The "Lee Allen" VC

[jalbright]

In Politics of Glory, Bill James says that Lee Allen came to work for the Hall in 1959, and continued to his death in 1968. Allen did a lot of homework and fed it to the head of the Hall, Paul Kerr, who was also on the VC. Before Frisch arrived in 1967, the Hall made a series of decent to good selections during those years, listed in the poll above. I only disagree with Manush and Roush, and that only mildly. If only Frisch and company had followed suit.

Jim Albright

[BlueBlood]

1. Nothing anywhere near staggering for Max Carey. Seems average.

2. I need help understanding this comparison:

Marquard: 1593 strikeouts (average of 114 per season)
Faber: 1471 strikeouts (average of 86 per season)

Marquard: 3.08 ERA
Faber: 3.15 ERA

Marquard: 1.237 WHIP
Faber: 1.302 WHIP

Marquard: 14-12 season average
Faber: 14-12 season average

Marquard: 858 BBs (average of 62 per season)
Faber: 1213 BBs (average of 71 per season)

Playing times overlap a great deal as well. I'm thoroughly convinced that Marquard is undeserving, but shouldn't Faber be in the same boat? What sets him apart? I'm reading up on Faber right now and there's a few variables such as his time spent as a reliever and played slightly more in the live ball era, but I'm still not convinced that he was worthy.

3. Burleigh Grimes seems to have a crazy high ERA. In particularly, it becomes very bloated once 1922 rolls around and never results in anything impressive afterwards.

4. Eppa Rixey lead the league in wins once. That same year he lead in innings pitched, but that's only natural. Rarely else did he even come close to being a name that anyone would instantly mention in a given season.

5. I'd throw Roush in there because of that nice career batting average although I have a feeling the biggest argument comes from the fact that his OBP wasn't much higher. Does Manush fall in the same boat?

So, I voted for everyone but Carey, Faber, Grimes and Rixey although I'd like to hear some convincing for all four.

[Calif_Eagle]

I picked 6 of the 12 choices here, I picked 6 of 16 on the Frisch poll. I didnt choose Faber, he seemed like he was just off the mark. The comparisons made above by BlueBlood re: Faber vs Marquard are very illuminating (I participated on the Poll before I read them). Marquard appears to be the BBF poster boy for the undeserving HOF pitcher (based on many threads citing him as the M.U.P.I. The HOF) and Faber sure doesnt come off well by comparison here. I had a tough time with the pitchers, and with Roush, whom I left off. No one here disgraces the HOF by being in, especially when you consider some of the men who got in previous to the Allen years. EDIT: Being a huge Indian fan, I really wanted to pick Elmer Flick, but I forced myself to take an objective look at the numbers, tried hard to visualize him as he was "back in the day". While I feel he is a fine player, & well deserving of the Tribe HOF, which he was in, I just couldnt make the leap to Cooperstown with him.

[KCGHOST]

I have no problem with Faber. He pitched the bulk of his career (1914-1933) in the Liveball Era. Marquard hurled primarily in the Deadball Era (1908-1925). Faber had an ERA+ of 119 while Marquard had a pedestrian +103. Faber has an RSAA of 250 versus Marquard's 46.

I find Carey, Rixy and Roush to be weak candidates, but not embarrassingly so. I have a hard time getting excited about Grimes.

I think we should also recognize the overall caliber of these guys. Clarkson, Flick, Hamilton, and Keefe are excellent additions to the HoF.

[PVNICK]

I think Clarkson and Galvin were no brainers, same for Billy Hamilton. While my knowledge on the era is far from extensive what I have seen indicates that they were at or near the top. Edd Roush was the best player in the NL or close to it for several years. Max Carey I voted yes. He was considered a great CF and with the SB, production and longevity would squeak in. I could see where off the top of my head he might be a Vada Pinson, Willie Davis type. Elmer Flick, again at or near the top of his league consistently in a number of positive offensive categories. Sam Rice I voted in and Heinie Manush I did not. Faber, Grimes and Rixey were good to very good pitchers but missed my cut.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have no problem with any of these picks. These guys are clearly in the middle of the HOF, the lower middle at the minimum. Manush and Carey aren't the best picks, but they do not lower the HOF standard from what it is.

[jalbright]

I promised a comparison of the results of this poll with the Frisch VC poll. As I write, there's been 15 votes in this poll and 27 in the Frisch VC poll.


……………….. Allen Frisch
low pct………… 33.3 0.0
under 33%.. 0 of 12 11 of 16
over 50%…. 8 of 12 3 of 16
over 75%…. 4 of 12 1 of 16

[Erik Bedard]

While I wouldn't put all these guys in (I said no to Grimes, Manush, and Rice), I have no problem with any of them being in, and I'm a bit surprised that Clarkson, Keefe, and Hamilton weren't already in.

[The Commissioner]

I'm puzzled by the lack of support for Manush. Why is he not deemed by more people to be Hall of Fame worthy?

[leecemark]

--I think the better question is why do you think he is a worthy Hall of Famer. He hit for pretty good avergae, although the .330 way overstates it when you put it in context. He was a leftfielder with a 120 OPS+ (he was top 10 in OPS only 3 times - and outs 4 times). He didn't add anything on the bases (58 steals with an underwhelming %). He was a one time All Star, although to be fair the game didn't exist until mid-career. He wasn't a big part of great teams, playing for only 1 pennant winner and hitting .111 in that World Series. There is nothing really special about him.

[jalbright]

Updating the comparison of the results of this poll with the Frankie Frisch VC poll. As I write, there's been 22 votes in this poll and 29 in the Frankie Frisch VC poll.


……………..... Allen Frisch
low pct…….. 40.9 0
under 40%.. 0 of 12 12 of 16
50% & up… 9 of 12 3 of 16
75% & up 4 of 12 1 of 16

[HDH]

Yes
Clarkson
Galvin
Keefe
Hamilton
Rice

No
Flick
Carey
Rousch

Borderline
Faber
Grimes
Rixey
Manush

[Freakshow]

Other Halls:

Max Carey - elected to BBFHOF in 37th election/member of Hall of Merit
John Clarkson - elected to BBFHOF in 16th election/member of Hall of Merit
Red Faber - member of Hall of Merit
Elmer Flick - elected to BBFHOF in 42nd election/member of Hall of Merit
Pud Galvin - elected to BBFHOF in 25th election/member of Hall of Merit
Burleigh Grimes
Billy Hamilton - elected to BBFHOF in 14th election/member of Hall of Merit
Tim Keefe - elected to BBFHOF in 20th election/member of Hall of Merit
Heinie Manush - elected to Hall of Mistakes
Sam Rice - elected to Hall of Mistakes
Eppa Rixey - member of Hall of Merit
Edd Roush - member of Hall of Merit

[The Commissioner]

--I think the better question is why do you think he is a worthy Hall of Famer. He hit for pretty good avergae, although the .330 way overstates it when you put it in context. He was a leftfielder with a 120 OPS+ (he was top 10 in OPS only 3 times - and outs 4 times). He didn't add anything on the bases (58 steals with an underwhelming %). He was a one time All Star, although to be fair the game didn't exist until mid-career. He wasn't a big part of great teams, playing for only 1 pennant winner and hitting .111 in that World Series. There is nothing really special about him.

I agree that he was never a dominant player. In no given year would you ever pick out Manush as being the best player in the game. However, he was excellent for a very long time. I know that we tend to dismiss the accomplishments of anyone now who played in that era, and that he had his best season in Sportsman's Park. However, I don't care what era a guy plays in, or what ballparks he's called home, .330 is impressive especially when accompanied by 2500+ hits. That can't be so summarily dismissed as merely being a product of his era. If you said he had a .330 batting average with merely 3000 at bats, I'm impressed, but not enough to say he deserves to be in Cooperstown. However, with 8400+ PA, yes, there's no doubt he's Hall worthy.

[538280]

I agree that he was never a dominant player. In no given year would you ever pick out Manush as being the best player in the game. However, he was excellent for a very long time. I know that we tend to dismiss the accomplishments of anyone now who played in that era, and that he had his best season in Sportsman's Park. However, I don't care what era a guy plays in, or what ballparks he's called home, .330 is impressive especially when accompanied by 2500+ hits. That can't be so summarily dismissed as merely being a product of his era. If you said he had a .330 batting average with merely 3000 at bats, I'm impressed, but not enough to say he deserves to be in Cooperstown. However, with 8400+ PA, yes, there's no doubt he's Hall worthy.

So do you think the HOF should really honor far more players from the 1920s and 1930s? There are a number of players from that era with hugely high batting averages. It's just because they played in huge outfields where a ton of balls fell in for hits. It was by far the best time to play for singles hitting, and thus the leauge averages were in the .290s often and even got to .300 a few times. Being a .330 hitter then means you're an above average hitter-but it just doesn't mean the same in that era as it does through the rest of baseball history. .330 BA can be shown to be a product of its era to a degree. He hit .330 vs. .290 league average. Today when the league average is around .270 he's like a .307 hitter. A good BA hitter for sure, but just not a great one. He wasn't a great power hitter, he wasn't special defensively or on the bases, overall his case is almost all hitting and his credentials as a great hitter are very thin.

[The Commissioner]

So do you think the HOF should really honor far more players from the 1920s and 1930s? There are a number of players from that era with hugely high batting averages.

A number of them with .330 batting averages & 2500+ hits that aren't in the Hall of Fame? I was unaware that so many were still out there unaccounted for. I'd have to consider their credentials on a person by person basis.


Today when the league average is around .270 he's like a .307 hitter.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the .307 number, but still, yes. If you find me an active player with 2500+ hits and a .307 batting average I'd say that a compelling case could, and probably should, be made for his induction into the Hall of Fame upon retirement.

[Gee Walker]

Manush's case is one where there is just too much there to ignore. There are players with higher batting averages outside of the HOF, but none who managed more than 2000 hits, never mind 2500. He finished in the top 5 in MVP awards (using two different systems) four times, all the while competing with a tough group that ran from the end of Cobb's career through most of Ruth's, through Gehrig's to the beginning of Foxx's and Greenberg's. He's got some black ink in there - not that he would lead the league in SLG or HR, but there's 15 points there, and a LOT of gray ink. He's Riggs Stephenson with a career almost twice as long, Vada Pinson with an additional 10 points on his OPS+, or Bill Madlock with about 25% more career time. That's a pretty impressive player. Nine of his ten most comparable players are in the Hall of Fame, and by and large they're middle of the Hall players like Sisler, Delahanty, and Medwick.

His OPS+ is 121 for his career - not great for a LF, but again, OPS+ rewards guys who have short careers and quick declines. He had one good year after age 32, but hung in there, lowering his OPS+ while slowly increasing his counting stats.

[Brad Harris]

I'm not sure how you arrived at the .307 number, but still, yes. If you find me an active player with 2500+ hits and a .307 batting average I'd say that a compelling case could, and probably should, be made for his induction into the Hall of Fame upon retirement.

None exist. In fact, since WWII, just 7 men have accomplished that. They are Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn, Stan Musial, Wade Boggs, Rod Carew, Roberto Clemente and Richie Ashburn. All of these men are in the Hall of Fame.

[Freakshow]

Manush is exactly the same player as Al Oliver. If Manush makes your Hall than you have to put in Oliver, too.

[leecemark]

--Nah, Oliver was better. They were more or less the same hitter, but Oliver did it against a significantly tougher field and lasted a bit longer. He was also a serviceable Cfer, playing more games there than anywhere else, while Manush was mostly restricted to LF.

[The Commissioner]

Manush is exactly the same player as Al Oliver. If Manush makes your Hall than you have to put in Oliver, too.

I actually believe that Oliver does deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but how you do you derive at them being "exactly the same player"? Is there a particular formula or series of them that you are incorporating?

[dgarza]

A number of them with .330 batting averages & 2500+ hits that aren't in the Hall of Fame? I was unaware that so many were still out there unaccounted for.

I don't even think there are any .320/2000 hit players not in the Hall, including active players.

[dgarza]

I'm not sure how you arrived at the .307 number,

A .330 hitter in a .290 pool is 13.8% better.
So .307 in a .270 pool.

[538280]

A number of them with .330 batting averages & 2500+ hits that aren't in the Hall of Fame? I was unaware that so many were still out there unaccounted for. I'd have to consider their credentials on a person by person basis.

You misintpret my point. My point is that if you are willing to just accept the .330 and 2500+ hits at face value, without taking into account the context it was put up in (.290 league average), then you must think that a large percentage of HOFers should be from that era-because at face value most of the best batting averages and hit totals are from the 1920s/1930s era. The minute you start to realize the context Manush played under, the minute you realize that he wasn't all that special a hitter. A good hitter, but far from a great or HOF one from a corner OF who isn't adding much elsewhere.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the .307 number, but still, yes. If you find me an active player with 2500+ hits and a .307 batting average I'd say that a compelling case could, and probably should, be made for his induction into the Hall of Fame upon retirement.

The .307 number is Manush's relative BA put into a context with a league average of .270 (which is usually about what the average is now). That is an indication that a .330 BA when he played was roughly equivalent to a .307 today. It was a good BA then, but it wasn't an unbelieveable number.

[The Commissioner]

A .330 hitter in a .290 pool is 13.8% better.
So .307 in a .270 pool.

That doesn't make sense, though to put out a flat rate of adjustment like that. If one is going to even attempt to accurately adjust the numbers for eras, then shouldn't some sort of scale also be put in place weighing the differences?

For example, the home run record is 73 right now. If player X comes along to hit 83 in a season he has hit 14% more. If player Y comes along to hit 91, is that less impressive? After all player X shattered Bond's record by a larger percentage than player Y shattered X's record. That just doesn't make sense.

Hitting .307 today is impressive. However, hitting .330 vs. a .290 pool is still more impressive than .307 in a .270 pool.

I would question the .290 league batting average figure for Manush's era, though. That figure sounds a little too high to be accurate.

[The Commissioner]

You misintpret my point. My point is that if you are willing to just accept the .330 and 2500+ hits at face value, without taking into account the context it was put up in (.290 league average), then you must think that a large percentage of HOFers should be from that era-because at face value most of the best batting averages and hit totals are from the 1920s/1930s era. The minute you start to realize the context Manush played under, the minute you realize that he wasn't all that special a hitter. A good hitter, but far from a great or HOF one from a corner OF who isn't adding much elsewhere.

The .307 number is Manush's relative BA put into a context with a league average of .270 (which is usually about what the average is now). That is an indication that a .330 BA when he played was roughly equivalent to a .307 today. It was a good BA then, but it wasn't an unbelieveable number.

His .330 batting average may not have been that great in any given season. I'll agree with that. However, sustained over the length of that many years, and that many at bats, it still is outstanding. Once could argue that any given player might hit .330 in any particular year in that era and not be a Hall of Famer. I completely agree. However, to have maintained that average throughout the course of that entire era is something special.

First of all, in his era to accumulate 7000+ plate appearances in and of itself was something special. Only 21 players did it between 1923 and 1939. Of those, there are six with higher batting averages than Manush. Each is a Hall of Famer. As a matter of fact, of the 21 only three aren't in the Hall of Fame: Buddy Myer , Jimmie Dykes , and Ossie Bluege. Ossie Bluege was an example of a very good player. He is nowhere near being a Hall of Famer, but he had some darn fine years. Manush had a batting average almost 60 points higher than this guy over the course of an almost identical period of time.

Manush was in the top 5 in batting six times, nine times had 30 or more doubles, eight times had 10+ triples, and four times 200+ hits. It's almost obscene that I have to even attempt to justify his place in Cooperstown.

[Freakshow]

Top 12 BA 1923-37, minimum 4500 PA
.368 Rogers Hornsby
.364 Harry Heilmann
.348 Paul Waner
.344 Babe Ruth
.344 Lou Gehrig
.342 Al Simmons
.341 Bill Terry
.340 Chuck Klein
.336 Riggs Stephenson
.334 Jimmie Foxx
.331 Heinie Manush
.329 Charlie Gehringer
average of these 12 = .343

Top 12 BA 1969-83, minimum 4700 PA
.338 Rod Carew
.317 Bill Madlock
.316 George Brett
.308 Cecil Cooper
.308 Pete Rose
.306 Ralph Garr
.305 Jim Rice
.305 Dave Parker
.305 Al Oliver
.304 Ken Griffey
.301 Joe Torre
.300 Steve Garvey
average of these 12 = .309

[The Commissioner]

Top 12 BA 1923-37, minimum 4500 PA
.368 Rogers Hornsby
.364 Harry Heilmann
.348 Paul Waner
.344 Babe Ruth
.344 Lou Gehrig
.342 Al Simmons
.341 Bill Terry
.340 Chuck Klein
.336 Riggs Stephenson
.334 Jimmie Foxx
.331 Heinie Manush
.329 Charlie Gehringer
average of these 12 = .343

Top 12 BA 1969-83, minimum 4700 PA
.338 Rod Carew
.317 Bill Madlock
.316 George Brett
.308 Cecil Cooper
.308 Pete Rose
.306 Ralph Garr
.305 Jim Rice
.305 Dave Parker
.305 Al Oliver
.304 Ken Griffey
.301 Joe Torre
.300 Steve Garvey
average of these 12 = .309

Why not show the median with a higher minimum number of plate appearances? There's a huge difference between 4500 and 8000+ plate appearances. All these lists do is help confirm to me that Rod Carew was much better than most people give him credit for being. I pretty much knew that all along.

[Freakshow]

Why not show the median with a higher minimum number of plate appearances? It doesn't matter; Manush and Oliver would still show as very similar in their eras. All these lists do is help confirm to me that Rod Carew was much better than most people give him credit for being. I pretty much knew that all along.
Well, yeah if you think that batting average is so very important.

[The Commissioner]

Well, yeah if you think that batting average is so very important.

Well, define "important"? I don't think any of this is all that important in the grand scheme of things. However, not having a single player within 20 points of one's batting average over the course of a 15 year period is mighty impressive.

[Freakshow]

Well, define "important"?:sigh:
im·por·tant–adjective
1. of much or great significance or consequence
2. mattering much
3. entitled to more than ordinary consideration or notice
4. prominent or large :lookitup
However, not having a single player within 20 points of one's batting average over the course of a 15 year period is mighty impressive.:confused:
I don't get it. There were plenty of guys within 20 points of Manush's average.

[538280]

His .330 batting average may not have been that great in any given season. I'll agree with that. However, sustained over the length of that many years, and that many at bats, it still is outstanding. Once could argue that any given player might hit .330 in any particular year in that era and not be a Hall of Famer. I completely agree. However, to have maintained that average throughout the course of that entire era is something special.

I still say, not really in that era. Again, I seriously doubt you would be saying the same things if Manush played in an era like the 1970s when batting averages in general were just lower. If Manush played in the 70s and hit around .300 for his career (a little lower than my past .307 because 70s BAs were generally around .250-.260 instead of .270, .300 is probably generous actually), would you be saying it is something so special and worthy of inclusion to the HOF? Freakshow's chart shows it well. As an average hitter Manush was like Al Oliver or Ken Griffey. Do you think that that level of hitting for average is solely enough to put a player in the HOF, even in a moderately long career? And Manush didn't have really any other assets as a player. He was an okay power hitter, but not great. He didn't walk often. He didn't add much on the bases or in the field.

First of all, in his era to accumulate 7000+ plate appearances in and of itself was something special. Only 21 players did it between 1923 and 1939. Of those, there are six with higher batting averages than Manush. Each is a Hall of Famer. As a matter of fact, of the 21 only three aren't in the Hall of Fame: Buddy Myer , Jimmie Dykes , and Ossie Bluege. Ossie Bluege was an example of a very good player. He is nowhere near being a Hall of Famer, but he had some darn fine years. Manush had a batting average almost 60 points higher than this guy over the course of an almost identical period of time.

So you think having over 7000 plate appearances in the period 1923-1937 is in of itself a qualifaction for the HOF-just because only three of the men who did it are not in? This to me just shows that you are being subject to the same things the voters have been subject to which is just not taking the numbers of those players into context. Check any other era and I guarantee you the percentage of players going into the HOF would not even be close to 86%. The players from the 1920s and 1930s are not better players than those of any other era. They just played in much better conditions, and often that leads people to believe, without looking at any contexts, that they are better.

Manush was in the top 5 in batting six times, nine times had 30 or more doubles, eight times had 10+ triples, and four times 200+ hits. It's almost obscene that I have to even attempt to justify his place in Cooperstown.

Only if you don't look at the context that he played under. Manush was just a solid hitter in his own time from the corner OF, not great in any other area of the game. I don't see anything HOF about him, other than numbers taken completely out of context.

[The Commissioner]

:sigh:
im·por·tant–adjective
1. of much or great significance or consequence
2. mattering much
3. entitled to more than ordinary consideration or notice
4. prominent or large :lookitup


Freakshow, there is absolutely no need to devolve to this level of snide snarkiness over a matter of disagreement regarding baseball. I expect better of you.


:confused:
I don't get it. There were plenty of guys within 20 points of Manush's average.

My apologies for not being clear. I was referring to Carew by that.

[The Commissioner]

So you think having over 7000 plate appearances in the period 1923-1937 is in of itself a qualifaction for the HOF-just because only three of the men who did it are not in?

I never said that in the least bit. C'mon, that's not what I meant to imply and you know better than that. Don't play dumb by parsing my words like that. It doesn't suit you. What I was saying was that acquiring 7000+ plate appearances was in and of itself uncommon. By saying it was "something special" does not mean it was "Hall of Fame worthy". Do you really want to get into arguments over semantics with me, or discuss baseball?

My point regarding the players with 7000+ plate appearances was that of all the players with that times up to the plate, only six men acquired a higher batting average. Those men were: Ruth, P. Waner, Terry, Gehrig, Foxx, and Simmons. Sure he's not going to have the highest batting average of his era with that cast around. However, he also hitter for a higher average in that time period than did Frisch, Goslin, Ott, Gehringer, Averill, Cronin, and several other Hall of Fame caliber players. Yes, if you look at Griffey under similar parameters, he has the 10th highest batting average of his era. However, the players ahead of him, as great as they were, aren't quite up to snuff with those ahead of Manush in the 1930s. Unless, perhaps, you believe that Jim Rice is Hall of Fame caliber?

You can say that we need to take into account the context in which he played, which is true in regards to hits, doubles,triples, etc. That's fine, but he still led the league in doubles twice. Finished one or two in triples four times, led the league in hits twice. Are we to discount him leading the league in categories just due to his era? Of course not. Griffey never came close to leading the league in any of those categories. Griffey finished in teh top 5 in batting twice, which is impressive. However Manush finished in the top five six times. You can't compare the two hitting-wise.

Look, I'm not saying that .378 in 1926 should count as much as batting .378 would have in 1968. I'm just saying that it can't be completely disregarded just becasue of the era either.

[538280]

My point regarding the players with 7000+ plate appearances was that of all the players with that times up to the plate, only six men acquired a higher batting average. Those men were: Ruth, P. Waner, Terry, Gehrig, Foxx, and Simmons. Sure he's not going to have the highest batting average of his era with that cast around. However, he also hitter for a higher average in that time period than did Frisch, Goslin, Ott, Gehringer, Averill, Cronin, and several other Hall of Fame caliber players. Yes, if you look at Griffey under similar parameters, he has the 10th highest batting average of his era. However, the players ahead of him, as great as they were, aren't quite up to snuff with those ahead of Manush in the 1930s. Unless, perhaps, you believe that Jim Rice is Hall of Fame caliber?

Okay, so Manush is one of the top 10 players of his era in one category: batting average. That doesn't tell us the overall value of Manush as a player. It doesn't mean that he was a great, HOF caliber all around hitter. He hit .330 when the league average was .290. That's good, but not great. His power was solid. He had around a 120 relative ISO. He didn't walk all that much. Overall, he just isn't all that impressive of a hitter, Commish, and I don't understand what is so impressive about him to you. The only way how he's impressive to you is if you just don't focus on much offense outside of batting average, or you just don't take that .330 in context. Being 7th in BA among a group of players over a selected timeframe is good, but it doesn't show a player's total worth as a player or his worthiness as a player at all. It reaveals his skill in one facet of the game, through a statistic which isn't even all that important.

You can say that we need to take into account the context in which he played, which is true in regards to hits, doubles,triples, etc. That's fine, but he still led the league in doubles twice. Finished one or two in triples four times, led the league in hits twice. Are we to discount him leading the league in categories just due to his era? Of course not.

Focusing on how many times a player led the league in categories is just a terrible way to determine anything. It is totally arbitrary (someone could lead the leauge in a category one year, but have a better BA the next year yet not lead the league, all league leaderships aren't created equal), it doesn't in any way reflect proper weights in terms of what events are more important than others, it doesn't give any reliable baseline (the leauge averages show a context which is important in terms pf winning games. If the league averages 5 runs per game, that immidiately gives each contribution a certain value. It is differnt if it is 4 runs per game. There is no baseline like that with leading the league).

But even if you want to focus on league leaderships, I don't think Manush is particularly impressive there. I hate black ink for much of the reasons said above, but it is really a summary of league leading performance, and Manush with 15 is quite a bit below the average HOF level of 27.

Griffey never came close to leading the league in any of those categories. Griffey finished in teh top 5 in batting twice, which is impressive. However Manush finished in the top five six times. You can't compare the two hitting-wise.

I would say that in terms of rates they are very similar as hitters. Manush had a relative BA of 114, a rel. OBP of 105, and a rel. SLG of 116. Griffy is at 112, 108, and 109. They have very similar BAs, Manush hit for a little more power, but Griffey got on base a little more. What makes Manush better, and why he led the leauge in some categories, is that he played a lot more games. Griffey only played ove 140 games three times. Usually he played more like 110-130 games. He wasn't always a full time regular. But on a rate basis he's almost the same.

The Al Oliver comparison too I think was very apt. Oliver's relative line is 116/105/117, almost the same as Manush.

Look, I'm not saying that .378 in 1926 should count as much as batting .378 would have in 1968. I'm just saying that it can't be completely disregarded just becasue of the era either.

It's not being completely disregarded-Manush's hitting stats are simply being put into context and I think he falls far short when that it done. 114 relative BA is good, but without many walks and only so-so power he's not a HOF caliber hitter at all from a nothing special corner OF. He has a 121 OPS+. Not really anything special for a corner OF who most of his value is from his hitting.

[The Commissioner]

He hit .330 when the league average was .290

That's just plain incorrect. The league average was .281 over the course of Manush's career, .280 if you don't include Manush.

But even if you want to focus on league leaderships, I don't think Manush is particularly impressive there. I hate black ink for much of the reasons said above, but it is really a summary of league leading performance, and Manush with 15 is quite a bit below the average HOF level of 27.

Well, we can completely agree on something which is that The Blank Ink Score is meaningless. I don't put much weight in it either, but for different reasons. To me it is completely arbitrary how they assign values to leading the league in certain categories.

However, looking at how many times Manush was amongst the league leaders in categories does show that he wasn't just some stiff thrown out there who coasted throughout his career based on the era he played. He was never the best player in baseball. I don't think you'd find anyone that would argue that point. However, for several years he was one of the best.



What makes Manush better, and why he led the leauge in some categories, is that he played a lot more games. Griffey only played ove 140 games three times. Usually he played more like 110-130 games. He wasn't always a full time regular. But on a rate basis he's almost the same.


Which is part of my whole point. In any individual season or over the course of a 4000 AB career in that era, .330 might not be overly impressive. However coupled with the amount of games he played it's Hall worthy. As I pointed out earlier, only six players from Manush's era were able to amass a comparable amount of plate appearances combines with a higher batting average.

The Al Oliver comparison too I think was very apt. Oliver's relative line is 116/105/117, almost the same as Manush.



I've already stated that I feel Oliver is Hall of Fame worthy. I think a large part of our disagreement comes over the fact that I am much more liberal (for better or worse) in regards to Hall of Fame standards.



It's not being completely disregarded-Manush's hitting stats are simply being put into context and I think he falls far short when that it done. 114 relative BA is good, but without many walks and only so-so power he's not a HOF caliber hitter at all from a nothing special corner OF. He has a 121 OPS+. Not really anything special for a corner OF who most of his value is from his hitting.

While, he never led the league in any particular fielding category, he was always near the top. Don't forget that at the time he retired, he owned the Major League record for highest career fielding percentage by a left fielder. He was more than just a guy that hit for a high average.

[Ubiquitous]

The .290 is without the pitchers batting and then park factored. Eyeballing the PF it looks like it had little impact on the numbers. The average positional ballplayer during Manush's time hit about .290.

[538280]

That's just plain incorrect. The league average was .281 over the course of Manush's career, .280 if you don't include Manush.

I was using the BBRef league averages which take pitchers out and use park adjustments. With that it's .290.

Well, we can completely agree on something which is that The Blank Ink Score is meaningless. I don't put much weight in it either, but for different reasons. To me it is completely arbitrary how they assign values to leading the league in certain categories.

That's another reason why I don't like it at all.

However, looking at how many times Manush was amongst the league leaders in categories does show that he wasn't just some stiff thrown out there who coasted throughout his career based on the era he played. He was never the best player in baseball. I don't think you'd find anyone that would argue that point. However, for several years he was one of the best.

I don't buy he was one of the best, really. Maybe one of the 10 best for one or two years. He was a corner OF of which most of his value comes from hitting and he never was an elite hitter. His best OPS+ season was 154, he did that twice and those were the only two seasons that were even close to that high. And it's not like he had a ton of longevity either.

Which is part of my whole point. In any individual season or over the course of a 4000 AB career in that era, .330 might not be overly impressive. However coupled with the amount of games he played it's Hall worthy. As I pointed out earlier, only six players from Manush's era were able to amass a comparable amount of plate appearances combines with a higher batting average.

It doesn't matter how many players were better than Manush. Those other players have nothing to do with how much the events Manush hit did in terms of value to the team. What matters for that is the rate that the league was hitting. The leauge for Manush hit .290, his relative BA was 114. That's good-but for a corner OF without many walks or power, it doesn't make for a great hitter by any means. His overall hitting, in the context of his time, is far from Hall worthy for a corner OF who doesn't even have all that long of a career. Maybe if Manush played upwards of 2800 games with the same rates, it would be different, but he didn't.

I've already stated that I feel Oliver is Hall of Fame worthy. I think a large part of our disagreement comes over the fact that I am much more liberal (for better or worse) in regards to Hall of Fame standards.

I would have to be unbelieveably liberal for me to put Manush in, there are tons of more modern outfielders who I'd put in over him and at least some from the 30s/40s, like Bob Johnson (who I don't even know if he deserves it but I think is far better than Manush).

While, he never led the league in any particular fielding category, he was always near the top. Don't forget that at the time he retired, he owned the Major League record for highest career fielding percentage by a left fielder. He was more than just a guy that hit for a high average.

He fielded .979 vs. a .968 league fielding percentage. Which means that in a typical season for him (about 325 plays), he makes about 7 errors and the average makes about 10-11. 3-4 plays a year might have a little impact. Overall it's much more important that a fielder be able to get to balls and have good range.

[Freakshow]

Don't forget that at the time he retired, he owned the Major League record for highest career fielding percentage by a left fielder. He was more than just a guy that hit for a high average.
What is your source for this assertion? It seems not to be the case. I notice that Manush retired a month into the 1939 season. At the time Al Simmons had a career FP of .982. He was an exact contemporary of Manush and he played nearly the same number of games in LF in his career.

[The Commissioner]

What is your source for this assertion? It seems not to be the case. I notice that Manush retired a month into the 1939 season. At the time Al Simmons had a career FP of .982. He was an exact contemporary of Manush and he played nearly the same number of games in LF in his career.

I stand corrected. I believe that Manush was the all-time Major League leader in fielding percentage at the time that he went over the National League. This record was broken two years later, while Manush was still active. This is all a matter of getting into pedantic points here, however. My larger assertion was that Manush was not, in fact, the stiff in the outfield that many would make him out to be.

[leecemark]

--I don't recall anyone calling Manush a stiff in the outfield. He seems to have been a pretty good leftfielder. Its just that a LFer is basically out there for his bat than his glove. No LFers have a huge amount of defensive value.

[The Commissioner]

No LFers have a huge amount of defensive value.

Yaz and Barry Bonds beg to differ.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not Leece but I think he means that compared to a CF'er and even a RF'er the defensive value of a LF'er is not as great. Barry Bonds historically has been a very good fielding LF'er but that doesn't mean he saves his team runs as well as a very good fielding CF'er or RF'er.

I would go out on a limb and even say that it is more important to have good fielding first basemen then it is to have a good fielding left fielder. Doesn't mean that a bad fielding LF'er won't cost you runs and ball games.

[538280]

I stand corrected. I believe that Manush was the all-time Major League leader in fielding percentage at the time that he went over the National League. This record was broken two years later, while Manush was still active. This is all a matter of getting into pedantic points here, however. My larger assertion was that Manush was not, in fact, the stiff in the outfield that many would make him out to be.

I didn't mean he was a stiff in the outfield. He was probably a solid fielding LFer. But, still, from LF the vast majority of his value is coming from his bat. My point was just that he wasn't adding much in the field to offset that I think he is well below the standards of a HOF hitter from his position.

You've said you think Maush is an easy HOFer to you and that it's obscene you have to defend his case. You've said that you don't think Ken Singleton is a HOFer. Singleton in his career hit for a relative BA of 108, rel. OBP of 119, and rel. SLG of 113. That's on the same plane as Manush's 114/105/116. Manush hit for a higher average than Singleton (by 6 relative points), but Singleton was better at getting on base to a far higher degree. Manush had a little higher SLG, but still Singleton's advantage on getting on base is higher than BA and SLG combined for Manush. Singleton should be very close for you if Manush is an easy HOFer. I think Singleton was actually a far more valuable hitter than Manush because BA doesn't even really matter when OBP and SLG are the same (teams score runs by getting runners on and moving them along. A .250/.350/.450 hitter is equal to a .300/.350/.450 in getting on base, obvioulsy, and because he hit for more extra base hits, .200 ISO vs. .150, and walked more and walks do sometimes advance runners, linear weights suggest that they are just about of the same value), but even if you disagree with that-they shoudl be almost the same.

Reggie Smith also is better than Manush IMO. His relative line was 110/111/127. His BA was just a little worse, but he was better at getting on base and far, far better in SLG. Not to mention that he was better defensively as he played CF for about half his career with the Red Sox.

[The Commissioner]

You've said that you don't think Ken Singleton is a HOFer.

I don't think I ever said that. I said that Jim Rice has a much stronger case and should be in the Hall of Fame. I don't happen to think Singleton's a Hall of Famer, but I don't think he's that far off either. I certainly wouldn't be put out were he put in. Singleton was an excellent player throughout his career, extremely underrated, and certainly had a career that lends itself to serious discussion. I just still contend that Rice was a much more dominant force.

[538280]

I don't think I ever said that. I said that Jim Rice has a much stronger case and should be in the Hall of Fame. I don't happen to think Singleton's a Hall of Famer, but I don't think he's that far off either. I certainly wouldn't be put out were he put in. Singleton was an excellent player throughout his career, extremely underrated, and certainly had a career that lends itself to serious discussion. I just still contend that Rice was a much more dominant force.

But who is better to you, Singleton or Manush? Or Reggie Smith or Manush? Would you put Reggie Smith in the HOF? Would you put Bob Johnson in the HOF? Would you put Bobby Bonds, Larry Walker, Fred Lynn, Amos Otis, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, or Bernie Williams in? I'd say they're all better than Manush.

[The Commissioner]

But who is better to you, Singleton or Manush? Or Reggie Smith or Manush? Would you put Reggie Smith in the HOF? Would you put Bob Johnson in the HOF? Would you put Bobby Bonds, Larry Walker, Fred Lynn, Amos Otis, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, or Bernie Williams in? I'd say they're all better than Manush.


Unlike many here, I actually don't have a pre-prepared ranking system on file with my Hall of Fame list, but there are several players you mentioned there that I would definitely put in the Hall of Fame. I believe that all of them deserve some degree of consdieration. However, saying that Amos Otis was better than Manush? I disagree with that statement so much that I don't even know where to begin arguing that point? ... and I'm a huge Amos Otis fan.

[538280]

Unlike many here, I actually don't have a pre-prepared ranking system on file with my Hall of Fame list,

I don't either, but I have a general idea on where I stand on most players chances for the HOF.

but there are several players you mentioned there that I would definitely put in the Hall of Fame. I believe that all of them deserve some degree of consdieration. However, saying that Amos Otis was better than Manush? I disagree with that statement so much that I don't even know where to begin arguing that point? ... and I'm a huge Amos Otis fan.

Otis was a tremendous defensive CF and an excellent baserunner too. He was only a little worse as a hitter than Manush-and that gap decreases because Otis played in an integrated league. I think he's quite a bit better, as are every one of those OFs I listed.

[The Commissioner]

Otis was a tremendous defensive CF and an excellent baserunner too. He was only a little worse as a hitter than Manush-and that gap decreases because Otis played in an integrated league. I think he's quite a bit better, as are every one of those OFs I listed.


How much should the integrated league affect a player's value? I agree that it should have some adjustment, but to what degree? I would think that just as playing in segregated era works against Manush, expansion, travel, lodgings, training, nutrition, the DH, etc. all have to work in his favor.

I don't even know how to compare the tradeoffs here. Otis was great in the outfield (even better than the stats show) and on the basepaths. He also never came anywhere near winning a batting title and struck out a lot more often. I don't know that I can assign values to each of those. I certainly wouldn't say that he's "quite a bit" better than Manush. That's a stretch.

[538280]

How much should the integrated league affect a player's value? I agree that it should have some adjustment, but to what degree? I would think that just as playing in segregated era works against Manush, expansion, travel, lodgings, training, nutrition, the DH, etc. all have to work in his favor.

An integrated league is about 20% of the league's filler being filled by better players, as the league draws from more players. Just as an example (totally hypothetical and I'm not really sure of the degrees involved) let's say the league hits .270 before integration. Player X hits .300 for a relative BA of 111. Now 20% of the former league is replaced by better players, through integration. The players they replaced were .240 hitters (scrubs), and they are being replaced by very good players coming in who as a whole average .280. Taking out that lower 20% of .240 hitters and replacing them with the .280 hitters players would move up the former average from .270 to .278, so Player X (hitting .300)'s relative BA is now three points lower (108).

I don't even know how to compare the tradeoffs here. Otis was great in the outfield (even better than the stats show) and on the basepaths. He also never came anywhere near winning a batting title and struck out a lot more often. I don't know that I can assign values to each of those. I certainly wouldn't say that he's "quite a bit" better than Manush. That's a stretch.

As an overall hitter there's a little difference between Otis and Manush-but not all that much. Manush hit for a higher average-but Otis walked more to get on base more and hit for similar power. Manush's BA pushes up his SLG so he still has a better SLG, but in OBP he's still a little behind. As hitters I'd say Manush has a little advantage-but it's not that big, especially considering league quality. Otis is far better on the bases and on the field and I think that easily overcomes about a 5 or so point difference in OPS+ (when considering LQ). Stealing 341 bases at 78% on its own can come close or make up that offensive advantage (it's worth around 39 runs, at an estimate). That's even before we get into defense.

[The Commissioner]

An integrated league is about 20% of the league's filler being filled by better players, as the league draws from more players. Just as an example (totally hypothetical and I'm not really sure of the degrees involved) let's say the league hits .270 before integration. Player X hits .300 for a relative BA of 111. Now 20% of the former league is replaced by better players, through integration. The players they replaced were .240 hitters (scrubs), and they are being replaced by very good players coming in who as a whole average .280. Taking out that lower 20% of .240 hitters and replacing them with the .280 hitters players would move up the former average from .270 to .278, so Player X (hitting .300)'s relative BA is now three points lower (108).

That's an interesting theory, but wouldn't integration also include better pitchers coming in to cancel out the better hitting?

[Ubiquitous]

That's an interesting theory, but wouldn't integration also include better pitchers coming in to cancel out the better hitting?

Possibly but part of the problem with those times is the prejudices that come along with integration. For instance you were not going to have black "filler" players on the roster. If you were not good enough to start you weren't going to be on the team or hang around for long. The second thing has much in common with the QB position in football. IT was widely believed that black ballplayers were not smart enough to be pitchers or QB's so consequently those are the areas where blacks lagged behind at the major league level.

I think what we saw after integration was an increase in offense to the point where the powers that be thought they had to do something to dampen the scoring which is what they did in the mid 60's. They probably didn't need to because the cycle was coming around. The black ballplayers pushed out the inferior white bottom dwellers making the hitters better which then caused tremendous pressure on the pitchers to get better and for teams to find better pitchers. They did this by making huge in roads in latin america and of course by realizing that black ballplayers could be pitchers. What we then see in the 70's and 80's could very well be the effect of better pitching facing better hitting.

[538280]

That's an interesting theory, but wouldn't integration also include better pitchers coming in to cancel out the better hitting?

If there are better pitchers that would presumably affect the league's hitters all in a similar type way. Maybe that would bring the league average down another few points but that applies to everyone so in theory the putting down of league averages would occur to everyone. Adding more better players to the league forces everyone to be better, and that increases in league quality.