Lave Cross

[Cowtipper]

Should Lave Cross be in the Hall of Fame? His resume includes a .292 career batting average, 2600+ hits, and of the ten most similar players to him statistically, seven of them are in the Hall. So, what do you think?

[KCGHOST]

Lave played a long time and was a good defender, but a mediocre hitter. Interesting that a 3B would generate a bunch of 2B's and SS's as his comps.

[jalbright]

Should Lave Cross be in the Hall of Fame? His resume includes a .292 career batting average, 2600+ hits, and of the ten most similar players to him statistically, seven of them are in the Hall. So, what do you think?

The main problem with Cross' most similars is that they're shortstops or second basemen, and he's a third baseman. If he had been a top defensive shortstop or 2B, I could see it, but he didn't contribute enough with his admittedly good defense at third to make the Hall given his mediocre (100 OPS+) bat.

[DoubleX]

Unless you count John McGraw and his short playing career, there are no thirdbasemen that played the majority of their career in the 19th Century in the Hall of Fame. I feel there should be at least one 3Bmen from that time in the Hall and Cross seems as good as anyone else. He has great longevity for the time and put up impressive counting stats for both the era and position. He played good defense at a time when the position placed a lot of emphasis on defense, and his bat was good enough in comparison to his peers at the position. He's not Jimmy Collins, but then again, Cross had nearly 2300 more plate appearances than Collins, which does somewhat close the OPS+ gap between them.

[jalbright]

Unless you count John McGraw and his short playing career, there are no thirdbasemen that played the majority of their career in the 19th Century in the Hall of Fame. I feel there should be at least one 3Bmen from that time in the Hall and Cross seems as good as anyone else.

I understand the sentiment, but Jimmy Collins is close enough for me--and putting in lesser candidates on such a basis strikes me as uncomfortably close to a quota system. Can't an era be heavy on one position and weak at another?

[dgarza]

Unless you count John McGraw and his short playing career, there are no thirdbasemen that played the majority of their career in the 19th Century in the Hall of Fame. I feel there should be at least one 3Bmen from that time in the Hall and Cross seems as good as anyone else.
Jimmy Collins is the closest, but I'd rather see Deacon White in as the only full 19th Century 3B.

[jalbright]

Jimmy Collins is the closest, but I'd rather see Deacon White in as the only full 19th Century 3B.

I'd second that choice well before Cross.

[DoubleX]

I'd second that choice well before Cross.

Yeah me too actually, White slipped my mind.

[AG2004]

Should Lave Cross be in the Hall of Fame? His resume includes a .292 career batting average, 2600+ hits, and of the ten most similar players to him statistically, seven of them are in the Hall. So, what do you think?

No.

To be fair to Cross, 3B was a more demanding defensive position than 2B during his time. However, the 1890s were also a high-offense era; the average position player would have batted .292 during Cross' time and in Cross' parks. Furthermore, Cross did not walk very often; his OBP of .328 is less than the park-adjusted average of .341 for position players.

I decided to adjust Cross' raw win share numbers to 154 scheduled games in order to see how he faired. Cross finished with 301 adjusted win shares over his career. However, he had only four seasons with 20 or more adjusted win shares, and only two with 22 or more. Cross is rare among major league position players in reaching a high career value even though he was merely average through most of it.

If you had a player who was just average over the course of a career, and rarely even reached the level of a borderline All-Star, how many seasons of play would it take for that player to be worthy of the Hall of Fame? My guess would be that no number of seasons would be enough. To take an extreme case, a hypothetical player who was just average for 25 years, and never had an All-Star appearance, would rack up impressive counting stats, but still would not be a Hall of Famer. Cross did have two very good seasons, but he was never close to being a great player; he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.

[Dalkowski110]

No, but as mentioned before, I wouldn't mind Deacon White in the Hall...

[DoubleX]

No.

I decided to adjust Cross' raw win share numbers to 154 scheduled games in order to see how he faired. Cross finished with 301 adjusted win shares over his career. However, he had only four seasons with 20 or more adjusted win shares, and only two with 22 or more. Cross is rare among major league position players in reaching a high career value even though he was merely average through most of it.

How does this compare with other 3Bmen of his day, both in terms of peak and career?

[DoubleX]

I don't know how much this should count for, but at the time of his retirement in 1907, Cross had the 5th most hits all time, trailing only Cap Anson, Willie Keeler, Jake Beckley, and Jesse Burkett. Not bad for a predominantly 19th century 3Bmen. Seems to me that Cross had exceptionally rare longevity and consistency for his day, especially given his position, which was defense oriented back then.

[AG2004]

I don't know how much this should count for, but at the time of his retirement in 1907, Cross had the 5th most hits all time, trailing only Cap Anson, Willie Keeler, Jake Beckley, and Jesse Burkett. Not bad for a predominantly 19th century 3Bmen. Seems to me that Cross had exceptionally rare longevity and consistency for his day, especially given his position, which was defense oriented back then.

One problem with using the number of career hits to compare 19th-century players is that the totals depend a bit too much on when a person began to play. Cross started to play in 1887, Beckley in 1888, Burkett in 1890, and Keeler in 1892. The AA adopted a 140-game schedule in 1886; the NL in 1888. From then on, seasons would always have at least 132 games per season.

Compare this to the context facing people like Deacon White, Ezra Sutton, or Jim O'Rourke. White and Sutton were the two best players for a professional Cleveland team in 1870 - but that doesn't count toward their totals. Sutton lasted until 1888, and White until 1890, so the lengths of their careers are close to those of Cross and Beckley. O'Rourke's career lasted from 1872 until 1893 (with the exception of one game with the Giants in 1904). However, 1884 was the first year when teams played schedules of over 100 games. For over half of their careers, their teams played under 100 games per year.

When Cross retired after the 1907 season, you would expect most of the top five in career hits to have started their careers in the 1886-1892 period. Someone who started in 1893 or later would have had only 15 seasons or less; they wouldn't have been among the career leaders. Someone who started prior to 1883 would have two few games over the course of their career to qualify. O'Rourke, who played 22 seasons, would have been very close to the top five - but he didn't have as many games, and thus as many at-bats, as later players had. Cap Anson is the exception, but he had 27 seasons of NA and NL play. A 27-year career is a rarity, to say the least.

The expansion of the schedule during the 1800s produced some strange numbers. Deacon White was a catcher during his best years; people of the 1870s knew him as a catcher. He didn't become a third baseman until he was 34 years old; before then, he had played only 10 games at third. But, because schedules were much shorter during the 1870s than they were during White's late thirties, White ended up with only 458 NA/NL games at catcher, and 827 games at third base.

-----

To answer your other question, I came up with adjusted win shares for the top third basemen of the 1800s. Since Cross retired in 1907, and Jimmy Collins retired in 1908, I also included Collins' totals.

I adjusted schedules to 140 games for seasons from 1876 to 1889, and to 154 games for seasons from 1890 onwards. (I had originally thought of using 140-game adjustments for the 1890 NL, the 1890 AA, and the 1891 AA.)

Career totals
Deacon White 287, plus five seasons of NA play
Ezra Sutton 233, plus five seasons of NA play
Lave Cross 301
Jimmy Collins 292
Billy Nash 245
Arlie Latham 245
Ed Williamson 239
John McGraw 226
Denny Lyons 205
Bill Shindle 178
Bill Joyce 175
Jerry Denny 171
George Pinckney 167

Sutton was the best third baseman in the NA in 1875. If you take his NA years and his 1870 performance into account, he most likely moves ahead of Cross on the career list.

Adjusted win shares, top three seasons

Jimmy Collins 95
John McGraw 93
Ezra Sutton 93+
Deacon White 92+
Denny Lyons 82
Ed Williamson 81
Arlie Latham 81
Bill Joyce 80
George Pinckney 77
Lave Cross 76
Bill Shindle 75
Billy Nash 74
Jerry Denny 63

The + for Sutton and White indicate that they might have had years in the NA that would be among their top three overall; raw win share totals are available only for the NL years.

Adjusted win shares, five best consecutive seasons
Jimmy Collins 138
Deacon White 124+
John McGraw 129
Ezra Sutton 128
Denny Lyons 127
Ed Williamson 120
Bill Joyce 120
Billy Nash 115
George Pinckney 114
Arlie Latham 109
Lave Cross 107
Bill Shindle 94
Jerry Denny 89

Deacon White's best run in the NL was from 1876 until 1880. However, he had only 7 adjusted win shares (4 raw WS) in 1880; as the top catcher in the NA in 1875, he certainly would have done better than that, and thus gets the boost in peak value.

----

It looks like Ezra Sutton was the best third baseman to have played the majority of his career in the 1800s. He's about equal to John McGraw in the peak categories, but easily outdistances him in career. While he's about the same as Cross in terms of career, he was much better at his peak.

Compared to Sutton, Deacon White was a better player overall. However, I can't really consider him as a third baseman, since he was a catcher during his peak, and the fact that he had more games at third than as catcher is due mainly to the lengthening of the schedule as he aged. White should be in Cooperstown; I would argue that Sutton would also be a deserving inductee.

[DoubleX]

Thanks AG. Seeing how Cross compares at peek to his peers does somewhat dim his case. He still seems to have very rare longevity and career value for his day though, especially considering his position, and I think that does help his Hall case. But it is obvious, at least from your adjusted win shares, that Cross was never really among the very best at his time at his position, and that certainly hurts his case.

[538280]

Lave played a long time and was a good defender, but a mediocre hitter. Interesting that a 3B would generate a bunch of 2B's and SS's as his comps.

3B had a much greater defensive responsibility then-similar to 2B today. I'd say he probably should be in the HOF. He was basically an aveage hitter over his career with a few very good seasons. He was a superstar with the glove in what was at the time a very key defensive position. As XX said he may be the best 3Bman of the 19th century (though others such as Denny Lyons, Bill Joyce, John McGraw, Ezra Sutton, and Ned Williamson are certainly candidates). He caught a little early in his career as well.

[538280]

I decided to adjust Cross' raw win share numbers to 154 scheduled games in order to see how he faired. Cross finished with 301 adjusted win shares over his career. However, he had only four seasons with 20 or more adjusted win shares, and only two with 22 or more. Cross is rare among major league position players in reaching a high career value even though he was merely average through most of it.


I have to question how Cross can be considered average through most of his career. I think I probably disagree with Win Shares in that case, if that's what they say. Cross had a 100 OPS+ over his career-average, and he was a tremendous fielder from what was a key defensive position at the time, third base, similar to 2B today. His stellar defense from a key defensive position should make him well above average as an overall player, since his hitting is around average. A 100 OPS+ over a career as long as Cross' IMO is impressive from a 3B in that time. Think of it like 2B today. If we had a 2B who had a glove similar to a Frank White, and was basically a league average hitter with a 100 OPS+, over a very long career of 2500+ games, I think that player would definitely be a HOFer.

[leecemark]

--I see a league average hitter from Cross' time being maybe equivelant to a 95 OPS+ hitter when the majors were a little more evolved or a 90 OPS+ hitter post-integration (and those are actually very generous LQ adjustments for Cross IMO). That doesn't look much like a HoFer to me. Lou Whitaker is vastly superior and he was one and done in the BWAA voting. I think Whitaker deserves much more consideration than that, but with (and Joe Gordon and Stan Hack and Bob Elliot and....pick your better infielder) so much more qualified players outside I can't see much case for Cross.

[AG2004]

I have to question how Cross can be considered average through most of his career. I think I probably disagree with Win Shares in that case, if that's what they say. Cross had a 100 OPS+ over his career-average, and he was a tremendous fielder from what was a key defensive position at the time, third base, similar to 2B today. His stellar defense from a key defensive position should make him well above average as an overall player, since his hitting is around average. A 100 OPS+ over a career as long as Cross' IMO is impressive from a 3B in that time. Think of it like 2B today. If we had a 2B who had a glove similar to a Frank White, and was basically a league average hitter with a 100 OPS+, over a very long career of 2500+ games, I think that player would definitely be a HOFer.

An All-Star-type season comes out to 20+ win shares; Cross recorded four over the course of his career. Your typical everyday position player comes out to 15-19 win shares; adjusting for 154-game schedules, Cross had 9 such seasons. (The four years at the start of his career were as his teams' backup catcher; the win share totals reflect this.)

Cross' 100 OPS+ is a career total. He didn't play enough games in 1891 or 1893 to reach the All-Star-type season mark. He was dreadful with the bat in 1895, 1896, and 1897; he was in the 70s in all three of those seasons. An OPS+ of 88 in 1900 doesn't help much, either. You have to wait until 1902-1906 to find a time when Cross was a good batter who was in the lineup every day. However, he was old by then, and his defense had fallen off.

Basically, in the 1890s, Cross was a wonderful defensive player, but he was either bad offensively or didn't play all that often; in either case, you end up with a season typical of an average starter. In the 1900s, he's very good with the bat, but his defense wasn't nearly as good as it used to be, so he had a number of average seasons there as well.

Cross's best season was 1902, when he managed to put together a win shares gold glove at third with a 121 OPS+ while playing almost every day. But he wasn't able to put those three things together very often. Since his best years defensively tend to match up with his worst years offensively, and his best years offensively tend to match up with his worst years defensively, Cross ends up with a large number of average seasons, and relatively few All-Star-type seasons. That mismatch is why I can say that Cross was average through most of his career.

[PVNICK]

So is Lave Cross sort of a Scott Brosius type of player (putting aside the WS heroics)? He is better than say Ken Reitz or Clete Boyer?

[Freakshow]

So is Lave Cross sort of a Scott Brosius type of player (putting aside the WS heroics)? He is better than say Ken Reitz or Clete Boyer?
Again, 3B in Cross' time was about equal defensively to a modern 2B. Thinking in those terms, he was more of a rich man's Frank White. Nellie Fox is comparable, I think.

[538280]

An All-Star-type season comes out to 20+ win shares; Cross recorded four over the course of his career. Your typical everyday position player comes out to 15-19 win shares; adjusting for 154-game schedules, Cross had 9 such seasons. (The four years at the start of his career were as his teams' backup catcher; the win share totals reflect this.)

Cross' 100 OPS+ is a career total. He didn't play enough games in 1891 or 1893 to reach the All-Star-type season mark. He was dreadful with the bat in 1895, 1896, and 1897; he was in the 70s in all three of those seasons. An OPS+ of 88 in 1900 doesn't help much, either. You have to wait until 1902-1906 to find a time when Cross was a good batter who was in the lineup every day. However, he was old by then, and his defense had fallen off.

Basically, in the 1890s, Cross was a wonderful defensive player, but he was either bad offensively or didn't play all that often; in either case, you end up with a season typical of an average starter. In the 1900s, he's very good with the bat, but his defense wasn't nearly as good as it used to be, so he had a number of average seasons there as well.

Cross's best season was 1902, when he managed to put together a win shares gold glove at third with a 121 OPS+ while playing almost every day. But he wasn't able to put those three things together very often. Since his best years defensively tend to match up with his worst years offensively, and his best years offensively tend to match up with his worst years defensively, Cross ends up with a large number of average seasons, and relatively few All-Star-type seasons. That mismatch is why I can say that Cross was average through most of his career.

Looking closer I think you are correct. His career rate of 100 OPS+ may exaggerate his season to season value because from season to season he was very "boom or bust" as an offensive player. He had some seasons where he was a good hitter and others where he was well below average. Overall, he comes out average, but in a good number of those seasons he was well below average.