The Ultimate Quest for Candidates: Round 1 – The 1880’s

[Freakshow]

Welcome to the Ultimate Quest for Candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68815)! This thread will have the ninth poll in this project, choosing the best candidates for the Hall of Fame from the MLB stars of the 1880’s. You will be asked to vote for your top SIX (6) players. The poll will close five weeks after it opens.

I’m asking voters not to peek at the results of the voting until after they’ve cast their ballot. I would hope that voters are capable of independently assessing the candidates without worrying about whom the consensus is favoring.

The threads in this project will always be posted a few days before the poll is added. This is done in order to encourage research and discussion of the candidates. I believe (paraphrasing Socrates) that the unexamined ballot is not worth casting. This also gives you a little time to make the case for a candidate not listed who you think deserves to be on the ballot (although you should sign up as a consultant if you really want to be involved in this aspect of the project).

If someone wants to open a separate thread to focus on one of these candidates, go for it; we already see that a lot on this forum. All of these players are worthy of discussion, because the worst candidates here are on a par with the worst players in the Hall.

I expect that everyone is familiar with Baseball-Reference.com and Baseballprospectus.com. These are essential sites for researching a player’s statistical record. I’ve also inserted links to each player’s bio at the SABR Bioproject or Wikipedia.

We will be judging players by the same criteria that the Hall of Fame uses:

“voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game.”

So everything counts, their lifetime achievements on and off the field, along with their character and other intangibles.

Below are the players we think are the top 20 candidates whose careers centered in the 1880’s. We will need to decide which two of these to drop for the poll. Basic data are shown for each:

Pos BJ Player Name Win Shares WARP3
1 --- Charlie Buffinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Buffinton) (283: 62-44-33) (65.9: 17.2-12.6-11.8)
1 #88 Bob Caruthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Caruthers) (337: 57-54-51) (73.6: 13.6-13.4-11.5)
1/3 --- Dave Foutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Foutz) (292: 62-43-37) (51.8: 12.7-7.6-7.4)
1 --- Silver King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_King_%28baseball%29) (263: 71-44-44) (63.3: 19.3-15.7-9.2)
1 --- Jim McCormick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McCormick) (334: 54-53-42) (56.8: 11.4-8.4-7.9)
1 #82 Tony Mullane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Mullane) (399: 58-55-46) (57.4: 8.9-7.2-7.1)
1 --- Jim Whitney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Whitney) (275: 57-42-40) (64.6: 14.1-12.0-10.5)
2 #49 Charlie Bennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bennett) (157: 19-18-15) (85.9: 11.1-10.8-10.6)
8/7 #38 Pete Browning (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=29&pid=1712) (225: 30-28-23) (74.2: 10.4-10.4-8.3)
7 #93 Abner Dalrymple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Dalrymple) (150: 25-23-17) (65.2: 10.1-9.0-8.5)
4 #89 Fred Dunlap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dunlap) (165: 38-17-17) (79.1: 11.0-10.8-10.0)
6 #43 Jack Glasscock (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=246&pid=5174) (261: 27-25-22) (120.3: 11.6-11.6-11.0)
8 #40 George Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gore) (250: 30-26-24) (95.9: 11.5-10.1-10.1)
8 #53 Paul Hines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hines) (249: 28-22-19) (119.0: 12.7-11.5-9.9)
7 #67 Charley Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Jones) (161: 27-24-21) (68.0: 11.3-10.2-8.7)
5 #54 Arlie Latham (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=842&pid=7996) (221: 25-24-23) (55.2: 11.0-7.1-6.9)
7 #48 Tip O'Neill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_O%27Neill_%28baseball%29) (213: 36-28-27) (43.9: 10.1-8.2-7.1)
4/7 #39 Hardy Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_Richardson) (230: 32-25-23) (98.3: 11.4-9.5-8.9)
7/3 #39 Harry Stovey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stovey) (265: 28-28-26) (86.5: 10.1-9.3-9.0)
5/6 #45 Ned Williamson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Williamson) (173: 21-20-19) (70.1: 10.6-9.5-9.3)

Pos – primary position(s)
BJ – rank at his position in the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (2001)
Win Shares – shown are career total and best 3 years
WARP3 – from Baseball Prospectus; shown are career total and best 3 years
Other – Many thanks to Paul Wendt for his thoughts and suggestions.

Some other things to be aware of:
1) Bill James’ rankings emphasize players’ peak years; this results in long steady careers being rated lower than what may seem right.
2) Win shares are “raw”, straight from the book. I have made no adjustments for season length, league quality, missed seasons or anything.
3) Due to Bill James timeline, player’s rank at his position is lower than it ought to be IMO. I would increase their standing by about 55%. For example, a timeline-free George Gore would be ranked about #18 in CF rather than #40; Charlie Bennett would be the #22 catcher rather than #49.
4) You are free to credit players with minor league or foreign league play. I have not systematically attempted this.

[Paul Wendt]

edit -02-22: cut Dalrymple and Latham to match the final ballot
LF CF RF
Jones Browning --
O'Neill Gore
Stovey Hines

3B SS 2B 1B
WilliamsonGlasscock Dunlap --
Richardson
P
Buffinton
Caruthers
Foutz
King
McCormick
Mullane
Whitney

C
Bennett

Several of the pitchers were good hitters, Caruthers and Foutz sometimes excellent.

Some of those not assigned "slash" positions in the preceding table played significantly at a second position; slashes Browning and Richardson did so at three or four positions.

The bold are in the Hall of Merit.

[Freakshow]

LF CF RF
Dalrymp Browning
Jones Gore
O'Neill Hines
Stovey

3B SS 2B 1B
Latham Glassco Dunlap --
Williamson Richardson

P
Buffinton
Caruthers
Foutz
King
McCormick
Mullane
Whitney

C
Bennett

The bold are in the Hall of Merit.
It should be noted that the nine HoMers took varying lengths of time to be elected:

1 election: Hines and Gore
4 Glasscock
8 Richardson
18 Stovey
23 Bennett
32 Caruthers
106 Jones
107 Browning

[baseballPAP]

Maybe the most difficult decision to date....the variance here is amazing! Short career, long career....pitchers who hit, hitters who played almost anywhere. The 2 that I'd dismiss....

Tip O'Neill-2 awesome years, 3 more really good ones....and thats about all.
Abner Dalyrmple-nothing really stands out...a good solid player with a medium length career....nearly everyone here has better qualifications, even after you consider LF and CF were really defensive equals at the time, or close to it.

[jalbright]

If you've got to drop two, I'd nominate Latham and Dalrymple. Going to be hard to vote for only six.

[Freakshow]

Going to be hard to vote for only six.
Yes, nine members of the Hall of Merit here (5 in the BBFHOF). A similar story for the 1860s/70s group, which has 7 in a vote-for-5 election (Pearce, Start, Pike, Barnes, McVey, Sutton, White).

[leecemark]

--Easy choices (for me anyway) - Charlie Bennett, Paul Hines and Goerge Gore. I like Caruthers and Mullane amoung the pitchers. I actually adovcate all 5 of those players for Coopertwon. The last spot will be difficult with several borderlines to choose from. Glasscock, Richardon, Stovey and Jones are all "not quites" for me. Maybe someone can convince not just who will be my 6th, but that one of them should be on my BBFHoF ballot.

[jalbright]

--Easy choices (for me anyway) - Charlie Bennett, Paul Hines and Goerge Gore. I like Caruthers and Mullane amoung the pitchers. I actually adovcate all 5 of those players for Coopertwon. The last spot will be difficult with several borderlines to choose from. Glasscock, Richardon, Stovey and Jones are all "not quites" for me. Maybe someone can convince not just who will be my 6th, but that one of them should be on my BBFHoF ballot.

Don't add Stovey to the BBF HOF ballot, as he's already been elected. It might push you to vote for him here, as the other three you're looking at aren't in the BBF HOF.

[dgarza]

Wow. I think over half of these guys I would advocate for the Hall.
So who to pick?

As for suggested drops...Dalrymple for sure, then either Williamson or Latham.

[Paul Wendt]

My suggestion for our purpose is Buffinton and Whitney.
My personal top 18 is this list of twenty plus Fred Pfeffer minus Buffinton, Whitney, and Dalrymple.

Yes, nine members of the Hall of Merit here (5 in the BBFHOF). A similar story for the 1860s/70s group, which has 7 in a vote-for-5 election (Pearce, Start, Pike, Barnes, McVey, Sutton, White).

Why only five from "1860s/70s"?

[leecemark]

Don't add Stovey to the BBF HOF ballot, as he's already been elected. It might push you to vote for him here, as the other three you're looking at aren't in the BBF HOF.

--Actually Im pretty sure I voted for Stovey when he made it:blush:. I guess that makes my 6 pretty easy unless somebody makes a very persuasive sales pitch.

[Freakshow]

Why only five from "1860s/70s"?
I'm thinking that 18 names from that time would be hard to conjure up, so a 15-man ballot is in order. Doesn't your own research suggest this?

[Freakshow]

The poll has been added to this thread. It will be open for five weeks.

Two players were cut from the list above: Dalrymple and Latham. Thanks for all the input in deciding the last few ballot spots.

[jalbright]

My six are all guys who I actually think belong in the HOF. In most other elections to date, there have been some guys I don't think belong, but at least merit being discussed in those terms. If I had to include players who met that standard, I'd need at least two more slots. Like Freak's saying, this era is underrepresented.

[Paul Wendt]

Key to the table
OPS+ is the usual adjusted OPS, a batting record for games played in all fielding positions
Gbat* is non-pitcher games: all games played ("Batting Games" in our records) minus pitching games.
Gfield* is non-pitcher fielding games: the sum of fielding games at positions other than pitcher.
For all of these players *Gfield > *Gbat; equivalently, in-game changes of fielding position exceed pinch-hit and pinch-run games. (Free substitution arrived in 1892 so pinch- games should be near zero.)
OPS+ Gbat* Gfield* : fielding games by position
71 172 Buffinton 205 : of 137(16-47-78) 1b 68
133 365 Caruthers 388 : of 366(58-30-280) 1b 13, 2b 9
102 884 Foutz 916 : of 320(92-33-196) 1b 595, ss 1
56 22 King 27 : of 23(0-7-17) 1b 3, 3b 1
70 42 McCormick 59 : of 52(12-27-13) 1b 5, 2b 1, 3b 1
87 229 Mullane 265 : of 154(57-59-39) 1b 38, 2b 9, ss 12, 3b 52
112 137 Whitney 163 : of 130(5-85-41) 1b 31, 3b 2

ERA+ IP(1000s) to 1892 ; post-1892 pitching games
115 3.4 Buffinton
123 2.8 Caruthers
124 2.0 Foutz 125 2.0 ; 7 games, 0 starts
123 3.2 King 131 2.7 ; 69 games, 57 starts
118 4.3 McCormick
118 4.5 Mullane 122 4.0 ; 74 games, 58 starts
104 3.5 Whitney
Notes on the players
Silver King worked a few major league games at age 18. Some of the others were in the majors very young.

Tony Mullane was the pitching star for an outstanding independent club in Akron OH at age 22 (1881). After three AA seasons he missed all of 1885 suspended for marketing his services too aggressively.

Dave Foutz turned 28 during his first mlb season (1884). According to the entry by Bob Tiemann in 19c Stars (SABR, 1989) he went to Colorado in 1879, age 22/23, to seek his fortune in the hills but found fame as a pitcher including 40-1 in 1882. "His first professional engagement was with the Bay City in the Northwestern League in 1883, and when that club folded in July 1884 he was considered the top pitcher in the minor leagues. The St Louis Browns outbid several other teams and bought his contract for $2000, then a record price. They also paid Foutz $1600 for the remainder of the 1884 season."
(The 1883 Northwestern League may be considered the first minor league, or the co-founder of organized baseball with the NL and AA. It was the third party to the Tripartite Agreement.)

Bob Caruthers played for five champions in six years. In the World Series he pitched very well for St Louis 1885-87 (14 cg) and adequately for Brooklyn in 1889 (2 cg, 2 reliefs). In 1890 he was Brooklyn's third pitcher and did not pitch or play regularly in the Series. Lifetime he worked 147 World Series innings with ERA a little better than during the season.

[Paul Wendt]

The Hall of Merit elected half of the 18 finalists so it would be a surprise if no one here supported more than half or if anyone here found it difficult to find a six-pack as we are asked to do.

Among the strong candidates, the only clear line I can draw is between Paul Hines at the top and everyone else. Bob Caruthers stands out among the pitchers for his two-way skills and for his huge peak coincident with championships.

Overall this ballot reflects the commonplace overrating of 1880s pitchers. Buffinton, Whitney, et al, do look good but how many of the greatest players of the decade may plausibly be pitchers? Consider whom the HOF already honors.
The 1880s: Who is already in the Hall of Fame? - 13 players with two (listed) twice in parentheses
LF CF RF
ORourke -- (kelly)

3B SS 2B 1B
-- (ward) McPhee Anson
Brouthers
Connor
P
Clarkson
Galvin
Keefe
Radbourn
Welch
(ward)

C
Ewing
(kelly)
Everyone but Clarkson played the whole decade in the majors.
Pitching and catching were important enough for Ward and Kelly that I have listed them both twice but in parentheses.

By the way, among the 19th century players who are HOF members classified as managers, pioneers & executives, only Comiskey and Hanlon played chiefly in the '80s. The following list may be incomplete.
MLB players in the Hall of Fame, not classified as "Players"
- 60/70s - Wright, Wright, Cummings, Spalding
- 1880s - Comiskey, Hanlon
- 1890s - Griffith, Mack, McGraw, Robinson
Hulbert, Bulkeley, Selee, and Dreyfuss did not play professionally. Pioneers Cartwright and Chadwick played entirely before the pro era, and not long. Black infielders Frank Grant and Sol White played some organized baseball around 1890 and played behind the color line until the mid-19-aughts.

[Paul Wendt]

Despite my remarks above about 1880s pitchers, I voted for Bob Caruthers myself. His extraordinary combo of pitching and batting and extreme combo of peak seasons and pennant races/championship series are just what the Hall of Fame should be honoring.

But that "just what" is not unique. There are other things the Hall of Fame should be honoring and more than six players in this field have more than enough of them!

In the end I found a spot for Hardy Richardson, one of the great overlooked players in baseball history --and I mean overlooked by people who know their history. My own awareness that Richardson probably does deserve a vote even under these circumstances --choose only 6 on this slate-- solidified only this fortnight in the course of a Hall of Merit special election covering all 10-year major leaguers from before 1943 who are in our HOM but not in the Hall of Fame (discussion (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ballot_thread_players_not_in_the_hall_of_fame_grou p_3_career_started_before/)) (election results (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/election_results_group_3_favorites_are_19th_centur y_studs_dahlen_white_and_/)). Beside his fine major league batting record, the New York Clipper named Richardson centerfielder of the year for his last season in the International Association and the balance of evidence makes him an 'A' fielder in the NL both at 2B and in the outfield, center or left (but not at 3B, the most demanding of his fielding positions in his time).

Despite the quality of the field I am surprised that Paul Hines has only 10 of 13 votes and equally surprised that no one has more. (Have we seen such an Ultimate contest yet?) The biggest "gap" I see among the top ten is between Hines and everyone else. Since it is clear that he will advance, I'll save the explanation for round two or three.

[Paul Wendt]

Oh, I voted for the first six in this ranking where ";" is a demarcation that seems clear to me now, between groups where no ordering seems clear.
Hines ; Glasscock, Gore ; Caruthers, Bennett, Richardson, Stovey, Mullane ; Jones, Browning ; Williamson, Dunlap ; Latham(cut), O'Neill, Foutz, King, McCormick ; Buffinton, Whitney

[jjpm74]

I'm a little surprised that Dave Foutz is getting no support up to this point. He's an unusual case in that he's one of a handful of early players who suceeded both as a position player and a pitcher.

In retrospect, I probably should have voted for Foutz and left Hines off my ballot as it was pretty clear to me that Hines would make it through this round without much difficulty. Hines is one of the players on this list that should make it through to the third round of voting at the very least.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm a little surprised that Dave Foutz is getting no support up to this point. He's an unusual case in that he's one of a handful of early players who suceeded both as a position player and a pitcher.

In retrospect, I probably should have voted for Foutz and left Hines off my ballot as it was pretty clear to me that Hines would make it through this round without much difficulty. Hines is one of the players on this list that should make it through to the third round of voting at the very least.

Oh, I didn't think of that in my surprise at the Hines total (10 of 13).
Maybe someone or two others have voted for their 2nd-7th or 3rd-8th ranks in order to influence the contest among #7,8,9,10

Foutz isn't bad. It's just that I don't see him in the top twelve.

[jjpm74]

Oh, I didn't think of that in my surprise at the Hines total (10 of 13).
Maybe someone or two others have voted for their 2nd-7th or 3rd-8th ranks in order to influence the contest among #7,8,9,10


It wouldn't be too surprising to hear that is the case at least with 1 and maybe 2 of the voters. Especially with a group like that to choose from.

[leecemark]

--This one is going to be close. Charlie Bennett, Pete Browning and Jack Glasscock are in a 3 way tie for the last two spots. I strongly recommend Bennett to anyone still on the fence. He was the best career catcher of the 19th century and one of the top 20 catchers of all time. Neither Browning nor Glasscock can claim such a distinction at their position.

[Paul Wendt]

--This one is going to be close. Charlie Bennett, Pete Browning and Jack Glasscock are in a 3 way tie for the last two spots.

Please note that this election will have six who "win" and three who "place". Almost certainly finishers 5-7 will be included in round two --and they will all be included if they remain in a tie!

I hope no one provides similar reporting that focuses on spots 8-9-10-11 by name. In retrospect I regret revealing Paul Hines tally where I might have limited it to surprise that no one has more than 10 of 13 votes. Today's observations by jjpm make me uncomfortable about this kind of reporting. I know jim albright does this for the BBF HOF but that is a continuing series of elections with permanent eligibility for all candidates; the point is to get the candidates who have 75% latent support onto the ballots cast, into the Hall, and off the eligible list. Here it seems like coaching.

I strongly recommend Bennett to anyone still on the fence. He was the best career catcher of the 19th century and one of the top 20 catchers of all time. Neither Browning nor Glasscock can claim such a distinction at their position.

Glasscock can claim one of the best 20 shortstops all-time.
Everyone should vote for him. (I voted for Bennett too. See above.)

[jjpm74]

I hope no one provides similar reporting that focuses on spots 8-9-10-11 by name. In retrospect I regret revealing Paul Hines tally where I might have limited it to surprise that no one has more than 10 of 13 votes. Today's observations by jjpm make me uncomfortable about this kind of reporting. I know jim albright does this for the BBF HOF but that is a continuing series of elections with permanent eligibility for all candidates; the point is to get the candidates who have 75% latent support onto the ballots cast, into the Hall, and off the eligible list. Here it seems like coaching.


If anything, I think by posting to this and the other threads, you're generating interest in participating in the elections and keeping the threads active. I wouldn't worry about people's motives for voting for who they vote for too much.

[leecemark]

--The vote totals aren't exactly a state secret anyway. The poll is right there at the top of the thread viewable for anyone who is interested.

[Brad Harris]

Bennet
Gore
Hines
Jones
Mullane
Richardson

One of the few polls in which I wish I could vote for more.

[Freakshow]

One of the few polls in which I wish I could vote for more.
This relates to something I wrote in the "home" thread for this project:

There are two competing views on the pre-1890 candidates, and I'm unsure which is correct. The first is the Hall of Merit concept, that "a pennant is a pennant" and all eras are to be treated with respect. This view results in A LOT of players overlooked by the HOF. The second is the Bill James concept, that the game was in a primitive state, and timeless, great players were few and far between. This is the generally prevailing view here at the BBFHOF. This view results in very few players overlooked by the HOF from this era.

The Hall of Merit shares your sentiment, as they have elected nine of these candidates. OTOH, the BBFHOF has elected five, so a limit of six wouldn't bother most of that electorate.

[leecemark]

--I don't know if that holds up to closer scrutiny, Dan. The Hall of Merit started with ONLY the early players on their ballot. They HAD to elect them first. The BBFHoF started with everybody in history on their ballots. It is hardly surprising that more recent players got the first look. Most of us are not nearly as familiar with the 19th century players (most print sources start with 1901 in the record books).
--As we near the end (?) of the BBFHoF project the 19th century guys are getting a much greater focus on them. They may be the pool from which most of our late selections come. Interestingly enough, one of the 5 players on this ballot who is in the BBFHoF is NOT amoung the top 6 vote getters here. Poor Charlie Bennett. Isn't it bad enough he lost his legs and has been ignored by Cooperstown:dismay:?

[Brad Harris]

Leaving aside the issue of whether more than six players on this ballot are worthy of election to Cooperstown, I thought this vote was to promote those players most worthy which is how I voted. By saying I wish I could have voted for more, I'm simply acknowledging that I believe more than six of these players deserves to advance to the next round (which, of course, some will). There have been first round polls in which I felt my 5th or 6th choice wasn't in the same consideration set as the others I voted for. In this poll, it's the opposite feeling. Historically great talent isn't evenly distributed amongst the decades which makes me glad for the at-large bids in this project. :)

I don't recall James being opposed to the induction of more 19th Century players so much as he made remarks to the effect that nobody cares (in relation to the induction of players within living memory). He's also made the case for "timelining" when assessing an era-neutral context for evaluating great players. That isn't the same thing as suggesting the Hall of Fame shouldn't be honoring the greatest players of the 1870s. I don't see James' views and the Hall of Merit's preferences as being mutually exclusive.

[Freakshow]

--I don't know if that holds up to closer scrutiny, Dan. The Hall of Merit started with ONLY the early players on their ballot. They HAD to elect them first.
True, to some degree. But they didn't elect all of them first. Stovey was elected in 1916, his 18th year on the ballot, the 31st player elected; Bennett was elected in 1921, his 23rd year, the 39th player elected; Caruthers was elected in 1930, his 32nd year, the 56th player elected; Jones was elected in 2003, his 106th year, the 219th player elected; Browning was elected in 2005, his 107th year, the 224th player elected.

[Freakshow]

There have been first round polls in which I felt my 5th or 6th choice wasn't in the same consideration set as the others I voted for. In this poll, it's the opposite feeling. Historically great talent isn't evenly distributed amongst the decades which makes me glad for the at-large bids in this project. :)
Interesting how some decades seem to have that one, (or two, or three) genuine candidate(s) - then a discernable drop in quality. Also, more to the point of this project, genuine candidates are not evenly distributed amongst the decades, exactly the reason for the at-large bids.
I don't recall James being opposed to the induction of more 19th Century players so much as he made remarks to the effect that nobody cares (in relation to the induction of players within living memory). He's also made the case for "timelining" when assessing an era-neutral context for evaluating great players. That isn't the same thing as suggesting the Hall of Fame shouldn't be honoring the greatest players of the 1870s. I don't see James' views and the Hall of Merit's preferences as being mutually exclusive.
In his new book, which is culled from articles posted to billjamesonline, he says something like, when he was young, Professional Baseball was always defined by 1900-on; that this never should have been modified; that 19th century baseball is pre-MLB; that the greatest players of the 19th century have been enshrined and we really don't need to look there anymore.

OK, I'm reading into what he wrote, and I don't have the exact quote in front of me. Anyway, that's what I got out of it.:dismay:

[KCGHOST]

I went with Browning, Hines, O'Neill, Mullane, McCormick and Caruthers.

[Paul Wendt]

--I don't know if that holds up to closer scrutiny, Dan. The Hall of Merit started with ONLY the early players on their ballot. They HAD to elect them first.

The Hall of Merit scheduled in advance the number of players elected each year. That was a major focus of the preliminary work by Joe Dimino and a small group --much smaller than the number who eventually participated. The purpose was to set a floor on the number of players who must be elected from the beginning up to any eligibility date. The selection of 1898 for the first election set another limit on that: the voters could fill the early positions with those last played in the early 1890s; the structure did not force them to support anyone who retired earlier.

The course of the project vindicated those decisions and showed that the constraints were not binding. Extra players who were eligible very early, including one from the first ballot, continued to be elected now and then all the way to the present. In other words and briefly, the requirement to elect one in most early years and three in most late years did not force too many early players into the Hall. The voters showed that the 3:1 ratio is a little high. They did not quite find three players per year in recent history who are more "meritorious" than the best early players and blackball players who remain on the board.

Of course the election structures for HOM and BBFHOF both influenced the recruitment and attrition of voters during the course of the projects. Those effects must be complex and may be crucial for who was elected.

[Paul Wendt]

Interesting how some decades seem to have that one, (or two, or three) genuine candidate(s) - then a discernable drop in quality. Also, more to the point of this project, genuine candidates are not evenly distributed amongst the decades, exactly the reason for the at-large bids.

The neighboring Suburbs of Cooperstown has now drafted 124 (to be 200) players who are not in the Hall of Fame, a large enough number that a majority are not in the HOM or BBFHOF either.

Among the winners of eight complete first round Ultimate Quest elections, here are the numbers who remain on the Suburban board, not yet drafted.

1890s: 1 of 6
1900s: 6 (!)
1910s: 2
1920s: 0
1930s: 1
1940s: 1
1950s: 3
1960s: 0 of 9 (six winners for all other elections)

The structure of that draft put extra emphasis on pitchers and thereby influenced the data reported here. (There were no winners from the 1900s and four from the 1920s.)

[Freakshow]

1900s: 6 (!)
Who are the six winners from the 1900's?

Mike Donlin
Fielder Jones
Tommy Leach
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Roy Thomas

The curse of the dead ball era. Perhaps the SOCers drafting now are not confident that these player's stats will be properly translated.

[Freakshow]

In his new book, which is culled from articles posted to billjamesonline, he says something like, when he was young, Professional Baseball was always defined by 1900-on; that this never should have been modified; that 19th century baseball is pre-MLB; that the greatest players of the 19th century have been enshrined and we really don't need to look there anymore.

OK, I'm reading into what he wrote, and I don't have the exact quote in front of me. Anyway, that's what I got out of it.:dismay:
OK, here's what James wrote in an article called "Atypical Seasons":

As I've written somewhere, or if I haven't I will, I have come to believe that we made a mistake in re-labeling 19th century baseball as major league baseball. When I was young, 19th century baseball was
1) almost entirely ignored,
2) little known and less understood, and
3) not considered to be major league baseball when it was referenced.

A line was drawn across baseball history. Post-1900 was "modern" baseball history, and 19th century baseball was like the edge of the ocean on medieval maps: Here Be Monsters. The first generation of serious baseball researchers, led by Lee Allen, erased that line. For many years I supported that decision. In recent years I have come to see it as a mistake. It was a wonderful thing that 19th century baseball was rediscovered, because it is extremely fascinating and we wouldn't have major league baseball without it. We should have re-examined it, but we should not have re-labeled it, because, when you look at it, 19th century baseball has almost none of the characterisitics of "major leaue" baseball.

[Brad Harris]

Mike Donlin
Fielder Jones
Tommy Leach
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Roy Thomas

The curse of the dead ball era. Perhaps the SOCers drafting now are not confident that these player's stats will be properly translated.

More a function of position scarcity, I think. Five of those six are outfielders. I seem to be the only person left who has yet to draft his third outfielder and I can tell you that those players are definitely on my radar at this point, whereas they weren't several rounds earlier. Tommy Leach hasn't been picked because I think most of us could name 10 third basemen outside the Hall who are more deserving than him.

That being said, deadball hitters are underrated in general.

P.S. - Thanks for the James quote, Dan. I have yet to pick that one up so...much appreciated.

[Paul Wendt]

Here Bill James is a demagogue.

Yes,
major league baseball variously beginning in 1900 or 1901 was indeed commonly called "modern". As far as I know, it is commonly called "modern baseball" today, although that term is no longer used consistently, if ever it was.

But,
The Official Encyclopedia of Baseball: Jubilee Edition (1951) prepared by Hy Turkin and S.C. Thompson and published in conjunction with all the anniversaries covers major league baseball from 1871 to 1950. That is true both in the all-time register (part I, 1-374) and in "Major League History" (part III, p381-415).

Here I quote the Table of Contents for part I verbatim.
I. ALL-TIME REGISTER of PLAYERS and MANAGERS
Full name, birth and death data, year-by-year playing record of every manager and player in a regular major league game since the beginning of professional baseball in 1871 . . . Active roster . . . Complete official 1950 results.
Much the same is true in historical parts II-IV. "Evolution of Baseball" (II, 375-380) and "Major League History" (III, 381-415) are demarcated by the appearance of "First Professional League, National Association (1871-75)" at the beginning of part III. As might be expected, the "evolution" refers to what came before, almost prehistoric, Where Be Monsters if anywhere. "Minor League History" (IV, 416-422) begins with "Nineteenth century professional baseball below major level."

[Bill James quoted by FS above]
A line was drawn across baseball history. Post-1900 was "modern" baseball history, and 19th century baseball was like the edge of the ocean on medieval maps: Here Be Monsters. The first generation of serious baseball researchers, led by Lee Allen, erased that line.
Furthermore, the designation of Lee Allen as leader of the "first generation of serious baseball researchers" defames both Turkin and Thompson (and their predecessors, of course). For themselves it is contradicted in the telling by the Preface to their encyclopedia, and in the showing by the whole body of that work.

The terms 'major league' and 'minor league' were not invented until there were major and minor leagues (surprise) bound together in one organization, which was soon occasionally called Organized Baseball (surprise). The NL and AA led that organization; they were its two and only major leagues. That is one reason the National League, older of the two, is today sometimes called and usually handled as the first major league and the beginning of major league baseball. More important, I believe, is the 1968 decision that The Baseball Encyclopedia (1969, published in conjunction with another anniversary) would be limited in scope to the major leagues newly defined as NL, AA, UA, PL, AL, and FL.
edit (add): That decision was not made by the people and for the people of Lee Allen, researchers focusing on biographical data especially identities, but by the people compiling season player statistics from game records to replace official records that had been lost, and for the people who use season player statistics.

[jjpm74]

Coincidentally, the modern era in baseball did not begin until 1969. Anything prior to that is just amateur baseball by today's comparison.



Okay, not really. Just trying to demonstrate a point as to why trying to use an arbitrary number like 1900 (or 1893, or 1920, or 1946 or...sets a dangerous precedent). The small hall guys call for only a handful of players in Cooperstown. As for the rest of us, lets focus on comparing players within their own era to determine HOF worthiness rather than trying to crunch numbers and manipulate them via adjustments to determine how players like Doc Adams and Dickey Pierce stack up against players like Ozzie Smith and Derek Jeter.

[Paul Wendt]

Bill James occasionally shows great interest in the olden days.

When he is denigrating from the bully pulpit, whether the object of scorn be the NA or the UA or the entire 19th century, I sometimes suppose he is venting frustration that he cannot apply his measures to those players.

(He can apply them, but not routinely. The explanation may not be good but it makes me feel better.)

[Freakshow]

There are less than two days until this poll closes, with still a lot of potential to change the results. Hopefully, a couple more of our experts will contribute their conclusions to our efforts.:twocents:

[MadHatter]

I went with:

Bennett
Browning
Caruthers
Glasscock
Mullane (one of my all-time favorites)
Stovey

[AG2004]

I came up with adjusted win shares comparisons for the six outfielders on the list, as well as for King Kelly and Jim O'Rourke. I adjusted the players' win share measures to 140 games for seasons up to and including 1889, and 154 games for seasons from 1890 onwards. (Since Kelly was catching a substantial portion of the time, this adjustment may underrate him a little.)


Adjusted Career Win Shares
Jim O'Rourke - 423 plus NA credit
Paul Hines - 364 plus NA credit
King Kelly - 360
George Gore - 322
Harry Stovey - 314
Pete Browning - 266
Charley Jones - 242 (plus any credit for his time on the blacklist)
Tip O'Neill - 224


Best five consecutive seasons, adjusted win shares
Paul Hines 161
Jim O'Rourke 153
George Gore 146
Charley Jones 143
Pete Browning 143
King Kelly 142
Tip O'Neill 139
Harry Stovey 132

Jones' seasons are 1879-80 and 1883-85, since he was blacklisted from August 1880 until the beginning of the 1883 season. Jones had 20 adjusted win shares in 1880.


Best three seasons, adjusted win shares
George Gore 109
Paul Hines 107
Jim O'Rourke 100
King Kelly 100
Pete Browning 98
Charley Jones 97
Harry Stovey 93
Tip O'Neill 91


MVP-candidate-type seasons (30+ adjusted win shares)
5 - Paul Hines
3 - Jim O'Rourke, George Gore, Pete Browning
2 - King Kelly, Charley Jones
1 - Harry Stovey, Tip O'Neill

Jones is given no credit here for blacklisted seasons. Also, NA seasons are not counted here due to lack of information.


All-Star-type seasons (20+ adjusted win shares)
11 - Jim O'Rourke
10 - King Kelly, Paul Hines, George Gore
9 - Harry Stovey
8 - Charley Jones
7 - Tip O'Neill
6 - Pete Browning

Again, Jones receives no credit for his time on the blacklist, which probably cost him two All-Star-type seasons.

Looking at the six outfielders who are actually on the ballot, I would take Hines first, Gore second, and Jones third (I am giving him credit for the two blacklisted seasons, since, technically, Boston violated the contract first by failing to pay him on time).

[Paul Wendt]

I came up with adjusted win shares comparisons for the six outfielders on the list, as well as for King Kelly and Jim O'Rourke. I adjusted the players' win share measures to 140 games for seasons up to and including 1889, and 154 games for seasons from 1890 onwards.

. . .
MVP-candidate-type seasons (30+ adjusted win shares)
5 - Paul Hines
3 - Jim O'Rourke, George Gore, Pete Browning
2 - King Kelly, Charley Jones
1 - Harry Stovey, Tip O'Neill

Along the same lines,
Paul Hines earns three win shares MVPs: 1878, 1879, 1884.
Dan Brouthers (4) is the only other player with more than two win shares MVPs until Honus Wagner, ie 1876-190?. That covers NL, AA, UA, PL but Brouthers is the only winner in two leagues, iirc.

[Freakshow]

This poll has now closed. With 23 voters weighing in, there are seven players assured of being on the ballot in Round 2, the best Hall of Fame Candidates from the 1880's:

Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
Paul Hines
Tony Mullane
Harry Stovey

These seven will be combined with the top six from the 1870's poll, plus two at-large spots.

These four players have earned consideration for an at-large spot on the ballot in Round 2:

George Gore
Jim McCormick
Tip O'Neill
Hardy Richardson

EDIT: A voter sent me a PM three weeks ago asking me to switch one of their votes from King to Bennett. Doing this now moves Bennett to the safe zone.

Due to a short ballot cast by one voter, we have again applied a point system, so the percentages here differ slightly from those above. Here are the official results of the 1880's poll:

Advances to Rd. 2 Ballots Points Percent
Paul Hines 15 15 65.2%
Tony Mullane 15 15 65.2%
Harry Stovey 15 15 65.2%
Bob Caruthers 15 14.17 61.6%
Pete Browning 14 14 60.9%
Jack Glasscock 11 11 47.8%
Charlie Bennett 11 11 47.8%
At-large Candidates
George Gore 9 9 39.1%
Jim McCormick 6 6 26.1%
Tip O'Neill 6 6 26.1%
Hardy Richardson 6 6 26.1%
Charley Jones 5 5 21.7%
Also-Ran
Silver King 2 2 8.7%
Fred Dunlap 2 2 8.7%
Dave Foutz 1 1 4.3%
Charlie Buffinton 0 0 0.0%
Jim Whitney 0 0 0.0%
Ned Williamson 0 0 0.0%

[dgarza]

I just realized Dave Orr was not on this poll. I forgot about him.
I wonder how much support he would have gotten.

[jjpm74]

I just realized Dave Orr was not on this poll. I forgot about him.
I wonder how much support he would have gotten.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but with the exception of the 1860/1870 poll, I thought this was open only top Major League candidates who were eligible for the HOF (i.e no short career guys or banned players). Dave Orr, Bill Lange and Bill Joyce are three short career guys who did not play the minimum number of years, so a special allowance would have to be made for them to get consideration from the Veteran's Committee.

[dgarza]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but with the exception of the 1860/1870 poll, I thought this was open only top Major League candidates who were eligible for the HOF (i.e no short career guys or banned players). Oh, maybe that was the case

[Freakshow]

I just realized Dave Orr was not on this poll. I forgot about him.
I wonder how much support he would have gotten.
Lange and Joyce were strongly considered for the 1890's ballot but missed the cut. Orr was pretty easily dismissed as a viable candidate for the 1880's.