BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1902

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

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. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.

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 either 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, or who are no longer eligible for the current election, will be eligible for the Veterans/Pioneers Committee, provided their last appearance was no later than 1882. 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.


1902 Guide
There are 52 candidates on the 1902 ballot. First time eligible players last played in 1897.

First Timers (9)
Cap Anson
Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
Bill Hutchison
Silver King
Denny Lyons
Sadie McMahon
Fred Pfeffer
Adonis Terry

Holdovers (43)
Player Year of Eligibility High Support Previous Year’s Support
Ross Barnes 2nd 50.00% 50.00%
Charlie Bennett 2nd 45.00% 45.00%
Pete Browning 2nd 40.00% 40.00%
Charlie Buffinton* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Oyster Burns* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Bob Caruthers 2nd 30.00% 30.00%
Charlie Comiskey 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Larry Corcoran 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Abner Dalrymple* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Fred Dunlap* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Bob Ferguson 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Silver Flint* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Davy Force* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Dave Foutz* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Pud Galvin 2nd 65.00% 65.00%
Jack Glasscock 2nd 25.00% 25.00%
George Gore 2nd 45.00% 45.00%
Ned Hanlon 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Paul Hines 2nd 65.00% 65.00%
Charley Jones 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
King Kelly 2nd 70.00% 70.00%
Bobby Mathews 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Tommy McCarthy 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Jim McCormick 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Cal McVey 2nd 20.00% 20.00%
Levi Meyerle* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Tony Mullane 2nd 45.00% 45.00%
Tip O’Neill* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Dave Orr* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Lip Pike 2nd 5.00% 5.00%
Hardy Richardson 2nd 10.00% 10.00%
Jack Rowe* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Al Spalding 2nd 30.00% 30.00%
Joe Start 2nd 35.00% 35.00%
Harry Stovey 2nd 50.00% 50.00%
Ezra Sutton 2nd 35.00% 35.00%
John Ward 2nd 60.00% 60.00%
Mickey Welch 2nd 25.00% 25.00%
Deacon White 2nd 60.00% 60.00%
Will White* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
Ned Williamson* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%
George Wright 2nd 45.00% 45.00%
Tom York* 2nd 0.00% 0.00%

* = Player on 1902 ballot despite not receiving a vote in 1901


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (7)
Player 1901 Support
King Kelly 70.00%
Pud Galvin 65.00%
Paul Hines 65.00%
John Ward 60.00%
Deacon White 60.00%
Ross Barnes 50.00%
Harry Stovey 50.00%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (5)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1

Players Elected by Position
Position Total Players Year Elected
Catcher 0
First Base 1 Dan Brouthers 1901
Second Base 0
Third Base 0
Shortstop 0
Left Field 1 Jim O’Rourke 1901
Center Field 0
Right Field 0
Pitcher 3 John Clarkson 1901
Tim Keefe
Charley Radbourn 1901

Players Elected by Year
Year Player
1901 Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Tim Keefe
Jim O’Rourke
Charley Radbourn

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20

Links to Past Elections
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)

[DoubleX]

My ballot:

Cap Anson
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Roger Conner
Buck Ewing
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
King Kelly
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White

Remember everyone, that the 1 vote rule is now in effect. So if a player does not get a vote this time, there is no reprieve.

[Sockeye]

Cap Anson
Pud Galvin
Mickey Welch

[Freakshow]

Anson
Barnes
Connor
Ewing
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Kelly
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Ward
D.White
Wright

[AG2004]

Cap Anson
Pud Galvin
Mickey Welch

I observe that Sockeye has added one position player to his ballot. I am still wondering why he has not added more position players, and have yet to hear what his standard for listing a position player is. Many contemporary observers said that the combination of Ewing's offense and his defense at catcher made him the greatest position player of his era. So why Anson and no other position player?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Cap Anson
Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Mike Kelly
Harry Stovey
John Montgomery Ward
Deacon White

[jjpm74]

Voted for:

1. Cap Anson
2. Ross Barnes
3. Charlie Bennett
4. Bob Caruthers
5. Roger Conner
6. Buck Ewing
7. Jack Glasscock
8. George Gore
9. Paul Hines
10. King Kelly
11. Lip Pike
12. Joe Start
13. Harry Stovey
14. Ezra Sutton
15. Deacon White

I'm likely to vote for these guys when I have room if they make it to the 1903 ballot:

1. Pud Galvin
2. Cal McVey
3. Tony Mullane
4. Hardy Richardson
5. John Ward
6. George Wright

[Paul Wendt]

DoubleX,
Did you vote for 14 in the poll or omit one when writing it up?

I intend to write "(15)" or so to confirm that I intend a full ballot, or not, same as my BBFHOF ballot now begins "This is a vote for 23".

This is a vote for eight (8), for illustration only.
Anson
Barnes
Connor
Dalrymple
Ewing
Ferguson
Gore
Hines

[Paul Wendt]

I observe that Sockeye has added one position player to his ballot. I am still wondering why he has not added more position players, and have yet to hear what his standard for listing a position player is. Many contemporary observers said that the combination of Ewing's offense and his defense at catcher made him the greatest position player of his era. So why Anson and no other position player?
Sockeye,
Next door you are voting for Browning, McVey, Richardson, and Welch.
Your interpretation here seems to be not simply strict but unchanged for pitchers and strict for others.

(All,
That ballot is in the BBFHOF "voting thread" for the cycle that ends Friday. The BBFHOF now includes 241 players, a few more than Cooperstown; or a few less than Cooperstown if the count is limited to players eligible there.)

[DoubleX]

DoubleX,
Did you vote for 14 in the poll or omit one when writing it up?

I voted for 15. I forgot to put Glasscock on the list I posted.

[jalbright]

My votes:

Anson
Bennett
Connor
Ewing
Galvin

Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Kelly
Mullane

Start
Stovey
Sutton
Ward
D. White

The one guy I'm hoping makes it to the next round is Hardy Richardson. I also missed George Wright, but I'll get him next time, as he already has a vote.

[jjpm74]

The one guy I'm hoping makes it to the next round is Hardy Richardson.

Richardson has a vote, so if I'm reading DoubleX's writeup correctly that means he is going to be on the 1903 ballot.

[leecemark]

Anson
Barnes
Bennett
Conner
Ewing
Galvin
Gore
Hines
Kelly
McVey
Mullane
Spaulding
Ward
White, D.
Wright

[Sockeye]

I observe that Sockeye has added one position player to his ballot. I am still wondering why he has not added more position players, and have yet to hear what his standard for listing a position player is. Many contemporary observers said that the combination of Ewing's offense and his defense at catcher made him the greatest position player of his era. So why Anson and no other position player?

Buck Ewing

Black Ink: Batting - 5 (368) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 97 (229) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 35.9 (185) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 35.0 (505) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Even when considering defense and positional adjustments it doesn't exactly scream hall of famer to me. Anson has the rare combination of longevity and production that few position players from this era are able to match. Anson, Galvin, and Welch are the only three from this ballot truly deserving of HOF honors.

[jjpm74]

Buck Ewing

Black Ink: Batting - 5 (368) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 97 (229) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 35.9 (185) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 35.0 (505) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Even when considering defense and positional adjustments it doesn't exactly scream hall of famer to me. Anson has the rare combination of longevity and production that few position players from this era are able to match. Anson, Galvin, and Welch are the only three from this ballot truly deserving of HOF honors.

What are these strange numbers you posted? What is a HOFer?

[Sockeye]

Sockeye,
Next door you are voting for Browning, McVey, Richardson, and Welch.
Your interpretation here seems to be not simply strict but unchanged for pitchers and strict for others.

There can be two interpretations. A larger hall vs a smaller hall. As a rule of thumb I'm for a smaller HOF. Since I wasn't able to get in at the beginning of voting in the other project and most of the small HOF choices were already inducted. I decided to vote using the larger HOF theory instead of only voting for the 5 or 6 players who I feel are truly deserving.

This project on the other hand starting from the beginning I've decided to stick with my normal small hall way of thinking and only vote for players who I truly feel should be in the HOF. It will be interesting to see what the results are and how many players make it with or without my support.

[BlueBlood]

Anson
Barnes
Browning
Caruthers
Connor
Ewing
Galvin
Hines
Kelly
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
White
Wright

[Sockeye]

What are these strange numbers you posted? What is a HOFer?

They came to me in a dream...A voice said Buck Ewing....NO hall of fame for you!!!:nosleep:

[1905 Giants]

Cap Anson - 1B
Bob Caruthers -SP/RF
Roger Connor -1B
Buck Ewing - C
Pud Galvin - SP
Tip O'Neill - LF
Al Spalding - SP
John Ward - SS/SP
Mickey Welch - SP

Bobby Mathews almost made it, but I decided that in the end he didn't quite make it.

I'm apparently the only one so far who believes Tip belongs in the Hall, but its early enough that he can get more support. Even without his monstrous season he was good for a nine-year player, and with it he's definetly in the Hall, although I agree that one season does not a Hall of Famer make.

[jjpm74]

They came to me in a dream...A voice said Buck Ewing....NO hall of fame for you!!!:nosleep:

The problem is, you're applying 2008 standards to players who played 130 years ago. Black and Gray ink do not work for these older players as the league was small and those numbers can be misleading. HOF monitor and HOF standards (which is what you seem to heavily rely on looking at your top choices) favor players who played over the past 50 years and again do not apply to players who played in seasons that saw less than 140 games in a lot of cases. They are incredibly skewed when looking at 19th and early 20th century pitchers especially. If you're going to do that, at least read a book or two about 19th century baseball. If you had, there's no way you'd find someone like Mickey Welch a more worthy candidate than someone like Joe Start.

[nerfan]

You guys do know that Pud Galvin is a juicer, right?

[jjpm74]

You guys do know that Pud Galvin is a juicer, right?

What kind of juice does he make? I enjoy orange juice but cannot get it being in Connecticut when it is made in Florida.

[Sockeye]

The problem is, you're applying 2008 standards to players who played 130 years ago. Black and Gray ink do not work for these older players as the league was small and those numbers can be misleading. HOF monitor and HOF standards (which is what you seem to heavily rely on looking at your top choices) favor players who played over the past 50 years and again do not apply to players who played in seasons that saw less than 140 games in a lot of cases. They are incredibly skewed when looking at 19th and early 20th century pitchers especially. If you're going to do that, at least read a book or two about 19th century baseball. If you had, there's no way you'd find someone like Mickey Welch a more worthy candidate than someone like Joe Start.

You could not be more incorrect! Black and Gray ink numbers favor the older players and penalize players from the last 50 years. The fewer teams = fewer players = easier to achieve black & gray ink. So when you have a player from the 1800's with 5 & 97 that isn't very good at all. In Ewing's defense the fact he played catcher has something to do with it. But lets compare Ewing to some other players from this same era.

Black Ink

Barnes 59
Stovey 56
Anson 52
O'Neil 35
Connor 31
Hines 30
White 28
Pike 26
O'Rourke 25
Kelly 23
Orr 22
McVey 22
Browning 21
Reilly 20
Jones 20
Gore 19
Dunlap 19
Meyerle 15
Dalrymple 15
Swartwood 14
Richardson 12
Ewing 5

Gray Ink

Anson 358
O'Rourke 288
Connor 269
Kelly 221
Stovey 210
Hines 186
White 178
Jones 162
Browning 147
Barnes 147
McVey 136
Reilly 134
Gore 125
O'Neil 124
Richardson 120
Pike 120
Orr 108
Larkin 108
Ewing 97

Even when taking into account defense and positional adjustments Ewing still falls short. If the numbers don't fit we must not elect!

[jjpm74]

You could not be more incorrect! Black and Gray ink numbers favor the older players and penalize players from the last 50 years. The fewer teams = fewer players = easier to achieve black & gray ink. So when you have a player from the 1800's with 5 & 97 that isn't very good at all. In Ewing's defense the fact he played catcher has something to do with it. But lets compare Ewing to some other players from this same era.

Black Ink

Barnes 59
Stovey 56
Anson 52
O'Neil 35
Connor 31
Hines 30
White 28
Pike 26
O'Rourke 25
Kelly 23
Orr 22
McVey 22
Browning 21
Reilly 20
Jones 20
Gore 19
Dunlap 19
Meyerle 15
Dalrymple 15
Swartwood 14
Richardson 12
Ewing 5

Gray Ink

Anson 358
O'Rourke 288
Connor 269
Kelly 221
Stovey 210
Hines 186
White 178
Jones 162
Browning 147
Barnes 147
McVey 136
Reilly 134
Gore 125
O'Neil 124
Richardson 120
Pike 120
Orr 108
Larkin 108
Ewing 97

Even when taking into account defense and positional adjustments Ewing still falls short. If the numbers don't fit we must not elect!

The problem with black ink and especially gray ink and the 19th century, besides for the fact that there were fewer teams, is that it is tabulated based on statistics that were either not collected or not emphasized in that era and compiled a century later, making them pretty much useless when looking at players from that era.

When it comes to pitchers from that era, you're talking about in some instances a situation where Michey Welch was the 9th best pitcher in a league that had 20 pitchers. That means that you are supporting 45% of the pitchers from that era and less than 1% of the fielding players from that era. Sorry, but that doesn't mesh at all and you've yet to give a logical reason why you favor such a huge inclusion for pitchers and hide behind the small hall argument for position players.

[Paul Wendt]

Here are the same two lists but I have highlighted everyone whose primary position was not outfield or firstbase. Beside the pitcher they compose half of every team on the field: C, 3B, SS, 2B.
I have also added Dan Brouthers. I don't know how many contemporaries are still missing.
Black Ink

Brouthers 79
Barnes 59
Stovey 56
Anson 52
O'Neil 35
Connor 31
Hines 30
White 28
Pike 26
O'Rourke 25
Kelly 23 - rf; about 60% of/1b
Orr 22
McVey 22 - c; about 40% of/1b
Browning 21
Reilly 20
Jones 20
Gore 19
Dunlap 19
Meyerle 15
Dalrymple 15
Swartwood 14
Richardson 12
Ewing 5

Gray Ink

Anson 358
O'Rourke 288
Connor 269
Brouthers 263
Kelly 221
Stovey 210
Hines 186
White 178
Jones 162
Browning 147
Barnes 147
McVey 136
Reilly 134
Gore 125
O'Neil 124
Richardson 120
Pike 120
Orr 108
Larkin 108
Ewing 97

[Paul Wendt]

Here are the same lists limited to players with debuts after 1875 (1878-84?).
Black Ink

Brouthers 79
Stovey 56
O'Neil 35
Connor 31
Kelly 23
Orr 22
Browning 21
Reilly 20
Gore 19
Dunlap 19
Dalrymple 15
Swartwood 14
Richardson 12
Ewing 5

Gray Ink

Connor 269
Brouthers 263
Kelly 221
Stovey 210
Browning 147
Reilly 134
Gore 125
O'Neil 124
Richardson 120
Orr 108
Larkin 108
Ewing 97

[AG2004]

You could not be more incorrect! Black and Gray ink numbers favor the older players and penalize players from the last 50 years. The fewer teams = fewer players = easier to achieve black & gray ink. So when you have a player from the 1800's with 5 & 97 that isn't very good at all. In Ewing's defense the fact he played catcher has something to do with it. But lets compare Ewing to some other players from this same era.



The fact that he played catcher has a lot to do with it. In 1885, the National League had a 112-game schedule. Here are the NL leaders in games at catcher that year:

George Myers 69
Silver Flint 68
Barney Gilligan 65
Buck Ewing 63
Charlie Bennett 62
Fatty Briody 60

With the schedule as long as it was, and with catchers' equipment as crude as it was, catchers of the 1880s simply could not be everyday players. Ewing did play in the field on occasion, but you didn't want him in the field too often, since that would weaken his defense, and Ewing is rated as an "A+" defensive catcher.

Ewing does have a lot of top ten finishes in rate stats: Batting average, slugging, OPS+, and offensive winning percentage. However, with the exception of triples, Ewing doesn't have a lot of top ten finishes in the counting stats. Since he was such a great defensive catcher, he couldn't play often enough to accumulate those counting numbers -- but, when we consider the rate numbers, Ewing is quite likely the greatest catcher ever. (For some reason, one gets four ink points for leadership in home runs, and one ink point for leadership in triples. Since home runs are rarer than triples, I don't know why we have this discrepancy.)

----
For comparison, here are the leaders in games caught last year, 1902:

NL
Johnny Kling 112
Frank Bowerman 98
Bill Bergen 89
Red Dooin 84
Malachi Kittridge 72
Pat Moran 71

AL
Boileryard Clarke 87
Harry Bemis 87
Wilbert Robinson 87
Ossee Schreckengost 71
Deacon McGuire 70
Billy Sullivan 70

I'll list black and gray ink totals for some of the top catchers of 1880s and 1890s. (Because the schedules of the 1870s were so short, catchers of that decade, unlike their successors, could catch almost every league game).

Buck Ewing - 5/97
Charlie Bennett - 0/64
Jack Clements - 0/49
Fred Carroll - 0/38
Duke Farrell - 8/20*
Deacon McGuire - 0/11
Jack O'Connor - 0/7
Doggie Miller - 0/6
Wilbert Robinson - 0/4
Chief Zimmer - 0/2

*Duke Farrell's black ink came in the 1891 AA, an extremely weak league. After the season, four teams jumped to the NL and finished made up the bottom four in the 1892 season; the other teams ceased to exist. With the exception of that weak league, Farrell's ink totals are 0/9.

As catchers cannot play everyday (with the equipment that is currently available to them), their gray ink is pretty much limited to rate statistics, and that puts them at a severe disadvantage when competing with all other players, who can gain gray ink in both rate and counting stats on a regular basis.

If Ewing cannot reach your standards for membership, is it possible for any catcher ever to reach them?

[AG2004]

Anson has the rare combination of longevity and production that few position players from this era are able to match. Anson, Galvin, and Welch are the only three from this ballot truly deserving of HOF honors. . . .

A larger hall vs a smaller hall. As a rule of thumb I'm for a smaller HOF. Since I wasn't able to get in at the beginning of voting in the other project and most of the small HOF choices were already inducted. I decided to vote using the larger HOF theory instead of only voting for the 5 or 6 players who I feel are truly deserving.

Of the five pitchers you have listed, Galvin had the most seasons in the majors, with 15. If you give him credit for two seasons with the top IA clubs when the IA attempted to replace the NL as the major league, Galvin has 17 seasons.

Last season, you said Dan Brouthers was not worthy of induction, even though he had the highest career OPS+ of all time, the highest slugging percentage of all time (as of 1901), and played 18 seasons in the major leagues -- more seasons than any of the pitchers on your ballot. That combination of productivity and longevity still wasn't enough for you. Roger Connor played 18 seasons, and holds the career records for both home runs and triples -- but that combination is not good enough for you, either.

Brouthers, Connor, and Ewing spent 18 seasons in the majors; Hines, 20; O'Rourke, 22. Joe Start was in the majors for 16 seasons, and played at the top level of competition for eight years before the NAPBBP was established. At his peak, he was arguably the best player in base ball, and he also spent 24 years playing at base ball's highest level of competition. But you still don't list him; you failed to list any of these players on any ballot. The only position player you have deemed worthy is Anson, who spent 27 years in the organized majors.

Thus, while 12 years of service for a pitcher is enough make you to feel comfortable for voting for him, a position player apparently needs a quarter-century of performance in order to be worthy of your honor. I believe that the standards you have set are grossly unfair to position players. You have said of Ewing that the numbers don't fit. For position players, what numbers do fit?

Also, if you are for a smaller hall, why are you voting for so many pitchers? Essentially, Welch was to the 1880s what Jack Stivetts was to the 1890s. Neither was among the top three pitchers of their decade, but they were somewhere between fourth and sixth. Both had high winning percentages, but both were on teams packed with great position players, and both were the #2 pitchers on their clubs (Welch was behind Keefe, and Stivetts was behind Nichols). Welch played two seasons longer, but Stivetts had an ERA+ 6 points higher than Welch, and Stivetts also had an OPS+ of 106. If Welch, then why not Stivetts when he becomes eligible?

On the other hand, if we elect Ewing, is there any other catcher that we can justify putting in? If we admit Hines as a center fielder, we have an argument for admitting Billy Hamilton, but that keeps us to just two center fielders from the past century; Hines is still better a better choice than Duffy, or Van Haltren, or Ryan. Being for a small hall is inconsistent with seeing five eligible pitchers as worthy of election; it is not inconsistent with listing several more position players instead.

[Sockeye]

The problem with black ink and especially gray ink and the 19th century, besides for the fact that there were fewer teams, is that it is tabulated based on statistics that were either not collected or not emphasized in that era and compiled a century later, making them pretty much useless when looking at players from that era.

When it comes to pitchers from that era, you're talking about in some instances a situation where Michey Welch was the 9th best pitcher in a league that had 20 pitchers. That means that you are supporting 45% of the pitchers from that era and less than 1% of the fielding players from that era. Sorry, but that doesn't mesh at all and you've yet to give a logical reason why you favor such a huge inclusion for pitchers and hide behind the small hall argument for position players.

It's impossible to just totally disregard all stats from any given era and instead just rely on eye witness accounts to determine who the best players were. Nothing is more flawed than peoples opinions. Whether the stats were "emphasized" or not during the era makes no difference. Nor does it matter if the stats were compiled through research a century later. There is no bias to the statistics. They paint a infinitely more accurate picture as to the true performance of these players than any eye witness accounts ever will.

As for Welch. There are two main components to pitchers that make them valuable. One is production, the other is durability. What Mickey Welch lacked in production he more than made up for in durability. Top eight in the league in IP nine times! Top six in the league 7 times. That adds value to a pitcher. As for production. The best thing a pitcher can do for his team upon taking the mound is to throw a shutout. Mickey Welch was among the top six in shutouts 9 times in 10 years. Even in an era where complete games were the the norm. Welch was top six in complete games 7 times.

Which would you rather have from a pitcher 20% more innings or a 10% higher ERA+? Providing the ERA+ numbers are above average for both I'll take the innings pitched over the ERA. The more a pitcher is worked the less effective they usually are. Yet Mickey Welch was consistantly among the league leaders in IP while still putting up ERA+ numbers of 164, 141, 134, 121, 114, 113, 112, 110, 109.

Mickey Welch may have only been the 10th best pitcher in the league a few seasons according to ERA+ but many of the pitchers with a better ERA+ only pitched 1/2 to 1/3 to 1/4 as many innings. You can't realisticly suggest that a pitched with a 1/2 to 1/4 as many IP has near the same value. That would be like comparing a closer of today with 75 IP and a 2.00 ERA to a starter with 225 IP and an ERA of 2.50 and claiming the starter was the better pitcher. Well perhaps they were better while on the mound but no way did they have as much value as the starter.

As for why I give pitchers on the era more credit than hitters is due to their work load. Welch pitched 400+ innings 6 seasons during his career and 500+ innings 3 times. Now days if a pitcher throws 200 innings that is considered a good full season. Many pitchers can't even last that long without being injured. Yet Welch and a few other great pitchers on his day were able to do that every year and still last 11-14 seasons. Imagine what that must have done to their arm. Why if they were able to pitch only 6-7 innings every 5-6 days there is no telling what kind of numbers they could put up. Even though the distance was a little shorter it still doesn't come close to making up for the amount they were overworked.

Batters got to face these tired pitchers 4+ at bats per game without having to worry about facing a fresh reliever. Often times a hitter would get 40-50 AB's a season off of one single pitcher. Now it's no secret the more times a batter faces a pitcher the bigger advantage it is to the hitter. It's only a surprise that more hitters didn't put up even bigger numbers considering the circumstances of the era.

[leecemark]

--200 IP is a good year? How is that possible when 5 pitchers tossed over 350 last season, paced by Joe McGinnity with 382? True pitchers don't throw as man innings as they used to and maybe someday 200 IP will be a standard of durability, but that hasn't happened yet. Throwing overhand and moving the mound back 10 feet has made the pitchers job much more difficult than it was in Welch's day. Mickey was a workhorse, I'll give him that, but he wasn't much above an average pitcher most years.

[Brad Harris]

One thing I'm hoping continues is that we elect more players in one year than there are viable candidates in the next; that more than anything else will help us clear the backlog we've started with. Among the 1902 freshmen, I only see three worth voting for. Considering we inducted five in 1901, that leaves a minimum of two open spots on the ballot of anyone who had all five inductees on their ballot last time.

On another note, after just one election, I'm already prepared to drop kick short-ballot voters into the next zip code. Great example of why the 75% format just isn't the most optimal process for electing players. Apparently the BBWAA was alive and well in spirit, if not in truth, back in 1901.

One other point of note is that, unless I missed it, there are no voting guidelines on whether we're to consider non-playing accomplishments, how much to consider them, etc. How much do we consider character, sportsmanship, if at all? In other words, what exactly, are we voting for these guys for?

[soberdennis]

Anson
Browning
Connor
Ward
Galvin
Burns
Ewing
Kelly
Welsh

[AG2004]

It's impossible to just totally disregard all stats from any given era and instead just rely on eye witness accounts to determine who the best players were. Nothing is more flawed than peoples opinions. Whether the stats were "emphasized" or not during the era makes no difference. Nor does it matter if the stats were compiled through research a century later. There is no bias to the statistics. They paint a infinitely more accurate picture as to the true performance of these players than any eye witness accounts ever will.

{Breaking character to address 21st-century Sockeye's misconceptions about 19th-century baseball.}

However, there can be problems in interpreting them. Mickey Welch had the 10th-best ERA in 1883, when the NL had eight teams, and a team would rely on two primary pitchers at most. Being 10th in ERA among that set of starters means that you are among the bottom 50% in the league. If we were to imagine a league with 16 teams, and each team had five starters, being tenth in ERA among those 80 hurlers is impressive. We cannot treat the two tenth-place finishes as indications of equal worth.


As for Welch. There are two main components to pitchers that make them valuable. One is production, the other is durability. What Mickey Welch lacked in production he more than made up for in durability. Top eight in the league in IP nine times! Top six in the league 7 times. That adds value to a pitcher.

In 1883, Welch was sixth in the league in IP. There were eight teams in the league, and none of them used more than two main pitchers at a time. Due to Ward's injury and Burns' proving a bust for Detroit, there were just eleven primary starters in the league who lasted through the entire year. Being sixth among those eleven is not especially durable.

Going back a bit further, Welch was fourth in the NL in IP in 1880. But each of the eight teams in the league had the same pattern of pitcher usage. One pitcher would pitch about 80 or 85% of a team's innings, while a second pitcher would appear in about 15% or 20% of a team's starts. What does being fourth in this context mean? Not much, really.

As for production. The best thing a pitcher can do for his team upon taking the mound is to throw a shutout. Mickey Welch was among the top six in shutouts 9 times in 10 years. Even in an era where complete games were the the norm. Welch was top six in complete games 7 times.

In Welch's era, about 40% of all runs scored were unearned runs. The Giants club had an exceptional defensive catcher in Ewing, an exceptional defensive shortstop in Ward, an exceptional defensive first baseman in Connor, and a great defensive second baseman in Joe Gerhardt. Welch pitched a large number of shutouts, but the fielders behind him deserve some of the credit, especially since unearned runs were common in his day.

Which would you rather have from a pitcher 20% more innings or a 10% higher ERA+? Providing the ERA+ numbers are above average for both I'll take the innings pitched over the ERA. The more a pitcher is worked the less effective they usually are. Yet Mickey Welch was consistantly among the league leaders in IP while still putting up ERA+ numbers of 164, 141, 134, 121, 114, 113, 112, 110, 109.

Mickey Welch may have only been the 10th best pitcher in the league a few seasons according to ERA+ but many of the pitchers with a better ERA+ only pitched 1/2 to 1/3 to 1/4 as many innings. You can't realisticly suggest that a pitched with a 1/2 to 1/4 as many IP has near the same value. That would be like comparing a closer of today with 75 IP and a 2.00 ERA to a starter with 225 IP and an ERA of 2.50 and claiming the starter was the better pitcher. Well perhaps they were better while on the mound but no way did they have as much value as the starter.

1880 - Welch was 10th in ERA+, with a mark of 99. That's below average. As noted earlier, there were just eight primary starting pitchers in the league that year. Welch was sixth of eight among that group.

1883 - Welch was 10th in ERA+. Only two of the pitchers ahead of him pitched 1/2 of his IP or less. (One of them was Dupee Shaw, who became Detroit's regular starter in midseason).

1884 – Welch was 10th again in ERA+. Six of the pitchers ahead of him were among their team’s primary pitchers (although Sweeney jumped to the UA mid-season).

1886 – Welch is 10th in ERA+ again. Seven of the pitchers with better numbers were among their team’s two primary pitchers.

Most of the pitchers ahead Welch in those seasons were primary starters for their clubs. Welch’s ERA+ was around average among the league’s starting pitchers; tenth place was not outstanding.

The win shares system also provides a way to combine quality and quantity when evaluating pitchers. Here’s where Welch ranks among NL pitchers each year:

1880 – Tied for fourth (remember, just eight primary pitchers!)
1881 – 7th
1882 – 11th
1883 – 6th
1884 –4th
1885 – 2nd
1886 – Tied for 8th
1887 – 7th
1888 – 6th
1889 – 3rd
1890 – 12th

Only towards the end of the era did teams start to add a third pitcher to the rotation. Being the seventh-best pitcher in a league with about 20 starters is not that impressive. If you were to name all-league teams, that performance would have put him on the All-NL third team.

As for why I give pitchers on the era more credit than hitters is due to their work load. Welch pitched 400+ innings 6 seasons during his career and 500+ innings 3 times. Now days if a pitcher throws 200 innings that is considered a good full season. Many pitchers can't even last that long without being injured. Yet Welch and a few other great pitchers on his day were able to do that every year and still last 11-14 seasons. Imagine what that must have done to their arm.

For the first few years of Welch’s career, pitchers were forbidden from throwing overhand. An underhand or sidearm delivery is generally easier on the arm. Also, even when the overhand delivery was made legal, it was standard practice to abstain from throwing at one’s full strength while the bases was empty.

Home runs were so rare at that time that, even if the hitter made contact with the ball, he was unlikely to put a run on the board. However, in an era when anybody in the lineup can hit a home run, the pitcher must throw hard all the time. He cannot afford to relax, because, if he does, the hitter is likely to put a run on the scoreboard. If Welch had to throw his hardest all the time, instead of being able save his best for when his team was in a jam and truly needed it, he would not have been able to pitch so many innings, either. Most pitchers of Welch’s era could not have thrown 200 or 250 innings per year if every batter they faced were capable of hitting a home run; their arms would not have been able to support such hard work for such long periods of time.

Let us also consider that the hitters were also fielders. As mentioned above, in Welch’s era, about 40% of all runs were unearned. Fielding was much more important back then than it would be later. Why don’t you give position players more credit for their performance in the field?

Why if they were able to pitch only 6-7 innings every 5-6 days there is no telling what kind of numbers they could put up. Even though the distance was a little shorter it still doesn't come close to making up for the amount they were overworked.

However, the fact that they didn’t have to throw so hard all the time means that they weren’t worked as hard as someone from a later era might conclude merely from looking at their IP totals alone.

Batters got to face these tired pitchers 4+ at bats per game without having to worry about facing a fresh reliever. Often times a hitter would get 40-50 AB's a season off of one single pitcher. Now it's no secret the more times a batter faces a pitcher the bigger advantage it is to the hitter. It's only a surprise that more hitters didn't put up even bigger numbers considering the circumstances of the era.

The pitchers generally weren’t tired at the ends of games, mainly because, for most of the game, they could get away with throwing a little less than they were capable of. In the past, you didn’t have to throw as hard when the bases were empty unless the person at bat was a home run threat. Otherwise, the batter may get on base, but he isn’t going to score. In the 1800s, nobody was a home run threat. Pitchers could save their best stuff for when runners were in scoring position.

Since I’ve broken character for this one post, I hope you have some appreciation for how circumstances in the 1800s were different than they are now. Once cannot merely look at the statistics and interpret them through the context of the present. When you do so, you get a very inaccurate picture of what the players were like.

Why didn’t hitters from the earliest era compile more counting numbers? Well, there were just 70 games in the 1876 season. In 1881, there were 84 games. There were 114 games in the 1885 season, and the season length was 140 games in 1890. The totals for games played and hits compiled will be lower for early position players, mainly because the seasons were so short. If you look at games played and career hits from the perspective of a 162-game season, the early hitters will look worse than they are. If you look at innings pitched from the perspective of someone from an era where anybody could be a home run threat, early pitchers will look better than they are.

The statistics are important. However, to obtain an accurate picture from them, one has to consider the context in which they were recorded. When we apply the standards of a different context, the image we get from the statistics may very well be much, much worse than merely relying on the opinions of people from the era.

{Had I not broken character for this post, I could not have explained how the lack of the home run permitted pitchers of the 1800s to pitch so often. Someone from the turn of the century could not have understood how 200 IP could be a heavy workload, either. To show the problems with Sockeye's interpretation of the statistics, I had to address how his perspective from 2008 distorted his understanding. We now return everyone to the year 1902.}

[AG2004]

On another note, after just one election, I'm already prepared to drop kick short-ballot voters into the next zip code.

What is a zip code?

Great example of why the 75% format just isn't the most optimal process for electing players. Apparently the BBWAA was alive and well in spirit, if not in truth, back in 1901.

One other point of note is that, unless I missed it, there are no voting guidelines on whether we're to consider non-playing accomplishments, how much to consider them, etc. How much do we consider character, sportsmanship, if at all? In other words, what exactly, are we voting for these guys for?

That is part of what we are trying to determine in these first several elections. I am of the position that innovations should count for something when we honor players; hence, I have voted for Ferguson and Spalding. I also believe that someone such as George Hall should never be considered for the Hall, as a player who throws ball games is inherently unworthy of any such honor.

My short ballot represents an attempt to keep the standards of the Hall high. If we elect Mickey Welch, why not Jack Stivetts? I can accept Keefe in the Hall. Rusie, Young, and Nichols will be worthy of enshrinement, and Keefe's induction would not lower the standards enough for a fourth pitcher from the previous decade to enter the Hall. However, if we were to honor Glasscock, we have set a level that would be met by Wright, Ward, Dahlen, Davis, Long, and Jennings. That might give us thirty shortstops, and perhaps 300 players overall, a century from now. That would be too many.

[OOC: I do have a problem with short ballots from the 2008 BBWAA. The Hall of Fame has been around for seventy years, and the general standards for induction have been established. When they omit candidates who have met those standards on the grounds that they aren't good enough to meet the standards they want for the HOF, it is annoying.

However, we haven't determined firm standards for this Progressive Hall of Fame yet. We have no idea that Bill Terry and Orlando Cepeda should represent the borderline for first basemen; we have no idea that Terry or Cepeda will even exist in the future. If the standards for this HOF turn out to be different than what I've suggested so far, my future ballots will reflect those standards. As Keefe was arguably in the class of Clarkson and Radbourn, and certainly superior to any unelected pitcher of his day, the results of the 1901 vote do not indicate that any previously eligible candidates should be added to my ballot. However, I will be adding three new candidates to my list.]

[TheSlaff]

Anson
Barnes
Connor
Ewing
Gore
Hines
Kelly
McVey
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Ward
D. White
Wright

[DoubleX]

How is Roger Conner under 75%?

[dgarza]

How is Roger Conner under 75%?
Yeah, him and King Kelly.
Although now they're at the break even point, but they should be in the 80s%.

[Paul Wendt]

Disputing Sockeye on Buck Ewing, AG2004 discussed catcher playing time and its effect on black and gray ink and concluded thus.
I'll list black and gray ink totals for some of the top catchers of 1880s and 1890s. (Because the schedules of the 1870s were so short, catchers of that decade, unlike their successors, could catch almost every league game).

Buck Ewing - 5/97
Charlie Bennett - 0/64
Jack Clements - 0/49
Fred Carroll - 0/38
Duke Farrell - 8/20* [and 0/9 outside AA1891]
Deacon McGuire - 0/11
Jack O'Connor - 0/7
Doggie Miller - 0/6
Wilbert Robinson - 0/4
Chief Zimmer - 0/2

As catchers cannot play everyday (with the equipment that is currently available to them), their gray ink is pretty much limited to rate statistics, and that puts them at a severe disadvantage when competing with all other players, who can gain gray ink in both rate and counting stats on a regular basis.

Here the crucial analytical observation is that a player's counting statistics are roughly proportional to playing time but his ranking statistics (high ranks in league) for counting categories are decimated by less-than-everyday playing time. Regulars who play more than 90% of team games take almost all of the high ranks in league; those who play 80%, almost none. Compared with the 100% player, the 80% player makes 80% progress in career counting statistics (and thereby in Hall of Fame "standards" or "monitor") but almost no progress in black and gray ink for counting categories.

The 80% player probably qualifies for ranking statistics in rate categories and thereby makes some progress in black and gray ink. The 60% player, on the other hand, is obliterated in the ranking for counting categories and ineligible in the ranking for rate categories.

80% is typical playing time for a team's first catcher today, around the turn of the 21st century; 60% was typical in the 1880s-1900s, around the turn of the 20th century. Therefore modern catchers get ink mainly in rate categories, as AG said, but oldtime catchers may get no ink even if they do achieve rates statistics with the best batters at other positions. In comparison with all players, the modern catchers are merely weak in black and gray ink while the old-time catchers are obliterated.

What if we standardize career black and gray ink by fielding position, assessing what is "excellent for a catcher" or "good for a catcher"? All else equal, modern catchers are then strong and old-time catchers are weak. (Here "old-time" literally means when regular catchers were commonly short of playing time to qualify for league rank in rate statistics. It isn't possible to say much more without researching the thresholds used in awarding ink, which may differ from source to source.)

If ranking statistics must be used at all, along the way to ranking catchers as batters, then we need some revised award of black and gray ink at the season level (at least for the catchers). In the rate categories, that should include revised thresholds to qualify for rank among league catchers. At any time the threshold should be one that regular catchers routinely meet, and in real old times that means two catchers on many teams, maybe 10-12 catchers in an eight-team league. The threshold should probably be about 40% of full-season play in 1900 and 60% of full-season in 2000.

[Paul Wendt]

Quoting Sockeye:
>>Why if they were able to pitch only 6-7 innings every 5-6 days there is no telling what kind of numbers they could put up. Even though the distance was a little shorter it still doesn't come close to making up for the amount they were overworked.
<<

However, the fact that they didn’t have to throw so hard all the time means that they weren’t worked as hard as someone from a later era might conclude merely from looking at their IP totals alone.
That's true. Sockeye seems to overestimate the hard work.

Someone who is cautious may easily go too far. Why did so many early pitchers burn out quickly even by the standard of regular players of their time? Perhaps there is some illusion but it seems to me that no one really pitched well for a dozen years until Nichols and Young --mainly at the new pitching distance and at smaller shares of the team workload.

Later, AG quoting Classic:
>>
unless I missed it, there are no voting guidelines on whether we're to consider non-playing accomplishments, how much to consider them, etc. How much do we consider character, sportsmanship, if at all? In other words, what exactly, are we voting for these guys for?
<<

That is part of what we are trying to determine in these first several elections. I am of the position that innovations should count for something when we honor players; hence, I have voted for Ferguson and Spalding. I also believe that someone such as George Hall should never be considered for the Hall, as a player who throws ball games is inherently unworthy of any such honor.
Is that why George Hall is not on the ballot?

I asked about the non-playing accomplishments earlier. DoubleX replied that consideration should be limited to accomplishments during one's playing career rather than after it. Search for "Hanlon" because I said something like Ferguson and Comiskey, yes, Hanlon no. That is, Comiskey as captain/manager in the major leagues through 1894 in contrast to Hanlon as manager/minority-owner in Baltimore.

[AG2004]

That's true. Sockeye seems to overestimate the hard work.

Someone who is cautious may easily go too far. Why did so many early pitchers burn out quickly even by the standard of regular players of their time? Perhaps there is some illusion but it seems to me that no one really pitched well for a dozen years until Nichols and Young --mainly at the new pitching distance and at smaller shares of the team workload.



There is some illusion illusion involved. The IA attempted to become a major league, and the IA's top teams in the early years could more than hold their own against NL competition. Galvin pitched for second-place Pittsburgh in 1877 and first-place Buffalo in 1878. In 1878, Buffalo went 10-7 against NL teams; they jumped to the NL in 1879, and finished third. The St. Louis Maroons, by contrast, finished eighth in the NL in 1885, going 36-72 the year after winning the UA title.

For the curious, the pennant-winner in the IA in 1877 was the London Tecumsehs. The Tecumsehs were a good team. In 1875, they defeated the AEtnas, who won the Michigan Championship; in 1876, with the addition of some players from the land to the south, they won the title of the new Canadian Association.

If you include his IA record, Galvin pitched fairly well from 1877 to 1892, or sixteen years. Bobby Mathews also pitched in the IA, and I've seen some comments on the internet that he pitched in California in 1880 (Cal McVey also went out to the coast that season). If Mathews were to get credit for his IA and California play, he would have a 17-season careeer lasting from 1871 to 1877.

So that gives us two early pitchers with fairly long careers at high levels of play once we get past the assumption that the NL was the only competition that counted from 1876 to 1881.

There's one other factor that may come into play here. The era was one of rapid change. The pitching distance was increased in 1881; overhand pitching was made legal in 1884; the pitching distance was increased again in 1887; the number of major leagues contracted from 24 in 1890 to 12 in 1892; and there was one last change in the pitching distance in 1893. Pitchers would have trouble adjusting to any change in distance. Thus, teams may have preferred to give young pitchers a chance than wait for older pitchers to adapt, for, once the older pitchers did adapt, they might be too old to function as well as they did. These rule changes may have forced as many pitchers out of the game as the high single-season IP totals did.

[Paul Wendt]

Mathews and Galvin did pitch in the major leagues for a long time but they both put up a lot of mediocre and good seasons with few excellent ones.

With four seasons as an excellent pitcher and three as a good one, Bob Caruthers put up a relatively long career for his day.

Silver King, Matt Kilroy, and Lady Baldwin to name three put up what, 3 2 and 1 excellent seasons? They pitched a lot in their few excellent seasons, so I don't believe it is simply a matter of high variance, small sample size.

[DoubleX]

Here is a tentative list of newcomers for the 1903 election. Let me know if I'm missing anyone, particularly players that may have seemingly played their last game in 1898, but then played again later (if they played again after 1903, they would be eligible for this election).

Lou Bierbauer
Jack Boyle
Tom Brown
Fred Ehret
Mike Griffin
Bug Holliday
Bill Joyce
Matt Kilory
Billy Nash
Billy Shindle
Germany Smith
Ed Stein
Walt Wilmot

[Freakshow]

Lou Bierbauer
Jack Boyle
Tom Brown
Fred Ehret
Mike Griffin
Bug Holliday
Bill Joyce
Matt Kilroy
Billy Nash
Billy Shindle
Germany Smith
Ed Stein
Walt Wilmot
Sam Thompson

[jjpm74]

Here is a tentative list of newcomers for the 1903 election. Let me know if I'm missing anyone, particularly players that may have seemingly played their last game in 1898, but then played again later (if they played again after 1903, they would be eligible for this election).

Lou Bierbauer
Jack Boyle
Tom Brown
Fred Ehret
Mike Griffin
Bug Holliday
Bill Joyce
Matt Kilory
Billy Nash
Billy Shindle
Germany Smith
Ed Stein
Walt Wilmot

This bodes well for helping thin out the holdovers as I only see 1 guy n that list that has any kind of argument for Cooperstown (Bill Joyce), and he had a short career too short for most along the lines of Orr.

[Freakshow]

This bodes well for helping thin out the holdovers as I only see 1 guy n that list that has any kind of argument for Cooperstown
Sam Thompson

[Erik Bedard]

Anson
Barnes
Connor
Ewing
Gore
Hines
Kelly
Pike
Richardson
Spalding
Ward
White
Wright

[Paul Wendt]

These are my 15 votes barring some failure of hand-eye coordination.
It includes a couple of strategic votes; indeed, a couple of drops from last year in favor of strategic votes. Ferguson has one vote now.

Cap Anson, 1B (1871-1897) - 1st
Ross Barnes, 2B (1871-1879) - 2nd
Charlie Bennett, C (1878, 1880-1893) - 2nd
Roger Conner, 1B (1880-1897) - 1st
Buck Ewing, C (1880-1897) - 1st
Bob Ferguson, 3B/2B (1871-1884) - 2nd
Pud Galvin, SP (1879-1892) - 2nd
Paul Hines, CF (1872-1891) - 2nd
King Kelly, RF/C (1878-1892) - 2nd
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) - 2nd
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886) - 2nd
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) - 2nd
John Ward, SS/SP (1878-1894) - 2nd
Deacon White, 3B/C (1871-1890) - 2nd
George Wright, SS (1871-1882) - 2nd

I have half a mind to drop Bennett in favor of Dunlap and ABCDEFGH but I know I shouldn't listen to that half.

[jjpm74]

Sam Thompson

He's a definite for me. I didn't see your post when I made my comment. Good catch on him. That 1906 cameo kept him off the big list.

[DoubleX]

Sam Thompson

Thanks! Let me know if you think of anyone else.

[AG2004]

My ballot

Cap Anson
Ross Barnes
Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
Bob Ferguson
Paul Hines
King Kelly
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Deacon White
George Wright

[AG2004]

Sockeye, I noted earlier that Connor played 18 seasons in the major leagues - more than any of the pitchers that you have voted for so far. I also noted that he is the career leader in both triples and home runs. Yet you have not seen fit to list him on your ballot. Last year, you failed to vote for Brouthers, who also played 18 seasons in the major leagues, and had the career records for OPS+ and slugging average at that point.

Why didn't you list Connor on your ballot this year?

Also - and I have asked this both this year and last year - what does a position player have to do in order to be worthy of your vote? You stated above that the numbers don't fit for Ewing, who is quite likely the best catcher ever. If career leads in OPS+ and slugging average, or career leads in triples and home runs don't fit (see Brouthers and Connor), what numbers do fit?

Finally, last year, Brouthers and O'Rourke were elected to the Hall of Fame. Apart from Anson, what other position players do you feel are better to either of them? If there are any, why haven't you voted for them this time?

[Sockeye]

Anson

1996 runs
3418 hits
581 doubles
142 triples
97 home runs
2076 runs batted in
276 stolen bases
983 bases on balls
.333 AVG
.393 OBP
.445 SLG
141 OPS+

Brouthers

1523 runs
2296 hits
460 doubles
205 triples
106 home runs
1296 runs batted in
256 stolen bases
840 bases on balls
.342 AVG
.423 OBP
.519 SLG
170 OPS+

Connor

1620 runs
2427 hits
441 doubles
233 triples
138 home runs
1322 runs batted in
244 stolen bases
1002 bases on balls
.317 AVG
.397 OBP
.486 SLG
153 OPS+

Anson scored 473 more runs than Brouthers, 376 more than Connor. Anson gathered 1122 more hits than Brouthers, 991 more than Connors. Anson hit 121 more doubles than Brouthers, 140 more than Connor. Anson drove in 780 more runs than Brouthers, 754 more than Connors. Anson stole 20 more bases than Brouthers, and 32 more than Connor.

The production of Brouthers (170 OPS+) and Connor (153 OPS+) does not offset the huge advantage in counting stats held by Anson. Anson is worthy of the hall of fame. Brouthers and Connor are not.

[1905 Giants]

Hey, remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so let's keep it civil.

Reminder to everyone.

Yes, I realize the irony in the fact that I said to be civil.

[jjpm74]

Anson

1996 runs
3418 hits
581 doubles
142 triples
97 home runs
2076 runs batted in
276 stolen bases
983 bases on balls
.333 AVG
.393 OBP
.445 SLG
141 OPS+

Brouthers

1523 runs
2296 hits
460 doubles
205 triples
106 home runs
1296 runs batted in
256 stolen bases
840 bases on balls
.342 AVG
.423 OBP
.519 SLG
170 OPS+

Connor

1620 runs
2427 hits
441 doubles
233 triples
138 home runs
1322 runs batted in
244 stolen bases
1002 bases on balls
.317 AVG
.397 OBP
.486 SLG
153 OPS+

Anson scored 473 more runs than Brouthers, 376 more than Connor. Anson gathered 1122 more hits than Brouthers, 991 more than Connors. Anson hit 121 more doubles than Brouthers, 140 more than Connor. Anson drove in 780 more runs than Brouthers, 754 more than Connors. Anson stole 20 more bases than Brouthers, and 32 more than Connor.

The production of Brouthers (170 OPS+) and Connor (153 OPS+) does not offset the huge advantage in counting stats held by Anson. Anson is worthy of the hall of fame. Brouthers and Connor are not.

Anson also played until way past his prime mainly so he could compile some of those numbers, was instrumental in barring black players from playing, and had a very strained relationship with his team.

[1905 Giants]

Anson also played until way past his prime mainly so he could compile some of those numbers, was instrumental in barring black players from playing, and had a very strained relationship with his team.

Having a strained relationship with the team has nothing to do with how good a player someone is.

A player who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame who was an excellent team player is still a player who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and vis versa.

[jjpm74]

Having a strained relationship with the team has nothing to do with how good a player someone is.

A player who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame who was an excellent team player is still a player who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and vis versa.

I think Anson belongs in the HOF. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as Anson's counting stats are

1. Bloated depending on whether or not his NA stats should count in his counting stats

2. Were achieved because he hung on longer than he should have. In many ways, Anson was the prototypical modern era compiler.

3. Brouthers and Connor were both much more dominant than Anson.

4. Counting stats are not a good measure for 19th century players. Win shares and OPS+ are much better levelling tools given the erratic nature of schedules and frequent rule changes in the 19th century.

[1905 Giants]

I think Anson belongs in the HOF. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as Anson's counting stats are

1. Bloated depending on whether or not his NA stats should count in his counting stats

2. Were achieved because he hung on longer than he should have. In many ways, Anson was the prototypical modern era compiler.

3. Brouthers and Connor were both much more dominant than Anson.

4. Counting stats are not a good measure for 19th century players. Win shares and OPS+ are much better levelling tools given the erratic nature of schedules and frequent rule changes in the 19th century.

Got it.
Sorry.

[Sockeye]

Connor

.300+ AVG 11 times
.400+ OBP 8 times
.500+ SLG 8 times
130+ OPS+ 13 times
100+ runs 8 times
100+ rbi 4 times


Brouthers

.300+ AVG 16 times
.400+ OBP 11 times
.500+ SLG 11 times
130+ OPS+ 16 times
100+ runs 8 times
100+ rbi 5 times

Anson

.300+ AVG 24 times
.400+ OBP 12 times
.500+ SLG 7 times
130+ OPS+ 19 times
100+ runs 6 times
100+ rbi 7 times

Anson batted .300 or better in 24 seasons, 8 more than Brouthers, and 13 more than Connors. Anson had an OBP or .400 or better in 12 seasons. 1 more than Brouthers, and 4 more than Connors. Anson had 19 seasons with an OPS+ of 130 or higher, 3 more than Brouthers and 6 more than Connors. Anson had 100+ rbi 7 times, 2 more than Brouthers, and 3 more than Connors. Anson had more great seasons than either Brouthers or Connor. Anson deserves to be in the hall of fame. Brouthers and Connor do not.

[jjpm74]

Anson batted .300 or better in 24 seasons, 8 more than Brouthers, and 13 more than Connors. Anson had an OBP or .400 or better in 12 seasons. 1 more than Brouthers, and 4 more than Connors. Anson had 19 seasons with an OPS+ of 130 or higher, 3 more than Brouthers and 6 more than Connors. Anson had 100+ rbi 7 times, 2 more than Brouthers, and 3 more than Connors. Anson had more great seasons than either Brouthers or Connor. Anson deserves to be in the hall of fame. Brouthers and Connor do not.

Apparently 90% of the voting community disagrees with you on Brouthers. And 78% currently disagree with you on Conners. ;)

[AG2004]

Anson scored 473 more runs than Brouthers, 376 more than Connor. Anson gathered 1122 more hits than Brouthers, 991 more than Connors. Anson hit 121 more doubles than Brouthers, 140 more than Connor. Anson drove in 780 more runs than Brouthers, 754 more than Connors. Anson stole 20 more bases than Brouthers, and 32 more than Connor.

For about the first half of Anson's career, the batting order did not have to be given prior to the game. If there were people on base during the first inning, Anson would put himself in as the next batter. If not, Anson would wait until the next inning, waiting to see if there would be people on base before putting himself in as the batter. Due to this practice, Anson had many more opportunities to record RBI than other players did.

The production of Brouthers (170 OPS+) and Connor (153 OPS+) does not offset the huge advantage in counting stats held by Anson. Anson is worthy of the hall of fame. Brouthers and Connor are not.

You haven't made any argument that Brouthers and Connor are unworthy of the Hall of Fame. Your entire argument here is that Brouthers and Connor were not as good as Anson.

First, Anson played 27 seasons at the highest level of base ball, and that is a record. I noted that both Brouthers and Connor played 18 seasons at the sport's highest level -- a period which is longer than any of the pitchers on your ballot, and is a long time for a position player. You didn't vote for O'Rourke, who had 22 seasons at the game's highest level, nor for Start, who had 24 seasons at the sport's highest level. How long of a career does a position player need to make your ballot?

Second, both Jim O'Rourke amd Dan Brouthers wer elected to the Hall of Fame last year. Is Connor a better player than either of them? If so, then why is he not on your ballot?

Third, in your opinion, what is a Hall of Fame level of performance for a position player? I have yet to see your answer to this question.

Last year, Brouthers, who had played 18 seasons, had the highest career OPS+, career OPS, and career slugging percentage in major league history. Why do you claim this wasn't a Hall of Fame profile, even though it included three career records in rate stats? This year, Connor appears on the ballot. He played 18 seasons, recorded a 153 OPS+ (Ed Delahanty is at 152), and is the career leader in both triples and home runs. Why do you feel that this profile, which includes two career records in counting stats, is not worthy of the Hall of Fame?

Not being as good as Anson would not be a sufficient answer. You have named five different pitchers to your Hall of Fame ballots, Sockeye. This being the case, limiting yourself to just one position player does not make much sense. If Welch is on your ballot, why not Connor?

[Sockeye]

I think Anson belongs in the HOF. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as Anson's counting stats are

2. Were achieved because he hung on longer than he should have. In many ways, Anson was the prototypical modern era compiler.

Oh? and at what age should Anson has stopped playing? With the exception of his very last season his numbers were still well above average. At the age of 43 he batted .335 (24 points above the league average) and at age 44 he batted .331 (29 points above league average). It's not compiling if a player is still putting up above average numbers.

3. Brouthers and Connor were both much more dominant than Anson.

They may have had a slightly better peak, but a few OPS+ points advantage during peak isn't worth as much as another 8 or 9 good to very good seasons.

4. Counting stats are not a good measure for 19th century players. Win shares and OPS+ are much better levelling tools given the erratic nature of schedules and frequent rule changes in the 19th century.

Not true. Comparing counting stats of 19th century players to players from other eras wouldn't be a fair measure for a number of reasons. However it is perfectly reasonable and 100% fair to compare counting stats of players of the same exact era.

[jjpm74]

Not true. Comparing counting stats of 19th century players to players from other eras wouldn't be a fair measure for a number of reasons. However it is perfectly reasonable and 100% fair to compare counting stats of players of the same exact era.

The error in your judgement here is that you presume that the whole 19th century can be lumped into one neat package and compared. That's just not the case. Besides for the fact that the length of the season varied greatly, the amount of teams in the league(s) fluctuated greatly, the rules changed dramatically, and we saw the New York game develop into many levels of professional baseball. Again, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the 19th century and how players like Anson managed to get the numbers you refer to at the age he did.

[jjpm74]

First, Anson played 27 seasons at the highest level of base ball, and that is a record. I noted that both Brouthers and Connor played 18 seasons at the sport's highest level -- a period which is longer than any of the pitchers on your ballot, and is a long time for a position player. You didn't vote for O'Rourke, who had 22 seasons at the game's highest level, nor for Start, who had 24 seasons at the sport's highest level. How long of a career does a position player need to make your ballot?


Anson played 27 years of professional baseball. Not 27 years at the highest level of baseball. He only managed 14 seasons at the highest level of baseball. The National Association and the early National League are not a significant departure from all of the other leagues in existence.

[AG2004]

Anson played 27 years of professional baseball. Not 27 years at the highest level of baseball. He only managed 14 seasons at the highest level of baseball. The National Association and the early National League are not a significant departure from all of the other leagues in existence.

I'm not claiming that the NA and early NL were, to the exclusion of clubs outside them, the highest level of base ball available at their times. Galvin was with Pittsburgh of the IA in 1877, and Buffalo in 1878; they count as the highest level of the game. The London Tecumsehs in 1876 and 1877, or the top teams in California in 1880, were on a par with NL clubs.

During the 1870s, followers of base ball would have been able to tell what teams were in the upper echelon of the game. Rockford went 4-21 in the 1871 NA, but they weren't that bad. They had to forfeit 4 wins because of the 60 day rule. Scott Hastings had played for a team in New Orleans during the winter of 1870-71, and, according to NA rules, was not supposed to play for 60 days after he left his previous team. New Orleans, which was not in the NA, played Chicago in an exhibition game on April 16, before the NA season started. After the 1871 season, the NA declared that Rockford had to forfeit four wins because Hasting had played during them. (The Pythagorean W-L record for Rockford was 10-15, not 8-17; luck plays a major role in such a short season.) Anyway, they would have seen the Rockford Forest Cities, who had been a professional club in 1870, as one of the better teams in 1871. The Philadelphia Athletics (1872-75) and Chicago White Stockings were among the upper echelon of base ball clubs by any estimation.

---
I don't have any information about Radbourn's pre-NL days. Welch played for Holyoke in 1879. If we consider that club to have been on base ball's highest level, that gives Welch an extra season. However, as Roger Connor was also on that club, he would also get an extra season. Worcester, considered a "minor league" club in 1879, had some players that year who were in the NL in 1878, and the team itself joined the NL in 1880. The 1879 Worcester team was among the higher echelon of clubs; catcher Charlie Bennett deserves credit for that year.

The NA and early NL were part of the highest level of base ball, but they did not make up all of the highest level. Thus, I can claim 27 years at the sport's highest level for Anson.

[Paul Wendt]

Anson played 27 years of professional baseball. Not 27 years at the highest level of baseball. He only managed 14 seasons at the highest level of baseball. The National Association and the early National League are not a significant departure from all of the other leagues in existence.

So you can't be major league until there are two major leagues and you are the stronger one?
:debate:

[jjpm74]

So you can't be major league until there are two major leagues and you are the stronger one?
:debate:

There seems to be a lot of debate going on right now about what is the highest level of professional play. Just look at this upstart American League. They look a lot like a West Coast league I saw on a train trip. I believe the team was the Tacoma Tigers in the Pacific Coast league. They seemed to show as much talent as these other upstarts. They even managed to stick around a bit unlike the American Association, Union Association and Federal League. And what was this whole World Series nonsense I keep hearing about? Are we playing against the Europeans in Cricket?

[Paul Wendt]

I don't have any information about Radbourn's pre-NL days.
If I recall correctly, Dubuque with Ted Sullivan, Comiskey, Tom Loftus, and maybe other recognizable names. If you have The National Game by Al Spink, he mentions the Dubuque team a few years later regarding the establishment of the (new) St Louis Browns in 1881, and the making of Comiskey's St Louis connection. From the late 1870s to the 1890s at least, Sullivan was involved in organizing clubs and leagues. This was his first effort to get a league going but his Dubuque club was the only strong one.

The 1989 SABR collection of short biographies, Nineteenth Century Stars is dated on some points (some player-club affiliations have been filled in, even for Hall of Famers) and the biographies are short, but it's the only source for many. The 21st century SABR bioproj.sabr.org provides much longer biographies, commonly without any photographs or tables, but coverage is not top down (stars and only stars). Radbourn is "currently unassigned".
random biography at SABR BioProject (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=3596&bid=1307)

[AG2004]

Anson had more great seasons than either Brouthers or Connor. Anson deserves to be in the hall of fame. Brouthers and Connor do not.

Define "Great Season."

Brouthers - Was in the top 3 in the league in OPS+ eleven times. Led the league in OPS+ eight times. Leader in career OPS+. Has more black ink than any other position player. How can you claim that we made a mistake by putting him in the Hall of Fame last year?

Connor - Was in the top 3 in the league in OPS+ eleven times. Led the league in OPS+ in 1888; his six runner-up finishes include four where only Brouthers beat him. Career leader in both triples and home runs. How is this not the record of someone deserving of the Hall of Fame?

Anson - Was in the top 3 in the league in OPS+ just four times; was in the top six in the league in OPS+ ten times. Yes, he has higher counting numbers than either Brouthers or Connor. Based on overall career value, I'd put him ahead of Brouthers or Connor.

However, I see Mickey Welch was in the top 3 in the league in ERA+ just twice; he was never in the top 2 in ERA+. He was among the top 8 in the league in ERA+ only four times. If Welch is deserving of a vote, then why not Connor (or, last year, Brouthers)?

[AG2004]

There seems to be a lot of debate going on right now about what is the highest level of professional play. Just look at this upstart American League. They look a lot like a West Coast league I saw on a train trip. I believe the team was the Tacoma Tigers in the Pacific Coast league. They seemed to show as much talent as these other upstarts. They even managed to stick around a bit unlike the American Association, Union Association and Federal League.

Federal League? Pacific Coast League? There are just two leagues on the Coast: the California League and the Pacific Northwest League. The directors of the PNL's Portland club have announced the formation of a new team to play in the Coast League, which will also have the four existing California League teams. This Coast league is trying to move into Seattle. A meeting about this new league is scheduled for San Francisco's Palace Hotel during the last week of this December.

The AL reminds me of the Players League, as both have managed to take a majority of the National League's players away. It is in its second season as a self-declared major league, and may very well survive as the league of clean base ball. However, the National League still has Wagner, and I do not expect it to fold soon.

[jjpm74]

That other league I was thinking of was the International Association. They had some good players, but they never contended as a major league. The American League are in their 2nd season, so they have already fared better than the ill fated Players League and Union Association. I can't say whether or not I'm ready to accept this new league as a major league. I'm not convinced that their level of play is any better than the PNW league. Given how many of these upstarts have faltered, I'm skeptical. I do miss those days of old when the American Association and the National League would have at it for the championship. We shall see.

[Erik Bedard]

Unlike the UA, the AL has been able to entice numerous NL stars to their league, such as Lajoie (and the NL is so determined to hold onto him that they have taken the matter to court), and unlike the PL, the AL appears to be founded on solid financial backing. I for one do not think it will fold.

[Paul Wendt]

The Americans have stronger teams on the field in all four cities that the two leagues share; Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis. But the Nationals will not be driven out unless the magnates continue to err. They still have many fans and large numbers will turn out at their parks when a few young colts look promising. Look at Chicago, where Tinker and Kling seem to be the real deal and Chance is fixed at first base. They have the pitching and they have Selee to get more of what they need. Comiskey will do well to split the city.

Pittsburgh has the strongest team and Hanlon's Superbas will be strong on the field. If the fans do not come out, they should move to Baltimore. Since the raid on the Orioles, the Cincinnatis are stocked with good men and New York has McGraw at the helm, look what he has done in a few months. His day on the field may be done but he can find good men and make them a team, we all know that. It is said that Delahanty has already signed.