not the joke selection that some might perceive him to be nowadays.

... and now I realize that my shorter version doesn't hold a candle to the case that Chris made.

Thanks Chris and Howie - really great stuff.

Just going to add these comments from Paul Wendt in the Lip Pike thread I dug up, just so we can get everything together in one place, before I had my own thoughts:

gleaned from team and player records by Marshall Wright, The N.A.B.B.P. 1857-1870 (McFarland 2000)


1865
"Played his first game with the Atlantics ... July 14, 1865" according to SABR biography by Overfield. That was the second of 18 matches in the Atlantics second undefeated season. Wright lists nine players with 13-18 games and the numbers leave 17 starts for other players.


1866 Athletic, Philadelphia PA ( 23-2 inclg 12-2 vs major teams )
3B,OF,2B
played 16 of 25 games
Outs: 2.69, 5th of 11 who played 12-25 games
- or 3.06, 10th " " (there is some clerical error by Marshall Wright or his source)
Runs: 6.25, 3rd " "

Inference is precarious. Who played which games?


1867 Irvington, Irvington NJ ( 16-7 inclg 11-7 vs major teams )
3B
played 6 of 21 or more games
Outs: 3.17, roughly matches the bottom five of 10 regular players
Runs: 3.17, roughly matches the 5th to 7th of 10 regular players

Compared with the ten semi-regular players, 15-21 games, he roughly matches the bottom five in outs and roughly matches #5-7 in runs.
Maybe Irvington played slightly easier matches in June/July with Pike.
Before, 4/6 to 6/9 matches vs major teams; After, 12/14 to 14/17.
Maybe not, for the earlier major opponents seem stronger.
The team scored 25.7 runs per game in the first six matches, 28.6 overall.
Anyway, he made more outs (3.17) than team average in the games he played.


1867 Mutual, New York NY ( 23-6-1 inclg 13-5-1 vs major teams )
OF,3B,2B,1B
played 21 of 29 or more games
Outs: 2.42, 4th of 8 who played 21-29 games
Runs: 3.90, 2nd " "

The Mutuals certainly played much easier matches in June/July before Pike.
Before, 2/6 to 3/9 matches vs major teams; After, 16/21 to 17/24.


1868 Mutual, New York NY ( 31-10 inclg 13-8 vs major teams )
OF
played 25 of 42 games
Outs: 3.08, 9th of 11 who played 17-42 games
Runs: 2.60, 10th " "
Hits: 3.04, 7th " "
TBoH: 4.04, 7th " "

Unimpressive.
The number of semiregular players makes inference precarious. Who played which games?


1869 Atlantic, Brooklyn NY ( 40-6-2 inclg 15-6-1 in professional matches )
played 48 of 48 games
Outs: 2.16, 1st (superb)
Runs: 4.02, 3rd
Hits: 3.65, 5th
TBoH: 6.77, 2nd

rank on team, same four categories
1 3 5 2 Lip Pike, 2b
4 1 1 1 Joe Start, 1b
2 2 2 3 John Chapman, lf
6 4 6 4 Bob Ferguson, c
9 4 4 6 Dickey Pearce, ss
5 6 3 5 Charles Smith, 3b

Runs/Outs: Pike 1.72, Start 1.70, Chapman 1.63


1870 Atlantic, Brooklyn NY ( 41-17 inclg 20-16 in professional matches )
played 58 of 58 games
Outs: ?
Runs: ?
Hits: 2.48, 3rd
TBoH: 4.58, 1st

rank on team, same two categories
all matches (58) /professional matches (36), if different rank
3/4 1-- Pike, 2b
1-- 2-- Start, 1b
2/3 3-- Chapman, lf
5-- 4/5 Ferguson, c
4/2 6/4 Pearce, ss
6-- 5/6 Smith, 3b
7-- 7-- George Hall, cf

Lip Pike, continued

bats left, throws left

2B - fielding position both 1869 and 1870
Neither Marshall Wright nor Bob Tiemann (ed., 19c Stars, SABR 1989) lists a secondary position.

It seems that the Mutuals used significantly more substitute players (their lineup was sig'ly less regular) than the Atlantics every season 1967-69, so rank on team data is more informative for the Atlantics (Start, Pearce, and Pike 1869 only). There is some risk in this inference. For example, maybe Wright compiled the Mutuals records from box scores but used Atlantic records compiled at the time

--
The player records published by Wright suggest that Pike was one of the best batter-runners other than George Wright in the two openly professional seasons, 1869-70. How many were as good as anyone but Wright, the plausible candidates for number two? Half a dozen or two dozen? Without computer data analysis I have no answer.

Along Lip Pike's career path before 1869, we need data on who played which games in order to be confident even about rank within team by runs scored per game. (That qualification may not generalize to other players on other paths from club to club, because much of the variation in playing time for substitute players was between clubs rather than between seasons.) With that qualification, Pike's record for outs and runs before 1869 is unimpressive. At best, it seems, he made a little more than his share of outs and scored a little more than his share of runs, overall 1866-68. That does not fit his evident desirability as a player. Historians suppose that Pike was one of the first players compensated to play the game --loosely one of the first professional players. First, why else move to Philadelphia? Second, it is accepted that the Athletics paid Al Reach to move one year earlier. Anyway, it is clear that the Irvingtons in 1867 and the Mutuals in 1867 and 1868 were clubs that recruited good players from other clubs. So were the Atlantics, who certainly hired him for 1869.

My thoughts - I can respect the Pike case, but as a whole, he doesn't look like a strong choice even before accounting for the oddities of his era. It looks like his best work was in fact done in the 1870s (1874-76 looks like the best offensive stretch of his career). For the 1860s, he looks like he was a valuable player on some of the best teams of the era, but was he ever the top player on any of them? Perhaps in 1870?

I've been trying to come up with a strong comp from a more modern era. Eric Davis popped into my head, and I don't hate that, but I think the best comp is perhaps Hack Wilson - indisputably a strong hitter, but perhaps the overall package is a bit lacking.

My inclination is that he's a better pick than Roush for sure, and perhaps even CPB. That's where Hack Wilson is in my CF rankings anyway.

thanks to you also, Jaack, for adding to the discussion.

more information like that, revived for our analysis, is better - and then let the chips fall where they may.

I struggle with even putting an 1860s baseball player in a list with modern players. It's a totally different game, players got to call for a pitch location and the pitcher's feet couldn't leave the ground. Home plate didn't even exist until 1873.

I wasn't around for the very beginning of the project but I would have been fine saying nobody accrued value until 1876 when the National League was formed. Even then the modern game doesn't begin until 1893 when the pitching distance is finalized.

It's a totally different game.

Well, I might say that it's a very different version of the same game. Even though the rules changed, the players continued their careers and were involved in the process by which the game developed. The pace of rule changes was far faster in the early game, but it has never stopped evolving. Are we doing a better job of fulfilling the purpose of the Hall of Merit ("Our purpose is to identify the best players in baseball history") if we discard a part of that history and a part of the careers of its early great players?

This is an argument that has been carried on since the beginning of the Hall of Merit project, and I expect it will come up from time to time as long as the Hall of Merit lasts as an institution, especially when positional rankings of elected players are undertaken periodically.

What I am concerned to do here is just to keep making the case for including all of baseball history. I think the principles of inclusion by which players from Black Baseball are part of the project generally apply to pre-1971 play as well. The players involved were playing at the highest level of competition that was available to them at the time. Some of the stars of the pre-NA period went on to be the stars of the NA period. Some of the stars of the NA period went on to be the stars of the first decade of the NL. How can we adequately evaluate those players if we leave out substantial parts of their careers?

It's not easy to evaluate them, especially for the 1860s. But even with 2023 players, we still have to deal with substantial uncertainties. There is still no firm consensus about fielding value, and there are even basic disagreements about how to establish offensive value. In all cases, we have to look at the evidence and do the best we can. My own solution has been to compare players with their contemporaries first and then integrate cross-period lists. It's not a perfect approach, and there are other valid ways to do it. I certainly recognize that confronting the problem of evaluating early players in the context of doing all-time positional rankings doesn't make it easier--in fact I'd say it's a particularly challenging context in which to approach the problem, because it requires many voters to go back and evaluate players whose context they haven't studied without the opportunity to analyze the context as as whole.

Pike is also an especially difficult case because he's borderline and because his career is fairly evenly divided between two contexts, but he is nevertheless not a unique case. Because outfield is a position of lagging importance in the development of the game, we didn't have pre-1880 players and we had few Black Baseball players in our rankings of LF and RF. But for all the rest of the positions, we're going to face the challenge of integrating into our rankings players from different periods/versions of the game of baseball and players whose careers, or portions of them, are very imperfectly documented:

CF - Lip Pike, Jim O'Rourke, Paul Hines, Pete Browning
1B - Joe Start and Cal McVey (plus accurately placing Anson, Brouthers, and Connor)
2B - Ross Barnes and Frank Grant
SS - Dickey Pearce, George Wright, Grant Johnson, Dobie Moore
3B - Ezra Sutton, Deacon White (unless White is at catcher)
C - Deacon White?, Louis Santop
P - Al Spalding, the 1880s pitchers, Rube Foster, and two-way players

Given that we're going to have to place all of these players appropriately in the positional rankings, the question of how to evaluate players from very different contexts is going to continue to come up. So as we confront the question of what to do with Pike, O'Rourke, Hines, and Browning, it may be worth trying to engage that question in ways that will lay useful groundwork for engaging with the next sets of early players we will be encountering.

I was thinking of using a sort of Keltner-esque set of questions to try and account for the more difficult cases. While I think the original Bill James questions have run there course for most of baseball history where we have better data, the concept is a strong starting point when access to the data is an issue. I haven't come up with a perfect set of questions yet, but wanted to get the ball rolling with a few questions derived from the orignal James ones.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Or was he considered the best at any particular aspect of the game?
2. Was he the best player on his team? Were those teams typically the strongest within their immediate competition?
3. What was his level of competition? Did he play in the strongest organization available to him? If not, was he a clear step ahead of the bet players he played against?
4. Was he the best player in baseball (or in the league) at his position? Was he considered a seminal player at his position or in his role.
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play throughout various rule changes or league structures?
6. Did he affect the game substantially, either in terms of rule changes or in league structures?
7. Does he stand out in some way from the field of quality players in his group of peers? Is he a statistical outlier in someway, either for the volume of his career, or for the top end performance?

I like this framework as a start - I feel like these questions are specific enough that they can highlight the strong choices from this group of players. If anyone has any other good framing of merit, I would love to hear it!

FWIW, I would definitely consider Deacon White a catcher. His time at the position was during the prime of his career when schedules were shorter and catchers caught bare-handed. He has more games caught in the 1870s than anyone else, and I believe our last positional rankings included him at the position.

Edited to add: We also included Cal McVey with catchers for similar reasons.

I like the idea of using Keltner Lists! I can't recall, and haven't looked yet to see if anyone attempted any kind of value estimates in the distant past for pre-1871 play, and wouldn't be surprised if those were eaten by the website.

if we discard a part of that history and a part of the careers of its early great players?

At some point you have to. The earliest "careers" are of amateurs who happened to join a team in a particular city. I don't think there is any problem with recognizing players just from professional baseball.

At some point you have to.

What necessitates the distinction? What do you lose if you decide not to make that distinction?

If you are going to draw that line between amateur and professional, however, where then do you draw it, and what analytical value do you gain from it? It's not a flip of a switch from "amateur" to "professional": the first professional league emerged from a collection of professional teams within an originally amateur association, the professional teams formed in a context in which teams fielded a mix of amateur and professional players, which was preceded by a context in which some players were professional, but their professional status was an open secret, as they were paid under the table or given indirect forms of compensation. What line makes the most sense in this context?

I should add to my above comment that a factor in these questions is the issue of quality of play. We had some heated discussions recently around one member of the electorate's inclination not to distinguish between levels of competition when evaluating performance. When there are such distinctions to be made, it is important to make them. It's typically been a principle of evaluation to require a player to be playing at the highest level of competition available to them for their play to be counted. If a player is excluded from being able to compete at the highest level for some reason that is unrelated to talent--race, an MiL team being unwilling to sell a contract, military service, unfair labor practices, work stoppages, etc.--voters have either counted play in whatever the context available to the player was or considered whether compensatory credit should be given.

The appropriate way to apply this principle to the period of transition between amateur and professional baseball is not easily established because in the absence of the stratification provided by leagues, the level of competition varies in unpredictable ways from game to game. This problem recurs in Black Baseball, although in a somewhat less intractable fashion.

In asking questions about why draw a line in the very early game, I don't want to minimize the importance of the issue of competition quality or make it appear a simple matter to address.

What necessitates the distinction?

The phrase "a pennant is a pennant" doesn't have any meaning before 1859. There aren't any pennants. Even until 1870 the championship was often disputed.

For the purpose of ranking elected players, 1859 as a starting point would cover virtually all the cases we have to consider. The data from Marshall Wright on Dickey Pearce begins in 1857; the data on Joe Start begins in 1860. If we define the point at which pennants become considerable as the beginning of the context in which "the best players" can be evaluated meaningfully, how do we best work with the evidence in which championships are disputed and competition is not regularized through something like a balanced schedule? (This question also applies to a granular analysis of Black Baseball. We've recognized it as an issue for Negro-League pitchers, as it seems like the best pitchers may have tended to be matched with the best opponents, but I don't know how far the Seamheads or Baseball-Reference and now Fangraphs NeL WAR accounts for the impact of unbalanced team schedules.)

In the history of actual HoM elections, I think it became the typical convention that some play in the National Association by an early player was more or less necessary for consideration, but that all players considered should be evaluated on the whole of their career and not just their post-1870 play. I don't know how far those practices were ever formalized--certainly they didn't get written into the Constitution. I remember that one voter advocated strongly for Jim Creighton for a while, and Creighton got a few votes in the first elections, by I think he is the only player who never played in the professional game who ever got a vote (and the release of Creighton's statistical record from Marshall Wright's book took whatever air there was out of Creighton's candidacy).

As I'm sure others saw, Oscar Charleston was one of the big gainers in the latest MLE update. I already had him fifth among CF, ahead of DiMaggio, but the case now looks that much stronger. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to consider him a spot or two higher, either.

Pete Hill was on the "un-gainers" list, so maybe that bumps him down a few spots on some ballots, though from where people in this thread have ranked him it seems maybe there was some skepticism about his previous estimate to begin with.

https://horsehidedragnet.wordpress.com/2023/03/01/now-available-negro-leagues-mle-v2023-limited-initial-release/

re Charleston:

In my system, it looks like the revaluation of Charleston (based on 1930s Quality of Play) moves him from being in a group with DiMaggio and Griffey, Jr to being in a group with Mantle and Speaker. I haven't looked closely at the seasonal projections, but my first glance suggests that Charleston's career shape has considerable similarity to Mantle's in terms of the height of his peak and the time and rate of decline.

Second prelim, with more consideration from the new MLEs (estimated WAR/WAA removing early/late career little value seasons) and comments from the group here:

1. Willie Mays
2. Ty Cobb

3. Mickey Mantle
4. Tris Speaker

5. Oscar Charleston - 110.6 / 71.5
6. Joe DiMaggio - WWII
-Mike Trout-

7. Ken Griffey Jr.
8. Turkey Stearnes - 89.4 / 58.7 - under consideration for 7th.

9. Cristobal Torriente - 76.0 / 48.4
10. Duke Snider
11. Billy Hamilton
12. Carlos Beltran
13. Jim Edmonds
14. Larry Doby - 74.4 / 49.2 - not seeing much gap in this group - WWII

15. Paul Hines
16. Pete Hill - 72.5 / 32.2
17. Jim O'Rourke
18. Andruw Jones
19. Willard Brown - 74.4 / 30.7
-Tetelo Vargas- 69.3 / 33.3

20. Andre Dawson
21. Jim Wynn
22. Max Carey - WWI

Borderline In:
23. Kenny Lofton
24. Alejandro Oms - 65.9 / 29.8
-Cesar Cedeno-
-Willie Davis-
-Tommy Leach- - if he's at CF.

Borderline Out:
-Bernie Williams-
-Dale Murphy-
25. Earl Averill - PCL
-Andrew McCutchen-
-Lazaro Salazar- 60.8 / 30.5

Close But No Cigar:
26. George Gore
27. Richie Ashburn
28. Pete Browning
29. Lip Pike - pre-NA
30. Cool Papa Bell - 57.4 / 21.6

A swath of guys ahead of the bottom, not in particular order:
Jesse Barfield, Wally Berger, Ellis Burks, Mike Cameron, Johnny Damon, Eric Davis, Hugh Duffy, Lenny Dykstra, Kirk Gibson, Curtis Granderson, Mike Griffin, Sam Jethroe, Chet Lemon, Fred Lynn, Carlos Moran, Amos Otis, Vada Pinson, Kirby Puckett, Cy Seymour, Andy Van Slyke, Hack Wilson, Wild Bill Wright

31. Edd Roush - even with holdout credit, WWI, and considering Greasy Neale may have impacted his defensive numbers, major blemish on the HOM record.

30. Edd Roush -- a Win-Shares-driven mistake, but he takes a big hit from bWAR's league-strength adjustments that may or may not be entirely justified.

Baseball Gauge has a similar result, and Kiko's stat is even worse, he's just a poor HOMer.

19. John DiFool2 Posted: February 17, 2023 at 12:07 PM (#6117600)
Quite a bit of variance for where Richie Ashburn is showing up. Skepticism of his defensive numbers, given the flyball tendencies of his staff and the huge CF in Shibe Park?

Yes, he was abysmal on allowing extra base hits on balls in play, with a below average arm.

The caveat of how his pitching staffs were, how Shibe Park played a role, etc.

31. Edd Roush - I think this is the worst overall HoMer. In my CF rankings, the next guy after him is Ellis Burks.

Or Rollie Fingers??

Weak selections that finish ahead, I think these guys are the bottom 6 combined?
Nellie Fox, Eppa Rixey, Sam Thompson. Cal McVey.

Depending on how you handle pre-NA credit/blacklist credit, you could have Lip Pike, Dickey Pearce, and Charley Jones.

The rest I think clear the 90% of a HOM career, and depending on your preference, cross the line or are close.

I think these guys are the bottom 6 combined?

There is not likely to be any strong consensus over the weakest Hall of Merit selections if you try to limit it to a list of 5-10 players across all positions and eras. The weaker players will have less well-rounded cases, and so players will interact in more variable manners with the various systems used across the electorate. The very fact that there isn't strong agreement about these players is what puts them in the bottom section of the HoM. The players that everyone agrees are weak don't get elected.

The last time we did this exercise Cobb finished ahead of Mays but this time I'm the only one with a prelim that has Cobb ahead of Mays.

Life's been nuts the last couple weeks, but with a little consultation from the new MLE's and my prevailing thoughts, here's the list.

1. Mays - His maintenance as the best player on the planet from 1954-1966 (with a couple Mantle years a Koufax year, maybe an Aaron or Williams year) is incredible and gets him the top spot.
2. Cobb - Peak is massive, had he stayed fully healthy through 1910-1914, he's missing more than half a season in there, that may have been enough to capture the top spot, it's that close with Mays.
3. Speaker - the defense might be undersold in bWAR, but that's a hell of a gap to make up to Cobb on offense.
4. Mantle - Best peak (i.e. 1956) with maybe say Charleston's (1921 or 1924) but Mays, Cobb and Speaker have so many years that a like a tiny step behind that, that a tiny absolute peak advantage can't overcome in prime and never mind career.
5. Charleston - Seems very similar to Mantle in terms of peak and earlier decline, Charleston has a longer tail and maybe the D and especially baserunning were better than Mantle (although Mantle is no slouch when young). Doesn't have a monster 30's that Mays and Speaker had and Cobb's wasn't far off-he just missed a little more time than his 20's.
(Trout - he's got some more prime years to go before he can catch Charleston)
6. DiMaggio - WW2 credit
7. Stearnes - Spitballing it - a 145 OPS+ hitter playing a good CF for close to two decades. Likely move to the corners as he aged out and never brilliant fielder, but very solid. Wouldn't look out of place as a Top 5 on many other positions lists, CF is very deep at the top. Inner circle ends here for me.
8. Griffey - nothing really to say other than my favorite player growing up.
9. Torriente - Near inner-circle, not quite high enough peak / long enough career.
10. Hamilton - Absolute menace in the 1890's. Would love to have a time machine to see him and Harry Stovey play.
11. Beltran - To me has just enough D, baserunning and post season heroics to move him above the crowd. 11-23 is quite tight as a bunch of guys who would be fighting really hard to stay on the list if the HOM was cut in half.
12. O'Rourke - the career is incredible for 19th century.
13. Hines - Ditto, the lengthening schedule amplifies his declining (30+) years
14. Hill - the new MLE's knocked him down from 12.
15. Snider - The bat + position and his peak are too much to ignore
16. Doby - Could be as high as 11, could be as low as 23. His style and what I think is the best representation of his value gets him here, but see merits in having him higher and lower. Goes for everyone on this list, but damn wish we could've seen a career without the impacts of racism.
17. Carey - One of the bets baserunners non Rickey! and Raines division of all time. Perfectly suited for deadball, which maybe should hinder him, however as with Speaker, I think his fielding is undersold a bunch, he is certainly next division down from the Mays, Speaker, Flood and Jones quadrant as best defensive / most valuable center fielders of all-time.
18. Ashburn - There's a lot there for 15 years
19. Gore - After season length adjustments - still a solid HOM guy. The peak is pretty excellent too.
20. Dawson - I am a careerist. 1981 needs a big bump too - he's a gut that makes sense to have his career best season be that year.
21. Edmonds - I feel I am lower than most - I have gone from thinking he is very borderline HOF level to thinking he is more solidly in, but he's got a very good prime, the big multiple peak seasons aren't really there.
22. Lofton - The baserunning I believe completely, the defense was very good and occasionally great, and other than 1994 he's not got the tremendous one season peak. Would've likely done better overall in a lower offense or least lower homer era.
23. Oms - the last of the middle - he's a hall of meritor, but towards the bottom rungs
24. Wynn - Boatloads of walks and an underappreciated peak, but the D isn't otherworldly and the career length is a bit shorter.
25. Brown - When the first list came out in 2009, I would've had him last, now - he's nuanced and seems to be better than the MLE's at the time of valuation. Borderline.
26. Jones - How much do you believe in the defense being better than Willie Mays?
27. Bell - I'm a believer to the extent that his baserunning may be underappreciated and maybe his defense is underrated too. He really seemed like a top glove. Think his bat was average at best (good when young, not good when old), so his peak may be suppressed, but likely has a bunch of filler in the War years.
28. Averill - Add PCL years
29. Pike - The peak is great and considering pre NA, there's a case, but it also sounds like 1867-1869, he was merely good rather than great, so he ends up here. Don't have an issue with him in, unlike the last two on the list.
30. Browning - The bat is magical, but the career is short-ish, the D, I think is oversold, likely a historically bad fielder, when he wasn't sober, which doesn't sound like a lot. Probably would've done well playing RF or a DH had he been born a century later. Still the bat is special and can at least understand the thought process.
31. Roush - And everyone moved off win shares, leaving this as arguably the worst pick in the Hall of Merit. Good player, even great player, but peak wasn't high enough, his hitting style was more suited for deadball than liveball and couldn't really adjust and seems to be missing a lot of time in season year to year.

21. Edmonds - I feel I am lower than most - I have gone from thinking he is very borderline HOF level to thinking he is more solidly in, but he's got a very good prime, the big multiple peak seasons aren't really there.

25. Brown - When the first list came out in 2009, I would've had him last, now - he's nuanced and seems to be better than the MLE's at the time of valuation. Borderline.

27. Bell - I'm a believer to the extent that his baserunning may be underappreciated and maybe his defense is underrated too. He really seemed like a top glove. Think his bat was average at best (good when young, not good when old), so his peak may be suppressed, but likely has a bunch of filler in the War years.

Edmonds looks top 15 guy by defensive measures other than TZ, maybe pushing top 10.

Brown is missing two prime seasons to WWII that might help him for you, it bumps him to ~74 WAR and ~31 WAA.

Bell had below average range according to Seamheads, so not sure where he's a top glove.

31. Roush - And everyone moved off win shares, leaving this as arguably the worst pick in the Hall of Merit. Good player, even great player, but peak wasn't high enough, his hitting style was more suited for deadball than liveball and couldn't really adjust and seems to be missing a lot of time in season year to year.

true.
that said, in his age 25 season - 1918, so WW I - he played in 113 of the Reds' 128 total games in that truncated season.
and he played in 133 of his team's 140 games in 1919.

in 1916, he didn't play a lot under the manager he hated, (HOMer) John McGraw. notice how well he played after being traded at midseason.

in 1928, he missed the second half of the season with some sort of an abdominal surgery.
(I only already knew some of this; the rest is from his SABR bio.)

double post, somehow

Bump, anyone have updates with the release of Eric's MLEs, quality play calculations, or review of the early candidates?

More to the point, why aren't we doing the infield next?

Two points about the early center fielders that may be worth noting for the record.

1) George Gore has a case for one year of MLE credit for his play on the Buffalo Bisons of the International Association in 1878. The IA has been referred to as "the first minor league," but it was set up as an alternative to the National League, and quite a number of Major-League players shifted over to its teams during its initial seasons. This was during the years in which the reserve clause was in the process of being developed in the National League but had not yet been fully implemented. In any case, the Bisons were the top team in that league in 1878, featuring three future HoMers in Gore, Hardy Richardson, and Pud Galvin, who turned in one of the great pitching performances of the 19th-century that year. The Bisons were the top team in the IA, they had a winning record in non-league games against NL competition, and when the team transferred to the NL with much the same roster in 1879, they again had a winning record, finishing 3rd in the league. I give Gore, Richardson, and Galvin a year of MLE credit for this season.

2) Lip Pike has a case for blacklist credit. He was banned partway through the 1878 season on suspicion of throwing games. He did not admit guilt and was eventually reinstated, although his reinstatement came well after his productive playing days were over. Back when the Hall of Merit was considering Pike for induction, there was some discussion of the possibility that antisemitism had made Pike a target. It is notable that, of all the players who were being paid under the table in the late 1860s as tacit professionals before professionalism was openly acknowledged and allowed, the player who was called out for being a professional was Pike. Another factor in the assessment of Pike was that at the time he was banned, he was still an above-average player even at the age of 33. 33 may not seem like much now, but in 1878 that made him the second-oldest player in the league after Joe Start, who was then 35. I don't give Pike credit for missed play in or after 1878 myself, but there is a case for it, and the fact that some voters did give him blacklist credit for being unfairly excluded when he was still a productive player helps to explain the basis for his election at the time.