BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1901 (Real)

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Ok, we're going to try this again, hopefully working out some of the bigger problems.

Format and Rules
For the sake of simplification, convenience, and continuity, we will adopt the rules currently employed by the BBWAA and apply them throughout, with the exception of modifications made for first five elections (and perhaps longer if necessary):

Voting Rules: For at least the first five elections, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates (the number will be eventually be cut to 10). A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting.

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent both from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. For the first five elections, a player must receive at least one vote to appear on the next ballot, though extra considerations may be made for players not receiving a vote in the first election. After the first five elections, players will need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot.

Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 major league seasons. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote.
- Early Election Modifications: To be eligible for the first election, players must have played at least 7 seasons between 1871 and 1896. The next four elections will have an 8 year rule. Players from before this period, or who do not meet the 7 year requirement, will be eligible for the Veterans Committee (likely imaginary), provided their last appearance was no later than 1881. Players eligible in the first election will be eligible for 15 years, regardless of when they retired, and provided they meet the minimum support requirements.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly a week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

Guide
Future elections will contain a more detailed guide summarizing past results and the status of candidates on the current ballot.

First Time Eligible Players (78)
Mark Baldwin
Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
George Bradley
Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
Charlie Buffinton
Jack Burdock
Oyster Burns
Tom Burns
Fred Carroll
Bob Caruthers
Elton Chamberlain
John Clapp
John Clarkson
Charlie Comiskey
Larry Corcoran
Abner Dalrymple
Jerry Denny
Fred Dunlap
Jack Farrell
Bob Ferguson
Silver Flint
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Ned Hanlon
Guy Hecker
Paul Hines
Charley Jones
Tim Keefe
King kelly
Henry Larkin
Jack Manning
Bobby Mathews
Tommy McCarthy
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Levin Meyerle
Doggie Miller
John Morrill
Ed Morris
Tony Mullane
Candy Nelson
Tip O'Neill
Jim O'Rourke
Dave Orr
John Peter
Bill Phillips
Lip Pike
George Pinkney
Blondie Purcell
Charley Radbourn
John Reilly
Hardy Richardson
Yank Robinson
Jack Rowe
Orator Shaffer
Pop Snyder
Al Spalding
Harry Staley
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Curt Welch
Mickey Welch
Deacon White
Will White
Jim Whitney
Ned Williamson
Sam Wise
Jimmy Wolf
George Wood
George Wright
Tom York

Actual Hall of Fame Players on Ballot (10):
Player Election Year
Dan Brouthers 1945 (VC)
John Clarkson 1963 (VC)
Pud Galvin 1965 (VC)
Tim Keefe 1964 (VC)
King Kelly 1945 (VC)
Tommy McCarthy 1946 (VC)
Jim O’Rourke 1945 (VC)
Charley Radbourn 1939 (VC)
John Ward 1964 (VC)
Mickey Welch 1973 (VC)

[Sockeye]

My Ballot

1, John Clarkson
2. Pud Galvin
3. Tim Keefe
4. Charley Radbourn
5. Mickey Welch

[DoubleX]

Even with the expanded ballot, I had to make some tought cuts. I voted for:

Charlie Bennett
Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
John Clarkson
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Tony Mullane
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White

Those who just missed the cut:

Hardy Richardson
Jim McCormick
Joe Start
Fred Dunlap
Mickey Welch
Dave Foutz

[Brooklyn]

Brouthers, Clarkson, Galvin, Keefe, Mullane, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Spalding, Welch, White

[DoubleX]

Brouthers, Clarkson, Galvin, Keefe, Mullane, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Spalding, Welch, White

Brooklyn, you know you can up vote for up to 15 now, right?

[AG2004]

My Ballot

1, John Clarkson
2. Pud Galvin
3. Tim Keefe
4. Charley Radbourn
5. Mickey Welch

5 pitchers and no position players. Why?

Take a look at Dan Brouthers. He was a tremendous hitter, going .342/.423/.519. Do you realize how good that .519 slugging percentage is? When the pitching distance was increased to 60'6" seven years ago, a large increase in offense resulted. Batting averages increased, OBP increased, and yet Brouthers' .519 slugging percentage is still the highest career mark in major league history (although Lajoie of Philadelphia could exceed it in a few more seasons). He's first in offensive black ink by a large margin, with 79 points. Second place is held by Ross Barnes, with 59 -- 20 points behind Brouthers. Brouthers' OPS+ of 170 is also the highest career mark in the history of base ball.

Yet, Sockeye, you have omitted Brouthers from your ballot. If Brouthers is not worthy of honor, is it possible for any hitter to ever achieve your standards? Galvin and Welch may be second-tier pitchers from the 1880s, but you still see fit to list them. Is the best eligible batter inferior to a second-tier pitcher? Is Brouthers not worthy of making your list?

[NOTE: This is the 1901 election. Hence, as far as this entire thread is concerned, I am pretending that is April 1, 1901, and I have no idea what will happen in the upcoming century. If you mention any players from after that date, I will claim not to know who they are, and will say "there's no record of such a player" in my response. Consider yourself warned.]

[dgarza]

5 pitchers and no position players. Why?

Sockeye's votes have a history of being based on cumulative totals of one or two stats, usually HRs or Wins.

[Freakshow]

My Ballot:

Barnes
Brouthers
Clarkson
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Keefe
Kelly
O'Rourke
Radbourn
Start
Ward
D.White
Wright

[Brooklyn]

Brooklyn, you know you can up vote for up to 15 now, right?

yes. pre-1900 guys are tough for me. For the most part, I think most of them didn't play long enough to warrant election, (which may seem contradictory to me voting for Spalding). I have a hard time weighing the conditions of the time, which is essential for the pre-modern era players.

I'm a small Hall guy - I'd rather not vote for the guys that I'm not sure on. My game plan was to vote for the guys that I thought definitely belonged. In future elections, I'd like to see who else had support and read about other's campaigns for them, which can very well sway me to vote for more.

[DoubleX]

yes. pre-1900 guys are tough for me. For the most part, I think most of them didn't play long enough to warrant election, (which may seem contradictory to me voting for Spalding). I have a hard time weighing the conditions of the time, which is essential for the pre-modern era players.

I'm a small Hall guy - I'd rather not vote for the guys that I'm not sure on. My game plan was to vote for the guys that I thought definitely belonged. In future elections, I'd like to see who else had support and read about other's campaigns for them, which can very well sway me to vote for more.

Fair enough. I saw you voted for 10, and just wanted to make sure that you knew you could vote for more if you wanted to.

[Erik Bedard]

Brouthers
Caruthers (really not sure about this pick)
Clarkson
Galvin
Gore
Hines
Keefe
Kelly
McVey
O'Rourke
Pike
Radbourn
Stovey
Ward
Wright

[AG2004]

Sockeye's votes have a history of being based on cumulative totals of one or two stats, usually HRs or Wins.

Current leaders in career home runs:

1) Roger Connor, 138
2) Sam Thompson, 127
3) Harry Stovey, 122
4) Dan Brouthers, 106
4) Mike Tiernan, 106
6) Jimmy Ryan, 105
7) Hugh Duffy, 104

Only six players have managed to hit twenty home runs in a season. Four of them - Williamson, Pfeffer, Dalrymple, and Anson - played for the 1884 Chicago White Stockings. A rule change that year declared that any ball hit over the 196-foot right field fence was a home run. Sam Thompson hit 20 home runs in 1889, and Buck Freeman managed 25 two years ago, in 1899. Freeman went down to six home runs for the 1900 season; his 1899 total was probably a fluke.

[jjpm74]

Voted for:

1. Ross Barnes
2. Charlie Bennett
3. Dan Brouthers
4. Bob Caruthers
5. Pud Galvin
6. Jack Glasscock
7. Paul Hines
8. Tim Keefe
9. King Kelly
10. Tony Mullane
11. Jim O'Rourke
12. Old Hoss Radbourne
13. Hardy Richardson
14. Harry Stovey
15. Ezra Sutton

I'm likely to vote for these guys if they make it to the 1902 ballot:

1. John Clarkson--I picked Caruthers over Clarkson because I believe that Clarkson will be elected in this or the next ballot but was more concerned that Caruthers stay on the ballot.
2. George Gore
3. Lip Pike
4. Joe Start
5. John Ward
6. Deacon White

I'm unlikely to vote for:

1. Al Spalding--More of a pioneer
2. George Wright--More of a pioneer

I understand why they are on this ballot, but they really belong more with Dickey Pearce in the pioneer's VC, IMO.

[jalbright]

My ballot:

Bennett... Hines...... Radbourn
Brouthers.... Keefe...... Start
Clarkson... Kelly....... Stovey
Galvin..... Mullane.... Ward
Gore....... O'Rourke.. G. Wright


Waiting in the wings: Glasscock, Sutton, Richardson (in no particular order)

[DoubleX]

[NOTE: This is the 1901 election. Hence, as far as this entire thread is concerned, I am pretending that is April 1, 1901, and I have no idea what will happen in the upcoming century. If you mention any players from after that date, I will claim not to know who they are, and will say "there's no record of such a player" in my response. Consider yourself warned.]

I think this is a good approach. It is hard for us to separate all that we know and use that as a measuring stick for the Hall, but as this project goes, we'll essentially be creating our own standard for the Hall based on who we elect, and that standard should be evolving based on the history to that point. One thing about that though, with professional baseball still in its relative early phases in 1901, our perspective is inherently limited.

[leecemark]

C: Ewing, Bennett
1B: Brouthers, Start (Anson when he is eligible next year)
2B: Barnes (maybe Richardson)
3B: Sutton
SS: Wright, Ward (maybe Glasscock) - Pearce if he were on ballot
LF: O'Rourke, Stovey
CF: Hines, Gore (maybe Pike)
RF: Kelly
P: Clarkson, Keefe, Radbourne, Glavin, Mullane, Spaulding

[BlueBlood]

Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
John Clarkson
Pud Galvin
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Tony Mullane
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

Would Probably Also Vote For:

Al Spalding (as a Pioneer)
Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Hardy Richardson

[Sockeye]

5 pitchers and no position players. Why?

Take a look at Dan Brouthers. He was a tremendous hitter, going .342/.423/.519. Do you realize how good that .519 slugging percentage is? When the pitching distance was increased to 60'6" seven years ago, a large increase in offense resulted. Batting averages increased, OBP increased, and yet Brouthers' .519 slugging percentage is still the highest career mark in major league history (although Lajoie of Philadelphia could exceed it in a few more seasons). He's first in offensive black ink by a large margin, with 79 points. Second place is held by Ross Barnes, with 59 -- 20 points behind Brouthers. Brouthers' OPS+ of 170 is also the highest career mark in the history of base ball.

Yet, Sockeye, you have omitted Brouthers from your ballot. If Brouthers is not worthy of honor, is it possible for any hitter to ever achieve your standards? Galvin and Welch may be second-tier pitchers from the 1880s, but you still see fit to list them. Is the best eligible batter inferior to a second-tier pitcher? Is Brouthers not worthy of making your list?

[NOTE: This is the 1901 election. Hence, as far as this entire thread is concerned, I am pretending that is April 1, 1901, and I have no idea what will happen in the upcoming century. If you mention any players from after that date, I will claim not to know who they are, and will say "there's no record of such a player" in my response. Consider yourself warned.]

Galvin and Welch 2nd tier pitchers?? Why they are among the greatest pitchers to have ever hurled a baseball. Check out where these pitchers rank in the history of the game.

Pud Galvin

Wins 364 (1)
Games 705 (1)
Innings 6003.3 (1)
Strikeouts 1806 (5)
Games Started 689 (1)
Complete Games 646 (1)
Shutouts 57 (1)
Batters Faced 25234 (1)

Mickey Welch

Wins 307 (6)
Games 565 (3)
Innings 4802 (4)
Strikeouts 1850 (3)
Games Started 549 (4)
Complete Games 525 (3t)
Shutouts 41 (4)
Batters Faced 18186 (4)

Pud Galvin may very well be the best pitcher in baseball history.

Mickey Welch isn't far behind. Certainly in the top five. In 9 of his 13 seasons he was among the top 10 in the league in Wins, ERA, hits allowed/9 IP, games, innings, strikeouts, starts, complete games, shutouts, & batters faced. top 10 in winning %, and adjusted ERA+ in 8 of those seasons as well as top 10 in WHIP in 7 of those seasons.

Bottom line is these are two of the elite pitchers in the history of the game and without question both deserve HOF induction.

[leecemark]

--Being in the top 10 in Welch's day wasn't that impressive. Most teams only used 2 primary pitchers most of his career. He was a pretty good pitcher who lasted a pretty long time. I see him as an early and not quite as good version of Don Sutton. Galvin was better, but still not anywhere near the very best pitchers of all time. Neither was nearly as great a player as Dan Brouthers.

[DoubleX]

--Being in the top 10 in Welch's day wasn't that impressive. Most teams only used 2 primary pitchers most of his career. He was a pretty good pitcher who lasted a pretty long time. I see him as an early and not quite as good version of Don Sutton. Galvin was better, but still not anywhere near the very best pitchers of all time. Neither was nearly as great a player as Dan Brouthers.

This goes back to what AG2004 was talking about - It's 1901. Comparisons to Don Sutton are irrelevant because we're still decades away from him even being born. The meaning "all time" now only encapsulates the game to this point. With that in mind, I think pointing to the fact that Galvin is the career wins leader, is probably a strong point in his favor, even if it has diminished greatly with increased historical perspective.

[AG2004]

Galvin and Welch 2nd tier pitchers?? Why they are among the greatest pitchers to have ever hurled a baseball. . . .


Pud Galvin may very well be the best pitcher in baseball history.

Mickey Welch isn't far behind. Certainly in the top five. In 9 of his 13 seasons he was among the top 10 in the league in Wins, ERA, hits allowed/9 IP, games, innings, strikeouts, starts, complete games, shutouts, & batters faced. top 10 in winning %, and adjusted ERA+ in 8 of those seasons as well as top 10 in WHIP in 7 of those seasons.

Bottom line is these are two of the elite pitchers in the history of the game and without question both deserve HOF induction.

If you look purely at overall career value, Galvin has a good case for being the best. However, if you combine peak and career value, or consider rate stats, Galvin doesn't look quite as good.

Welch was among the top 10 in ERA nine times. However, he was among the top 9 in ERA just four times. In 1886, there were 20 pitchers in Welch's league who managed to reach the 20-decision level. In 1881, only 13 NL pitchers had 20 decisions. Finishing tenth in ERA under such circumstances is not an outstanding feat.

Here are ERA+/OPS+ for some pitchers of Welch's era.

Clarkson 134/60
Keefe 127/58
Caruthers 123/133
King 123/56
Radbourn 119/72
Mullane 118/87
McCormick 118/70
Hecker 114/117
Welch 114/68
Galvin 107/46

Here are some win shares measures.
Radbourne 391-199-270
Clarkson 396-173-248
Keefe 413-159-236

Galvin 403-155-187
(Totals do not reflect Galvin's play with the IA's Pittsburgh club in 1877 and the IA's Buffalo club in 1878.)
Mullane 399-159-193 or 229
(Mullane was blacklisted in 1885; the five-year total depends on whether
one ignores 1885 in determining the best five consecutive seasons)
Caruthers 335-162-254
Welch 354-145-193

Hecker 259-155-221
Whitney 275-139-200
King 263-159-216
McCormick 334-136-196
(UA discount applied to McCormick's peak totals)

Welch isn't close to being in the top five in career value or in his best five consecutive seasons; he's 14 win shares away from the top five according to his best three seasons.

Welch does have a large number of wins. However, he pitched for the New York Giants during their glory days, when they had Buck Ewing, Roger Connor, John Ward, and Jim O'Rourke on their roster -- and they added George Gore in the 1889 season. Welch was a good pitcher, but pitching for a team with so many stars certainly helped his W-L record.

If we include the IA play, Galvin has a wonderful case, as he becomes the top pitcher in pure career value (but the peak and rate stats keep him being number one overall). Since the IA was established as a competitor to the NL, and since Galvin played on top IA clubs (Buffalo jumped to the NL in 1879 and finished third), this IA play should be counted.

----

I shall conclude by noting that Sockeye failed to answer any of the questions I originally asked.

Sockeye, why are there no position players on your ballot? Dan Brouthers has the highest slugging percentage, the highest career OPS+, and the highest black ink score of any hitter in the history of major league base ball. How is he not worthy of being honored? Finally, if Brouthers is not worthy of your vote, is it possible for any hitter to ever be worthy of Hall of Fame honors?

If you had listed ten position players in addition to your five pitchers, I would not have bothered to criticize your ballot. However, your ballot listed only pitchers, and thus I felt compelled to ask these questions. You have responded to one sentence about Welch and Galvin. I await your response to the main point of my criticism.

[Erik Bedard]

Galvin and Welch 2nd tier pitchers?? Why they are among the greatest pitchers to have ever hurled a baseball. Check out where these pitchers rank in the history of the game.

Pud Galvin

Wins 364 (1)
Games 705 (1)
Innings 6003.3 (1)
Strikeouts 1806 (5)
Games Started 689 (1)
Complete Games 646 (1)
Shutouts 57 (1)
Batters Faced 25234 (1)

Mickey Welch

Wins 307 (6)
Games 565 (3)
Innings 4802 (4)
Strikeouts 1850 (3)
Games Started 549 (4)
Complete Games 525 (3t)
Shutouts 41 (4)
Batters Faced 18186 (4)

Pud Galvin may very well be the best pitcher in baseball history.

Mickey Welch isn't far behind. Certainly in the top five. In 9 of his 13 seasons he was among the top 10 in the league in Wins, ERA, hits allowed/9 IP, games, innings, strikeouts, starts, complete games, shutouts, & batters faced. top 10 in winning %, and adjusted ERA+ in 8 of those seasons as well as top 10 in WHIP in 7 of those seasons.

Bottom line is these are two of the elite pitchers in the history of the game and without question both deserve HOF induction.

Games, Innings, GS, and BF (and CG and maybe even shutouts at this juncture) all essentially measure the same thing -- how long a guy pitched. I voted for Galvin, and he deserves a spot based on being the all-time wins leader, but he looks a lot more impressive by these stats than he really was. Welch has lots of wins, but if he pitched for a worse team, would he have all of them? I doubt it.

[KCGHOST]

Brouthers
Browning
Clarkson
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Keefe
Kelly
O'Rourke
Radbourn
Spalding
Stovey
Ward
Wright

I must confess amazement that Radbourn has a higher favorable percentage than Keefe and Clarkson.

[leecemark]

--I think the best news so far from this ballot is that everybody who is at least a reasonable candidate has received a vore so X won't need to make any exceptions to the 1 vote to go forward policy. Also, it looks like we'll elect at least a few players, making room for the no brainers from the class of 1902 without any of us having to drop others from our ballots.

[DoubleX]

Here's something interesting - Madhatter voted for just 7 players, after voting for 20 last time before shortening to 10.

Madhatter, if you read this, you can vote for up to 15 now. Given the change, I'll add votes for you if you want.

[jjpm74]

--I think the best news so far from this ballot is that everybody who is at least a reasonable candidate has received a vore so X won't need to make any exceptions to the 1 vote to go forward policy. Also, it looks like we'll elect at least a few players, making room for the no brainers from the class of 1902 without any of us having to drop others from our ballots.


Foutz, Williamson and Buffinton are three guys on the ballot with zero votes so far that people expressed some interest in the last go around.

[leecemark]

--True, but do you think they have any reasonable shot at election? Look at how many guys have received votes and think about how many off this ballot we are likely to elect. The 1870s and 1880s guys have a very narrow window before the star of the 1890s start coming on the ballot and even moreso after guys who plaed into the 20th century. That a guy might someday get a vote is one thing. That he might someday be a viable candidate is another.

[Freakshow]

Here's something interesting - Madhatter voted for just 7 players, after voting for 20 last time before shortening to 10.

Madhatter, if you read this, you can vote for up to 15 now. Given the change, I'll add votes for you if you want.
I don't think he ever reads threads or does any research. Because he's, well, you know...mad!:crazy

[jjpm74]

They're probably not too likely to gain election, but neither are about 90% of the players on that ballot. The problem with setups like this is it only takes a few people to keep a player out.

I agree that the players that have received votes are all solid choices. The head scratcher for me is how many people are going with short ballots and how Brouthers seems to have less support now than he did with the 10 candidate maximum. :shrug:

[dgarza]

Sockeye's votes have a history of being based on cumulative totals of one or two stats, usually HRs or Wins.
...like I said...

[dgarza]

Dan Brouthers
Tim Keefe
John Clarkson
Ross Barnes
Al Spalding
Jim O'Rourke
King Kelly
Harry Stovey
Charley Radbourn
Pete Browning
Jim McCormick
Mickey Welsh
Pud Galvin
Bobby Mathews
Deacon White

[Erik Bedard]

We're on pace to elect six guys: Brouthers, Clarkson, Galvin, Keefe, O'Rourke, and Radbourn. Hines, Kelly, Mullane, and Stovey are also in good position for election in upcoming years (though why five people didn't think Kelly belongs in the Hall of Fame is incomprehensible to me).

[jjpm74]

...though why five people didn't think Kelly belongs in the Hall of Fame is incomprehensible to me.

Strategic ballotting. I left a few people off to make room for a few lesser candidates that will likely gain momentum as these elections progress but are unlikely to receive a lot of support this election. That doesn't mean I won't vote for the stronger candidates I left off when the space on my ballot allows for it.

[Erik Bedard]

Still, we have to take into account that this is 1901, and to date, there would almost certainly not be a person who would leave Kelly off their ballot. At the time, he would have been the person the Hall was created for. He had a team named after him, a song written about him, and was in general, the biggest star of his day. Plus, he died prematurely. In 1901, there were very few, if any, players more suited to the Hall.

[jjpm74]

Still, we have to take into account that this is 1901, and to date, there would almost certainly not be a person who would leave Kelly off their ballot. At the time, he would have been the person the Hall was created for. He had a team named after him, a song written about him, and was in general, the biggest star of his day. Plus, he died prematurely. In 1901, there were very few, if any, players more suited to the Hall.

Even in his own era, I'd put Dan Brouthers ahead of Kelly and probably would have been pining for guys like Creighton and Start.

Dan Brouthers was unquestionably the best hitter of his era. I'd easily include him in the top 10 best hitters of all time.

EDIT: I also don't think too many people are thinking about this from a 1901 perspective. If they were, with the exception of Clarkson, I don't think too many people would be looking too closely at any of the pitchers, catchers or right fielders. Their focus would be on star hitters.

[Brooklyn]

though why five people didn't think Kelly belongs in the Hall of Fame is incomprehensible to me.

Still, we have to take into account that this is 1901, and to date, there would almost certainly not be a person who would leave Kelly off their ballot. At the time, he would have been the person the Hall was created for. He had a team named after him, a song written about him, and was in general, the biggest star of his day. Plus, he died prematurely. In 1901, there were very few, if any, players more suited to the Hall.

As I mentioned above, I was somewhat conservative with my picks, not knowing as much about 19th century baseball as I would like. I was hoping these types of posts would spark enough conversation that I can find out more about the players beyond their stats.

It is hard to go back in time and pretend it is 1901. The easiest piece is looking at the stats through the end of 1900. At that time,

Kelly is 24th all-time in hits
Kelly is 16th all-time in runs
Kelly is 8th all-time in doubles
Kelly is 37th all-time in triples
Kelly is 19th all-time in homeruns
Kelly is 16th all-time in RBIs
Kelly is 27th all-time in Stolen Bases

My understanding was that batting average was a glamourous stat in that day. Kelly's .308 doesn't jump out, being 17th all-time among players with 5000 career atbats, and 32nd all-time among players with 3000 career at-bats.

His two batting titles and three times leading the league in runs scored is impressive. The fact that he was a catcher for about 1/3 of his games clearly improves his value.

But based on these stats, I don't see him being a sure-fire HOFer. What am I missing that the stats don't show? You mention he had a team named for him - what team? What else should I know?

[AG2004]

As I mentioned above, I was somewhat conservative with my picks, not knowing as much about 19th century baseball as I would like. I was hoping these types of posts would spark enough conversation that I can find out more about the players beyond their stats.

It is hard to go back in time and pretend it is 1901. The easiest piece is looking at the stats through the end of 1900. At that time,

Kelly is 24th all-time in hits
Kelly is 16th all-time in runs
Kelly is 8th all-time in doubles
Kelly is 37th all-time in triples
Kelly is 19th all-time in homeruns
Kelly is 16th all-time in RBIs
Kelly is 27th all-time in Stolen Bases

My understanding was that batting average was a glamourous stat in that day. Kelly's .308 doesn't jump out, being 17th all-time among players with 5000 career atbats, and 32nd all-time among players with 3000 career at-bats.

His two batting titles and three times leading the league in runs scored is impressive. The fact that he was a catcher for about 1/3 of his games clearly improves his value.

But based on these stats, I don't see him being a sure-fire HOFer. What am I missing that the stats don't show? You mention he had a team named for him - what team? What else should I know?


When Kelly first appeared in the NL in 1878 (it doesn't seem that long ago), the season was just 60 games. It gradually increased in length, reaching 126 games in the NL in 1886 and 140 games in the NL in 1888. Since then, the length of a season has remained fairly stable, varying between 132 games (1893-97) and 154 games (1892, 1898, 1899). It is currently at 140 games. As there were fewer games, Kelly had fewer opportunities to amass counting stats.

Also - and this is important - there was a huge increase in offense once the pitching distance was moved back to 60'6" before the 1893 season. In 1892, teams scored 5.10 runs per game, and batters hit .245/.317/.327. In 1893, the numbers jumped up to 6.57 runs per game, and batters hit .280/.356/.379. This rule change meant that offensive levels from 1893 onward were much higher than those during the 1880s.

Furthermore, stolen bases were not recorded until 1886, and Kelly was known for his baserunning. After the 1886 season, Kelly was sold to Boston for a record sum of $10,000.

Finally, the team you are asking about is the Cincinnati entry in the 1891 AA, which was called the Kellys or Kelly's Killers during that year.

[Erik Bedard]

Allow me to clarify. Kelly, based on his playing career, is not the best player on the ballot (Brouthers is). However, Kelly was probably the top gate attraction of the 19th century, and was seen as the "face of baseball" during his career, and could be considered responsible for the establishment of baseball as a major sport. In 1894, he managed the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers, and what is possibly the first "pop hit" song was written about him, Slide, Kelly, Slide.

From Wikipedia...

In one of the largest moves in the early history of professional baseball, Kelly was sold after the 1886 season to the Boston Beaneaters for a then-record $10,000.

In 1891 Kelly managed the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers.

His baserunning was a favorite attribute among fans, prompting the cry of "Slide Kelly Slide!"

The song, "Slide, Kelly, Slide," was America's first "pop hit" record, after its release by Edison Studios.

Kelly is also considered to have been the first man to popularize autographing, as fans pursued him on his way to the ballpark for his signature in the 1890s.

Prints of a painting of him sliding into second hung in most Irish saloons in Boston.

His own autobiography, "Play Ball," was the first written by a baseball player.

Kelly was also credited with originating the use of signs between the pitcher and catcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kelly

[TheSlaff]

MY BALLOT:

Ross Barnes
Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Paul Hines
Paul Keefe
King Kelly
Cal McVey
Jim O’Rourke
Charley Radbourn
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

ON DECK:

Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Mickey Welch

:gt

[Paul Wendt]

Actual Hall of Fame Players on Ballot (10):
Player Election Year
Dan Brouthers 1945 (VC)
John Clarkson 1963 (VC)
Pud Galvin 1965 (VC)
Tim Keefe 1964 (VC)
King Kelly 1945 (VC)
Tommy McCarthy 1946 (VC)
Jim O’Rourke 1945 (VC)
Charley Radbourn 1939 (VC)
John Ward 1964 (VC)
Mickey Welch 1973 (VC)

The Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/newsblog/) has elected eight of those ten "players" (not McCarthy or Welch), plus three other Hall of Fame members

Frank Grant
Al Spalding
George Wright

plus 16 who are not in Cooperstown.

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Deacon White

That is 26: Frank Grant plus 25 who are eligible and on the ballot here.
(Ironically, Frank Grant was a Cooperstown native.)

Five others eligible here scored pointsin the 2008 election when fifty voters elected three:
Mickey Welch (27th place), Ed Williamson, Fred Dunlap, Tony Mullane, and Tommy Bond. The first four are on the ballot here. fwiw, I consider that significant support for Welch and Williamson.

So there should be some participants who see tough choices.

[Paul Wendt]

[NOTE: This is the 1901 election. Hence, as far as this entire thread is concerned, I am pretending that is April 1, 1901, and I have no idea what will happen in the upcoming century. If you mention any players from after that date, I will claim not to know who they are, and will say "there's no record of such a player" in my response. Consider yourself warned.]

Is it not December? Are we not here for the annual meeting? Have not most of the good minor leagues joined together in the National Association? Have not Burkett, Wallace, Padden, Heidrick, Powell, Harper, and Sudhoff signed with the new Browns?

Did not the
Hall of Fame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Fame_for_Great_Americans) open in New York City this summer?

[DoubleX]

--I think the best news so far from this ballot is that everybody who is at least a reasonable candidate has received a vore so X won't need to make any exceptions to the 1 vote to go forward policy. Also, it looks like we'll elect at least a few players, making room for the no brainers from the class of 1902 without any of us having to drop others from our ballots.

We actually hit more candidates last time, though we still have several days left in this election. These candidates received a vote last time (two in Comiskey's case) but haven't yet here:

Oyster Burns
Charlie Comiskey
Abner Dalyrmple
Fred Dunlap
Silver Flint
Ned Hanlon
Tip O'Neill

Then there was an expressed interest in these players:

Charlie Buffinton
Bob Ferguson
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Charley Jones
Tommy McCarthy
Levi Meyerle
Dave Orr
Jack Rowe
Ned Williamson
Tom York

So I'll likely carry over at least these players, but the 1 vote rule will be in effect next year, where I imagine most of these will succumb.

[Paul Wendt]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
King Kelly
Jim O'Rourke
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

[Paul Wendt]

Here they are
LF CF RF
Dalrymple Browning Burns
Jones Gore Kelly *-c
O'Neill Hanlon Manning *-p
O'Rourke Hines McCarthy
Purcell Pike Shaffer
Stovey *-1b Welch Wolf
Wood
York

3B SS 2B 1B
Burns *-ss Force Barnes Brouthers
Denny Glasscock Burdock Comiskey
Ferguson *-2b Nelson Dunlap Larkin *-of
Meyerle Peters Farrell Morrill
Pinkney Ward *-p Richardson -of Orr
Sutton Wise *-2b Robinson Phillips
Williamson *-ss Wright Reilly
Start
P C
Baldwin Bennett
Bradley *-3b Carroll *-of
Buffinton Clapp
Caruthers *-of Flint
Chamberlain Miller
Clarkson McVey *-1b
Corcoran Rowe *-ss
Foutz *-1b Snyder
Galvin White *-3b
Hecker *-1b
Keefe
Mathews
McCormick
Morris
Mullane
Radbourn
Spalding
Staley
Welch
White
Whitney
Dozens played more than one position. Except for multiple positions within the outfield, I have marked a second position for everyone who played at least three full seasons equivalent games there.
--plus six pitchers and catchers Manning, Bradley, Caruthers, Hecker, Carroll, McVey
Moving the threshold for primary pitchers down to one full season equivalent games would include Buffinton, Mathews, Mullane, Radbourn, Spalding, and Whitney.

At the other extreme three left fielders played all of their games in the outfield: Dalrymple (99% left), O'Neill (99% left), and York (92%).

[Sockeye]

If you look purely at overall career value, Galvin has a good case for being the best. However, if you combine peak and career value, or consider rate stats, Galvin doesn't look quite as good.

Welch was among the top 10 in ERA nine times. However, he was among the top 9 in ERA just four times. In 1886, there were 20 pitchers in Welch's league who managed to reach the 20-decision level. In 1881, only 13 NL pitchers had 20 decisions. Finishing tenth in ERA under such circumstances is not an outstanding feat.

Here are ERA+/OPS+ for some pitchers of Welch's era.

Clarkson 134/60
Keefe 127/58
Caruthers 123/133
King 123/56
Radbourn 119/72
Mullane 118/87
McCormick 118/70
Hecker 114/117
Welch 114/68
Galvin 107/46

Here are some win shares measures.
Radbourne 391-199-270
Clarkson 396-173-248
Keefe 413-159-236

Galvin 403-155-187
(Totals do not reflect Galvin's play with the IA's Pittsburgh club in 1877 and the IA's Buffalo club in 1878.)
Mullane 399-159-193 or 229
(Mullane was blacklisted in 1885; the five-year total depends on whether
one ignores 1885 in determining the best five consecutive seasons)
Caruthers 335-162-254
Welch 354-145-193

Hecker 259-155-221
Whitney 275-139-200
King 263-159-216
McCormick 334-136-196
(UA discount applied to McCormick's peak totals)

Welch isn't close to being in the top five in career value or in his best five consecutive seasons; he's 14 win shares away from the top five according to his best three seasons.

Welch does have a large number of wins. However, he pitched for the New York Giants during their glory days, when they had Buck Ewing, Roger Connor, John Ward, and Jim O'Rourke on their roster -- and they added George Gore in the 1889 season. Welch was a good pitcher, but pitching for a team with so many stars certainly helped his W-L record.

If we include the IA play, Galvin has a wonderful case, as he becomes the top pitcher in pure career value (but the peak and rate stats keep him being number one overall). Since the IA was established as a competitor to the NL, and since Galvin played on top IA clubs (Buffalo jumped to the NL in 1879 and finished third), this IA play should be counted.

----

I shall conclude by noting that Sockeye failed to answer any of the questions I originally asked.

Sockeye, why are there no position players on your ballot? Dan Brouthers has the highest slugging percentage, the highest career OPS+, and the highest black ink score of any hitter in the history of major league base ball. How is he not worthy of being honored? Finally, if Brouthers is not worthy of your vote, is it possible for any hitter to ever be worthy of Hall of Fame honors?

If you had listed ten position players in addition to your five pitchers, I would not have bothered to criticize your ballot. However, your ballot listed only pitchers, and thus I felt compelled to ask these questions. You have responded to one sentence about Welch and Galvin. I await your response to the main point of my criticism.

I'm sorry but I have never heard of and am totally unfamilier with "win shares, ERA+, & OPS+" of which you speak. Have consulted a number of baseball referrence books that have come out in recent years (1895-1900) and none of which mention any such stats. So I can only assume they are a figment of ones imagination. Therefore I prefer to go by the stats I am familier with and thus have concluded without a doubt that Mickey Welch is most certainly one of the top 5 pitched to have ever gripped a baseball to date and thus is worthy of hall of fame induction.

In regards to Dan Brouthers. I can make no strong case against his HOF worthiness. I do believe that a pitcher has more impact than that of any single position player since there is but one pitcher taking the mound that day compared to 9 batsmen. A batsmen can go 0-4 with 4 strikeouts and still his team win the game. On the other hand if a pitchers has a terrible outing they have very little if any chance of winning. Thus I conclude pitching is the heart of baseball.

Dan Brouthers may be a worthy candidate and may in fact get elected to this newly established HOF, however it will have to happen without my vote.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm sorry but I have never heard of and am totally unfamilier with "win shares, ERA+, & OPS+" of which you speak. Have consulted a number of baseball referrence books that have come out in recent years (1895-1900) and none of which mention any such stats. So I can only assume they are a figment of ones imagination. Therefore I prefer to go by the stats I am familier with and thus have concluded without a doubt that Mickey Welch is most certainly one of the top 5 pitched to have ever gripped a baseball to date and thus is worthy of hall of fame induction.

In regards to Dan Brouthers. I can make no strong case against his HOF worthiness. I do believe that a pitcher has more impact than that of any single position player since there is but one pitcher taking the mound that day compared to 9 batsmen. A batsmen can go 0-4 with 4 strikeouts and still his team win the game. On the other hand if a pitchers has a terrible outing they have very little if any chance of winning. Thus I conclude pitching is the heart of baseball.

Dan Brouthers may be a worthy candidate and may in fact get elected to this newly established HOF, however it will have to happen without my vote.

You've advocated and voted for many batters before. There are fifteen slots available here. No offense, but that might be the most disingenuous excuse ever.

My ballot.

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Dan Brouthers
Pete Browning
John G. Clarkson
Pud Galvin
George Gore
Paul Hines
Tim Keefe
Tony Mullane
Jim O'Rourke
Charles Radbourn
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
John Montgomery Ward

[jjpm74]

This is a double post.

[jjpm74]

I'm sorry but I have never heard of and am totally unfamilier with "win shares, ERA+, & OPS+" of which you speak. Have consulted a number of baseball referrence books that have come out in recent years (1895-1900) and none of which mention any such stats. So I can only assume they are a figment of ones imagination. Therefore I prefer to go by the stats I am familier with and thus have concluded without a doubt that Mickey Welch is most certainly one of the top 5 pitched to have ever gripped a baseball to date and thus is worthy of hall of fame induction.

In regards to Dan Brouthers. I can make no strong case against his HOF worthiness. I do believe that a pitcher has more impact than that of any single position player since there is but one pitcher taking the mound that day compared to 9 batsmen. A batsmen can go 0-4 with 4 strikeouts and still his team win the game. On the other hand if a pitchers has a terrible outing they have very little if any chance of winning. Thus I conclude pitching is the heart of baseball.

Dan Brouthers may be a worthy candidate and may in fact get elected to this newly established HOF, however it will have to happen without my vote.

Go to baseball-reference.com and look at ERA+ and OPS+. They are much better indicators of a player's effectiveness than stats like wins and home runs. No offense, but if you studied even 1 book about 19th century baseball, you'd see that Mickey Welch is on par with someone like Dave Stieb. A good pitcher, but outside of the top 100 greatest pitchers of all time. Welch was never the best in his league. His league was small. He was in the top 50% in his league in his own era. That would puts him on a middle of the road team in today's world as their #3 starter. He also threw from a pitching distance that is much closer than today's distance and played in an era where spitballs were legaland retired the year before the modern pitching distance was established.

Mickey Welch actually ranks 207th all time in ERA+. That's not even in the suburbs of Cooperstown.

[leecemark]

--I believe Sockeye is familar with WS and OPS+. Its the 1901 version of him that is not. Not that I don't think Great Grandpa Sockeye is totally misguided with his 5 man ballot and no position players.

[dgarza]

--I believe Sockeye is familar with WS and OPS+. Its the 1901 version of him that is not. True, but the 2008 Sockeye is using that as cop-out to smoke-screen the 1901 Sockeye's true voting logic.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm under the impression that we're going with using things that could conceivably have been invented in 1901, such as ERA+ or OPS+. We have no knowledge, for example, that a six-year-old in Baltimore will change the game as we know it forever in a few years, but we do know that Mickey Welch's career ERA was 2.71, and we can determine the league average ERA, and how that was impacted by the parks in which the players played by using mathematical procedures available in 1901.

[jjpm74]

I'm under the impression that we're going with using things that could conceivably have been invented in 1901, such as ERA+ or OPS+. We have no knowledge, for example, that a six-year-old in Baltimore will change the game as we know it forever in a few years, but we do know that Mickey Welch's career ERA was 2.71, and we can determine the league average ERA, and how that was impacted by the parks in which the players played by using mathematical procedures available in 1901.

We can also determine that he was the 8th-12th best pitcher in a league that had about 25 pitchers with significant play time and that he didn't get any of the accolades guys like King Kelly and Dan Brouthers received in their day.

[Paul Wendt]

Anson, Connor, and Ewing may be the greatest players of the national game any of us will ever see. Because we must wait a year to vote for them, some of us may be tempted to vote only for twirlers now, Clarkson and Radbourn, Spalding and Bond. Should not the mighty Anson be honored first of the batsmen?

I think not. Five years is our rule. Anson, Connor, and Ewing themselves will surely be dismayed if we do not recognize the greatest of their mates and rivals who are eligible. Anson led the White Stockings to five League pennants in seven years but he would be the first to say that a captain is only as good as the men he leads into battle. Mike Kelly and George Gore, Ed Williamson and Tommy Burns, Silver Flint and Abner Dalrymple, first Larry Corcoran and then John Clarkson. Here I see all but Fred Pfeffer and the Captain himself.

The greatest of all his men was Mike Kelly. Can it be that some of do not recognize the King of ballplayers?

[AG2004]

In regards to Dan Brouthers. I can make no strong case against his HOF worthiness. I do believe that a pitcher has more impact than that of any single position player since there is but one pitcher taking the mound that day compared to 9 batsmen. A batsmen can go 0-4 with 4 strikeouts and still his team win the game. On the other hand if a pitchers has a terrible outing they have very little if any chance of winning. Thus I conclude pitching is the heart of baseball.

Dan Brouthers may be a worthy candidate and may in fact get elected to this newly established HOF, however it will have to happen without my vote.

You have produced a veritable masterpiece of sophistry here. If I were to submit a ballot listing the names of ten position players and no pitchers, I could pretend to justify it with a similar line of fallacious analysis:

"A pitcher can take the mound and give up ten runs. However, his team can still win, 13-10. A pitcher can give up twenty runs and still see his team win, 21-20. No matter how many runs a pitcher gives up, the team still has a chance of winning. On the other hand, if a team fails to score any runs, it cannot win the game. Thus I conclude hitting is the heart of baseball."

Both arguments above assume that the single game is the most important competition in baseball. However, winning an individual game is not very difficult, as even the 1899 Spiders accomplished that feat twenty times. If all eight teams in a league are playing on the same day, four teams will obtain victories. The most important competition is for the league pennant. Only one team per year can win the pennant, and obtaining the league championship is cause for celebration. The world little noted then, nor has long remembered now, the results of the game between Providence and Buffalo on July 13, 1881. However, it has remembered that the Chicago White Stockings won the 1881 pennant. Reference works will continue to record the standings at the end of each season, but they do not list the results of each and every game played. They state what players did on a season-by-season basis, but do not provide their game-by-game performances.

In an individual game, the pitcher may be more important than any individual position player. However, while a third baseman or center fielder may play every day, top pitchers will appear in approximately 25% of their teams' innings. Therefore, over the course of a season, the value of an individual pitcher and the value of an individual hitter may very well be equal. Because teams play for a pennant, and there is only one pennant per season, we cannot claim that HOF votes should be limited to pitchers only, nor to position players only.

Let us also consider some statistics. In 1900, NL teams recorded an average of 5.21 runs per game. The league ERA was 3.69. What accounts for the remaining 1.52 runs per game? Unearned runs. Boston had 271 errors, while New York had 439; these teams mark the extremes. Since teams record 2 or 3 errors per game, unearned runs are more common than you imagine.

We now turn our attention to 1885. NL teams scored 4.95 runs per game, but the NL ERA was just 2.82. The remaining 2.13 runs per game were the result of errors, or came after a team would have recorded its third out of the inning if not for errors. In 1876, NL teams scored 5.90 runs per game, but the league ERA was just 2.31. Over half of the league's runs that season were unearned. So, even though pitchers threw more often back then, they had less of a responsibility for the team's defensive performance in any given game than they do now. The fielders were very important, and should be given credit for their work.

As I have mentioned above, you have listed five pitchers for the HOF, but no position players. Both fielding and hitting are important parts of the game, and position players deserve credit for their work. I find it difficult to believe that the only players you find deserving of your vote are position players.

I have asked this question before, but you have yet to provide an answer. Is it possible for any position player to ever merit your vote for the HOF? If so, what would he have to accomplish in order to merit that vote?

I request that you do not set impossible standards such as hitting 200 home runs. It is theoretically possible that someone, someday, might hit that many home runs in a career. It is also theoretically possible that someone who served as Chief Engineer for the Chinese Imperial Bureau of Mines could someday become President of the United States. However, I do not expect either of these events to occur during the next thirty years. Please be realistic when giving your standards for position players.

[AG2004]

Go to baseball-reference.com and look at ERA+ and OPS+. They are much better indicators of a player's effectiveness than stats like wins and home runs. No offense, but if you studied even 1 book about 19th century baseball, you'd see that Mickey Welch is on par with someone like Dave Stieb. A good pitcher, but outside of the top 100 greatest pitchers of all time. Welch was never the best in his league. His league was small. He was in the top 50% in his league in his own era. That would puts him on a middle of the road team in today's world as their #3 starter. He also threw from a pitching distance that is much closer than today's distance and played in an era where spitballs were legaland retired the year before the modern pitching distance was established.

Mickey Welch actually ranks 207th all time in ERA+. That's not even in the suburbs of Cooperstown.

I have no record that anyone named Stieb has ever played in the major leagues. The closest I could come was Ed Stein, who had some good seasons with Brooklyn during the middle of the nineties, but his ERA+ was just 103, eleven points lower than Welch'. And exactly when was the spitball made illegal?

There are twenty players on the ballot whose primary position is listed as "pitcher." Welch is tied with Guy Hecker for the twelfth-best ERA+ among them. There are players like Silver King, who I think becomes eligible next year, who had a higher ERA+ and aren't on the ballot, but I can't believe that there are 206 pitchers who rank higher than Welch. I doubt that, in the three decades since the NAPBBP was established, there have been that many pitchers who have pitched often enough to be listed in the career rankings.

[Out-of-character response to Erik Bedard: The Hall of Merit followed the procedure you mentioned, and that I am also following. They assumed that statistical analysis could be performed using the numbers that were available. On the other hand, while they could get ERA+, OPS+, win shares, and WARP for seasons previous to each election, they couldn't obtain it for upcoming seasons. Thus, for the 1901 election, they don't have any statistics for seasons from 1902 onwards, but they have the results of these metrics for seasons up to 1901. I'm obtaining the results from the same sources they used.

One rumor has it that they came from some Tammany Hall clerks who, while supposedly employed by the City of New York to audit city contracts, were actually busy producing some figures to help Tammany associate Andrew Freedman run his base ball club. Since they knew what the results of their audits were going to be before they started, they had copious amounts of time to perform their real task. Freedman, who we all know is of unsound mind, rejected their work. This is one story that I have heard; there may be others.]

[BlueBlood]

What say you of the chances of Hank Swarthen? The finest batswinger in all of Vermont. Surely, you remember hearing stories as a boy of his great game in 1864 where he hit three home runs and two triples. His hands were abnormally large and covered with hair. His fingers were webbed, like the feet of a duck and he could throw so hard you'd be worried what was left of your hand would become gangrenous. His legend will surely forever be passed on through word of mouth.

[jjpm74]

You have produced a veritable masterpiece of sophistry here. If I were to submit a ballot listing the names of ten position players and no pitchers, I could pretend to justify it with a similar line of fallacious analysis:

"A pitcher can take the mound and give up ten runs. However, his team can still win, 13-10. A pitcher can give up twenty runs and still see his team win, 21-20. No matter how many runs a pitcher gives up, the team still has a chance of winning. On the other hand, if a team fails to score any runs, it cannot win the game. Thus I conclude hitting is the heart of baseball."

Both arguments above assume that the single game is the most important competition in baseball. However, winning an individual game is not very difficult, as even the 1899 Spiders accomplished that feat twenty times. If all eight teams in a league are playing on the same day, four teams will obtain victories. The most important competition is for the league pennant. Only one team per year can win the pennant, and obtaining the league championship is cause for celebration. The world little noted then, nor has long remembered now, the results of the game between Providence and Buffalo on July 13, 1881. However, it has remembered that the Chicago White Stockings won the 1881 pennant. Reference works will continue to record the standings at the end of each season, but they do not list the results of each and every game played. They state what players did on a season-by-season basis, but do not provide their game-by-game performances.

In an individual game, the pitcher may be more important than any individual position player. However, while a third baseman or center fielder may play every day, top pitchers will appear in approximately 25% of their teams' innings. Therefore, over the course of a season, the value of an individual pitcher and the value of an individual hitter may very well be equal. Because teams play for a pennant, and there is only one pennant per season, we cannot claim that HOF votes should be limited to pitchers only, nor to position players only.

Let us also consider some statistics. In 1900, NL teams recorded an average of 5.21 runs per game. The league ERA was 3.69. What accounts for the remaining 1.52 runs per game? Unearned runs. Boston had 271 errors, while New York had 439; these teams mark the extremes. Since teams record 2 or 3 errors per game, unearned runs are more common than you imagine.

We now turn our attention to 1885. NL teams scored 4.95 runs per game, but the NL ERA was just 2.82. The remaining 2.13 runs per game were the result of errors, or came after a team would have recorded its third out of the inning if not for errors. In 1876, NL teams scored 5.90 runs per game, but the league ERA was just 2.31. Over half of the league's runs that season were unearned. So, even though pitchers threw more often back then, they had less of a responsibility for the team's defensive performance in any given game than they do now. The fielders were very important, and should be given credit for their work.

As I have mentioned above, you have listed five pitchers for the HOF, but no position players. Both fielding and hitting are important parts of the game, and position players deserve credit for their work. I find it difficult to believe that the only players you find deserving of your vote are position players.

I have asked this question before, but you have yet to provide an answer. Is it possible for any position player to ever merit your vote for the HOF? If so, what would he have to accomplish in order to merit that vote?

I request that you do not set impossible standards such as hitting 200 home runs. It is theoretically possible that someone, someday, might hit that many home runs in a career. It is also theoretically possible that someone who served as Chief Engineer for the Chinese Imperial Bureau of Mines could someday become President of the United States. However, I do not expect either of these events to occur during the next thirty years. Please be realistic when giving your standards for position players.

1901 jjpm74 also wrote:

We can also determine that he was the 8th-12th best pitcher in a league that had about 25 pitchers with significant play time and that he didn't get any of the accolades guys like King Kelly and Dan Brouthers received in their day.

2008 jjpm74 writes:

As far as I can tell, there are 2 people in this poll who have been making an attempt to approach this from a 1901 perspective. Trying to approach this in 1901 character is silly since we are using a forum through the Internet on a computer to attempt to recreate an era that didn't have computers and would be doing this in person on a hand written ballot or possibly by ticker tape if they were wealthy businessmen.

You guys can attempt this if you like, but I expect to see period slang utilized and an in depth analysis of hits and wins since the stolen base wasn't interpreted as it is today, home runs were a rare novelty, people were still clamoring over the fair foul hit, and many counting stats that exist today weren't recorded or emphasized in 1901. Maybe throw in some references to how these players stacked up against the world's best billiards players as that sport received as much media attention at the turn of the century as baseball. Maybe make some references to the Mckinley assassination and the major new discovery of oil in Texas as well and marvel over the trans-Atlantic Marconi transmission and the brilliant motion pictures being produced by the Lumiere brothers and how they are a passing fad that will never replace the brilliance of Vaudeville. ;)

[DoubleX]

Just a day left and I would say that the rules modifications have been successful. I'm actually considering making the 15 vote ballot and 1 vote drop rule permanent. For now though, those rules will remain in effect for the next four elections, at which point we'll revisit.

It looks like we'll elect at least 5 players, and 33 different players have thus far received a vote, thus guaranteeing them a spot on the next ballot. Also, I count 14 players that voters have expressed an interest in voting for in the future but who have not received a vote in this election. These 14 players will make the next ballot, but this will be the only year the 1 vote rule is waived - starting next year, a player needs at least 1 vote to stick.

Here are the results so far:

Charley Radbourn - 94.44
Dan Brouthers - 88.89
John Clarkson - 88.89
Jim O'Rourke - 88.89
Tim Keefe - 77.78

Pud Galvin - 72.22
King Kelly - 66.67
Paul Hines - 61.11
John Ward - 61.11
Harry Stovey - 55.56
Deacon White - 55.56
Ross Barnes - 50.00
Charlie Bennett - 50.00
Tony Mullane 50.00
Pete Browning - 44.44
George Gore - 44.44
George Wright - 44.44
Ezra Sutton - 38.89
Bob Caruthers - 27.78
Jack Glasscock - 27.78
Al Spalding - 27.78
Joe Start - 27.78
Mickey Welch - 27.78
Cal McVey - 16.67
Charlie Comiskey - 5.56
Larry Corcoran - 5.56
Ned Hanlon - 5.56
Bobby Mathews - 5.56
Jim McCormick - 5.56
Lip Pike - 5.56
Hardy Richardson - 5.56

Others Who Will Make Next Ballot (PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO ADD ANYONE ELSE TO THE LIST BELOW):

Oyster Burns
Abner Dalyrmple
Silver Flint
Tip O'Neill
Charlie Buffinton
Bob Ferguson
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Charlie Jones
Levi Meyerle
Dave Orr
Jack Rowe
Will White
Ned Williamson
Tom York

The following players will debut on the 1902 ballot:

Cap Anson
Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
Bill Hutchison
Silver King
Denny Lyons
Sadie McMahon
Fred Pfeffer
Adonis Terry

[Brad Harris]

1901 Ballot
Dan Brouthers
Bob Caruthers
John Clarkson
George Gore
Paul Hines
Charley Jones
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Cal McVey
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
John Ward
Deacon White
-----------------------
In the wings
Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Al Spalding
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
George Wright

[Erik Bedard]

I would request that O'Neill be kept on the ballot.

[dgarza]

Others Who Will Make Next Ballot (PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO ADD ANYONE ELSE TO THE LIST BELOW):

Oyster Burns
Abner Dalyrmple
Silver Flint
Tip O'Neill
Charlie Buffinton
Bob Ferguson
Davy Force
Dave Foutz
Charlie Jones
Levi Meyerle
Dave Orr
Jack Rowe
Ned Williamson
Tom York



I request Will White remain as well.

[AG2004]

Membership in this new Hall of Fame should be limited to the truly great or influential figures in the history of the game. I suggest that we ask three questions of all candidates on the ballot.

First, was the player arguably the best player of his era?

If not, was the player arguably the best of all time at his position?

Finally, if neither answer is "yes," did the player make an important and lasting impact on the development of the game?

If I cannot answer "yes" to any of these questions, such a candidate is not great or important enough for honors.

Thus, here is my preliminary ballot, subject to revisions.

Ross Barnes
Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Bob Ferguson
Paul Hines
King Kelly
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn
Al Spaulding
Joe Start
Deacon White
George Wright

Ferguson fails on the first two counts. However, as he introduced switch hitting to the sport, he has had a lasting impact. Furthermore, he was president of the NAPBBP from 1872 to 1875. While this NA ceased to exist after 1875, the competition's top clubs formed the core of the NL in 1876, and thus it was not a complete failure.

One may argue for John Ward on the third count, for he was responsible for forming the Brotherhood and the PL. Had the PL succeeded, Ward would have had a good case. However, the PL folded after only a season of play, and its clubs failed to survive the league's collapse. The Brotherhood also failed to meet its goals, as NL clubs succeeded in implementing both a strict reserve clause and a salary cap.

If Dickey Pearce had been on the ballot, I would have voted for him. Not only was he arguably the best player of his era, but his invention of the bunt and his responsibility from turning the shortstop from a mere relayer of throws from the outfield into a key defensive position have produced and important and lasting impact on base ball as we know it.

Finally, I have noticed commentary from people who would vote as many as twenty-five of the players on this ballot into our new Hall of Fame if they were permitted to do so. How large of a Hall of Fame do we really need? If we were to honor Bobby Mathews or Davy Force, we should have four or five hundred members a century hence. It would be preferable to limit membership to the truly great.

[AG2004]

Maybe make some references to the Mckinley assassination and the major new discovery of oil in Texas as well and marvel over the trans-Atlantic Marconi transmission and the brilliant motion pictures being produced by the Lumiere brothers and how they are a passing fad that will never replace the brilliance of Vaudeville. ;)

Motion pictures could replace vaudeville if someone were to create a method to combine sound with the pictures. Without sound, they will be merely a passing fad, since most people have little interest in observing the performance of mimes. I suppose they will survive, but their primary purpose will consist of providing a record of sundry phenomena for the use of academic purposes.

I believe that this new century will also produce improvements in transportation. Currently, ships traveling between New York and San Francisco must go around the tip of South America. I believe that, within twenty years, they will not need to make such a lengthy trip, as recent improvements in technology and medicine will make the Nicaraguan Canal a reality.

[leecemark]

--If we elect Bobby Mathews its just like a gold watch awarded to a guy who shows up to work everyday, but does nothing particularly noteworthy, when he retires. Our standard may be lower than "the best of his time" or "best ever at his position", but it has to be higher than "yeh, he was dependable" or "sure he was pretty good for a few years". I'd say if you'd have been a good candidate for a "best of the 1870s or 1880s" team that should get you in the discussion. If not....

[AG2004]

Is it not December? Are we not here for the annual meeting? Have not most of the good minor leagues joined together in the National Association? Have not Burkett, Wallace, Padden, Heidrick, Powell, Harper, and Sudhoff signed with the new Browns?


[OOC: Sorry; I failed to read the introductory discussion regarding the creation of this thread. If I had, I would have seen that the timeline was: voting in December 1901, announcement at the end of the month, and induction in summer 1902.]

We also need a way to honor the pre-1871 pioneers of the game. Might I suggest the creation of a special Pioneers Committee for this task?

If possible, the members could meet sometime this upcoming May in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. This location would enable us to see Wagner and the NL champion Pirates play in Exposition Park.

[Paul Wendt]

Membership in this new Hall of Fame should be limited to the truly great or influential figures in the history of the game. I suggest that we ask three questions of all candidates on the ballot.

First, was the player arguably the best player of his era?

If not, was the player arguably the best of all time at his position?

Finally, if neither answer is "yes," did the player make an important and lasting impact on the development of the game?
It seems to me that your second question will admit fewer players in every succeeding generation: 20 from my father's generation, 10 from my own, 5 from my son's. That seems just and proper on the third question, for how much development of the game will our sons and grandsons see? But on the second question, should not the best of every generation be honored?

Finally, I have noticed commentary from people who would vote as many as twenty-five of the players on this ballot into our new Hall of Fame if they were permitted to do so. How large of a Hall of Fame do we really need? If we were to honor Bobby Mathews or Davy Force, we should have four or five hundred members a century hence. It would be preferable to limit membership to the truly great.
The Hall of Fame includes five scientists and five musicians. Perhaps baseball's Hall of Fame should select five shortstops and five secondbasemen?

[dgarza]

I believe that this new century will also produce improvements in transportation. Currently, ships traveling between New York and San Francisco must go around the tip of South America. I believe that, within twenty years, they will not need to make such a lengthy trip, as recent improvements in technology and medicine will make the Nicaraguan Canal a reality.
Uh, the train and the trans. contin. railway is much faster and some 30-60 years old. Why talk of water shipping in 1901? I have a not-too-future uncle from Dayton more interested in wings.

[DoubleX]

Thus, here is my preliminary ballot, subject to revisions.

Ross Barnes
Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Bob Ferguson
Paul Hines
King Kelly
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn
Al Spaulding
Joe Start
Deacon White
George Wright

I don't know if you've realized, but if you haven't voted yet, you only have until about 10:45 am today to do so before the poll closes (1902 will then start likely a few hours later). I don't believe your vote will alter anything at this point, but you might want it recorded in time for posterity's sake.

[AG2004]

Uh, the train and the trans. contin. railway is much faster and some 30-60 years old. Why talk of water shipping in 1901? I have a not-too-future uncle from Dayton more interested in wings.

One word: freight.

There are some things that are just too big to fit on a train.

[AG2004]

It seems to me that your second question will admit fewer players in every succeeding generation: 20 from my father's generation, 10 from my own, 5 from my son's. That seems just and proper on the third question, for how much development of the game will our sons and grandsons see? But on the second question, should not the best of every generation be honored?

These first few elections shall set the standard for membership. If some future player can match the levels of performance set by the players who are in our Hall of Fame then, that player should be honored.

During the next century, there might be a first baseman who was much greater than anyone who ever played the position. However, if Brouthers is in the hall, we can justify the inclusion of every future first baseman to have reached his level of play. Brouthers is a high standard; there will be few who could reach his level, and by making him the standard, our hall will be kept elite.


The Hall of Fame includes five scientists and five musicians. Perhaps baseball's Hall of Fame should select five shortstops and five secondbasemen?

The United States has existed for 125 years. Our Base Ball Hall of Fame, in contrast, reflects a mere thirty years of history. If we select five shortstops now, and consider that Dahlen and Davis are in mid-career, we may very well have thirty to forty shortshops a century from now. We have to be careful now; otherwise, our Hall will grow so large and cumbersome that membership will have lost its meaning.

If we use the Dahlen/Davis level for shortstops, we shall have approximately ten shortstops enshrined a century from now. Considering all positions on the field, and making possible allowances for multiple pitchers, we would have about 120 or 130 members a century from now, or approximately one honoree per year of base ball history.

The Hall of Fame for Great Americans envisions inducting five new honorees in each subsequent election, with elections held at five-year intervals. An average of one honoree per year of base ball for our Hall seems ideal.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Uh, the train and the trans. contin. railway is much faster and some 30-60 years old. Why talk of water shipping in 1901? I have a not-too-future uncle from Dayton more interested in wings.

You mean my neighbors, the bicicle salesmen? Feh. Bunch of daydreamers and lollygaggers messing up perfectly good farmland and fields.

[jjpm74]

The Hall of Fame for Great Americans envisions inducting five new honorees in each subsequent election, with elections held at five-year intervals. An average of one honoree per year of base ball for our Hall seems ideal.

So then we should be electing some 30+ players in this, our first election.

What say you of baseball only some 30 years old? My grandfather was playing the New York game some 60 years ago!

[leecemark]

--Well there were people in what we call the United States thousands of years ago - but its only been organized for 125. Same with baseball. I think we ought to be looking at a handfull of the truely dominant figures from before organized, professional baseball came into being - but very few. I'd venture to guess that future generations might even question whether 1871 is too early. The National Association was professional, but not so organzied.

[leecemark]

C: Deacon White
1B: Cap Anson
2B: Ross Barnes
3B: Ezra Sutton
SS: George Wright
LF: Jim O'Rourke
CF: Paul Hines
RF: Cal McVey (although that was actually his 60s position)
Sub: Joe Start (really earned this as the 1B of the 60s)
P: Al Spaudling
--Should there be a second from this pitch every game period?
--Does anyone doubt any of these players deserve to be honored. Does anyone think there are additonal players who should (I would honor Dickey Pearce, but that is more for his play in the 1860s).

[jjpm74]

--Well there were people in what we call the United States thousands of years ago - but its only been organized for 125. Same with baseball. I think we ought to be looking at a handfull of the truely dominant figures from before organized, professional baseball came into being - but very few. I'd venture to guess that future generations might even question whether 1871 is too early. The National Association was professional, but not so organzied.

My grandfather spoke of a pitcher by the name of Creighton he encountered towards the end of his playing days. This man be so dominant in his era that I can scarcely believe any pitcher could ever match his skills, God rest his soul. 1000s have visited this poor soul's tomb since his untimely death. People will be calling his name along with Kelly and his crazy new jazz song for centuries to come. If he is not deserving then I do not know who would be.

[Paul Wendt]

RF: Cal McVey (although that was actually his 60s position)
Sub: Joe Start (really earned this as the 1B of the 60s)

Anson, O'Rourke, and McVey did not play much third, left, and right in the 1870s. They played about half-time at third, center, and catcher respectively. If utility suggests the perimeter positions or five corners then 3b-u, cf-u, and c-u.
Fortunately, there is no good reason to select one star at each position.

[leecemark]

C: Buck Ewing (also like Charlie Bennett)
1B: Dan Brouthers
2B: Hardy Richardson (but does he lower the bar?)
3B: Ed Williamson (he would)
SS: John Ward (as a total package - Glasscock best career SS)
LF: Harry Stovey
CF: George Gore
RF: King Kelly
Sub: Roger Conner
P: John Clarkson
P: Charley Radbourne
P: Tim Keefe
P: Pud Galvin
--Is 4 pitchers too many from a decade? Galvin is the least of these, but he is the winningest pitcher of all time and that certainly seems worthy of induction. Perhaps the team concept is not the best. Maybe the top 10 players of a decade or something close to that.

[leecemark]

My grandfather spoke of a pitcher by the name of Creighton he encountered towards the end of his playing days. This man be so dominant in his era that I can scarcely believe any pitcher could ever match his skills, God rest his soul. 1000s have visited this poor soul's tomb since his untimely death. People will be calling his name along with Kelly and his crazy new jazz song for centuries to come. If he is not deserving then I do not know who would be.


--maybe someone who pitched more than a couple years vs indifferent competition?

[jjpm74]

--maybe someone who pitched more than a couple years vs indifferent competition?

No one in baseball was more famous than him in his day. Aren't we calling this new invention the Hall of Fame? The most famous players of their day should surely be the most logical choices in such a place of honor.

[DoubleX]

Our first election is over and we have elected five very worthy players to represent the inaugural class:

Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Tim Keefe
Jim O'Rourke
Charley Radbourn

[Paul Wendt]

At best All-America Teams from every decade can provide suggestions and a guideline regarding numbers and occasionally pick up a star of two decades. The greatest players will not come in equal numbers at all positions, not even during thirty or forty years. If you could count all-America seasons that might be some help here, but only some. Balanced teams of star players are fundamentally a different project.

[AG2004]

So then we should be electing some 30+ players in this, our first election.

Anson and Ewing have not been retired long enough to make this ballot, but they will be on next year's ballot. Kid Nichols, who may be the greatest pitcher ever, is still around. Perhaps I should have stated it as "one debut per year of base ball history." Thus, when all of the professional players who appeared in the previous century have become eligible, about 30 of them should be in the Hall of Fame. Several of these players are active today.

What say you of baseball only some 30 years old? My grandfather was playing the New York game some 60 years ago!

The professional game is only some 30 years old. Your grandfather may have been playing the New York game 60 years ago, but others were playing the Massachusetts game at that time. Records are scanty enough from the time of the NABBP, and are practically non-existent before that. We need to be very careful when looking at players from before 1871. Perhaps a special Pioneers Committee could handle that task.

[AG2004]

--maybe someone who pitched more than a couple years vs indifferent competition?

Creighton introduced the "speedball," or fastball, to base ball, and also created the "dew-drop pitch," or changeup. By introducing the wrist snap, he changed the role of the pitcher, and made it a more important position within the game. In 1860, his Excelsior club made the first large-scale tour of any base ball organization, and Creighton's value as the main attraction helped to spread the New York game along the East Coast.

During his short lifetime, Creighton made an important and lasting impact on the sport. Since I can answer "yes" to the third of my questions regarding Creighton, I would vote for him. Even if you feel his playing was not up to the necessary standard for induction, you cannot argue that his innovation does not make him worthy of our honor.

[AG2004]

Does anyone want to discuss the composition and purpose of a Pioneers Committee to consider the worth of pre-NAPBBP players or of nonplayers who nevertheless played a significant role in the development or expansion of the game of base ball?

----

We also need a location for our Hall of Fame. Hoboken's Elysian Fields were subdivided during the 1870s, and buildings and streets now cover most of the location. Also, Hoboken can only be reached from New York by ferry, there being neither tunnel nor bridge across the Hudson. A more fitting location might be 133 Clinton Street in Brooklyn. The building was the clubhouse of the Excelsior club when they left on their first great tour of the Northeast, and thus has a link to base ball's early years.

[DoubleX]

We also need a location for our Hall of Fame. Hoboken's Elysian Fields were subdivided during the 1870s, and buildings and streets now cover most of the location. Also, Hoboken can only be reached from New York by ferry, there being neither tunnel nor bridge across the Hudson. A more fitting location might be 133 Clinton Street in Brooklyn. The building was the clubhouse of the Excelsior club when they left on their first great tour of the Northeast, and thus has a link to base ball's early years.

I believe 133 Clinton Street is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. But a location nearby, with a couple of blocks, could be good. In general though, I'd say that Brooklyn Heights would be a good area given the history of baseball in Brooklyn, it's close proximity to Brooklyn Bridge and the great view of developing Manhattan.

[Erik Bedard]

I certainly feel that there deserves to be some recognition for those who, while their playing career may have been unremarkable or nonexistent, did so much to further the game of base ball that any history is nothing without them. However, the game is now presumably past its pioneer stage, and as such, I would suggest that such a committee be a one-time thing, with no vote, only a consensus on one group of individuals who would then be enshrined. Such a committee could reconvene as necessary, but the first meeting should be sufficient to determine a worthy group.

[jjpm74]

Double post...

[jjpm74]

Does anyone want to discuss the composition and purpose of a Pioneers Committee to consider the worth of pre-NAPBBP players or of nonplayers who nevertheless played a significant role in the development or expansion of the game of base ball?


Maybe we could start by generating a list of candidates then once we have that, work on a set of criteria for the players of this period as the 10 year limit would have to be waved for most of these players.

Edit, here's a good starting point, these are some players/pioneers from that period that at least warrant some discussion:

Doc Adams
Esteban Bellan
Alexander Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Aaron Champion
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
James Whyte Davis
Bob Ferguson
A.G. Mills
Dickey Pearce
Abraham Tucker
Harry Wright

I'm sure there are a few others as well.

It may be better to discuss players like Joe Start, Lipman Pike, George Wright and others who's careers did extend into the professional era at some point to see who, if anyone warrants future consideration on a Veteran's Committee if this current system doesn't grant them induction.

[Paul Wendt]

Does anyone want to discuss the composition and purpose of a Pioneers Committee to consider the worth of pre-NAPBBP players or of nonplayers who nevertheless played a significant role in the development or expansion of the game of base ball?
Unfortunately I can't spend the time there.

We also need a location for our Hall of Fame. Hoboken's Elysian Fields were subdivided during the 1870s, and buildings and streets now cover most of the location. Also, Hoboken can only be reached from New York by ferry, there being neither tunnel nor bridge across the Hudson. A more fitting location might be 133 Clinton Street in Brooklyn. The building was the clubhouse of the Excelsior club when they left on their first great tour of the Northeast, and thus has a link to base ball's early years.
There is a marker at the 1855 site of the Jolly Bachelors Club that became the Excelsior BBC. I recall that it is on a residential corner and Creighton lived close by but I don't recall whether the 1855 buildings are standing or whether the Excelsior clubhouse remained there.

Where did the Excelsiors tour? Chiefly the interior of New York State according to Marshall Wright's log. Six games in nine days, early July 1860: Albany, Troy, Buffalo, Rochester, Rochester (two clubs), Newburgh. That was the main rail route and the venerable water route, Hudson River & Erie Canal.
Ten days later, Baltimore and Philadelphia, one game each.

[SavoyBG]

Galvin and Welch 2nd tier pitchers?? Why they are among the greatest pitchers to have ever hurled a baseball. Check out where these pitchers rank in the history of the game.

Pud Galvin

Wins 364 (1)
Games 705 (1)
Innings 6003.3 (1)
Strikeouts 1806 (5)
Games Started 689 (1)
Complete Games 646 (1)
Shutouts 57 (1)
Batters Faced 25234 (1)

Mickey Welch

Wins 307 (6)
Games 565 (3)
Innings 4802 (4)
Strikeouts 1850 (3)
Games Started 549 (4)
Complete Games 525 (3t)
Shutouts 41 (4)
Batters Faced 18186 (4)


What does "batters faced" mean? As this is April 1, 1901, I've never heard of "batters faced," and I also don't know of any book available that lists these numbers that you are quoting. Can you tell us where you are getting these numbers from?

[SavoyBG]

C: Ewing, Bennett
1B: Brouthers, Start (Anson when he is eligible next year)
2B: Barnes (maybe Richardson)
3B: Sutton
SS: Wright, Ward (maybe Glasscock) - Pearce if he were on ballot
LF: O'Rourke, Stovey
CF: Hines, Gore (maybe Pike)
RF: Kelly
P: Clarkson, Keefe, Radbourne, Glavin, Mullane, Spaulding


Certainly Denny Lyons was a better player than Sutton.

I think Connor was easily better than Joe Start too.

[leecemark]

--I think you missed your chance to discuss these guys. They are all long since elected. This thread is ancient history.

[SavoyBG]

I'm under the impression that we're going with using things that could conceivably have been invented in 1901, such as ERA+ or OPS+. We have no knowledge, for example, that a six-year-old in Baltimore will change the game as we know it forever in a few years, but we do know that Mickey Welch's career ERA was 2.71, and we can determine the league average ERA, and how that was impacted by the parks in which the players played by using mathematical procedures available in 1901.


Actually, in 1901 we did not know the ERA's of old time pitchers. ERA was not even kept track of until later years. The figures you see on ERA's of 19th century pitchers were all figured out years later.

[jjpm74]

Actually, in 1901 we did not know the ERA's of old time pitchers. ERA was not even kept track of until later years. The figures you see on ERA's of 19th century pitchers were all figured out years later.

If you read through the other threads, you'll figure out why people are applying the statistics they are. It's starting to sound like you have a bone to pick with a project that is 1/3rd of the way completed already. These are items that were already debated and ironed out long ago.

[DoubleX]

Savoy, as Mark and JJPM indicated, this thread is now ancient history. However, the players who were not elected in this election are now eligible in the Veterans Committee elections, which we hold every 5 years (aka weeks). The Committee's membership is set for the timebeing, but you are free to chime in with your thoughts on players who you feel should be elected. For instance, if you feel strongly that Denny Lyons belong, you might want to make a case at the next VC election comparing Lyons to his peers at 3B, Ezra Sutton in particular, and our election standards in general.

Also, if you have time, you might want to go back through some of these older elections to get a better sense of the aims of this project as well as discussions on some of the players you deemed as questionable selections.

EDIT - A Note on Statistics: Realizing it is completely impossible to recreate the full perspective of a voter from the year we're doing - we just can't know completely how someone would have thought in a different time with different types of knowledge, beliefs, and circumstances. As such, before even starting this, it was decided that using modern statistics to assist in our evaluations is perfectly fine, but with the limitation that we don't apply modern standards but use the statistics to help us better put a player within the context of his time and history up to that point. For instance, you'll find win shares frequently employed to show how a player measured against his peers.