BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1908

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates (the number may 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. Players need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot, with the exception of first time eligible players, who will need at least 1 vote to appear on the next 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 (exceptions may be made if player died before appearing in 10 seasons). Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.

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


1908 Guide
There are 27 candidates on the 1908 ballot; 20 holdovers and 7 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1903 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (7)
Tom Daly
Ed Delahanty
Bill Hallman
Brickyard Kennedy
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren
Chief Zimmer

Holdovers (20)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ross Barnes 8th 70.83% 70.83% (1907)
Pete Browning 8th 54.17% 54.17% (1907)
Bob Caruthers 8th 70.83% 70.83% (1907)
Cupid Childs 3rd 25.00% 25.00% (1907)
Larry Corcoran 8th 12.50% 12.50% (1907)
Jack Glasscock 8th 58.33% 58.33% (1907)
George Gore 8th 58.33% 66.67% (1905)
Dummy Hoy 2nd 12.50% 12.50% (1907
Charley Jones 8th 8.33% 12.50% (1905)
Jim McCormick 8th 25.00% 25.00% (1907)
Cal McVey 8th 25.00% 32.00% (1904)
Tony Mullane 8th 66.67% 66.67% (1905, 1907)
Lip Pike 8th 33.33% 33.33% (1905, 1907)
Hardy Richardson 8th 54.17% 58.33% (1905)
Wilbert Robinson 2nd 4.17% 4.17% (1907)
Al Spalding 8th 62.50% 62.50% (1907)
Joe Start 8th 50.00% 62.50% (1905)
Ezra Sutton 8th 54.17% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 5th 12.50% 12.50% (1907)
Mickey Welch 8th 33.33% 40.00% (1904)


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (10)
Player 1907 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Ross Barnes 70.83% 7
Bob Caruthers 70.83% 4
Tony Mullane 66.67% 5
Al Spalding 62.50% 3
Jack Glasscock 58.33% 3
George Gore 58.33% 5
Pete Browning 54.17% 4
Hardy Richardson 54.17% 4
Ezra Sutton 54.17% 2
Joe Start 50.00% 4

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Nig Cuppy Lack of Support 2 4.35% (1906)
Bob Ferguson Lack of Support 7 8.70% (1906)
Tip O’Neill Lack of Support 7 8.70% (1906)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (20)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1871-1897
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1882, 1884-1894
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1878-1893
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1898, 1901
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Third Base/Catcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (2): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (1): Bid McPhee
Third Base (1): Deacon White
Shortstop (2): John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (1): Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (2): Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
Right Field (2): King Kelly, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (5): John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903 (1): Pud Galvin
1904 (2): Paul Hines, Deacon White
1905 (1): Bid McPhee
1906 (2): Billy Hamilton, Amos Rusie
1907 (5): Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Sam Thompson, John Ward, George Wright


Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)
Player High Support Last Year on Ballot
Ross Barnes 70.83% (1907)
Bob Caruthers 70.83% (1907)
George Gore 66.67% (1905)
Tony Mullane 66.67% (1905, 1907)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24

Links to Past Elections
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)

[DoubleX]

Given that we just elected 5 players, that voters seem to be submitting shorter ballots, and that the number of total candidates has greatly decreased from where it was a few years ago, I'm thinking we might go to 10 votes, perhaps after the 1910 election.

What do you guys think?

My ballot:

Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Ed Delahanty
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch
Mike Tiernan

Not sure why I suddenly felt compelled to vote for Tiernan. I also dropped Barnes. I'm really on the fence with him, and I think due to his era, the rules and limited schedule and such, I'd be more comfortable voting for him in a VC election.

[jjpm74]

Given that we just elected 5 players, that voters seem to be submitting shorter ballots, and that the number of total candidates has greatly decreased from where it was a few years ago, I'm thinking we might go to 10 votes, perhaps after the 1910 election.

What do you guys think?

I'd rather stick to 15 at least up to the 1st VC election. I'm currently still carrying 15.

[BlueBlood]

With the elections of Bennett, Stovey, Thompson and Wright, my ballot falls to 11 names. The newly eligibles Ed Delahanty and George Van Haltren bring it to 13 names. I'm willing to vote for Al Spalding, in part for his work as a contributor. He could've been an easy HOF shoe-in had he continued playing and not decided to make a killing off sporting goods. Also, he had received my vote in the initial election. Mickey Welch is a candidate I want to support, if only to have a full ballot, but he's in the Hall of Very Good, nothing more.

I'll add Lip Pike. His stats confirm that he was one of the best pre-1871.

1. Barnes
2. Browning
3. Caruthers
4. Childs
5. Delahanty
6. Glasscock
7. Gore
8. McCormick
9. Mullane
10. Pike
11. Richardson
12. Spalding
13. Start
14. Sutton
15. Van Haltren

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Seven (1901 onward) - Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, Tony Mullane, Joe Start
Six (1902 onward) - Ross Barnes, Hardy Richardson
Five (1903 onward) - Jack Glasscock, George Gore
Three (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Three (1905 and 1907/1908) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Two (1901 and 1908) - Al Spalding
One (1908) - Ed Delahanty, Lip Pike, George Van Haltren

[jalbright]

Whether you go down to 10, my ballot has dropped below that level (barely).

Childs
Delahanty
Glasscock
Gore
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[NineWorldSeries]

I have decided to vote for McCormick as a new addition to my ballot, but i doubt that throwing my additional support behind him will help much.

Browning
Caruthers
Delahanty
Hoy
McCormick
Mullane
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch

[leecemark]

--I'm under 15 for the first time as far as I can recall. I think my ballot is going to get much hard to make from here on out though. I voted for Thompson and already regret it. He is very much a large Hall type selection and I think with the divergence of opinion that has already developed on some players we are going to create a huge gray area by electing more such types. Regardless of whether the ballto size goes down or not mine is likley to be less than 10 most subsequent years.

[bambambaseball]

Yes, I voted for Chief Zimmer. He was great defensively and while he will probably never be in the hall, he was a colorful charactere and his board game (http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2005/676.html#photos) will keep me looking in every antique store in my neverending quest for random baseball ephemera. :D

[DoubleX]

After the last election, it's pretty clear now that our standards for position players are more flexible than for pitchers. It seems we are holding our pitchers to a higher standard. I would argue that Tony Mullane would be a good addition at this point. He would enlarge the precedent for pitchers, as we have done for position players, though a relatively high level would still be maintained.

[PVNICK]

Browning
Caruthers
Childs
Delahanty
Glasscock
Gore
Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch
Zimmer

After adding Barnes, I dropped him.

[Freakshow]

1908 Ballot: Bennett, Stovey, Ward and Wright are replaced by Delahanty, Jones, Ryan and Van Haltren.

Barnes
Caruthers
Childs
Delahanty
Glasscock
Gore
C. Jones
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[Brad Harris]

Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
Ed Delahanty
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

I dropped Barnes and Spalding on the basis that neither was really dominant outside the National Association. That left me exactly fifteen names in my consideration set, all of which made the ballot.

[Freakshow]

Here is the list of new eligibles for our next election, as I see it. A very thin crop of newbies for 1909.

Gene DeMontreville-2B/SS
Herman Long-SS
Jimmy McAleer-CF (age 45)
Barry McCormick-3B/2B

[leecemark]

--I must say I'm appalled to see Barnes dropped from 3 ballots this time - after coming up just 1 ballot short last year. I don't know which is worse - our sudden rush to elect a large group of candidates or the abandoning of the first generation of stars. My ballot next time will be geared to counter both trends.

[Brad Harris]

It's a simple consequence of the debate (particularly over Barnes) that ensued during the last election; at least in my case.

[KCGHOST]

Browning
Delahanty
Glasscock
Gore
Mullane
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren

I am down to 10 also.

[DoubleX]

--I must say I'm appalled to see Barnes dropped from 3 ballots this time - after coming up just 1 ballot short last year. I don't know which is worse - our sudden rush to elect a large group of candidates or the abandoning of the first generation of stars. My ballot next time will be geared to counter both trends.

I'm with Classic - it was all the discussion last time that put me back on the other side of the fence with Barnes.

I don't think we've been foreclosed at all to the first generation of stars. We've elected 10 players that began their careers in the 1870s, six that were playing in 1875 or earlier, and five that were playing in 1871 or 1872. So I don't think we've ignored that era in the least. Of course we've ignored players from before that, but they aren't on the ballot, we're not considering pre 1871 (which could be impacting guys like Pike and McVey). I think the problem people have with Barnes is that unlike the others we've elected from that time, Barnes' career is pretty totally encapsulated in that quickly evolving period, in which the game was really just organizing itself on the professional level, the seasons were much shorter, and there were significant rule changes (such as the fair/foul rule). This is why I have always thought that guys like Ross Barnes, Lip Pike, and Cal McVey would make better VC candidates and why I was reluctant at the onset to trace eligibility back to 1871. They were playing an almost different game (and yes, there were rule changes subsequent to that as well, but there was much more in common from the 1880s onward than there was before).

[jalbright]

The odd thing about this development with Barnes is that I've come closer, though not there yet, to supporting him. If I hadn't come up with evidence that Barnes might have been hitting doubles under the rule, I'd probably have bitten.

[Sockeye]

I'm considering expanding ballot beyond Mickey Welch. Can anyone make a strong case for Ed Delahanty?

[jjpm74]

I'm considering expanding ballot beyond Mickey Welch. Can anyone make a strong case for Ed Delahanty?

Why don't you make DoubleX's life easier and stay away from this project so he doesn't have to re-tally the poll again? It's obvious you're not willing to play nice. :disbelief:

[jalbright]

Ed Delahanty (done from a 2008 perspective)

His 355 career win shares is tied for 81st (including everyone) in the win share book though he may have slipped a few spots since
His 107 win shares in his top three seasons is 9th among LF in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract
His 159 win shares in his five best consecutive seasons is 6th among LF in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract
No help from MVP or All Star voting, as they didn't exist for Ed.
22nd all time in Black Ink among all batters
25th all time in Gray Ink among all batters
24th in HOF standards among all batters.

Easily good enough for me.

[Sockeye]

Ed Delahanty (done from a 2008 perspective)

His 355 career win shares is tied for 81st (including everyone) in the win share book though he may have slipped a few spots since
His 107 win shares in his top three seasons is 9th among LF in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract
His 159 win shares in his five best consecutive seasons is 6th among LF in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract
No help from MVP or All Star voting, as they didn't exist for Ed.
22nd all time in Black Ink among all batters
25th all time in Gray Ink among all batters
24th in HOF standards among all batters.

Easily good enough for me.

Hmmm very compelling case. Yes, indeed I think Mr Ed Delahanty will join Mickey Welch on my ballot.

[Sockeye]

Now who else (if anyone) should be worthy of joining him. Hmmmm how about this Tony Mullane fellow? Looking at his stats he doesn't compare to Mickey Welch, but can anyone make a case as to why he belongs in an elite place as is the HOF?

[Windy City Fan]

If you're voting for Welch, Mullane should make your ballot as well. Welch has less than 300 more innings, but is behind Mullane in ERA+ by 4 points. Mullane's peak was also much more impressive. He racked up seasons of ERA+ of 161, 160, 135, 134, 133, and 133 (though two of those were partial seasons on the mound because Mullane also spent time in the outfield, at third, and a little bit at first while being a pretty decent hitter). Welch on the other hand 164, 141, 134, 121 and then never again topped 114 again. Coincidentally, the three best seasons he had for ERA+ were the three best teams he played for - suggesting his best seasons were a product of his enviroment and not his individual talent. Though I suppose you could argue that the Giants did well those years because Welch pitched so well. However, I think team defense had a bigger role in pitcher's ERA in those days and Welch probably put up his best seasons due to having good fielders behind him. Though someone else with more knowledge of this era would have to confirm or deny that, its just a hunch on my part.

Mullane played for a few second place teams, but usually his teams were middle of the pack teams and in 1884, Mullane pitched for an 8th place team and still managed to produce an ERA+ of 135 in 567 innings. That says to me that Mullane probably wasn't strictly a product of his enviroment and was a legit top notch pitcher in his day.

And if I have any say in the matter, anyone who needs to hear an "argument" for Ed Delehanty shouldn't be allowed to participate. Delehanty is top 50 player and is arguably the best position player we've seen so far.

[Sockeye]

Why don't you make DoubleX's life easier and stay away from this project so he doesn't have to re-tally the poll again? It's obvious you're not willing to play nice. :disbelief:

Naw, why would I do that? Play nice?? who me?? I'm the nicest guy around...well until insulted and told my ballot isn't worthy of being counted because it isn't like everyone elses. That I find rather offensive and distasteful. IMO this project isn't worth the screen it's typed on.

People are asked to vote for the players they feel are worthy of induction with no minimum number required. But yet someone voting for one player isn't "allowed"? Yet there is a "none of the above" option? Like anyone would actually be allowed to use that option and still have their vote counted. What a joke!

A while back (about 8 months ago) I set down and put together my own personal HOF. Well revised it I should say. I'm always tinkering with the gray area players as I'm sure many of ya'll are. Players who I felt was worthy of being in the HOF. A couple months later I decided to take it a step further and break down the players into 15 seperate catagories. Tiers of the HOF as you may call it. Players who were worthy of HOF induction on the 1st ballot, 2nd tier being 2nd ballot worthy players, 3rd tier being 3rd ballot worthy players, so on and so fourth.

Well when this project came up I thought it might be interesting to vote according to my HOF using the tiers that I came up with.....a perfectly reasonable idea to say the least....but NO this can't be allowed! Sockeye didn't vote for enough players thus his vote will be discounted. It might be worth mentioning that EVERY player so far elected in the project are members of my personal HOF. Just several of them were elected on a ballot prior to where I thought they deserved to be voted in at. Personally I don't see the difference between a player being elected on the 2nd ballot or the 3rd ballot or how my waiting to vote on the player affected anything. They players are still in the HOH what does it matter if I voted for them or not? But still that was not acceptable so my ballot could not be counted.

It may have been partially due to my automatic induction milestones stance being completely and totally misresented. I believe that any player with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserves automatic induction. Somehow that got turned around to mean that I believe that ONLY players with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserve to be inducted. A complete and utter distortion of reality. Of course I attempted to explain this to 2BX and even thou my seven year old could have understood it, it was for some unknown reason beyond his grasp. So my ballot was thrown out. His choice so-be-it. I'll play nice now. Still shakin it boss!

[Windy City Fan]

You have to admit its awfully suspicious when all of the players you claim would've eventually voted for were elected the year before you would've voted for them. Maybe I'm overly cynical ... heck no maybe about it, I am ... but that seems waaaaay too convinient to be a coincidence.

[jjpm74]

Naw, why would I do that? Play nice?? who me?? I'm the nicest guy around...well until insulted and told my ballot isn't worthy of being counted because it isn't like everyone elses. That I find rather offensive and distasteful. IMO this project isn't worth the screen it's typed on.

Actually it was you refused to play by the rules. You did the same garbage in the first pitcher's poll in the top 100 pitcher's project as well. Remember?

People are asked to vote for the players they feel are worthy of induction with no minimum number required. But yet someone voting for one player isn't "allowed"? Yet there is a "none of the above" option? Like anyone would actually be allowed to use that option and still have their vote counted. What a joke!

People are also expected to actually justify who they are voting for when asked. You didn't.


Well when this project came up I thought it might be interesting to vote according to my HOF using the tiers that I came up with.....a perfectly reasonable idea to say the least....but NO this can't be allowed! Sockeye didn't vote for enough players thus his vote will be discounted. It might be worth mentioning that EVERY player so far elected in the project are members of my personal HOF. Just several of them were elected on a ballot prior to where I thought they deserved to be voted in at. Personally I don't see the difference between a player being elected on the 2nd ballot or the 3rd ballot or how my waiting to vote on the player affected anything. They players are still in the HOH what does it matter if I voted for them or not? But still that was not acceptable so my ballot could not be counted.

Seems too convenient. Sorry. You'd be more believable had you not goofed up on when you would have voted for Paul Hines as you didn't during the year you supposedly would have. DoubleX made a mistake there that Paul caught later. It also doesn't help that every person you said you'd vote for during a later election conveniently got voted in the election before you would have voted for them.

It may have been partially due to my automatic induction milestones stance being completely and totally misresented. I believe that any player with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserves automatic induction. Somehow that got turned around to mean that I believe that ONLY players with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserve to be inducted. A complete and utter distortion of reality. Of course I attempted to explain this to 2BX and even thou my seven year old could have understood it, it was for some unknown reason beyond his grasp. So my ballot was thrown out. His choice so-be-it. I'll play nice now. Still shakin it boss!

You only voted for players who had either 3000 hits or 300 wins. Nice try though.:applaud:

[Sockeye]

If you're voting for Welch, Mullane should make your ballot as well. Welch has less than 300 more innings, but is behind Mullane in ERA+ by 4 points. Mullane's peak was also much more impressive. He racked up seasons of ERA+ of 161, 160, 135, 134, 133, and 133 (though two of those were partial seasons on the mound because Mullane also spent time in the outfield, at third, and a little bit at first while being a pretty decent hitter). Welch on the other hand 164, 141, 134, 121 and then never again topped 114 again. Coincidentally, the three best seasons he had for ERA+ were the three best teams he played for - suggesting his best seasons were a product of his enviroment and not his individual talent. Though I suppose you could argue that the Giants did well those years because Welch pitched so well. However, I think team defense had a bigger role in pitcher's ERA in those days and Welch probably put up his best seasons due to having good fielders behind him. Though someone else with more knowledge of this era would have to confirm or deny that, its just a hunch on my part.

Mullane played for a few second place teams, but usually his teams were middle of the pack teams and in 1884, Mullane pitched for an 8th place team and still managed to produce an ERA+ of 135 in 567 innings. That says to me that Mullane probably wasn't strictly a product of his enviroment and was a legit top notch pitcher in his day.

And if I have any say in the matter, anyone who needs to hear an "argument" for Ed Delehanty shouldn't be allowed to participate. Delehanty is top 50 player and is arguably the best position player we've seen so far.

Glad you brought that up. Mickey Welch's DERA was 4.13 compared to a 4.07 NRA. Indicated that the defense behind Mickey Welch was only slightly better than average. Tony Mullane's DERA on the other hand was 4.21 compared to a 3.85 NRA. This showing that the defense behind Mullane was far superior than that of Mickey Welch's.

Welch's ERA+ of 114 that has been well referenced as a evidence of his lack or HOF worthiness is a non-starter. Many HOF worthy pitchers have an ERA+ of less than 114 including a pitcher from the same era...Pud Galvin had an ERA+ of 107. Yet he was elected on the 3rd ballot. I'm not saying that Welch was better than Galvin mind you. But it's ludicris that Galvin deserves to be elected on the 3rd ballot and Welch struggling to gain any support on the 8th ballot. It's beyond rediculous at this point. I count no less than 15 pitchers in the HOF with an ERA+ of less than 114. Many of which have an inferior overall career. Welch deserves a place on the ballot and a place in the HOF period!

Oh as for Delahanty....It's a no brainer as to his worthiness. Doesn't deserve to be first ballot IMO but he is an easy choice for the hall.

[AG2004]

Seems too convenient. Sorry. You'd be more believable had you not goofed up on when you would have voted for Paul Hines as you didn't during the year you supposedly would have. DoubleX made a mistake there that Paul caught later. It also doesn't help that every person you said you'd vote for during a later election conveniently got voted in the election before you would have voted for them.


It was Deacon White, not Paul Hines.

[AG2004]

A while back (about 8 months ago) I set down and put together my own personal HOF. Well revised it I should say. I'm always tinkering with the gray area players as I'm sure many of ya'll are. Players who I felt was worthy of being in the HOF. A couple months later I decided to take it a step further and break down the players into 15 seperate catagories. Tiers of the HOF as you may call it. Players who were worthy of HOF induction on the 1st ballot, 2nd tier being 2nd ballot worthy players, 3rd tier being 3rd ballot worthy players, so on and so fourth.

Well when this project came up I thought it might be interesting to vote according to my HOF using the tiers that I came up with.....a perfectly reasonable idea to say the least....but NO this can't be allowed!



In an earlier year, I asked you directly which players on the above list were in your HOF, and what tiers they were on. I never received an answer. Then I suggested that, if a player not on your ballot had been elected in his Nth year of eligibility, you had him as an (N+1)th-tier player. DoubleX looked at your tiers and discovered that was true in 7 out of 8 cases, the lone exception being Deacon White, whom you listed as a 2nd-tier player, and whom DoubleX mistakenly listed as a 1st-ballot inductee.

So I'll ask you again. Which of the players on this year's ballot are in your personal HOF, and what tiers are they on?

Sockeye didn't vote for enough players thus his vote will be discounted. It might be worth mentioning that EVERY player so far elected in the project are members of my personal HOF. Just several of them were elected on a ballot prior to where I thought they deserved to be voted in at. Personally I don't see the difference between a player being elected on the 2nd ballot or the 3rd ballot or how my waiting to vote on the player affected anything. They players are still in the HOH what does it matter if I voted for them or not? But still that was not acceptable so my ballot could not be counted.

When you told DoubleX about your tier plan, you said that Dan Brouthers was a 2nd-ballot candidate. That means that, in 1902, you would have seen Brouthers as deserving of the HOF. However, in the 1902 discussion, you declared that Brouthers was not a deserving candidate. There's a contradiction there. There's also a contradiction between your stating that Deacon White was a 2nd-ballot candidate and your failure to vote for Deacon White in his second ballot appearance.

It may have been partially due to my automatic induction milestones stance being completely and totally misresented. I believe that any player with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserves automatic induction. Somehow that got turned around to mean that I believe that ONLY players with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserve to be inducted. A complete and utter distortion of reality.

Sockeye, when you made your list of the top 1000 players in major league history, Amos Rusie ranked higher than any of the five pitchers you had cast votes for. Yet Rusie didn't make your ballot when you had the chance to vote for him. That may have led people to think that you weren't going to vote for any pitchers with fewer than 300 wins. (For the record, why didn't you make Rusie a first-ballot candidate?)

Several people asked you what your standards were. You never responded to them in the discussions. Since the only players to have made your ballot were those with 3000 hits or 300 wins (nobody with 400 home runs had yet been eligible), people assumed that you required players to hit one of those benchmarks, and your lack of a response to their questions gave them no reason to think otherwise.

Of course I attempted to explain this to 2BX and even thou my seven year old could have understood it, it was for some unknown reason beyond his grasp. So my ballot was thrown out.

The explanation you provided conflicted with the behavior you actually exhibited - the Deacon White error demonstrated that beyond a doubt. That caused people to believe your explanation was actually an attempt to provide for an explanation for your behavior after the fact, and not a realistic statement about your voting methods.

So how do you determine what tier a player is on? Be specific. It would help if you could use Hugh Duffy, Herman Long, Kid Nichols, or any other recently retired players as examples.

His choice so-be-it. I'll play nice now. Still shakin it boss!

Answering some of these questions might help show that you can play nice.

[Sockeye]

You have to admit its awfully suspicious when all of the players you claim would've eventually voted for were elected the year before you would've voted for them. Maybe I'm overly cynical ... heck no maybe about it, I am ... but that seems waaaaay too convinient to be a coincidence.

The year? I don't believe I ever said the players were elected "the year" before I had them to be elected although a good number were. Among the last round of inductees there were quite a varience as to tier I had them being elected in. Some as many of 3 years off of where they should be. But of course the people here feeling the need to include every deserving on one ballot it's not really a surprise. The fact that I was within a year of the many previous inductees just goes to show the fact that my HOF opinions are in line with most of the voters. I'm just a little more stubborn in waiting until the proper time to vote for the players.

[leecemark]

--Players are either Hall of Famers or they are not. Putting all the players whom you think are deserving (provided ,of course, that is 15 or less) is what you are supposed to do. Your system would undoubtedly have come under attack even had you posted it prior to the players left off your ballot were elected. You should not be surprised that you are drawing fire for sharing it after the excluded player were elected.

[Sockeye]

Actually it was you refused to play by the rules. You did the same garbage in the first pitcher's poll in the top 100 pitcher's project as well. Remember?



People are also expected to actually justify who they are voting for when asked. You didn't.



Seems too convenient. Sorry. You'd be more believable had you not goofed up on when you would have voted for Paul Hines as you didn't during the year you supposedly would have. DoubleX made a mistake there that Paul caught later. It also doesn't help that every person you said you'd vote for during a later election conveniently got voted in the election before you would have voted for them.



You only voted for players who had either 3000 hits or 300 wins. Nice try though.:applaud:

Nice try but not so fast. I voted for the pitchers but tried to correct their rankings though my voting as to the best of my ability. Thus pitchers who I deemed should have been ahead of others I voted for while off leaving off others whos numbers of votes put them ahead of where they should be.

I don't feel the need to justify who I voted for. My vote is as qualified as anyone's elses. Unless everyone's vote was required to have a justification I don't feel as if mine should be.

Those just so happened to be the players who were either on my first ballot or not yet elected where they should have be. A coincidence nothing more nothing less. If my vote would happened to be for a less considered catcher would my vote have been discounted....Hmmmm I wonder.....

[jjpm74]

The fact that I was within a year of the many previous inductees just goes to show the fact that my HOF opinions are in line with most of the voters. I'm just a little more stubborn in waiting until the proper time to vote for the players.

Or more likely that you are trying to make excuses after the fact. If you are actually serious, answer AG2004's question directly. If not, why are you wasting your time as well as anyone else's?

[jjpm74]

I don't feel the need to justify who I voted for. My vote is as qualified as anyone's elses. Unless everyone's vote was required to have a justification I don't feel as if mine should be.


I can and will justify anyone I choose to vote for as has everyone else. Look at dgarza and AG2004's replies to questions about their ballots as examples. Will you, or are you going to take us on another merry-go-round ride where you talk around the issue again?


Those just so happened to be the players who were either on my first ballot or not yet elected where they should have be. A coincidence nothing more nothing less. If my vote would happened to be for a less considered catcher would my vote have been discounted....Hmmmm I wonder.....

With that kind of coincidence, you should play lotto as the chances of what happened to you being a coincidence are about 1 in 1,000,000,000.

[Sockeye]

--Players are either Hall of Famers or they are not. Putting all the players whom you think are deserving (provided ,of course, that is 15 or less) is what you are supposed to do. Your system would undoubtedly have come under attack even had you posted it prior to the players left off your ballot were elected. You should not be surprised that you are drawing fire for sharing it after the excluded player were elected.

See this is the exact reason I defend my original selections to begin with. It's pointless and an total waste of time debateing ones selections against 3, 4, 5 different people opinions. I get nothing done but to respond to one post after another.

From this point on I'll vote for the 15 most deserving players. Count my vote or not I really don't care. Don't expect anymore explanation. It ain't happenin! This is my last post on this subject.

[jjpm74]

From this point on I'll vote for the 15 most deserving players. Count my vote or not I really don't care. Don't expect any more explanation. It ain't happenin!

It's hard to give an explanation when you don't have one; ain't it?

[leecemark]

--I'm not saying you should vote for 15. I'm saying you should vote for all who you believe are deserving up to 15. Deliberately leaving deservign candidates off your ballot is a diservice to the other participants.
--I also don't think its too much to ask for you to provide an explanation when you leave say a Dan Brouthers - the best hitter in baseball history to that point (or to this point for that matter) - off your ballot. I don't respond to every person who takes exception to something I post, but I do respond to most of them The whole point of hanging out here is to discuss baseball. Making a list or voting in a poll without comment is not a very good use of my time.

[jjpm74]

Back to the discussion of the candidates:

Charley Jones, who was teetering on the brink of extinction last election already has 4 votes this election with about half the usual number of participants weighing in (I'm one of them now that I have the room for him ;) ).

Could someone more SABRmetrically inclined than me give a reason why his case is a strong one?

Some biographical information I can provide is that he was a premier slugger in the early days of baseball, including a great peak. Here's a link to a short (and unfortunately incomplete) bio on this player:

Charley Jones (http://mopupduty.com/index.php/charley-jones-bio/)

For me, besides for the fact that he was recognized as a superstar who played at a high level well into his 30s, the heart of the matter on Jones' HOF worthiness is whether or not to give him credit for the 2 years he was blocked from playing by the NL (1881-1882). For me, I have no issues whatsoever with giving him credit for these two seasons as

1. Every source I read concerning Jones suggests he was black balled and had no control over the 2 year absence.

2. He didn't skip a beat on his return and continued to play well until 1887.

[1905 Giants]

Pete Browning
Ed Delahanty
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[DoubleX]

It may have been partially due to my automatic induction milestones stance being completely and totally misresented. I believe that any player with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserves automatic induction. Somehow that got turned around to mean that I believe that ONLY players with 3000 hits, 300 wins, or 400 home runs deserve to be inducted. A complete and utter distortion of reality. Of course I attempted to explain this to 2BX and even thou my seven year old could have understood it, it was for some unknown reason beyond his grasp. So my ballot was thrown out. His choice so-be-it. I'll play nice now. Still shakin it boss!

It never got turned around. No one ever said that they thought you would only elect players that met those milestones. Rather, having automatic standards such as those is completely prejudiced against the era we're now dealing with. What you continually fail to understand is that those milestones mean very little right now. You're applying arbitrary standards of the future to the past. I've used this example before - it's like if in the year 2075, 20 players hit 800 homeruns, and then we used that standard in 2008 to find most everyone with 500 homeruns from the 20th century not worthy of the Hall. You're just not putting things in context.

How is it fair to have automatic standards that essentially exclude whole generations of players from automatic consideration because the realities of the day made those standards unrealistic?

Finally, if you're going to belittle this project and say it's not worth the space on the screen, then why do you keep wasting your time with it?

[DoubleX]

In an earlier year, I asked you directly which players on the above list were in your HOF, and what tiers they were on. I never received an answer. Then I suggested that, if a player not on your ballot had been elected in his Nth year of eligibility, you had him as an (N+1)th-tier player. DoubleX looked at your tiers and discovered that was true in 7 out of 8 cases, the lone exception being Deacon White, whom you listed as a 2nd-tier player, and whom DoubleX mistakenly listed as a 1st-ballot inductee.

Curiously, while Sockeye has addressed subsequent posts, this one seems to have been ignored.

Great post AG, really pinpointing what the issues and discrepancies are here.

[Paul Wendt]

Charley Jones, who was teetering on the brink of extinction last election already has 4 votes this election with about half the usual number of participants weighing in (I'm one of them now that I have the room for him ;) ).

Could someone more SABRmetrically inclined than me give a reason why his case is a strong one?

Some biographical information I can provide is that he was a premier slugger in the early days of baseball, including a great peak. Here's a link to a short (and unfortunately incomplete) bio on this player:

Charley Jones (http://mopupduty.com/index.php/charley-jones-bio/)
In work such as this, check out the Hall of Merit player pages. This one and many others include a lot of facts, analysis, and discussion.
Charley Jones at the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/charley_jones_lip_pike) (with Lip Pike)

See also AG's Keltner List (#120 Charley Jones) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1151178&postcount=120) and the Discussion of AG's Keltner Lists (#66, #68).

Only AG's Keltner List is mainly sabrmetric

[Paul Wendt]

1907 was a good year for the end of the alphabet. A little overboard from my perspective (Barnes, Caruthers, Gore) but in general it's good to see a little more balance in the BBF Progressive HOF Election Winners.

--
Windy City Fan - probably a Barnes and Spalding supporter, or do they still bear a grudge against the Rockford boys?
anyone who needs to hear an "argument" for Ed Delehanty shouldn't be allowed to participate. Delehanty is top 50 player and is arguably the best position player we've seen so far.
I can't help on the first point. That's why Sean Holtz pays Jim Albright the big bucks while I go off to the microfilm for free.

As for Ed Delahanty, Fred Dunlap was a superstar but he didn't play long enough for inner circle consideration.
Anson
Brouthers
Connor
Delahanty
Ewing

With all due respect to Clarkson and Radbourn, if Del is arguably the best position player we've seen then he is arguably the best player.

--
Ross Barnes and Albert Spalding remain from my first ballot (vote for ten).
If this group will honor only two of the Red Stockings stars, the big four and the Wright brothers, no doubt White and George Wright is the right choice --and the alphabetically correct one.

Maybe Jim Albright considers Spalding the greatest player of the National Association. Last year he observed that Barnes may be the greatest if we don't count pitchers and I can't think of any plausible pitcher but his Rockford fellow.

I don't believe Spalding was the greatest player because I "know" that early pitchers get a lot of credit for the work of their fielders. To some extent that is true whether the pitchers and fielders are good, ordinary, or bad --at least by the win shares system or by anyone who relies on traditional counting statistics. Strikeout and walk rates were low in the 1870s; out of the park home run rates too. Fielding was a bigger part and pitching a smaller part of defense than in the days of Nichols and Young.

Among pitchers Spalding was a superior batter, runner, and fielder. Maybe he was also the most important player of the professional era in building and directing the game: agreeing to play for Chicago, recruiting his teammates, scouting other players, and helping William Hulbert design the league. Literally as a player, when he retired from the box to firstbase he adopted a glove for protection, showing everyone that that was for sissies, catchers, and firstbasemen.

[jalbright]

I can't help on the first point. That's why Sean Holtz pays Jim Albright the big bucks while I go off to the microfilm for free.



I make as much money here as you do with the microfilm, sorry to say for both of us. :)

[Paul Wendt]

[separate and expand Mullane before delving into microfilm]

Tony Mullane was another superior batter, runner, and fielder. Still, a big part of his case may be how much credit he gets for 1881 (Akron, maybe the strongest independent, due more to Mullane than anyone else) and 1885-86 (suspended one year, 1886 record maybe distorted by the idle time).

Mullane influenced the game at least briefly. He was the main cause of the American Association's new rule awarding first base to a batter hit by the pitched ball.

Mullane later called Fleet Walker his best catcher but admitted that he deliberately crossed the black catcher's signs. It isn't clear to me whether that delivered a physical beating, akin to white runners oversliding into Frank Grant at secondbase. Or whether it caused passed balls.

Mullane later lived in Chicago, played semipro baseball, umpired some big games by the black teams. His major league comeback in 1899 was rained out.

On Mullane vs Welch, I agree with Sockeye that Mullane isn't twice as good (14 votes to 7). But I didn't vote for Tim Keefe, so I certainly don't agree with Sockeye on Mullane and Welch. I do think it's reasonable that Tim Keefe is one of the winners now that they are twenty in number but he's more like number 21 than number four.

--
[from microfilm, not looking for Mullane but he may be unavoidable at the turn of the century]
Tom Burns, Chicago NL manager:
>>
'Tony' Mullane, once the prince among pitchers, made a mistake of keeping in too fine a condition. Mullane used to take regular exercise to strengthen his throwing arm, with the result that he got his muscles 'bound up'. He exercised regularly in the gymnasiums, and his muscles got as hard as iron. At the same time his decline in pitching began. There was not that suppleness present to get a good twist to the ball.
<<

I wonder, how old was that conventional wisdom on strength training in 1899?

[jalbright]

Paul,

The comment about pitchers in Barnes' era was mostly a reflexive (you can take me out of the law, but you can't take the lawyer out of me ;)) CYA thing rather than a thought about a specific pitcher. Just knowing the huge impact of pitching combined with the amount pitchers pitched (most days) made me hesitant against somebody who had slipped my mind at the moment.

[Sockeye]

Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
Dummy Hoy
Charley Jones
Brickyard Kennedy
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Wilbert Robinson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Chief Zimmer

[PVNICK]

I'm with Classic - it was all the discussion last time that put me back on the other side of the fence with Barnes.


I make it 3. At first I kept him off because of the fair-foul, but found myself persuaded by the discussion. In the end I think it came down to the fair-foul, shortness of career and maybe a prejudice as far as a yes vote being for players that I am a little more firm about like maybe line would be 55-45 rather than 50.1-49.9.

[Brad Harris]

It seems to me that the Boston team in the NA was much like a college team playing ball in a high school league. While "a pennant is a pennant" is fine and well, dominating only in the NA takes a back seat to playing well in stronger leagues.

[jjpm74]

Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
Dummy Hoy
Charley Jones
Brickyard Kennedy
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Wilbert Robinson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Chief Zimmer

Perhaps you could explain which of these guys are better than Ed Delahanty or what makes Brickyard Kennedy a better choice than Tony Mullane? :)

[AG2004]

Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
Dummy Hoy
Charley Jones
Brickyard Kennedy
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Wilbert Robinson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Chief Zimmer


Several questions.

(1) In 1902, you said that Buck Ewing did not belong in the HOF because of his low ink totals. Last year, you indicated that Ewing was a 2nd-ballot candidate. Zimmer had lower ink totals than Ewing. So how does Zimmer become a 1st-ballot candidate?

(2) You indicated that Ed Delahanty was not a 1st-tier candidate. You indicated earlier that Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor, Billy Hamilton, and King Kelly were not 1st-tier candidates, either. Yet you have Jimmy Ryan as a 1st-tier Hall of Famer. Could you explain the process by which you decided Ryan, but none of the other five players mentioned here, was deserving of a first-ballot selection?

(3) Ed Delahanty has a higher career batting average than any other player whose career is over. Why aren't you voting for him?

[OOC - The following two questions are from a 2008 perspective.]

(4) When you made your list of the top 1000 players ever, Ed Delahanty was number 70. You ranked him higher than any other candidate listed as eligible here. However, your ballot lists 15 candidates you are, in your opinion, inferior to Delahanty, and omits the candidate you claimed earlier was the best player available. Could you explain why your opinion changed?

(5) Larry Corcoran, Brickyard Kennedy, Cal McVey, Lip Pike, and Chief Zimmer all failed to make your list of top 1000 players. (I'm omitting Joe Start since you declared that pre-NA play didn't count towards that list.) Yet those five players appear on your ballot here. Could you explain the discrepancy?

I await your responses to these questions.

[DoubleX]

Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
Dummy Hoy
Charley Jones
Brickyard Kennedy
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Wilbert Robinson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Mike Tiernan
Mickey Welch
Chief Zimmer

Ugh, what are we supposed to make of this?

I know, just like before when every player we elected was a player you would have coincidentally voted for in the following election, this time you have voted for the bottom 15 players receiving a vote.

First, I don't understand why you continue to want to participate in a project which you have openly disparaged.

Second, and more importantly, It is abundantly clear that you are nothing but an obstructionist to this project. Your votes will again be removed, and as I promised you in my PM to you that if you were to continue to participate in such a manner, I will take this matter up with the other mods and seek and more forceful way to prevent you from undermining this project. Participation here is a privilege, not a right.

[DoubleX]

Just so everyone knows, I've removed Sockeye's votes for those 15 players (though someone might want to doublecheck that I did get all 15), so we will once again not be able to rely on the poll and have to tabulate the results manually.

This project is only as good as the integrity of the participants. I really appreciate the enthusiasm everyone has shown thus far and that is why I will not let one disingenuous voter undermine this for the rest of us.

[jalbright]

Next "year" I expect to add Al Spalding to my ballot. He was at least a solid player in 1868-1871, and in 1872-1876, he was the best pitcher (and player) in the game, per Total Baseball's TPW for 1872-5 and win shares for 1876. I can't ignore that.

[jalbright]

Just so everyone knows, I've removed Sockeye's votes for those 15 players (though someone might want to doublecheck that I did get all 15), so we will once again not be able to rely on the poll and have to tabulate the results manually.

This project is only as good as the integrity of the participants. I really appreciate the enthusiasm everyone has shown thus far and that is why I will not let one disingenuous voter undermine this for the rest of us.

Hang in there, Mike. It's no fun to run one of these projects when somebody, for whatever reasons, chooses to deliberately try to undermine the foundations of the project such as fairness and good faith voting. Rest assured of our support in this trying matter.

[DoubleX]

Hang in there, Mike. It's no fun to run one of these projects when somebody, for whatever reasons, chooses to deliberately try to undermine the foundations of the project such as fairness and good faith voting. Rest assured of our support in this trying matter.

Thanks Jim, I appreciate it.

Here are the actual results through 15 votes:

Ed Delahanty: 93.33
Tony Mullane: 80.00

George Gore: 73.33
George Van Haltren: 73.33
Pete Browning: 66.67
Bob Caruthers: 66.67
Ross Barnes: 60.00
Jack Glasscock: 60.00
Al Spalding: 60.00
Ezra Sutton: 60.00
Joe Start: 53.33
Lip Pike: 46.67
Hardy Richardson: 46.67
Cupid Childs: 40.00
Mickey Welch: 33.33
Larry Corcoran: 26.67
Charley Jones: 26.67
Jim McCormick: 26.67
Cal McVey: 26.67
Dummy Hoy: 20.00
Mike Tiernan: 20.00
Brickyard Kennedy: 6.67 - Guaranteed to make next ballot
Wilbert Robinson: 6.67
Chief Zimmer: 6.67 - Guaranteed to make next ballot

Tom Daly: 0
Bill Hallman: 0

[DoubleX]

I know some of us get a sour taste now when the name Mickey Welch is mentioned, but I want to try to advance his case nonetheless.

The short of it is that Welch, while not reaching as spectacular heights as the players we've elected (except maybe Galvin who is in by virtue of extreme longevity), nonetheless exhibited very rare longevity and consistency for his era. For instance, of players no longer playing as of last year (1907):

- Welch's 4802 IP ranks 5th all time in IP, behind only Pud Galvin, Kid Nichols, Tim Keefe, and Bobby Mathews. He is also only one of just 10 players to surpass 3800 IP and one of just 13 to surpass 3500 IP.

- Welch's 307 wins ranks 6th all time in wins, behind only Pud Galvin, Kid Nichols, Tim Keefe, John Clarkson, and Charley Radbourn. These are the only 6 players to have won more than 300 games, and only 11 players have won more than 250.

- Among players with at least 3000 IP, Welch's 2.71 ERA ranks 5th all time, behind only Will White, Jim McCormick, Tim Keefe, and Charley Radbourn.

-Among players with at least 3000 IP, Welch's 1.225 WHIP ranks 10th all time, behind just Will White, Tim Keefe, Jim McCormick, Jim Whitney, Charley Radbourn, Puld Galvin, John Clarkson, and Kid Nichols. (And while I shouldn't be mentioning ERA+, his career 114 ERA+ ranks 11th among pitchers with at least 3000 IP).

In sum, I believe Welch exhibited rare longevity and consistency for his day, and in doing so, possessed great and rare career value for his era, such that is worthy of being celebrated in the Hall. Yes, we would be expanding our standards for pitchers with the election of Welch, but our standards for pitchers seem to be extremely high right now, higher than our standards for positional players, and expanded to Welch would still make it very difficult to get in as the Welch standard would be one of very rare longevity and consistency compared to the player's environment.

In doing this, I think I've also tangentially trumpeted the cases of Jim McCormick and Will White (who was dropped a few years back).

[jalbright]

The short of it is that Welch, while not reaching as spectacular heights as the players we've elected (except maybe Galvin who is in by virtue of extreme longevity), nonetheless exhibited very rare longevity and consistency for his era. For instance, of players no longer playing as of last year (1907):

- Welch's 4802 IP ranks 5th all time in IP, behind only Pud Galvin, Kid Nichols, Tim Keefe, and Bobby Mathews. He is also only one of just 10 players to surpass 3800 IP and one of just 13 to surpass 3500 IP.

- Welch's 307 wins ranks 6th all time in wins, behind only Pud Galvin, Kid Nichols, Tim Keefe, John Clarkson, and Charley Radbourn. These are the only 6 players to have won more than 300 games, and only 11 players have won more than 250.

- Among players with at least 3000 IP, Welch's 2.71 ERA ranks 5th all time, behind only Will White, Jim McCormick, Tim Keefe, and Charley Radbourn.

-Among players with at least 3000 IP, Welch's 1.225 WHIP ranks 10th all time, behind just Will White, Tim Keefe, Jim McCormick, Jim Whitney, Charley Radbourn, Puld Galvin, John Clarkson, and Kid Nichols. (And while I shouldn't be mentioning ERA+, his career 114 ERA+ ranks 11th among pitchers with at least 3000 IP).

In sum, I believe Welch exhibited rare longevity and consistency for his day, and in doing so, possessed great and rare career value for his era, such that is worthy of being celebrated in the Hall. Yes, we would be expanding our standards for pitchers with the election of Welch, but our standards for pitchers seem to be extremely high right now, higher than our standards for positional players, and expanded to Welch would still make it very difficult to get in as the Welch standard would be one of very rare longevity and consistency compared to the player's environment.

In doing this, I think I've also tangentially trumpeted the cases of Jim McCormick and Will White (who was dropped a few years back).

He had longevity, but to me, the fact you're trumpeting guys we dropped makes the case that Welch doesn't belong. I think he's much more like them than the guys who are in. Yeah, he had longevity and a lot of wins. Wins are not the product of one man's play, though--they're a team accomplishment. I'm a career guy and have a great deal of respect for longevity, but the fact is, I want a guy who shows greatness. We're entitled to have some standards for pitchers. Only recently have we gotten more than 40 or 50 of them, and when Welch started, there were sometimes only about 20 starting pitchers around. How deep into that barrel should we go? Some here want to look at this from only the historical perspective, but if we do, Welch is at best a guy near the top of the pack of the middling rather than a standout. That he did this for a long time is commendable--but whether that is HOF worthy is debatable. I'm afraid, Double X, that you've let 2008 ideas of how many great pitchers exist at one time leak into your advocacy here. By those standards, he might belong--but that would be assuming far more starters than actually were employed in Welch's day. What seems to me to be most telling is this (in win shares):


Pitcher.... career best3 5Consecutive
Radbourn.. 391 199 270
Clarkson.. 396 173 248
Keefe...... 413 159 236
Galvin..... 403 155 187
Welch..... 354 145 193
Mullane.... 399 159 229
Caruthers 335 162 254
McCormick 334 136 196
Whitney... 275 139 200
Hecker.... 259 155 221


Welch IMHO doesn't beat the four above him on the chart nor Mullane--and frankly, I'd prefer Caruthers as well. I'm voting for Mullane, and there's not much chance I'll vote for Welch either way, but especially not if the door is barred to Mullane.

[jjpm74]

I'd be more comfortable voting for Welch if Mullane was in the HOF as both played the same number of years and both have strikes against them but for different reasons. Next election, in all likelihood, Mullane will be dropped from my ballot since after comparing him to McCormick and Welch, I don't see a significant gap.

10 probably will be a doable number by 1910 afterall.

[DoubleX]

Some here want to look at this from only the historical perspective, but if we do, Welch is at best a guy near the top of the pack of the middling rather than a standout. That he did this for a long time is commendable--but whether that is HOF worthy is debatable. I'm afraid, Double X, that you've let 2008 ideas of how many great pitchers exist at one time leak into your advocacy here. By those standards, he might belong--but that would be assuming far more starters than actually were employed in Welch's day. What seems to me to be most telling is this (in win shares):

Isn't using win shares allowing a 2008 perspective leak in? I'm solely comparing Welch based on what he did compared to players that finished playing before 1908, and in that group, Welch seems to be in very rare company when it comes to longevity and consistency, rare enough to be honored, IMO. Back then, things like wins, IP, and raw ERA were probably valued as measuring sticks, and Welch ranks high on the all time list in all three, particularly considering his longevity. Guys like McCormick and White also appear on those lists, but they have knocks in some way. For instance, McCormick doesn't have Welch's win total, while White doesn't come close in wins or IP. The rest of the guys appearing on these lists ahead of Welch we have either elected or are Kid Nichols, whom we most certainly will elect in quick order.

And if we are using Win Shares, four of the five ahead of him on career value we elected several years ago, and the fifth, Mullane, annually receives very strong support and I suspect he will be elected at some point. Welch on the other hand, is in no danger of being elected any time soon and I think the player that among retired players is 6th in career wins, 5th in IP, and 5th in raw ERA among pitchers with at least 3000 IP, is much more deserving than the support he's current receiving. All told, he has a pretty good combination in my book.

Personally, I think people not voting for Welch are letting their modern perception pervade their thinking too much because Welch does exceedingly well in the traditional categories of evaluating pitchers (the same categories that we try to look past now with modern metrics).

[jjpm74]

From a 1908 perspective, we have already elected all the pitchers who deserve to be in Cooperstown, IMO. I'm more comfortable leaving Mullane out than I am putting Welch in as it opens a floodgate for future generations and I'm not comfortable with a 30-50% inclusion rate for pitchers by generation. Right now, we only have a few pitchers on each team, but who's to say how many pitchers teams will carry in the future or how many teams (or even leagues) there will be? Who's to say in 60 years that teams will not be carrying 4 or 5 pitchers per team, or more on average? Are we comfortable with the idea of including the top 30-50% of the league's pitchers at that point?

[jjpm74]

Browning
Caruthers
Childs
Delahanty
Glasscock
Gore
Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch
Zimmer

After adding Barnes, I dropped him.

I notice that you posted who you are voting for, but you didn't record these in the poll.

[jalbright]

Isn't using win shares allowing a 2008 perspective leak in? I'm solely comparing Welch based on what he did compared to players that finished playing before 1908, and in that group, Welch seems to be in very rare company when it comes to longevity and consistency, rare enough to be honored, IMO. Back then, things like wins, IP, and raw ERA were probably valued as measuring sticks, and Welch ranks high on the all time list in all three, particularly considering his longevity. Guys like McCormick and White also appear on those lists, but they have knocks in some way. For instance, McCormick doesn't have Welch's win total, while White doesn't come close in wins or IP. The rest of the guys appearing on these lists ahead of Welch we have either elected or are Kid Nichols, whom we most certainly will elect in quick order.

And if we are using Win Shares, four of the five ahead of him on career value we elected several years ago, and the fifth, Mullane, annually receives very strong support and I suspect he will be elected at some point. Welch on the other hand, is in no danger of being elected any time soon and I think the player that among retired players is 6th in career wins, 5th in IP, and 5th in raw ERA among pitchers with at least 3000 IP, is much more deserving than the support he's current receiving. All told, he has a pretty good combination in my book.

Personally, I think people not voting for Welch are letting their modern perception pervade their thinking too much because Welch does exceedingly well in the traditional categories of evaluating pitchers (the same categories that we try to look past now with modern metrics).

I'm not one of the group who thinks we should somehow go back as though we're in 1908 or whatever. I personally don't think I can unring a bell, and won't try to. That said, if you ignore how many pitchers were plying their trade at Welch's time and see that he's pretty much at the head of the middling hurlers, IMO you've missed a key element in evaluating him.

He only had three years over 121 ERA+, one between 115 and 121, five between 109 and 114, and, excluding his comparatively brief (160 and 5 inning seasons, when no others were under 280) last two seasons, two seasons of sub 100 ERA+. Only one season was over 141 ERA+. It just isn't an overwhelming resume as I see it.

[DoubleX]

He only had three years over 121 ERA+, one between 115 and 121, five between 109 and 114, and, excluding his comparatively brief (160 and 5 inning seasons, when no others were under 280) last two seasons, two seasons of sub 100 ERA+. Only one season was over 141 ERA+. It just isn't an overwhelming resume as I see it.

Sounds kind of like Pud Galvin, whom we elected in 1903. Galvin had just 2 season with ERA+ above 117 and 7 seasons 100 or lower. Granted, Galvin is in because of extreme longevity, but his career 107 ERA+ is hardly impressive at all. Also to say Welch just had three over 121 is very misleading, because those three were all considerably over 121, with his three year peak average being 147. It would be much more fair to say, "he only had three over 133." Additionally, his five year peak was 135, and his 10 year peak was 122. So I'd say his peak was pretty impressive in its own right, and coupled with his rare longevity for his era, it's enough, IMO.

Also, while I have acknowledged that it is impossible to replicate perception in 1908, I do think we should try to our best to evaluate the players within the context of their time and attempt to apply appropriate standards. So again, with Welch in 1908 ranking 6th all time in wins, 5th all time in IP, and 5th all time in ERA among pitchers with at least 3000 IP, I think that says quite about about his rare blend of longevity and consistency.

Is Welch as good as the players we've elected? No (though I think on peak, he was probably better than Galvin), but we've already lowered our standards for position players, why not bend a little for pitchers as well? Extending to Welch, who in 1908 had one of the half dozen or so best career values, IMO, would not open floodgates at all.

EDIT: I just wanted to compare Welch's peak ERA+ performance to Galvin:

1 Year Peak:
Welch: 161
Galvin: 155

3 Year Peak:
Welch: 147
Galvin: 133

5 Year Peak:
Welch: 135
Galvin: 126

10 Year Peak:
Welch: 122
Galvin: 117

Career:
Welch: 114
Galvin: 107

So how is it that Galvin was elected several years ago but Welch struggles to get 30% support? Sure, Galvin pitched a ridiculous amount of innings, but Welch had rare longevity in his own right, and was easily the better peak performer. If Galvin is in, I really don't see why Welch is struggling so much.

[jalbright]

Suit yourself. He's not getting my vote based on what I know.

[DoubleX]

Suit yourself. He's not getting my vote based on what I know.

Jim, you voted for Galvin all three years he was on the ballot. Based on the edits in my last post where I show that Welch was significantly better than Galvin when measured by 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, 10 year, and career ERA+, how can you defend such ready support for Galvin yet such ready dismissal for Welch? Galvin's longevity, IMO, doesn't overcome Welch's combination of significant peak advantage and his own rare longevity (though not to Galvin's degree).

I really can't reconcile how Galvin has been elected yet Welch struggles to get 30% of the vote. If you're going to use ERA+, Welch puts Galvin to shame. If Welch doesn't measure up to you based on ERA+, then Galvin certainly shouldn't.

EDIT: And again, by measures that may have been emphasized back then, such as wins, IP, and raw ERA, Welch is in rare company.

Wins
1) Galvin: 364 - Elected 3rd ballot
2) Nichols: 361 - Just retired and will almost surely be elected 1st ballot
3) Keefe: 342 - Elected 1st ballot
4) Clarkson: 328 - Elected 1st ballot
5) Radbourn: 309 - Elected 1st ballot
6) Welch: 307 - High support of 40%

IP
1) Galvin: 6004 - Elected 3rd ballot
2) Nichols: 5057 - Just retired and will almost surely be elected 1st ballot
3) Keefe: 5048 - Elected 1st ballot
4) Mathews: 4957 - Dropped, but has a career ERA+ 7 points below Welch
5) Welch: 4802 - High support of 40%

ERA with 3000 IP
1) White: 2.28 - Dropped but pitched 1300 less innings than Welch and won 80 less games
2) Jim McCormick: 2.43 - Struggling to get support but pitched 500 less innings than Welch and won 60 less games.
3) Tim Keefe: 2.62 - Elected 1st ballot
4) Charley Radbourn: 2.67 - Elected 1st ballot
5) Mickey Welch: 2.71 - High support of 40%

So I just can't reconcile how the other names on these lists were either elected in quick order or have noticeable knocks against them that Welch doesn't have (longevity and wins in White's case, wins in McCormick's case).

[jalbright]

Simply put, I prefer to rely on win shares but tried ERA+ as an alternate way to make my point. You don't see it that way, and different perspectives are a part of this process. Post 59 puts it into perspective for me. The peaks of Welch and Galvin are similar, but Galvin has a notably superior career. There's quite enough room for someone like me who emphasizes career to draw a line between those two cases and call one side in and the other out, which is what I've done.

[DoubleX]

Simply put, I prefer to rely on win shares but tried ERA+ as an alternate way to make my point. You don't see it that way, and different perspectives are a part of this process. Post 59 puts it into perspective for me. The peaks of Welch and Galvin are similar, but Galvin has a notably superior career. There's quite enough room for someone like me who emphasizes career to draw a line between those two cases and call one side in and the other out, which is what I've done.

I wouldn't put the peaks of Welch and Galvin close at all, I'd put Welch clearly ahead of Galvin on peak, and IMO, his combination of peak and longevity surpasses Galvin inferior peak and superior longevity.

I also think putting so much reliance on win shares and ERA+ is kind of contrary to the objective here. We can't replicate the perspective, but to compare players back then strictly on metrics that were nearly a century in the offing, is inappropriate, IMO. I can't put myself in the head of someone in 1908, but I can say with a lot of confidence that traditional measures and raw counting stats would have probably counted for a lot more than measures that have yet to be invented. And by more traditional measures, where Welch is among players we quickly elected to the Hall, I don't see why he struggles to get so much support.

The goal here is to try to put players in the appropriate frame of reference, as difficult as that might be, but such should not include assessment that emphasizes modern metrics, IMO. Otherwise, why bother proceeding by year if perspective means nothing? If the same perspective is going to apply throughout then why not just throw all the players together and proceed like the regular BBF Hall of Fame elections?

[jalbright]

I already have said, and am quite serious, that if you insist I change my approach, I will gladly bow out of the project. If I am going to participate, I'm going to work with what satisfies me. If you ask me to leave for this stance, I will do so without any ill feelings. If I stay, I stay on my own terms. I'm not going to try and forget what I know, and I simply don't have the time to redo the evaluations using different criteria--besides, once I'm convinced of one side of the other, I'm going to stay there unless an argument changes my mind, most likely by pointing out facts I had missed.

If this approach of mine is unacceptable, please let me know. Otherwise, I will continue as before.

[Paul Wendt]

'>' and italics mark four quotations from moderator Mike XX.

> [Welch] exhibited very rare longevity and consistency for his era.

> Welch seems to be in very rare company when it comes to longevity and consistency

"very rare" is a very overstatement ;)


> Just so everyone knows, I've removed Sockeye's votes for those 15 players (though someone might want to doublecheck that I did get all 15), so we will once again not be able to rely on the poll and have to tabulate the results manually.

> Here are the actual results through 15 votes:

I don't know precisely what powers you have to edit the poll but it seems to me unnecessary work if you need to calculate actual results anyway. I am also a little uncomfortable about the admonition not to consult the standings in combination with the periodic posting of true standings.

(The play-by-play a few days ago I can understand. During the closing hours that is clearly for the benefit of all the other participants, the horse-race is part of the fun of the project, and it must be difficult to resist. )

If I understand correctly it isn't an explicit goal here to build consensus and get it right before a project partly shuts down --as for [I]the BBF HOF that jim albright now runs on a 3-week cycle.
add: The goal is to mimic and virtually experience the progressive nature of the actual BBWAA process with all its frustrations.

[DoubleX]

I already have said, and am quite serious, that if you insist I change my approach, I will gladly bow out of the project. If I am going to participate, I'm going to work with what satisfies me. If you ask me to leave for this stance, I will do so without any ill feelings. If I stay, I stay on my own terms. I'm not going to try and forget what I know, and I simply don't have the time to redo the evaluations using different criteria--besides, once I'm convinced of one side of the other, I'm going to stay there unless an argument changes my mind, most likely by pointing out facts I had missed.

If this approach of mine is unacceptable, please let me know. Otherwise, I will continue as before.

I'm not going to ask you to change your approach or to leave - it's ridiculous that you'd even suggest that as it would never cross my mind. I just hope that people in general are not strictly going by modern metrics. I just don't see the point in going year by year if we are to just apply our modern standards. Going year by year would only serve to organize the players, and I want this to be about more than that - I want us to try our best to vote as we would if it were 1908 and we only knew occurred up until that time. It's difficult as we can't recreate perception from back then, but I think for the most part, this is the approach many of us have adopted because compared to most discussions here, there has been very little reference to things such as OPS+, ERA+ and Win Shares. I'm sure that stuff is in the back of most of our minds somewhere, but it really hasn't come out to the forefront as much as much as usual.

As to facts, I did use ERA+ to point out that in terms of peak, from 1 year to 10 year measurements, Welch is noticeably ahead of Galvin. I guess it wasn't enough to change your mind, but it's something worth considering, IMO. If that's where you draw the line, I can respect that - Galvin does have noteworthy longevity in that among players retired by 1907 he is the career leader in wins and IP, but my argument wasn't just directed at you. I I'm posing it to everyone as I don't quite understand how Galvin was elected in 1903, while Welch, having a superior peak to Galvin and his own rare longevity, ranking up there in wins, IP, and ERA with guys we've already elected (or Kid Nichols), can't get more than 40% of the vote. If I haven't convinced you, I haven't convinced you, doesn't mean I can't hope to convince others. :)

[Paul Wendt]

jjpm quoted and replied to PVNICK:
>>
> Welch
> Zimmer

> After adding Barnes, I dropped him.
I notice that you posted who you are voting for, but you didn't record these in the poll.
<<

PV,
What he says: you didn't submit.
And you have only 14. There is room for Barnes and Zimmer.

[DoubleX]

I don't know precisely what powers you have to edit the poll but it seems to me unnecessary work if you need to calculate actual results anyway. I am also a little uncomfortable about the admonition not to consult the standings in combination with the periodic posting of true standings.

To my knowledge, the best I can do is remove singles votes from players, but I can change the total number of votes registered. Thus, manual tabulation is the only way to go when removing an entire voter's ballot, because even though that voter's individual votes will no longer be reflected in the totals of the players he/she voted for, the overall poll will still count them as voting.

I understand your discomfort with the inconsistency with me asking people not to consult the standings before voting but then posting the totals. I thought about that in the last election when posting the totals, and I decided I'm ok with it. First, the "admonition" is really just a request, people don't have to abide by it, and it's really directed at the hit and run voters who might be convinced to vote based on the results. I'm pretty sure that the majority of us ignore the totals and vote strictly based on our evaluations of merit. Second, once a person votes, the results are there for them to see anyway without having to click on anything. So why not just give them access to something they would have normally anyway? Plus it helps in discussion, such as last time when dgarza was unaware that the poll was inaccurate.

(The play-by-play a few days ago I can understand. During the closing hours that is clearly for the benefit of all the other participants, the horse-race is part of the fun of the project, and it must be difficult to resist. )

Yeah, it did make things interesting. The thing people sometimes forget though is that whether you vote on the first day or last day, it has the same effect. For instance, jjpm chided dgarza last time for bringing George Wright under 75% on the eve before the end of the election. But when I voted on the first day, I didn't vote for Wright either, so what's the difference? Both votes had the same effect (and Wright was elected anyway).

Sadly, you missed the last election. Just out of curiosity, was I right when I predicted that your vote could have made the difference in Stovey being elected?

If I understand correctly it isn't an explicit goal here to build consensus and get it right before a project partly shuts down --as for [I]the BBF HOF that jim albright now runs on a 3-week cycle.

It's not an explicit goal, but I think if you support a player strongly, you'd want to start discussion and build a consensus. If there is no support building, there wouldn't be much of a point in keeping players eligible more than a few years, but as we've seen, we're capable of electing players 7 years in and perhaps deeper (as I suspect at least Mullane will eventually be elected), showing that discussion can evolve our collective standards.

[jjpm74]

Yeah, it did make things interesting. The thing people sometimes forget though is that whether you vote on the first day or last day, it has the same effect. For instance, jjpm chided dgarza last time for bringing George Wright under 75% on the eve before the end of the election. But when I voted on the first day, I didn't vote for Wright either, so what's the difference? Both votes had the same effect (and Wright was elected anyway).


Just to clarify, in that instance, dgarza had implied that he supported Wright but not voted for him (something that turned out to be erroneous). I wasn't questioning why he left out Wright hence lowering Wright temporarily to under the 75% threshold. I was questioning why he left out a popular candidate with momentum if he supported that candidate. It turned out that dgarza did not support Wright and had only considered him (much like I did with Stovey, whom I did not vote for despite his popularity).

Given the nature of the BBWAA, I don't think it's out of place to consider candidates near the selection threshold more closely or to bump them up in your queue if you support them but think there is a better player you end up leaving off temporarily whether it be during the current election, or using the percentage from the previous election.

[Paul Wendt]

It seems to me that the Boston team in the NA was much like a college team playing ball in a high school league.
High school league?
Wow.
Boston won only four of five and played .800 ball only twice. Surely there have been plenty of college conferences where one team wins five years in a row with three .800 seasons.

Look at the National League standings in 1876. or in 1886.

Chicago and New York became very strong teams relative to their league in 1903 and Pittsburgh remained strong through 1912 (that makes a decade). In 1905, 1906, 1908, 1909, and 1912 all three of the powers finished above .600; Chicago missed by one game in 1903.

Boston dominated the National Association in the sense that it was not a competitive league only in 1875. That one season, only, stands out from the rest of major league history. That team only was almost unbeatable. Contrast Pittsburgh in 1902, with a greater margin over second place (.198), but still beatable. Even so, the second place Athletics (.175 behind Boston) did win four and lose four, head up.

[Brooklyn]

Browning, Delahanty, Glasscock, Mullane, Spalding, Welch

[DoubleX]

Here's a tentative list of newbies for next year. It's a very thin list as I only get three players and I think only two will be on the ballot:

Gene DeMontreville
Herman Long
Barry McCormick - Probably won't make ballot

Since there's not much to inspire interest next year, here are some of the more notable candidates that will appear in the following four elections:

1910: Jesse Burkett
1911: Hugh Duffy, John McGraw, Kid Nichols
1912: Jake Beckley, Lave Cross
1913: Jimmy Collins, Joe Kelley, Joe McGinnity

[BlueBlood]

Well, I'm just glad we don't have as many newbies in the poll anymore. Makes it much more manageable.

Looks like Mullane and Delahanty are the only ones on track this time. Surprising that Tony made such a big leap but I'll take anyone I support being elected at this point, the order they're shoed-in doesn't matter.

[Freakshow]

Here's a tentative list of newbies for next year. It's a very thin list as I only get three players and I think only two will be on the ballot:

Gene DeMontreville
Herman Long
Barry McCormick - Probably won't make ballot

Since there's not much to inspire interest next year, here are some of the more notable candidates that will appear in the following four elections:

1910: Jesse Burkett
1911: Hugh Duffy, John McGraw, Kid Nichols
1912: Jake Beckley, Lave Cross
1913: Jimmy Collins, Joe Kelley, Joe McGinnity
Also, Jimmy McAleer for next election; see post #13 in this thread.

Also new in 1910 is Duke Farrell, among others. And Patsy Donovan comes on under the age rule, I believe.

In 1913, Deacon McGuire and Kid Gleason are eligible under the age rule.

And a question: What about Chick Stahl, who died in 1907? Is he getting early eligibility?

[BlueBlood]

I say all candidates are subject to the waiting period, regardless of death.

[jjpm74]

And a question: What about Chick Stahl, who died in 1907? Is he getting early eligibility?

I think we set a precedent when we didn't add Ed Delahanty until five years after his last game even though he had passed away and could have been included in the ballot 4 years sooner.

[DoubleX]

Also, Jimmy McAleer for next election; see post #13 in this thread.

Also new in 1910 is Duke Farrell, among others. And Patsy Donovan comes on under the age rule, I believe.

In 1913, Deacon McGuire and Kid Gleason are eligible under the age rule.

And a question: What about Chick Stahl, who died in 1907? Is he getting early eligibility?

Sorry Dan, I missed your post again. Next time I'll do a better job of looking before posting my list.

You're right about McAleer being eligible, given that it's more than 5 years from his last continuous year of play (which was 1902) and this is his first inactive year at age 45 or older. Good catch. However, I was already considering not including McAleer on the ballot anyway.

You're right about McGuire, Gleason, and Donovan as well.

I think we missed our chance to set a precedent for making dead players immediately eligible, so I'm thinking Stahl will just wait until 1911. The precedent we have set with players dying is to look past the 10 year requirement as we did with Win Mercer (and will do with Addie Joss).

Since we're at it, I'll just post my lists for players eligible through the 1913 election and you can supplement where necessary:

1909
Jimmy McAleer - May not be on ballot
Gene DeMontreville
Herman Long
Barry McCormick - May not be on ballot

1910
Jesse Burkett
Boileryard Clarke - May not be on ballot
Duff Cooley
Patsy Donovan
Jack Doyle
Duke Farrell
Ducky Holmes - May not be on ballot
Candy LaChance

1911
Red Donahue
Hugh Duffy
Mike Grady
Malachi Kittridge
John McGraw
Sam Mertes
Kid Nichols
Kip Selbach
Chick Stahl
Willie Sudhoff

1912
Jake Beckley
Doc Case - May not be on ballot
Tommy Corcoran
Lave Cross
Monte Cross
Buck Freeman
Frank Kitson
Bobby Lowe
Jack McCarthy
Jack Taylor

1913
John Anderson
Jimmy Barrett
Shad Barry
Jimmy Collins
Kid Gleason
Charlie Hickman
Joe Kelley
Ed McFarland
Dan McGann
Joe McGinnity
Deacon McGuire
Ossie Schreckengost
Jimmy Slagle
John Warner

[Paul Wendt]

Brickyard (1908) and Boileryard (1909) are two nicknames thaht I haven't seen in newspaper coverage and they were prominent players during the time I have read most (1899-1902).

It is jarring to see "Bill" or "Billy" Hoy or Keeler. I wonder whether those names were used by anyone who knew the players or whether some writers supposed that every William was a Bill or Billy. I have also read William and Dummy Hoy.

Jimmy McAleer may deserve the honor of a place on the ballot recognizing his role in building the American League. He was Ban Johnson's man to enter both Cleveland (1900) and St Louis (1902). Not as important as Comiskey, Mack, Griffith in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York but worth a mention.
He may have been the "greatest" of all the "good field, no hit" men too.

Barry McCormick (at Retrosheet) (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/M/Pmccob104.htm) recently was the major league at bats or games leader for players whose batting hand is missing. Evidently someone found it (right) so he has lost his claim to fame.
McCormick was a full-time umpire for the Federal League and later worked 11 seasons in the NL. I wonder how many of the FL umps made it back to the majors?
(That does not make McCormick a candidate. Bill Dinneen worked 28 seasons, 8 world series, and the first AL-NL all-star game, which is more like it.)

[Freakshow]

1910
Jesse Burkett
Boileryard Clarke - May not be on ballot
Duff Cooley
Patsy Donovan
Jack Doyle
Duke Farrell
Ducky Holmes - May not be on ballot
Candy LaChance

1911
Red Donahue
Hugh Duffy
Mike Grady
Malachi Kittridge
John McGraw
Sam Mertes
Kid Nichols
Kip Selbach
Chick Stahl
Willie Sudhoff

I've only looked closely through 1911 and our lists agree. I like to add positions to the list, too.

1910
Jesse Burkett-LF
Boileryard Clarke-C
Duff Cooley-LF/CF
Patsy Donovan-RF (age 45)
Jack Doyle-1B
Duke Farrell-C
Ducky Holmes-LF
Candy LaChance-1B
1911
Red Donahue-P
Hugh Duffy-LF/CF
Mike Grady-C
Malachi Kittridge-C
John McGraw-3B
Sam Mertes-LF
Kid Nichols-P
Kip Selbach-LF
Chick Stahl-CF
Willie Sudhoff-P

[AG2004]

I wouldn't put the peaks of Welch and Galvin close at all, I'd put Welch clearly ahead of Galvin on peak, and IMO, his combination of peak and longevity surpasses Galvin inferior peak and superior longevity.

. . . .

The goal here is to try to put players in the appropriate frame of reference, as difficult as that might be, but such should not include assessment that emphasizes modern metrics, IMO. Otherwise, why bother proceeding by year if perspective means nothing? If the same perspective is going to apply throughout then why not just throw all the players together and proceed like the regular BBF Hall of Fame elections?

However, the 1908 frame of reference would have included the consideration of Galvin's IA years in 1877 and 1878. Sportswriters in their fifties or sixties certainly would have remembered the IA, and some of them would have brought those years up.

Somewhere along the way, the decision was made to approve the UA, but not the IA, as a major league. Thus, players such as Davy Force and Charlie Bennett appear to have one-year gaps in their records. They had been signed by IA clubs - and, incidentally, clubs that would jump to the NL the following year, posting records better than the 1885 St. Louis Maroons.

Jim asked for information about the IA, and I posted some indications that led me to believe that the top talent in the IA was better than that in the UA. Voters in 2008 may very well ignore the IA, but I doubt that voters in 1908 would have discounted it entirely.

Galvin was the top pitcher for the IA's Pittsburgh club in 1877, when the team finished one game out of first. He was also the pitcher for Buffalo in 1878. Not only did Buffalo win the IA pennant, but Galvin posted a 10-5 record against NL clubs that year, beating each NL team at least once. Since Buffalo jumped to the NL in 1879 and finished third, the 1878 Buffalo team was, in all probability, at least as good as the average NL team. It seems perverse not to credit Galvin for what he did in 1878, and there is a very good argument for crediting him with his 1877 play as well.

In the late 1870s, the follower of base ball would have known that the Pittsburgh and Buffalo clubs were among the top clubs in the sport. The typical voter in the early twentieth century would have been aware of this, and taken it into account when casting a ballot.

With these two extra (and, in 2008, nearly forgotten) seasons for Galvin, would Welch still hold a lead?

[DoubleX]

With these two extra (and, in 2008, nearly forgotten) seasons for Galvin, would Welch still hold a lead?

Good post AG. I honestly don't know enough about the IA's, namely the level of competition and how Galvin performed to answer that question. Still, based on the ERA+ numbers I posted above, Galvin would probably have had to pitch at his very best to make up the gap in peak with Welch. Galvin only once had an ERA+ above 125 and just twice above 117, so would he have done that in his IA years?

The case for Galvin is entirely on longevity, as his peak just isn't that impressive, IMO. People here don't feel Welch's peak was anything special, but it was noticeably better than Galvin's IMO. I have no problem with Galvin's election due his unique longevity, but I don't know if he ever really stood out as a truly great pitcher like the other 4 pitchers we've elected.

[Erik Bedard]

My ballot drops all the way down to two:

Ross Barnes (close to dropping him, too)
Ed Delahanty

Next year I could very possibly have a blank ballot.

[Brad Harris]

Upcoming Additions to my Consideration Set (Much simpler) ;)

1909
Herman Long

1910
[b]Jesse Burkett

1911
Hugh Duffy
John McGraw
Kid Nichols

1912
Jake Beckley
Lave Cross

1913
Jimmy Collins
Joe Kelley
Joe McGinnity

[TheSlaff]

Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Ed Delahanty
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

[DoubleX]

With a day left, here are the results through 21 actual votes:

Ed Delahanty: 95.24
Tony Mullane: 80.95

Pete Browning: 66.67
Bob Caruthers: 66.67
George Gore: 66.67
George Van Haltren: 66.67
Ross Barnes: 61.91
Jack Glasscock: 61.91
Al Spalding: 61.91
Joe Start: 52.38
Ezra Sutton: 52.38
Hardy Richardson: 47.62
Lip Pike: 42.86
Jimmy Ryan: 42.86
Mickey Welch: 38.10
Cupid Childs: 33.33
Cal McVey: 28.57
Charley Jones: 28.57
Larry Corcoran: 19.05
Jim McCormick: 19.05
Dummy Hoy: 14.26
Mike Tiernan: 14.26
Chief Zimmer: 9.52
Brickyard Kennedy: 4.76 - First year exception

Wilbert Robinson: 4.76
Tom Daly: 0
Bill Hallman: 0


Back to the discussion about going to a 10 vote ballot... Do you think we'll still regularly elect players if we go to 10, or do you think with such a small electorate, limiting the ballot to 10 could impede election?

[jalbright]

Why don't you try scaling it back to a dozen and see what happens? If there's no appreciable effect, you could go to ten later. The issue isn't merely 10 candidates, but that plus a 75% majority that may be a cause of trouble

[DoubleX]

Why don't you try scaling it back to a dozen and see what happens? If there's no appreciable effect, you could go to ten later. The issue isn't merely 10 candidates, but that plus a 75% majority that may be a cause of trouble

That's true, but I'm not going to scale back the 75% requirement. If we lowered to say 10 and dropped the threshold to say 2/3, we probably wouldn't be too far off from where we are now.

My concern though is that with such a small electorate, every non-vote has a significant impact. So scaling back to 10 will likely result in dozens of additional non-votes, thereby making election potentially much more difficult. In this respect, allowing for 15 votes helps combat this major shortcoming with a small electorate. Then again, I fear electing too many players, so my concern is whether there's a greater harm under this format of electing too many players, or a greater harm in scaling back to 10 in electing too few players.

[Brad Harris]

If you're concerned about electing too many players, then make it more difficult (i.e. smaller ballot) for the Veterans Committee to add to the threshold, but the "BBWAA" elections should be setting our standard for how many/what kind of players we collectively believe are worthy of being honored. I wouldn't suggest reducing the 15-player limit until the Veterans Committee takes effect (1920?) although I'm right behind Jim on the idea of a progressive reduction. Perhaps we could try a 12-player limit in 1915 or something like that?

People have to remember that you have two types of elections: (1) first-year guys and (2) logjam guys. The first-year guys are no-brainers. Anyone who isn't one of those (and that's 95+ percent of the candidates), gets pushed down (or off) the ballot in those years and so it's not surprising at all that we see a couple of players elected in the years there aren't obvious choices among the freshmen. The problem isn't that we're electing players in those years, the problem (if there is any) is that we need to make sure those players are the best ones in the consideration set. The small electorate hurts us in this respect because in the "first-year" elections, the candidates who are getting shuffled around below the "obvious" choices are sometimes going to fall off some ballots. (Look at George Gore's percentages jumping around over the past several elections for an example.) This isn't because of opinion shifts in a player's worthiness so much as it is in the disproportional influence of idiosyncratic voters and voting patterns. I would hope that in the next 7-12 elections we'd have a much clearer picture of what "size" Hall we're envisioning and, at that point I'd say the 19th Century players would have been throughly vetted by the original voter set. At the point our VC takes effect, I don't mind an immediate drop in ballot size, but I still feel strongly that we're on the cusp of determining the dimensions of our Hall and to balance the short ballot opinions we really should have had no maximum ballot size on the other end of the spectrum. Since that's neither feasible nor desirable at this point, I would just caution cutting our full ballot voters off at the kneecaps just yet. ;)

Incidentally, I am now at the point where the 15 best candidates (or fewer) will be getting my support from here on out. I feel the candidates at the bottom of my queue are no longer in danger of dropping from the ballot because we've opened enough spaces for them in the past year or two so I'll not be manipulating the voting from my end from this point forward.

[RuthMayBond]

I believe that any player with 400 home runs deserves automatic induction. Dave Kingman and Juan Gonzalez (and I guess Canseco) owe you a LOT of residuals :ughh (and now Galarraga and Joe Carter are unretiring)

[RuthMayBond]

I'm already in the thread now so I might as well continue my rant. The support (lack thereof) for Jim McCormick is pathetic. He is arguably the second most deserving and also eligible pitcher not in the BBHOF :eek:

[jalbright]

I'm already in the thread now so I might as well continue my rant. The support (lack thereof) for Jim McCormick is pathetic. He is arguably the second most deserving and also eligible pitcher not in the BBHOF :eek:

Would you care to post specifics to support this statement?

[jjpm74]

I'm already in the thread now so I might as well continue my rant. The support (lack thereof) for Jim McCormick is pathetic. He is arguably the second most deserving and also eligible pitcher not in the BBHOF :eek:

What does McCormick have to offer? He's even more mediocre than Mullane, Corcoran and Welch?

[RuthMayBond]

What does McCormick have to offer? He's even more mediocre than Mullane, Corcoran and Welch?BP may have updated these since last year but

PRAA WnS
Welch 32 354
Corcoran don't think he was even on my radar
Mullane 2! 399
McCormick 179! 334

[DoubleX]

I don't really understand the lack of support for McCormick either. I don't think he has a great case, but I thought he'd get more support. 118 ERA+ in just under 4300 IP, almost entirely in the NL, is pretty good to me.

[dgarza]

McCormick:
2nd most wins (on teams with average-at-best run support) 1878-1887
1st in Ks 1878-1887

McCormick as a batter (compared to only other pitchers):
2nd most hits 1878-1887
3rd most RBIs 1878-1887

[RuthMayBond]

McCormick:
2nd most wins (on teams with average-at-best run support) 1878-1887
1st in Ks 1878-1887

McCormick as a batter (compared to only other pitchers):
2nd most hits 1878-1887
3rd most RBIs 1878-1887Thanks guys, props for your efforts :highfive::bowdown:

[Brad Harris]

He's better than Welch. ;)

[Erik Bedard]

And perhaps Mullane as well.

[Brooklyn]

To answer the size of ballot question, I'm a small Hall guy. That said, I don't know why there is a limit at all. People should be voting for who they think belong in the Hall, not the best 10 or 15 candidates. If people believe that 20 people belong in the Hall, they should be able to vote for 20.

Of course, with only 27 people on the ballot, I think someone would have to justify a 15+ ballot as much as someone would have to jsutify a small ballot. While I can see different opinions on who gets support, I can't see someone supporting everyone, or almost everyone eligible, without thinking the Hall should be at least twice the size it is, or even bigger.

If the goal of this project is to replicate the real process as much as possible, then we should go to 10 sooner than later - I think we've already taken care of the 10th century backlog

[Freakshow]

At the Hall of Merit, none of the three has been elected, nor appears likely to join the 234 players already in. Welch has generally been the best supported, although McCormick had more for a stretch early on (elections 1905-16). Their standing in the most recent HoM election for 2008:

27th Welch (10 ballots, 141 pts)
64th Mullane (3 ballots, 40 pts)
82nd McCormick (2 ballots, 18 pts)

Even at the HoM, many voters are impressed by Welch's 300 wins. Strictly on statistical evaluation, I think McCormick edges Welch with Mullane a poor 3rd. For the Coop, McCormick tends to get the least support, as the others left a definite image for their legacy.

The HoM elected Raines (1st ballot), Lundy (66th ballot) and Saberhagen (4th ballot) in 2008. The next 30 runnersup:

Reggie Smith
Bucky Walters
Tommy Leach
John McGraw
Cannonball Dick Redding
Kirby Puckett
Bob Johnson
Gavvy Cravath
Luis Tiant
Phil Rizzuto
Hugh Duffy
David Cone
Ken Singleton
Tony Perez
Bus Clarkson
Dizzy Dean
Vic Willis
Tommy Bridges
Dave Concepción
Don Newcombe
Burleigh Grimes
George Van Haltren
Lou Brock
Mickey Welch
Dale Murphy
Rick Reuschel
Albert Belle
Elston Howard
Norm Cash
Bobby Bonds

[RuthMayBond]

And perhaps Mullane as well.
And if he's better than Mullane, he's better than Corcoran. Better than Mullane and Welch, although you could never tell from the voting. Just trying to wake you guys up, thanks for reconsidering McCormick :dance

[Paul Wendt]

Ross Barnes
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ed Delahanty
George Gore
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
Hardy Richardson
Ezra Sutton
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Cupid Childs
Charley Jones
Pete Browning
Wilbert Robinson

[AG2004]

BP may have updated these since last year but

PRAA WnS
Welch 32 354
Corcoran don't think he was even on my radar
Mullane 2! 399
McCormick 179! 334

Baseball Prospectus gives Mullane 146 PRAA adjusted by season, and -37 PRAA adjusted "for all time." It gives McCormick 207 PRAA adjusted by season, and 117 adjusted "for all time." I have no idea how BP adjusts from "by season" to "all time," but the results of the adjustment look unusual.

I also have no idea how BP adjusts UA statistics. The win shares system doesn't. However, I wouldn't give full credit for UA accomplishments, since the IA appears to have been a better league overall.

McCormick jumped from the NL to the UA during the middle of 1884. In the NL, he pitched 359 innings, went 19-22 with a 110 ERA+, and earned 26 win shares. In the UA, he pitched 210 innings, but went 21-3 with a 211 ERA+, earning 27 win shares in the process. Does that suggest that the UA wasn't exactly on the same level as the NL? If the Milwaukee club that went .600 in the minor-league NWL in 1884 jumped to the UA at the end of the season, and went 8-4 against UA competition, isn't that an indication that the UA and a recognized minor league were much closer to each other than the UA and the NL?


McCormick:
2nd most wins (on teams with average-at-best run support) 1878-1887
1st in Ks 1878-1887

McCormick as a batter (compared to only other pitchers):
2nd most hits 1878-1887
3rd most RBIs 1878-1887


Exactly who was McCormick competing against for the leads here? Tommy Bond was the best pitcher of the late 1870s, but his career lasted from 1874 to 1880, with token appearances afterwards (outside the UA) afterward. McCormick had more career wins than Bond, but the comparison between the two looks even better once one cuts off half of Bond's career.

Keefe made his NL debut in 1880. Radbourn first pitched in 1881. Clarkson pitched three games in 1882, but didn't reappear until 1884. Mullane first pitched in 1881, but he didn't become a regular starter until 1882. By restricting the time span to 1878-1887, one gives McCormick at least a two-year advantage over any of these pitchers.

Pud Galvin did have more wins in recognized major leagues than McCormick did in 1878-1887. And McCormick had two advantages. First, Galvin was in the IA in 1878, while McCormick was in the NL. Hence, Galvin's 10-5 record against NL teams in 1878 doesn't count. Second, while Galvin was in the NL for the entire 1884 season, McCormick jumped to the UA mid-year and boosted his win total as a result. If we were to treat the UA and the IA equally, either McCormick would lose 21 wins, or Galvin would gain a significant number of wins (according to one source, Galvin went 28-10 in the IA, which had a shorter season than the NL). That would expand Galvin's lead over McCormick from 13 wins to at least 34.

McCormick does well here only because (a) we aren't considering wins after 1887, which the four pitchers in the Hall from the 1880s have plenty of, and (b) we adjusted the start date to take in McCormick's entire major league career, leaving it intact.

Dgarza's argument isn't a solid one at all.

[RuthMayBond]

Baseball Prospectus gives Mullane 146 PRAA adjusted by season, and -37 PRAA adjusted "for all time." It gives McCormick 207 PRAA adjusted by season, and 117 adjusted "for all time."
Doesn't this even for one second make you suspect that McCormick *MIGHT* have been at least a little better than Mullane?

[AG2004]

--I'm under 15 for the first time as far as I can recall. I think my ballot is going to get much hard to make from here on out though. I voted for Thompson and already regret it. He is very much a large Hall type selection and I think with the divergence of opinion that has already developed on some players we are going to create a huge gray area by electing more such types. Regardless of whether the ballto size goes down or not mine is likley to be less than 10 most subsequent years.

That's a huge problem with Thompson. I originally decided to vote for everyone on the ballot whom I believed had a better case than Thompson. I just couldn't do it. The 15-vote limit interfered.

Since Thompson was elected in the seventh election, I'm using him as the basic standard for induction. As I have explained in previous years, I will adjust my standards to reflect the selection of players to the Hall of Fame.

My Ballot - Year 1 A.T. (after Thompson)
Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
Ed Delahanty
George Gore
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

[AG2004]

Doesn't this even for one second make you suspect that McCormick *MIGHT* have been at least a little better than Mullane?

It would - if the formulas BP uses were available to the public for review. The Linear Weights formulas were available, and the win shares formula is available. There limitations are known.

There's a difference of 61 runs between the two PRAA totals when we adjust for season, but a difference of 154 runs when we adjust for all time. Since Mullane and McCormick were from the same era, I don't see how timeline differences can produce such a huge change in the two numbers. I don't think the differences between the AA and the NL were that pronounced. BP says that there's an adjustment for league difficulty in the "all time adjustment". However, this reduces Mullane's PRAA for 1884 (AA play) from 47 to 13, while McCormick's PRAA from his time in the UA drops from 45 to 29. I cannot believe that the AA was inferior to the UA. BP might give McCormick's early years more weight because he pitched a higher percentage of his team's games. However, doing so is not appropriate for pitchers; it reflects the fact that seasons were shorter, and the number of games a pitcher could handle would not increase as the seasons got longer.

I have no explanation for why the difference is much greater when we adjust "for all time" rather than merely "by season." This difference leads me to believe that there is something odd about BP's numbers, and, since the formulas are unknown, I have no way to adjust for whatever problems may exist.

While it is irrelevent to the pitching numbers, I should add that Mullane batted in 784 games, and pitched in just 555. He had a substantial number of games at positions other than pitcher. WS reflects the fact; BP's PRAA statistic does not.

[dgarza]

Dgarza's argument isn't a solid one at all.
The numbers are solid things to consider...doesn't mean they are the be-all and end-all of the discussion.
The arguemnet is solid (it's all based on facts, no contradictions).
People just may value the arguement differently.

Could McCormick be doing better in this voting? Sure.
But I'm not all that surprised at the support he is and isn't getting.

[AG2004]

The numbers are solid things to consider...doesn't mean they are the be-all and end-all of the discussion.
The arguemnet is solid (it's all based on facts, no contradictions).
People just may value the arguement differently.



The argument, in a nutshell, was:

Here's how McCormick stacks up when we compare his career did to what other pitchers did between 1878 and 1887.

Therefore, McCormick deserves your support.

How do the numbers lead to the conclusion? Without this information, the argument is weak.

What's so special about the period 1878-1887? During the decade of 1879-1888, both Galvin and Keefe recorded more wins than McCormick. McCormick would still be ahead of Radbourn in wins, 260-251, but (a) McCormick pitched nine years during that decade to Radbourn's eight, and (b) the gap in wins is almost certainly due to the fact that McCormick pitched in the UA instead of the NL for part of 1884.

Also, how does that 10-year period compare to what other pitchers accomplished during their best 10-year run? Without this information, we don't know if McCormick was truly dominant during the years 1878-1887, or whether he appears great because all the truly great pitchers or his day had careers that overlapped part, but not all, of that span. If the argument for McCormick depends on looking at that period in particular, and ignoring everything that happened in the 21 years hence or in all the years prior to 1878, the argument must be a fairly weak one.

[Paul Wendt]

BP might give McCormick's early years more weight because he pitched a higher percentage of his team's games.
In effect, as of a few years ago, yes that was the system. See below.
However, doing so is not appropriate for pitchers; it reflects the fact that seasons were shorter, and the number of games a pitcher could handle would not increase as the seasons got longer.

I have no explanation for why the difference is much greater when we adjust "for all time" rather than merely "by season." This difference leads me to believe that there is something odd about BP's numbers, and, since the formulas are unknown, I have no way to adjust for whatever problems may exist.
A few years ago an adjustment for length of the season in games was one component of the adjustment from WARP2 to WARP3.

The adjustment was not prorating but something similar, multiplication of counting statistics by the factor (162/G)^(2/3) where G is the number of games.
(Team games played or league games scheduled? I don't know.)
(Prorating is linear; the exponent is one.)

I doubt that this component of the system has been revised.

Consider the 84-game schedule used by the National League 1879-1882.
1.93 = 162/84^1
1.55 = (162/84)^(2/3)
130 = (162/84)^(2/3) * 84

Prorating 84-game records to 162 games would be multiplication by 1.93 or
Davenport would multiply by 1.55 (as of a few years ago).
That is arithmetically the same as prorating to 130 games.

[AG2004]

In effect, as of a few years ago, yes that was the system. See below.

A few years ago an adjustment for length of the season in games was one component of the adjustment from WARP2 to WARP3.

The adjustment was not prorating but something similar, multiplication of counting statistics by the factor (162/G)^(2/3) where G is the number of games.
(Team games played or league games scheduled? I don't know.)
(Prorating is linear; the exponent is one.)

I doubt that this component of the system has been revised.

Consider the 84-game schedule used by the National League 1879-1882.
1.93 = 162/84^1
1.55 = (162/84)^(2/3)
130 = (162/84)^(2/3) * 84

Prorating 84-game records to 162 games would be multiplication by 1.93 or
Davenport would multiply by 1.55 (as of a few years ago).
That is arithmetically the same as prorating to 130 games.

I can see the case for doing this with position players - their appearances are limited by season length. If you were to increase the season length to 154 games, many of them could play at least 144 games.

But with pitchers? In 1880, Jim McCormick started 74 games, and finished 72. This adjustment would give McCormick the equivalent of 115 games started, and 112 complete games. This is simply not realistic.

The record for games started is 75, held by Will White (1879) and Pud Galvin (1883). The record for complete games is also 75, held solely by Will White. As late as 1892, Bill Hutchison started 70 games, and completed 67. However, even as the number of scheduled games climbed up to 154 (in 1892), White's records remained intact. Adjusting McCormick's record for 1880 to give him 115 starts makes no sense whatsoever, as no pitcher has come within 40 of that mark.

Mullane started 65 games in 1884, when the AA had a 110-game schedule. The above formula would multiply the numbers by 1.29 to produce a 142-game schedule. This would result in 84 starts for Mullane. That's still an unrealistic number of starts.

This formula takes a difference of 9 starts between McCormick (1880) and Mullane (1884). It transforms this into a difference of 31 starts in the adjustment "for all time," and this difference is clearly unrealistic.

There appears to be some similarity between the formulas used to produce the BP numbers and the practices of our Chicago meat packing companies. Something seemingly worthwhile comes in, and we get a potted product, either a number or a can of potted meat. Both are equally fit for human consumption; in other words, they should be avoided whenever any possible alternatives are available.

[dgarza]

The argument, in a nutshell, was:

Here's how McCormick stacks up when we compare his career did to what other pitchers did between 1878 and 1887.

Therefore, McCormick deserves your support.


That's your leap.
Someone asked about McCormick's case, and I gave a version of his case. I didn't say whether he deserves your support or not. You're connect dots that aren't there.

[dgarza]

What's so special about the period 1878-1887?
What's so special about 1879-1888?
What's so special about all the years prior to 1878?
It's not about "special".
It was just a time period that existed. There are several of them, and they are all equally open to use.

[AG2004]

What's so special about 1879-1888?
What's so special about all the years prior to 1878?
It's not about "special".
It was just a time period that existed. There are several of them, and they are all equally open to use.

Exactly. They are all equal, so any argument that depends on privileging one set time period over another is weak. His case depends on focusing upon that one ten-year period. McCormick's case is especially weak because, by shifting the period by just one year, the argument for McCormick becomes much weaker. (For the record, the leader in wins from 1873-1882 is Tommy Bond, who's no longer on the ballot, so McCormick's being second in wins from 1878-1887 isn't necessarily a strong point in his favor.)

Now, if you were to take McCormick's best ten-year run and compare it to the best ten-year runs of other pitchers, that would produce a stronger argument. Why? Because we haven't hand-picked the years to give him either an unfair advantage or an unfair disadvantage. Here's how some other pitchers did:

Major League wins (limited to a period of 10 consecutive seasons)

John Clarkson 319
Pud Galvin 301
Hoss Radbourn 298
Tim Keefe 285
Jim McCormick 265 (Includes 21 wins in the UA)

I decided to limit it to pitchers of the pre-60'6" era because lengthening the pitching distance caused pitcher's game totals (on a season-by-season basis) to decrease. This limitation was not designed to help specific pitchers; it was imposed because the change to the modern distance changed the working conditions for all pitchers. Since I haven't hand-picked the ten-year periods, all pitchers of the pre-1893 era are on an equal footing. McCormick's case no longer looks so good.

It would help his case if you were to use comparisons that were not limited purely to the years 1878-1887.