Tip O'Neill

[Gee Walker]

Looking at his stats today, I was blown away. I know the two obvious objections - first of all his career would just barely make the minimum ten-year standard, and second, most of his career was in the supposedly weaker AA.

But there's a terrific ballplayer here, much more than the guy who hit .435 one year. In his career, his relative BA/SLG/OBP are 1.22, 1.27, and 1.17 respectively. His career OPS+ is 143 - equal to Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, and others. But O'Neill's peak value is pretty amazing. His career OWP is .746, which puts him above Henry Aaron. Just looking at short career guys, it's still a bit better than Dick Allen, and miles ahead of Albert Belle, Hack Wilson, and Chuck Klein.

Among his contemporaries, he ranks behind Dan Brouthers in OWP, but ahead of Anson, Ewing, Duffy, Delahanty, and Hamilton.

[Paul Wendt]

Yes, he was my Congressman and I voted for him.
What a surprise that was, to go to the polls in the 1980s and find paper ballots with boxes to be checked with a pencil, and a genuine ballot box with a slot in the top.

James Edward Tip O'Neill was the first baseball star from Canada, iirc.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Looking at his stats today, I was blown away. I know the two obvious objections - first of all his career would just barely make the minimum ten-year standard, and second, most of his career was in the supposedly weaker AA.

But there's a terrific ballplayer here, much more than the guy who hit .435 one year. In his career, his relative BA/SLG/OBP are 1.22, 1.27, and 1.17 respectively. His career OPS+ is 143 - equal to Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, and others. But O'Neill's peak value is pretty amazing. His career OWP is .746, which puts him above Henry Aaron. Just looking at short career guys, it's still a bit better than Dick Allen, and miles ahead of Albert Belle, Hack Wilson, and Chuck Klein.

Among his contemporaries, he ranks behind Dan Brouthers in OWP, but ahead of Anson, Ewing, Duffy, Delahanty, and Hamilton.

I voted "yes".

The AA, weaker or not, has been designated a "major league" during the era O'Neill played. If there is a consensus to retroactively withdraw that designation, that's another issue. That's not the case, however, so I'm looking at O'Neill's accomplishments, and they are flat-out impressive.

Black Ink: Batting - 35 (42) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 124 (147) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) Pitching - 9 (1484) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Batting - 32.9 (217) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 112.5 (128) Pitching - 2.0 (1584) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

The Black Ink numbers are what grab me. O'Neill LED his league, and he has MORE Black Ink than the AVERAGE HOFer. In a short career. His lower numbers in Gray Ink and HOF Standards are a function of his short career and the absence of "counting stats".

From 1886-1890 O'Neill was a flat-out league superstar. He had a CAREER OWP of .746, but in those five years, his OWP was approximately .804. Shorter careers were the norm in those days, so O'Neill's short career isn't the issue that it would be for, say, Al Rosen (who IS a guy I advocate for).

I'm a little leery of advocating for 19th century players, but O'Neill was clearly a DOMINANT player. He's a forgotten great, and the HOF exists to keep alive the memories of great players. I would support his induction.

[leecemark]

--Flopped in his first MLB trial at age 25. Moved to the weaker AA the next season year and hit very well, but in a part time role for his first 2 years*. Finally establishes himself as a regular at age 28 and reels off 4 terrific seasons, including one historically great one. Then jumps to the Players League in 1890 and is pretty much as average player. The PL was the best league going in 1890 and maybe better than the competiton he had faced in the AA, but it was still part of a 3 way talent split and he couldn't keep up the pace. Had another good year back in the AA in 1891, but was just another guy in the NL in 1892 and was done after his age 34 season.
--So we have a player who was a regular only 7 seasons and a big star in only 4 - in a weak major league. That is not enough to get my support. There are alot of 19th century players awaiting recognition who are clearly more deserving than O'Neil.
*In fairness O'Neil was pitching as well as playing the OF. He'd have been better off had he just concentrated on what he did best - hitting.

[KCGHOST]

I can't go with O'Neill for the HoF. He isn't near being the most qualified 19th Century guy who isn't in the HoF. Probably a half-dozen or more guys most of us would rate ahead of him.

[Freakshow]

I can't go with O'Neill for the HoF. He isn't near being the most qualified 19th Century guy who isn't in the HoF. Probably a half-dozen or more guys most of us would rate ahead of him.
It's a LOT more than a half dozen. Among 1880's candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73965) alone he's running a poor 11th in the balloting - and that's about what he deserves, IMO. Adding in 1860's, 70's and 1890's candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72570) and I don't see Tip as one of the 20 best 19th century candidates.

[rsuriyop]

Looking at his stats today, I was blown away. I know the two obvious objections - first of all his career would just barely make the minimum ten-year standard, and second, most of his career was in the supposedly weaker AA.

But there's a terrific ballplayer here, much more than the guy who hit .435 one year. In his career, his relative BA/SLG/OBP are 1.22, 1.27, and 1.17 respectively. His career OPS+ is 143 - equal to Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, and others. But O'Neill's peak value is pretty amazing. His career OWP is .746, which puts him above Henry Aaron. Just looking at short career guys, it's still a bit better than Dick Allen, and miles ahead of Albert Belle, Hack Wilson, and Chuck Klein.

Among his contemporaries, he ranks behind Dan Brouthers in OWP, but ahead of Anson, Ewing, Duffy, Delahanty, and Hamilton.

While I wouldn't really vote for O'Neil, I don't think I'd have a problem with him making it in either. IMO, if Rusie could get in with just barely ten years, then O'Neil would have just as equally strong a case for himself. That being said however, I'd rather see someone like Charley Jones get inducted first. If we're talking 19th century sluggers, here's a guy who outperformed O'Neil and did it with a slightly longer career under his belt.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--Flopped in his first MLB trial at age 25. Moved to the weaker AA the next season year and hit very well, but in a part time role for his first 2 years*. Finally establishes himself as a regular at age 28 and reels off 4 terrific seasons, including one historically great one. Then jumps to the Players League in 1890 and is pretty much as average player. The PL was the best league going in 1890 and maybe better than the competiton he had faced in the AA, but it was still part of a 3 way talent split and he couldn't keep up the pace. Had another good year back in the AA in 1891, but was just another guy in the NL in 1892 and was done after his age 34 season.
--So we have a player who was a regular only 7 seasons and a big star in only 4 - in a weak major league. That is not enough to get my support. There are alot of 19th century players awaiting recognition who are clearly more deserving than O'Neil.
*In fairness O'Neil was pitching as well as playing the OF. He'd have been better off had he just concentrated on what he did best - hitting.

The question becomes this: Was the AA a major league or not?

If it was not, then we need to designate as such; a minor league, and stop crediting AA ballplayers with major league service.

If the AA was PERMANENTLY below the NL and the Players League (for as long as it lasted), that's an argument against O'Neill, but it's also an argument against a whole lot of guys. If we stop calling the AA a Major League, how can we say that O'Neill has 10 years of major league service? How many other 19th century candidates would lose credit for 10 years if this designation were retroactively applied?

How did the AA of the 19th century compare to the National League, in terms of talent? What's the modern analogy?

[leecemark]

--I don't suggest calling the AA a minor league. I do believe that it was the weaker of the 2 major leagues - and that is going to represent pretty poor quality at such an early stage in the evolution of MLB. It was perhaps somewhere along the same qualitative standards of the NA or FL? Even if O'Neil had played his entire career in the NL and out up the same numbers he would be a questionable case at best though. He only had 5 years where he was an above average player.

[Paul Wendt]

From 1886-1890 O'Neill was a flat-out league superstar. He had a CAREER OWP of .746, but in those five years, his OWP was approximately .804. . . .
Probably '1886-1890' is a mistake here. His big seasons were 4-1/2, 1885-1889. Those were the five stronger AA seasons. A conservative discount (liberal approximate assessment) would be zero, rounding to the nearest 10%. More on that later, maybe.

I can't go with O'Neill for the HoF. He isn't near being the most qualified 19th Century guy who isn't in the HoF. Probably a half-dozen or more guys most of us would rate ahead of him.
A caricature of Bill James (major league baseball begins in 1885) who puts a heavy emphasis on peak seasons would put him in the first dozen, I suppose. Or begin in 1871 and put extreme emphasis on peak seasons. Is Wally Berger your number one Hall of Fame candidate from the classic era, 1901-1960/61? Or number two behind Al Rosen?

Probably there are three dozen whom many people would call better candidates and most people would call greater careers.

It's a LOT more than a half dozen. [Here at BBF,] among 1880's candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73965) alone he's running a poor 11th in the balloting - and that's about what he deserves, IMO.
The 1880s voting (vote for six of 18), only just begun, seems to be more divided than most. Probably that should be expected; the Hall of Merit inducted nine of them, the most from any decade yet considered here. If you know anything about 1880s ballplayers, learn a little more, and cast a ballot.
(There are internet resources as well as print, including two forums where participants have elected shadow Halls of Fame about the same size as Cooperstown's: the Hall of Merit [google it with the player name] and our Baseball Fever Hall of Fame (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41140).)

[Fuzzy Bear]

He only had 5 years where he was an above average player.

He had 5 years where his OWP suggest he was a superstar for his day. The rest of the time he was, certainly, above average.

As for career length, I don't believe we can hold the 19th century stars to the same standards of later players. Unless we're going to limit ourselves to only the players from the 19th century that are already enshrined.

[jjpm74]

--I don't suggest calling the AA a minor league. I do believe that it was the weaker of the 2 major leagues - and that is going to represent pretty poor quality at such an early stage in the evolution of MLB. It was perhaps somewhere along the same qualitative standards of the NA or FL? Even if O'Neil had played his entire career in the NL and out up the same numbers he would be a questionable case at best though. He only had 5 years where he was an above average player.

In terms of quality of players, I'd put the AA statistically similar to the MLB during WWII. Not quite minor league, a handful of stars, but not much above it either.

[Paul Wendt]

The question becomes this: Was the AA a major league or not?
. . .
How did the AA of the 19th century compare to the National League, in terms of talent? What's the modern analogy?
[talent question, see #14]

The institutional answer is that after 1882 the American Association and National League were major leagues like the AL and NL after 1902, perhaps until the abolition of the League offices by Bud Selig. At least like the AL and NL under Frick, Eckert, and Kuhn, when then were partners in sometimes unfriendly competition

The AA and NL with the Northwestern League created organized baseball in 1883. They drafted and signed an agreement to cooperate against other professional ballclubs (in leagues or otherwise) and not to compete much among themselves. They did it with rules that only hint at one practical reality: AA and NL major, NWL minor. In this the analogy breaks down but by 1886(?) they had torn it up and re-started with the AA and NL sharply distinguished from all other parties (ballclub leagues) who would sign up.

The AA-NL agreements (or organized baseball) did not establish a unified champion, so the World Series of 1884-1890 were arranged by the two pennant-winning clubs. That analogy is perfect but it matches only 1903-1904, when Pittsburgh played Boston and New York avoided the same. The AL and NL agreed on arrangements for a postseason championship series in 1905 and the central organization gained strong control of that quickly.

What happened in 1890-1892 is akin to the National League going out of business during the late teens, after taking a heavier hit from the Federal League. That episode would have covered 1914 to something like 1917 or 1919, probably involving the Players' Fraternity, general economic pessimism, and WWI. Imagine government order shutting down pro baseball in summer 1917 instead of 1918. In 1919 the AL resumes business with Cubs, Reds, Pirates, and Giants incorporated in a 12-club "monopoly".

[Paul Wendt]

I'm not sure what leecemark means by the NA and FL reference points here, but I guess it is a comparison across one or three decades of baseball history much more eventful than in our times. Can that be useful when there is no agreement about the AA's contemporary NL in relation to those leagues? We need to know what those reference points mean to him.

The stipulated discounted is zero.

Here IMO is a conservative discount for assessment of ballplayers, such as a discount on AA win shares against contemporary NL win shares@, rounding to the nearest 10%.
(minus, percent) 1882 = 30 20 20* 0 0 0 0 0 20# 20 = 1891
Ten percent greater would be a liberal discount for most seasons, I think.

*1884, the Union Association season. That is 20% against NL1884, itself weakened by UA competition. The AA took the heavier hit by expanding from 8 to 12 teams. I guess the discount might be 10% for the established clubs and 40% for the expansion clubs.

#1890, the Players League season. That is 20% against NL1890, itself weakened by PL competition (and close to the PL) but strengthened by the admission of the two strongest AA clubs. The NL took the heavier hit, losing most of its star players and many others, while the remaining AA clubs lost only a few players to the PL. But the AA lost four clubs and almost all of their players.

@This discount might be appropriate against pitcher wins(?) but not against batting average, runs scored, triples, or strikeouts. The scales for those more basic records would all be different, potentially.

[Gee Walker]

For consistency's sake I hope we're all around here in 2030 or so, downgrading the Hall of Fame chances of David Wright, Albert Pujols, and Jake Peavy because they played in an inferior league. :rofl:

That's sure what happened to the AA ballplayers. Who among the players who spent their peaks in the AA are in the Hall of Fame? Charlie Comiskey - but he sure wasn't admitted because he was a good ballplayer.

Pete Browning wasn't good enough. Neither was Tony Mullane. No to Harry Stovey, Tip O'Neill, Bob Caruthers, Charley Jones. No to all of them.

Tommy McCarthy, who was clearly not one of the top 30 players in the league, played 4 years in the AA, and Tim Keefe played a couple more. A few other short appearances by Hugh Duffy and Dan Brouthers. But these are all NL guys.

Does anyone know any reason why none of the AA guys have made the Hall of Fame? I can think of a couple of reasons, but help me out here.

[leecemark]

-The league only lasted 10 years and was nothing to brag about on the front or back end. Even if it had been, a player would have had to have been excellent from day 1 to the end to make it just in the AA. Otherwise he would have to have some NL years added to build a HoF career. Of course 19th century players in general have not found the doors of the Hall thrown wide open for them.

[Buzzaldrin]

I can't stand reading some of this.

The AA was NOT a weak sister, a minor league, or a "barely major" league. Although there were several seasons when the NL was superior, it is not the case that it always was, and there were several seasons when the AA was the superior league- 1886 being the most prominent. From its inception until 1889 the AA outdrew the NL in attendance each and every year with the Browns most often being the biggest baseball draw in the country. At its peak (again-1886) before the Sam Barkley disaster started turning things around, the AA won the series (and do not tell me the 86 series was an exhibition- the Chicago/St. Louis rivalry was the biggest in the nation in the 19th c.), AA runner up Pittsburgh (second in the country in attendance after St. Loo) beat NL runner up Detroit in their series, AA third place Brooklyn beat NL number three New York in their series, and even last place AA Baltimore beat last place NL Washington in their series. In fact, by that point at the end of five seasons, the AA won well over half its matches against the NL (albeit they were called exhibitons, but pride is pride). If a league is more popular at the box office than another league for a given period and also outperforms it on the field during that period, i don't think it's fair to look at those league 120 years later and say that the losing league in both respects was clearly better.

After the 86 series, Spalding and Anson sent a public telegram stating that they knew when they were beat and the best baseball team in the USA was from St. Louis. This, mind you, coming from the team of Anson, King Kelly, and John Clarkson at their peaks (.371, .388, and 150 ERA+ respectively). The Browns beat them well- handing Chicago the worst loss in its history in game two 12-0 on a Bob Caruthers one-hitter.

It's very easy to say nowadays that the AA was weaker and its players were second tier, but it's not that simple. It's especially revisionist to simply dismiss the AA because...other people do.

AA players got as much respect from the fans as their NL counterparts did, and here's a hint- one of the best ways to judge a sports team from any era in any sport is to follow the bookies. 120 years later on, we may not be the best judges of quality, no matter what numers and stats we have, but contemporary bookmakers don't eat if they don't judge teams well overall.

Cut to the end of the 89 season. Boston- with King Kelly, Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, and Hoss Radbourn- finishes second in the NL. They are beaten by New York- who feature Buck Ewing, Roger Connor, Monte Ward, Jim O'Rourke, George Gore, Mike Tiernan, Tim Keefe, and Mickey Welch. After the pennant race, the Giants have a week to rest and train before the series.

Brooklyn- featuring Bob Caruthers and nobody else you've ever heard of (except maybe Oyster Burns)- squeaked out their league title and had exactly one day free between season finale and series opener. They were exhausted and played the opener against the New York Hall of Fame All-Stars in Manhattan. What were the bookmakers' odds for the series?

Even money.

(Having said that it's a bit of an anti-climax that New York won.)

In 1890- it's questionable whether the NATIONAL league was a major league (there's a great thread on it in the 19th c. section), and the AA was certainly a cut above it- although the PL was better than both.

The AA and its stars deserve soooo much more credit than they've been getting here. People dismiss the AA without backing it up; just sort of assuming that it was weaker because it "failed", but here's the thing- it DIDN'T fail. It didn't fold or become "absorbed" by the NL- that's easy to assume because the consolidated name, "the National League and American Association of Baseball" was so unwieldy that it got shortened to the National League pretty quickly (did you know that the original choice for consolidated name was the American league?). Consolidation was a pure economic move to stop spiralling player salaries after the National Agreement was broken and followed by a frenzy of player raids in late 1891. Again, there are very good discussions of all this in the 19th c. section.

Heck, I'm ranting. I do agree, however, with whoever wrote that Charley Jones deserves to be in the hall. And I disagree with anyone who says that a ten year career is too short for consideration- if it was too short the Hall would have made the minimum eleven years (I don't have too much respect for the Hall anyhow, though, since they're the lead culprits in the "the AA was crap" game).

[leecemark]

--Even if your point about the AA being as good or better than the NL at its peak we are only talking about a very short period here. It didn't start out as the NL's equal and it did not recover from the Player's League sucking most of its best talent away. So for at least half of its brief existence it was markedly inferior. And it DID fail. The league itself went out of existence and the teams that did join the National League were extremely non-competitive in their first season after making the move.

[Brian McKenna]

I can't stand reading some of this.


I'm with you a 100% here. Not sure what these guys are talking about - guess the computers tell them something the people didn't know back in the 1880s. The stupid ass fans must have been completely duped. Glad I live in the 21st century where everything is so clear.

BTW - I thought the two leagues merged but I could be wrong - since it is so clear to some that the league was worthless and collapsed and failed in disgrace.

[Buzzaldrin]

--Even if your point about the AA being as good or better than the NL at its peak we are only talking about a very short period here. It didn't start out as the NL's equal and it did not recover from the Player's League sucking most of its best talent away. So for at least half of its brief existence it was markedly inferior. And it DID fail. The league itself went out of existence and the teams that did join the National League were extremely non-competitive in their first season after making the move.

I shouldn't post when I'm hungover, I get edgy. I'll try to be less so.

The teams that merged with the NL (not joined- the league/association in 92 was actually referred to as such in the sports pages) were expected to be non-competetive in 1892. Louisville and Washington finished last and second to last in the AA in 1891- who expected them to be better? However, they WERE actually better in 92- they raised their winning percentages from .394 and .326 to .414 and .384 respectively. During the player raids at the end of the 91 season, St. Louis was the hardest hit team in the country, losing pretty much its entire starting lineup and pitching AND its manager. That's not something you recover from in one off-season. The 92 Browns had five managers and did not field a single starter or starting pitcher from the 91 squad; they had been decimated.

Baltimore actually had a good hitting club in '92- finishing 4th in the league, but their pitching was absolutely atrocious. Charlie Buffinton, who had been 29-9 with Boston in 91, was expected to be the staff ace, with McMahon number two. Sounds good, except Buffinton retired after 13 starts and they literally had nobody to replace him. Once Baltimore had some arms to back up McMahon, they won the pennant and became the most famous pre-1900 dynasty of all.

My point, which I've digressed from, is that from 1885 to 1890 the AA was either equal, slightly inferior, or slightly superior to the NL- we'll never know for certain at this point, BUT this thread is about Tip O'Neill and those seasons were his heyday. It's unfair to dismiss them because of league quality (it took me forever to say that).

[jalbright]

Buzz,

Your point that the best of the AA stands up with the best of the NL is well taken. I'm not at all convinced that top-to-bottom the AA stacks up, though. Certainly, your argument doesn't address this aspect of the comparison.

[leecemark]

--I think the AA attendance was based as much on their lower ticket prices, the fact they sold beer at their games and that they played on Sundays - the only day off for many working men at that time - than because the baseball was better. I am not saying they didn't play some good ball or even that there weren't a few years when they achieved parity with the NL. I am saying that it was a weak league at the beginning and end of its brief history. That doesn't leave too many good years. It is also a fact that MOST of the AA teams folded while NONE of the NL teams did and while the NL may have briefly tacked a reference to the AA onto its name it was quickly dropped.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--I think the AA attendance was based as much on their lower ticket prices, the fact they sold beer at their games and that they played on Sundays - the only day off for many working men at that time - than because the baseball was better. I am not saying they didn't play some good ball or even that there weren't a few years when they achieved parity with the NL. I am saying that it was a weak league at the beginning and end of its brief history. That doesn't leave too many good years. It is also a fact that MOST of the AA teams folded while NONE of the NL teams did and while the NL may have briefly tacked a reference to the AA onto its name it was quickly dropped.

If it was a weaker league, then there comes a point where the weaker league is no longer a "major" league.

To my knowledge, that formal distinction has never been made.

[Gee Walker]

In brief, is there any significant difference between the AA and the American Basketball Association (ABA) which had ten years of existence from 1967 to 1976? It was weaker than the NBA, without a doubt, but it featured one of the best players of its time (Julius Erving) as well as other stars like George Gervin, Moses Malone, and Artis Gilmore. All except Gilmore are in the Basketball Hall of Fame.

The World Hockey Association (WHA) had an even better cast of players during its brief (1972-79) existence. Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, and JC Tremblay, are just some of the Hall of Famers that played in this league. The biggest coup was signing Wayne Gretzky, age 17.

Interestingly, both leagues merged their best franchises into the more established leagues of the time. The NHL has never acknowledged the records of the players in the WHA, depriving Howe, Hull, Gretzky and others of some career totals - if you include their stats in the WHA these three guys would rank as the top three goal scorers of all time. The Hockey Hall of Fame has followed the NHL party line, ignoring the careers of Anders Hedberg and Andre Lacroix over some clearly lesser players.

Hey, the AFL was inferior to the NFL. It only lasted ten years. But there are AFL players in the Football Hall of Fame.

The Negro Leagues were inferior to the Majors. Needless to say, they had lots of Hall of Fame players.

And we're back to the point that NOBODY whose peak was spent in the AA is in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

[Paul Wendt]

During the player raids at the end of the 91 season, St. Louis was the hardest hit team in the country, losing pretty much its entire starting lineup and pitching AND its manager.
From a perspective that every team deserves to keep its players until it chooses to relinquish them (the reserve clause before 1976), St Louis was poorly treated in 1891-92, like the ABA New York Nets in 1976-77. It wasn't any way to extend a partnership, and I suppose many NL magnates had no intention of extending a partnership to Von der Ahe or to St Louis under his leadership.

The St Louis owner was sometimes difficult for employees, too, so St Louis players were more likely to move elsewhere. Conventional interpretation is that manager Comiskey abandoned Von der Ahe, no "raid" required. He was up to here with Von der Ahe *and* a hot property.

My point, which I've digressed from, is that from 1885 to 1890 the AA was either equal, slightly inferior, or slightly superior to the NL- we'll never know for certain at this point, BUT this thread is about Tip O'Neill and those seasons were his heyday. It's unfair to dismiss them because of league quality (it took me forever to say that).
The AA in 1890 was woefully weak but yes it was strong in 1885-89 and those were O'Neil's 5 or 4-1/2 big seasons.

[Paul Wendt]

If it was a weaker league, then there comes a point where the weaker league is no longer a "major" league.

To my knowledge, that formal distinction has never been made.

The Sporting News did not recognize the Federal League 1914-15 seasons until a few years ago when their own annual record book was in crisis. Quality of play may have been a factor but maybe not. The Feds had been baseball outlaws. During WWI the majors had subsidized TSN but let Sporting Life expire, probably because of their respective hard line and welcoming positions on the Federal League. Maybe TSN simply retained its hard line with little or no reexamination while its annual was prosperous.

Beside that uncertain case, no league has been declared major or minor based on its quality of play, afaik. I mean declared by recordkeepers including print and web encyclopedists whose judgments do not always coincide.

[Paul Wendt]

For what it's worth:
Charlie Comiskey managed the Chicago PL team and played first base. (That was one weak bat but it wasn't the only one! See baseball-reference.) Anyway, I suppose he selected many of the players.

The Chicago NL 1889 outfield regulars were LF George Van Haltren, CF Jimmy Ryan, and RF Hugh Duffy. Several veteran players signed with the local PL club for 1890, which was typical throughout the league. It was the Players' National League, competing directly in seven cities, all but Cincinnati NL and Buffalo PL.

The PL outfield regulars were LF Tip O'Neill, CF Ryan, and RF Duffy. In some sense, rather direct I suspect, Comiskey brough O'Neill along. After GVH signed in the East or before? (I don't know. Van Haltren was from California, born in St Louis, and I don't know any reason he would have desired to go East. But he didn't pitch at all in 1889 and John Ward made him a regular pitcher again in 1890. There is one maybe-reason.)

Comiskey brought other players along. O'Neill at OPS+ 106 was third on the team behind Ryan and Duffy. Unfortunately for the team, the regular infield hit 49, 78, 59, 44 with 91, 53, 47 in the supporting cast! The team was strong because it signed the right pitchers: Mark Baldwin from Chicago NL with one-year lag and Silver King from St Louis.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In brief, is there any significant difference between the AA and the American Basketball Association (ABA) which had ten years of existence from 1967 to 1976? It was weaker than the NBA, without a doubt, but it featured one of the best players of its time (Julius Erving) as well as other stars like George Gervin, Moses Malone, and Artis Gilmore. All except Gilmore are in the Basketball Hall of Fame.

If that's the analogy you are using, I would make certain points:

The ABA was clearly an inferior league to the NBA for one reason; it did not have the quality of centers that the NBA had, in a time where the big man made the difference. Jim McDaniels was the second best center in the draft the year Artis Gilmore graduated. He signed with the ABA Carolina Cougars, but was able to jump to the Seattle Supersonics in mid-season in 1971-72 (the 5th year of the ABA). In his book, Caught In The Pivot, his coach said of McDaniels, at the time he jumped: "Wait until Dale Schleuter runs up his back a few times, let alone Chamberlain, Jabbar, and Thurmond." Jim McDaniels was the MVP of the ABA All-Star game that year, but he was a total flop in the NBA, and the Sonics actually tried to get Carolina to take him back after signing him (through backchannels).

The ABA had stars, but not teams. The top 2 or 3 ABA teams might have made the NBA playoffs, but the only time I MIGHT have given the ABA champion a shot at knocking off the NBA champion was the 1974-75 Kentucky Colonels upsetting the Golden State Warriors, and only because it was the only possible matchup of league champions (with the POSSIBLE exception of 1972-73 with Mel Daniels going up against a past-prime and hurting Willis Reed).

I would also suggest that while Artis Gilmore played significant portions of his career in both leagues, Gervin and Malone were in the ABA for two years only.

The World Hockey Association (WHA) had an even better cast of players during its brief (1972-79) existence. Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, and JC Tremblay, are just some of the Hall of Famers that played in this league. The biggest coup was signing Wayne Gretzky, age 17.

Interestingly, both leagues merged their best franchises into the more established leagues of the time. The NHL has never acknowledged the records of the players in the WHA, depriving Howe, Hull, Gretzky and others of some career totals - if you include their stats in the WHA these three guys would rank as the top three goal scorers of all time. The Hockey Hall of Fame has followed the NHL party line, ignoring the careers of Anders Hedberg and Andre Lacroix over some clearly lesser players.

The WHA had the biggest names in hockey, but they were all past their prime. Howe, Hull, Tremblay, Frank Mahovlich, Derek Sanderson, some others, all were in the back end of their careers. The WHA was closer to the NHL in quality, however; part of that was due to the WHA's willingness to sign European hockey stars. Still, while the top 2-3 teams in the WHA MIGHT have contended for the last 1-2 playoff berths in the NHL most years, there's no way that the WHA champion would EVER have seriously contended for the Stanley Cup.[/QUOTE]

Hey, the AFL was inferior to the NFL. It only lasted ten years. But there are AFL players in the Football Hall of Fame.


The AFL was the most successful major league to challenge an established major league, in that (A) at the time the merger was completed, the teams in each league were pretty much at parity, and (B) the entire league was included in the merger; teams were not combined to make a silk purse team out of a sow's ear team.

The AFL and NFL were the only rival sports leagues to play a World Championship game outside of baseball. That the AFL won the last two of those games gave creedence to the AFL as the equal of the NFL. The AFL raided NFL rosters successfully in the mid-sixties, accelerating merger talks. From the 1966 season onward, there was a common draft of collegians. The merger actually occurred 4 years before the AFL ceased to exist as a "league".

The Negro Leagues were inferior to the Majors. Needless to say, they had lots of Hall of Fame players.

This, of course, is a different issue.

And we're back to the point that NOBODY whose peak was spent in the AA is in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

If the AA was a major league on the par of the AFL, then there should be more of a one-to-one match of AA to NL players in the HOF. If the AA was to the NL what the ABA was to the NBA, or the WHA was to the NHL, well, I would accept only the very top core of players as legitimate HOF candidates.

I'm going to assume that the AA was a "major" league. It was better than AAA ball, and probably better than "AAAA" ball that Japanese baseball is described as.

I'll stick with my "yes" vote with a caveat. O'Neill is, perhaps, behind Herman Long in the HOF line. Still, O'Neill racked up more black ink than O'Neill, and in a shorter time frame. As for another possible candidate, George Van Haltren: I can't see putting Van Haltren in ahead of O'Neill. Van Haltren was not the offensive player O'Neill was, and while he played a more demanding defensive position (CF vs LF), he was not that outstanding a center fielder; his fielding percentage was actually below league average. O'Neill was, probably, the greatest player in the AA in terms of peak value. I think that's enough to make him a viable HOF candidate. He dominated his league for a time, as evidenced by his black ink.

[Calif_Eagle]

I posted this thought once before on a different thread. Gale Sayers of the Chicago Bears in the NFL is in the Pro Football HOF with a total of 64 professional games played. Sayers played during the era of 14 game schedules so he essentially played a career total of 4-1/2 years, spread across 7 actual seasons. If the MLB ever had a player post a baseball equivalent to a "Sayers type career" I would be all for such a player being selected to the Coop, despite his lack of 10 full seasons. If we accept the premise that the AA was a major league it seems OK to me that Tip O'Neill be selected to be in. The AA IS regarded as a major league by Organized Baseball. I voted for O'Neill.

[Paul Wendt]

I posted this thought once before on a different thread. Gale Sayers of the Chicago Bears in the NFL is in the Pro Football HOF with a total of 64 professional games played. Sayers played during the era of 14 game schedules so he essentially played a career total of 4-1/2 years, spread across 7 actual seasons. If the MLB ever had a player post a baseball equivalent to a "Sayers type career" I would be all for such a player being selected to the Coop, despite his lack of 10 full seasons. If we accept the premise that the AA was a major league it seems OK to me that Tip O'Neill be selected to be in. The AA IS regarded as a major league by Organized Baseball. I voted for O'Neill.

O'Neill isn't baseball's best "Sayers type". He might be fifth in line or tenth. For starters see his teammate Bob Caruthers, the best player on the 1885-87 Browns and then on the 1888-89 "Dodgers". See Ross Barnes. Outside of 1887 O'Neill led the league once each in batting average, hits, singles, rbi, runs created, and offensive win%. Compare O'Neill's 4-1/2 seasons to Pete Browning's 6-1/2, 1882-88. The 4-1/2 seasons in 7 years might be Dave Orr 1884-1890.

[Calif_Eagle]

O'Neill isn't baseball's best "Sayers type". He might be fifth in line or tenth. For starters see his teammate Bob Caruthers, the best player on the 1885-87 Browns and then on the 1888-89 "Dodgers". See Ross Barnes. Outside of 1887 O'Neill led the league once each in batting average, hits, singles, rbi, runs created, and offensive win%. Compare O'Neill's 4-1/2 seasons to Pete Browning's 6-1/2, 1882-88. The 4-1/2 seasons in 7 years might be Dave Orr 1884-1890.

I'm a large (larger, anyway) HOF man & dont have a problem with Browning or Orr being in the Coop. I wasnt trying to pick THE "Sayers man" but rather "A" Sayers type career. Caruthers gets a lot of support on the BBF in general & I dont have any problem with him going in either. Barnes is a flashpoint for a lot of people here, with many being opposed to him due to his use of the fair-foul rule. The way I see that is, it was legal in his day, so why not ruthlessly exploit it if possible?

Who is the player with the most "Sayers-like" career in MLB history? Might make an interesting thread on its own. I think Bill Lange and Bill Joyce had short 19th Century careers also.

[Buzzaldrin]

Barnes is a flashpoint for a lot of people here, with many being opposed to him due to his use of the fair-foul rule. The way I see that is, it was legal in his day, so why not ruthlessly exploit it if possible?


Exactly, or else we should expel Ed Walsh, Jack Chesbro, Burleigh Grimes, Red Faber, Stan Coveleski, and co. from the Hall for using spitballs.

I don't have time to write the rather long post I'd like unfortunately addressing AA issues, but I'll pose a question. Now, there's loads of arguments about AA quality all over this and other forums but here's something I wonder about the 1880s that no one ever seems to address:

Why do people think the NL was that good?

I mean, it was only 6 years older than the AA, hardly a venerable institution. It never once managed to field the same teams two seasons in a row until 1882. Other than Boston and Chicago, it featured none of its original lineup. It broke its own rule against having teams in population centers under 75,000 three times by 1881. Hulbert died in the 81-82 off season. It's no secret that a number of the country's best players did NOT play in the NL in the late 70s and early 80s, playing instead in the Northwestern league or the International league. Only one season in its existence had the NL featured teams in the nation's two largest markets (New York and Philly).

What was so great about this league anyway?

The AA came along and instantly was more popular than the NL. As someone wrote, this has largely to do with Sunday games, cheaper admission, and alcohol sales. So what? The point is that every single team in the AA turned a profit in 1882- few NL teams had ever done so. Guess what you can do with a lot of money? You can buy a lot of players. Why then should AA players be inferior to NL players? I mean, the AA owners had the cash to pay large salaries. Caruthers and Comiskey earned as much as Kelly and Anson. The players certainly had no special loyalty to their leagues and were happy to follow the money wherever it led.

Why do people believe that the NL was so strong or dominant or whatever? I never quite go that. It wasn't that much more established, and the AA only took a few years to pretty much achieve parity. We don't say that Lajoie, McGinnity, Cy Young, and co. should have their early AL seasons discounted because it was a weaker league than the NL, why should the entire AA suffer that fate? There are a number of AA stars who belong in Cooperstown as much as their NL counterparts do. The bias against them is ridiculous.

[jalbright]

Well, Buzz, my own take is that the NL wasn't all that great in the 1880's, but it was better than the AA overall. The game was still largely a northeastern US game at the time, and the leagues were definitely going through the painful process of trying to grow to maturity. The NL made it while the AA did not.

[leecemark]

--I'm with Jim on this one. If the early and late seasons of the AA grade out as a D- on the big league scale the NL of the same years is only a D or D+. Also, I think people DO discount the first years of the AL - do you see Nap Lajoie's 1901 campaign being discussed as amoung the best of all time? The first year(s?) of the AL were near the boundries of what consititutes a major lague and the Nl fell close to that same boundry when the Al signed quickly signed away so many of its best players. The Federal League gets the same D- and so does the WWII years of the AL/NL. This isn't some great campagn to discriminate against the AA.

[Buzzaldrin]

I wouldn't call it a "campaign" to discriminate; but if you look at some of the early posts in this thread, and indeed most posts that refer to the AA in most threads on this site, you will see that the AA is dismissed as completely inferior and even degraded occasionally as not being major league quality.

To be honest, two or three yeasr ago I would've agreed (generally) with most of those posters. I had always heard and read that the AA was never on a par with the NL, and had never doubted what I'd heard. I didn't start looking into the AA until I heard of Caruthers and was very surprised by what I found. I tried to find books on the AA but there weren't any until David Nemec's masterpiece "The Beer and Whiskey League" came out (which I recommend not just for the subject, but because it's possibly the best written and best thought out baseball book in general I've ever read).

I think the AA gets a bad rap. Big style.

As a side note, I don't really see what your problem is with the final seasons of the AA. I don't think it was particular bad in either 89 or 91, and in 91 if you go through the team rosters it had at at least as much prime and young talent as the NL. The AA does indeed deserve a D-- for 1890, but the NL probably deserves an F for that season.

And there ARE discussions here where early AL seasons are mentioned when discussing the best all time, particularly Cy Young's 1901 (more so than Lajoie). I don't agree with them, but that's alright. I don't have a problem with well thought out differences of opinion; I do have a problem with people simply reinforcing traditional assumptions that may very well be completely mistaken without taking the time to look back and see how well founded they really are. I'm more than willing to argue issues with Leecemark and Jim and Brian and the gang till the cows come home, but I don't like general statements that casually dismiss some of the finest players to play the game.

And as to Jim's comment on how the top to bottom quality of the AA stacks up against the top to bottom of the NL, and not just the elite...well, that is extremely interesting, and I can honestly say that I don't know.

But I'm going to find out, so stay tuned.

[Brian McKenna]

This argument deserves its own thread in another forum. I think it would be beneficial for others to see and possibly chime in. Perhaps a mod (if the major parties agree) could pull out the AA stuff and leave Tip O'Neill to stand alone.

[Paul Wendt]

bmckenna,
Good point although I fear to visit another forum myself. Maybe I could bookmark the new thread.

I don't know the points of reference for all the D- and other letter grades people are comfortable assigning. Nor do I know the basis for equating particular AA seasons with AL1901, the Federal League, or WWII seasons --at any letter grade.

[leecemark]

--I wouldn't claim any precision to the letter grades. They are not the result of years of research, but just an off the cuff approximation.
--Brian, I think a thread on the AA is a great idea. You don't need a mod to set it up though. Just start the thread and copy over the relevant posts from this thread to get things going.

[Brian McKenna]

bmckenna,
Good point although I fear to visit another forum myself. Maybe I could bookmark the new thread.


Paul, I meant in the 19th Century Forum here at Baseball Fever. Per Leecemark's idea I'll start the thread there.

COMMENTS REGARDING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION HAVE BEEN COPIED INTO A THREAD IN THE 19TH CENTURY FORUM TITLED "QUALITY OF PLAYING IN THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION." PLEASE CONTINUE AA DISCUSSION THERE. THAT WAY THIS THREAD COULD BE USED FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE - A DISCUSSION OF TIP O'NEILL.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1127923#post1127923

[Paul Wendt]

Does everyone here know the 19th century players whom the Hall of Fame honors?
(No.)

There are 27 now classified as Players who arrived before Fred Clarke and Bobby Wallace (1894). They made their debuts 1871-1892 and neither of the two old-timers played professionally before 1871.
. . .
[moved to Brian McKenna's thread in 19th Century (link just above).]

One highlight or lowlight: With major league debuts between 1880 and 1888, the time of Pete Browning and Tip O'Neill, there are only four players in the Hall of Fame.

[Cowtipper]

I don't believe O'Niell should be in the Hall of Fame because his career was way too short.

His high career batting average is basically riding on his 1887 season. Had he not had that season, his career average would drop 15 points to .311.

That's still good, but not Hall of Fame worthy.