BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1909 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1909

DoubleX

07-03-2008, 09:34 PM

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.

1909 Guide
There are 26 candidates on the 1909 ballot; 23 holdovers and 3 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1904 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (3)
Gene DeMontreville
Herman Long
Jimmy McAleer

Holdovers (23)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ross Barnes 9th 64.00% 70.83% (1907)
Pete Browning 9th 72.00% 72.00% (1908)
Bob Caruthers 9th 72.00% 72.00% (1908)
Cupid Childs 4th 36.00% 36.00% (1908)
Larry Corcoran 9th 16.00% 16.00% (1908)
Jack Glasscock 9th 60.00% 60.00% (1908)
George Gore 9th 72.00% 72.00% (1908)
Dummy Hoy 3rd 12.00% 12.50% (1907)
Charley Jones 9th 28.00% 28.00% (1908)
Brickyard Kennedy 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1908)
Jim McCormick 9th 24.00% 25.00% (1907)
Cal McVey 9th 36.00% 36.00% (1908)
Lip Pike 9th 44.00% 44.00% (1908)
Hardy Richardson 9th 56.00% 58.33% (1905)
Wilbert Robinson 3rd 48.00% 8.00% (1908)
Jimmy Ryan 2nd 48.00% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 9th 64.00% 64.00% (1908)
Joe Start 9th 52.00% 62.50% (1905)
Ezra Sutton 9th 52.00% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 5th 16.00% 16.00% (1908)
George Van Haltren 2nd 68.00% 68.00% (1908)
Mickey Welch 9th 36.00% 40.00% (1904)
Chief Zimmer 2nd 8.00% 8.00% (1908)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (10)
Player 1907 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Pete Browning 72.00% 5
Bob Caruthers 72.00% 5
George Gore 72.00% 6
George Van Haltren 68.00% 1
Ross Barnes 64.00% 8
Al Spalding 64.00% 4
Jack Glasscock 60.00% 4
Hardy Richardson 56.00% 5
Joe Start 52.00% 5
Ezra Sutton 52.00% 3

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (5)
Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Pete Browning 72.00% (1908) 1
Bob Caruthers 72.00% (1908) 2
George Gore 72.00% (1908) 2
Ross Barnes 70.83% (1907) 3
George Van Haltren 68.00% (1908) 1

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (0)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)

Hall of Famers

Players Elected (22)
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
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903
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
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894
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 (3): Ed Delahanty, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (2): Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
Right Field (2): King Kelly, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (6): John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Tony Mullane, 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
1908 (2): Ed Delahanty, Tony Mullane

Misc. Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson – 100% (1902)
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 11
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 6
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Tony Mullane – 8 Years
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 1 (1903, 1905)
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Highest Election Percentage of Players Not Elected: 72.00% (Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25

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)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)

DoubleX

07-03-2008, 09:49 PM

I couldn't quite get myself to put Barnes back on my ballot, though supporters of stars from that really early period might be happy to know that I'm starting to reexamine McVey and Pike and might consider adding them in the future. I also dropped Tiernan from my ballot. I'm very much on the bubble with him. I'd also considered dropping Browning, but given that he was so close to election last time, I didn't want to single-handedly impede potential progress. Here is my actual ballot:

Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Jim McCormick
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

leecemark

07-03-2008, 09:59 PM

Barnes
Caruthers
Gore
McVey
Spaulding
Start
Sutton

Brad Harris

07-03-2008, 10:19 PM

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

Still examining Barnes/Spalding closely and giving McCormick another look. Long is the only newbie added to my consideration set.

jjpm74

07-03-2008, 10:53 PM

My Ballot (1st time it's less than 15):

Ross Barnes--I've supported Barnes since the first election and still consider him the best of the 1st generation of stars. I considered removing him from my list of candidates, but after careful consideration have decided that I will continue to carry him until he either gets elected or his eligibility expires.

Bob Caruthers--We elected Mullane who is inferior to Caruthers. Caruthers was one of the most dominant pitchers of his generation and he is one of the best hitters in his generation. The fact that he's been overlooked to this point is a travesty.

Cupid Childs--My support for Childs is lukewarm, but he is a better candidate than Bid McPhee and we already elected McPhee.

Larry Corcoran--Holds the record for no hitters with 3 that still stands to this day (2008 addition: this record stood until 1965). Besides for this record, Corcoran also posted an impressive 5 year peak where he won 43, 31, 27, 34 and 35 while never losing more than 23. In the process, Corcoran was instrumental in 3 straight pennants for his club.

Jack Glasscock--Glasscock was the best shortstop in baseball in the 1880s. We elected McPhee. Why not Glasscock, who was the other defensive wiz of the bare handed era?

George Gore--Thompson was elected. Gore was more impressive yet he still is on the outside looking in.

Charley Jones--The 1st home run king and a player who posted an impressive offensive onslaught during his era. Again, better than Thompson.

Herman Long--Long was to the 1890s what Glasscock was to the 1880s. Again, if McPhee, then...

Jim McCormick--The first time on my ballot. Not a player I supported as long as Mullane was not elected. Now that Mullane, a lukewarm pitcher in a suspect league is in the HOF, McCormick deserves a closer look.

Lip Pike--Another candidate I considered dropping but have since reconsidered on. Pike was the best at his position in the early days of organized baseball and someone who deserves a closer look. He will remain on my ballot as long as we have a 15 person ballot until he is elected or his eligibility expires.

Joe Start--The best 1st baseman of his generation. Start defined his position and played a very long time through several incarnations of professional baseball and always at an all-star level. He is probably the most deserving candidate who has yet to be elected. I continue to hope that more of the people voting will take a closer look at this player.

Ezra Sutton--The best 3rd baseman of his generation. To date, we still do not have a true 3Bman in the HOF (though I am confident Jimmy Collins will be elected when he becomes eligible). Probably one of the strongest candidates yet to be elected.

George Van Haltren--It's hard to ignore how good Van Haltren is when we've already elected Thompson.

Mickey Welch--The first time on my ballot. My support for him is so-so and he's the first that will be cut if we go to a ten person ballot. The primary reason for his current inclusion is that we elected Mullane in the last election and Welch was a slightly better pitcher in a much better league.

Players I do not support and why:

Pete Browning--A defensive liability on the field. He posted good superficial offensive numbers, but someone would have to present a good case for me to add him to my ballot.

Dummy Hoy--Hoy was too good to be a one and done, so I voted for him the first year he was eligible. For me to add him back to my ballot, someone needs to show some clear evidence that he was instrumental in introducing signals to the game. His stats alone do not come close to measuring up for me.

Cal McVey--He shuffled positions too much and his career was very short. He's someone I'll consider more closely when the 1st VC election comes around. Until then, he doesn't have my support.

Hardy Richardson--Richardson was very good; but 4th best at his position in his generation is not good enough for me. I'll take another look at him a decade from now when he becomes eligible for the VC ballot. Right now he doesn't quite measure up, but he's someone some distance and time may help.

Wilbert Robinson--Robinson was another great catcher who belongs in the hall of very good. What has he done as a player that has carried him to this point? His career as a player has been okay and he only has 1 year as a manager.

Jimmy Ryan--We've already expanded the pool of acceptible outfielders. I'm not in favor of stretching that even further in Ryan. If there was a hall of very good, he'd be there.

Al Spalding--Spalding's pitching statistics were compiled in an era where the mound was closer, he had to pitch underhand, the amount of strikes and balls varied from year to year, for a time, hitters could request a spot for him to toss the ball and there were less than 8 full time players at his position. The role of pitcher in his era was that of a tosser. It's too difficult to prove how much a pitcher can manipulate a pitch under these situations. This forces me to look at Spalding offensively and to give him some fatigue credit for the fact that he tossed a ball 80-140 times a game. Even with this credit, Spalding was at best the 4th-5th best on his team offensively which was the best team in the NA. This puts him well short of consideration for me. When his time comes for consideration by the VC, his career off the field factors in much more and puts him over the line as a contributor.

Mike Tiernan--It remains to be seen how much longer Tiernan will stay on the ballot. His support has always been very limited. Tiernan was comparable to Thompson, but is under Thompson's table. I'm not in favor of expanding the outfield even more so I do not support Tiernan.

Chief Zimmer--A great defensive catcher. Offensively he was so-so. He is another candidate for the hall of very good. I won't be surprised if he ends up getting another vote or two this year, but I can't see him getting elected.

Some players I'm looking at for future elections:

Jesse Burkett (1910): Burkett has one of the best batting averages in the history of baseball and was dominant as an outfielder.

Jack Doyle (1910): Doyle had a good batting average, attended my alma mater ;). He was a very intense player who posted some decent numbers. He's not currently in my consideration set, but he's not far off either.

Duke Farrell (1910): Set several records for HRs as a catcher. A good offensive threat who knows how to call a game. Not on my consideration list but not far off either.

Hugh Duffy (1911): One of the biggest threats as an offensive player. Holds the record for highest BA in the modern era. A definite 1st ballot guy and high on my consideration list.

John McGraw (1911): One of the best hitter I've yet to see. He's also doing very well as a manager to this point.

Chick Stahl (1911): Another outfielder who's entered into my consideration list since we've elected Thompson.

Kid Nichols (1911): One of the best of the 2nd modern generation of pitchers (from a 1909 standpoint). A sure fire HOFer.

Jake Beckley (1912): He has great offensive numbers, but it is hard to forget that arm and how much of a defensive flop Beckley was.

Lave Cross (1912): One of the best catchers in the game who was also a great 3B man and put up great offensive numbers. He's a definite on my ballot and someone I think should be elected pretty quickly.

Jimmy Collins (1913): The best 3rd baseman in the history of the game. He's impossible to overlook and might be the 1st pure 3rd baseman elected if Sutton continues to miss out.

Joe Kelley (1913): Another great outfielder high on my consideration list.

Joe McGinnity (1913): Whether or not I end up adding McGinnity to my ballot depends on where we go and what standards we set for pitchers.

George Davis (1914): Davis is one of those guys who compiled a lot of great numbers and played a difficult position. He's high on my consideration list.

Arlie Latham (1914): A very good base stealer and 3rd baseman I'm considering and may end up on my ballot at least once. My one issue with him is that like Browning, Latham was a bit of a defensive liability on the field.

Jack Chesbro (1914): A short but dominant career. It's hard to say whether or not a pitcher along his lines deserves induction.

Bill Dinneen (1914): Dinneen may have a losing record, but he played on some mediocre teams and could have easily won 230 or more. I hear he plans to continue in baseball as an umpire.

Freakshow

07-03-2008, 11:54 PM

Arlie Latham (1914):
We forgot him. He should have been eligible in 1905 under the age rule.

NineWorldSeries

07-04-2008, 04:41 AM

Browning
Caruthers
Hoy
McCormick
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch

leecemark

07-04-2008, 07:41 AM

On my ballot
Barnes - the best peak of any 1870s player and arguably the best peak of any player ever.
Caruthers - another peak candidate who dominanted as a pitcher and was a very good hitter at his best
Gore - outstanding player for a long time. the best outfielder in the game for a few years
McVey - starred as a teen for the original Red Stockings, one of the biggest bats of the NA and carried that over to the early NL, Still a star when he left the NL to play and manage in California
Spaulding - best pitcher of the NA (by a wide margin) and an excellent hitter. He and Barnes are a toss up for best NA player (and both were stars pre-NA) depending on how much you think pitchers mattered in this period. Went on to have a major post-playing impact.
Start - may have been the best player of the 1860s and was 2nd only to Anson amoung firstbasemen of the 1870s.
Sutton - Jimmy Collins has surpassed him as the best 3B of all time IMO and may take his ballot spot when eligible. He was the best to play the position over a 30 year span though and certainly deserves your consideration.

Guys with significant suport not on my ballot
Browning - as a hitter has nothing on Barnes and he was a defensively challenged outfielder to Barnes slick fielding infielder. How his support has grown while Barnes has dwindled is a mystery to me.
Childs - almost as good as McPhee, but dwarfed by Barnes
Glasscock - he was the best SS of the 1880s, but that was a fairly weak field. I think he would set the bar fairly low for future generations (active players Wagner, Dahlen and Davis are clearly better. Ballot newbie Long may be. Jennings had a much better peak. Wallace and Tinker may prove to be better and I may be forgetting someone else).
McCormick - where did his surge come from? We'll have ALOT of pitchers in the Hall if he is a standard setter.
Van Haltren - good player for a long time with some very good years, but never a elite player. I'd rather not establish the Hall as a reward for that type career
Welch - the pitching equivelent of GVH. Maybe someday hitting a milestone such as 300 wins will be rare enough to justify his selection, but its hard to know if that is really a special number or not with so little history behind us.

jalbright

07-04-2008, 09:42 AM

Childs
Glasscock
Gore
Long
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

jjpm74

07-04-2008, 10:03 AM

On my ballot
Spaulding - best pitcher of the NA (by a wide margin) and an excellent hitter. He and Barnes are a toss up for best NA player (and both were stars pre-NA) depending on how much you think pitchers mattered in this period. Went on to have a major post-playing impact.

Could you explain what made Spalding the best pitcher of the National Association by a wide margin? Did he invent some kind of pitch that somehow made his underhand tossing more effective than McBride, Cummings and Zettlein's underhand tossing? Even considering his pitching, how is Spalding a toss up with Barnes for best player in the NA? Looking at his impact on his team, he was rarely better than 3rd or 4th best during his NA years.

leecemark

07-04-2008, 10:15 AM

-Spaulding was first in ERA twice and second the other 3 years. He was first in wins every year. He was first in IP twice and never worse than 4th. The question, of course, is how much of that was Spaulding and how much of that was the team behind him. I can't imagine selecting a pitcher from this era other than Spaulding though. Or at least not another pitcher and not Spaudling. The same questions apply to the pitchers of the 1880s and to a lesser degree to all pitchers throughout history. The bigger question for me is why Mullane (who I did vote for) and not Spaulding? Or why any of the pitchers we have elected and not Spaulding. Obviously the elected pitchers have a longevity advantage on Spaulding, but that would have nothing to do with the best pitcher of the NA - as Albert was dominanting for its entire history.

jalbright

07-04-2008, 10:25 AM

Spalding could also hit, and not all pitchers shared this attribute. The combination of being a top pitcher and at least an above average hitter has always been a dynamite combination.

BlueBlood

07-04-2008, 10:38 AM

With the electing of Delahanty and Mullane, along with no new acceptable candidates, my ballot drops from a full boat to thirteen.

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

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Eight (1901 onward) - Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, Joe Start
Seven (1902 onward) - Ross Barnes, Hardy Richardson
Six (1903 onward) - Jack Glasscock, George Gore
Four (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Four (1905 and 1907/1908/1909) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Three (1901, 1908 and 1909) - Al Spalding
Two (1908/1909) - Lip Pike, George Van Haltren

jjpm74

07-04-2008, 11:18 AM

I'm still grappling with the question of whether it was Spalding's pitching ability or the ability of all of the stars on his team to get a lot of base hits and field their positions that caused them to win games.

There are only a handful of guys who pitched with any kind of frequency beyond a year or two in the NA (ranked by ERA+):

1. Al Spalding--(started pitching in 1865) pitched from 1871-1877 and posted a 253-65 record with a 2.15 ERA a 142 ERA+ and a 1.186 WHIP

2. Candy Cummings--(played with the Excelsiors staring in 1866) pitched 1872-1877 and posted a 145-94 record with a 2.49 ERA a 120 ERA+ and a WHIP of 1.221 . Around 1909, many would have believed he invented the curvball.

3. Dick McBride--(started pitching as early as 1864 and was a Civil War veteran) pitched 1871-1876 and posted a 149-78 record with a 2.85 ERA, 115 ERA+ and a 1.245 WHIP

4. George Zettlein--pitched 1871-1876 and posted a 129-112 record with a 2.78 ERA, 113 ERA+ and a 1.306 WHIP

5. Tommy Bond--pitched 1874-1884 and posted a 234-163 record with a 2.31 ERA, a 111 ERA+ and a 1.093 WHIP

6. Cherokee Fisher--(professional debut was in 1867) pitched from 1871-1878 and posted a 57-84 record with a 2.83 ERA and a 107 ERA+ and a 1.219 WHIP (which is impressive given how bad the teams were that he played on).

7. Bobby Mathews--pitched from 1871-1887. Mathews has the distinction of being the only pitcher to play a significant amount of his career in the NA and the NL. He posted a 297-248 record with a 2.89 ERA, a 107 ERA+ and a WHIP of 1.236.

8. Asa Brainard--(Made his pitching debut in 1862 and has 11 seasons under his belt before the NA. He took over pitching duties for Jim Creighton following Creighton's death and was a second baseman and outfielder as well) pitched from 1871-1874 and posted a 24-53 record with a 4.84 ERA a 74 ERA+ and a 1.696 WHIP

9. Bill Stearns--pitched from 1871-1875 and posted a 12-64 record with a 4.98 era, a 67 ERA+ and a 1.739 WHIP. (Played for the worst team in the NA).

Add to this list Spalding's BA which was better than anyone on this list and he looks like the best pitcher of this generation. Here's where it gets problematic for me:

Players recognized as stars per team (NA years):

1. Boston Red Stockings (Pitcher Al Spalding)--Cal McVey, Ross Barnes, Harry Wright, George Wright, Andy Leonard, Deacon White, Jim O'Rourke. Al Spalding was always surrounded by a lot of talent.

2. Candy Cummings (NYU, BAL, PHI, HAR)--Joe Start, Dickey Pearce, Cal McVey, Davy Force, Lip Pike, George Hall early on. Later on, he had limited talent around him, but continued to win games.

3. Dick McBride (Athletics)--Al Reach, Levi Meyerle, Fergy Malone, Cap Anson, Ezra Sutton, Davy Force, George Hall. McBride also had his share of talent around him.

4. George Zettlein (CHI, TRO, ECK, PHI)--Jimmy Wood, Davy Force, Fergy Malone, Paul Hines, Levi Meyerle (not much for how good his era+ was as compared to other pitchers of his day).

5. Cherokee Fisher (ROK, BAL, ATH, HAR, PHI)--Cap Anson, Davy Force, George Hall, Lip Pike, Tom York, Ezra Sutton

6. Bobby Mathews (KEK, BAL, NYU)--Davy Force, George Hall, Tom York, Lip Pike, Joe Start. Mathews was an effective pitcher despite limited talent surrounding him as compared to his colleagues. He also has longevity on his side.

7. Asa Brainard (OLY, MAN, BAL)--Davy Force, George Hall, Andy Leonard, Jim O'Rourke, Cal McVey, Lip Pike. Asa didn't have much around him and was already in the twilight of his career by the time the NA was created.

8. Bill Stearns (OLY, NAT, WAS, HAR)--Andy Leonard, Davy Force, George Hall, Paul Hines. Stearns either had bad luck or a bad career as he played on a number of teams that folded pretty quickly or didn't play nearly as many games.

**I didn't include Bond as his career was more centered in the early NL.

If going by pure statistics, Spalding was the best pitcher of his generation. When accounting for the amount of talent surrounding them, George Zettlein and Candy Cummings may have been better. If accounting for longevity, Bobby Mathews was the best of this generation. Looking at pitchers who started in the NA for more than a cup of tea (Pud Galvin actually pitched 6 games in 1875 before becoming a regular starter in 1879), Tommy Bond may have been the best of the early generation of pitchers. If anyone has any information on rules changes during Spalding's tenure, that may help his cause.

Paul Wendt

07-04-2008, 11:37 AM

Paul Wendt

07-04-2008, 11:48 AM

Here they are laid out by primary fielding position: 22 elected (full size) and 5 "almost" (small).
underline marks the first generation professionals
LF CF RF
Delahanty Hamilton Kelly -c
O'Rourke -cf Hines Thompson
Stovey -1b Browning -lf
Gore
Van Haltren

3B SS 2B 1B
- Ward -p McPhee Anson
Wright Barnes -ss Brouthers
Connor
P
Clarkson
Galvin
Keefe
Mullane
Radbourn
Rusie
Caruthers -of

C
Bennett
Ewing
White -3b

jjpm74

07-04-2008, 11:50 AM

Good coverage.

>>Hardy Richardson--Richardson was very good; but 4th best at his position in his generation is not good enough for me. I'll take another look at him a decade from now when he becomes eligible for the VC ballot. Right now he doesn't quite measure up, but he's someone some distance and time may help.<<

Are you putting Barnes, McPhee, and Childs in one generation?

Barnes is in an earlier generation, but for the purposes of this project which kicked off considering 50 years of baseball at once, I think it's safe to put Barnes in the same company as McPhee, Childs and Richardson. If asked who the best 5 2nd baseman of the 19th century were, I'd put Richardson at 4th. I'm not sure 4th best in the 19th century is good enough for inclusion in Cooperstown.

Paul Wendt

07-04-2008, 12:40 PM

Jack Glasscock--Glasscock was the best shortstop in baseball in the 1880s. We elected McPhee. Why not Glasscock, who was the other defensive wiz of the bare handed era?
. . .
George Van Haltren--It's hard to ignore how good Van Haltren is when we've already elected Thompson.
not ignore but it is plausible to vote for Thompson and not Van Haltren. GVH was a mediocre outfielder who hit 121. Mike Griffin was a great outfielder.

That batting isn't much better than Glasscock 112 and McPhee 106, which gets them relegated to fielding whiz.

MadHatter

07-04-2008, 05:00 PM

Huzzah! *Turning cartwheels now that Mullane is in*

Erik Bedard

07-04-2008, 05:06 PM

Freakshow

07-04-2008, 06:46 PM

I'm torn on whether to write them off as mistakes and continue only voting for the players I feel belong, or conform to the standards of the group and cram my ballot with everybody I see as better than those two.
I recommend the former option, the same as how we treat the mistakes elected to the HOF.

Freakshow

07-04-2008, 06:51 PM

7. Bobby Mathews--pitched from 1871-1887. Mathews has the distinction of being the only pitcher to play a significant amount of his career in the NA and the NL.
He didn't really play much in the NL. His big latter career years were in the weaker AA.

Erik Bedard

07-04-2008, 08:04 PM

I recommend the former option, the same as how we treat the mistakes elected to the HOF.

I was leaning towards that to start with, and that's what I ended up doing. If we continue to elect the Mullane/Caruthers/McCormick types, though, I will probably start adding names.

My ballot for 1909:

(blank)

I decided to remove Barnes. I feel that Hall membership should be reserved for those who were unquestionably the greatest players ever, and Barnes, while great, has too many questions surrounding him for me to keep him on the ballot any longer.

jjpm74

07-04-2008, 10:17 PM

I was leaning towards that to start with, and that's what I ended up doing. If we continue to elect the Mullane/Caruthers/McCormick types, though, I will probably start adding names.

Bob Caruthers 123 ERA+ Whip 1.158 6/10 years in the AA. 133 OPS+ which puts him a great deal ahead of the other two.

Jim McCormick 118 ERA+ Whip 1.132 .5/10 years in the UA.

Tony Mullane 118 ERA+ WHIP 1.237 7/13 years in the AA including all buut 2 of his productive years.

I fail to see why one person's decision to hold off on Barnes has led to a mass exodus away from support for Barnes. It makes absolutely no sense that we have a candidate that was 1 vote away from election drop to less than 50% support in 2 elections. If anything, the discussion concerning Barnes makes him more viable rather than less viable. Maybe this project should have started in 1880 instead of 1901 since so many people are so dismissive of an entire generation of stars largely because of the later staring date which led to 2 generations of stars being considered at once rather than 1. If people are so quick to dump Barnes, what was it about Barnes where at the first hint that someone who is admittedly more of a long career guy than a short high peak guy decides not to support him that they supported in the first place? :confused:

jjpm74

07-04-2008, 11:18 PM

Double Post......

jjpm74

07-04-2008, 11:29 PM

He didn't really play much in the NL. His big latter career years were in the weaker AA.

Agreed that the AA was a weaker league to a degree. 90 wins in 3 years at ages 32, 33, 34 after tooling around in the NL without much success. That says a lot about the quality of the AA. However, there were quite a few NL stars who defected to the AA and the AA was comparable to the NL by the 3rd year.

Paul Wendt

07-05-2008, 09:34 AM

[Is it possible to quote a quotation automatically? I did this manually.]

Last year,
Originally Posted by 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 ballot 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.
lm and AG responded to the election of Thompson in opposite ways, one by cutting back from 15 to about half that and one by expanding from about half that to 15.

Their latest ballots(*) include 2 of 8 and 4 of 15 votes for infielders. That is about the ratio we expect on a whole team, one quarter infielders. Any manager traveling with a team of 15 is sure to have a fifth man who can play third, short, or second but probably only four who commonly play there.
(*The former is lm's 2009 ballot, after election of Tony Mullane. Some others this year have mentioned the election of Mullane rather than Thompson as a crucial factor for them.)

My point concerns infielders and other roles on a baseball team. It is easier to make in terms of AG's response than lm's, filling out a complete ballot rather than cutting back, and I will do so, but I believe the same point can be made in terms of cutting back, at the cost of a few more words.

Please entertain the idea that we have a position called "batter" and a position called "pitcher". Please set aside firstbase and let the infield be third, short, and second: IF = {3B, SS, 2B}. Now the elections of Sam Thompson and Tony Mullane have set or suggested "low" standards for Hall of Fame batter and Hall of Fame pitcher but they have not influenced our thinking about infielders. That is what recent comments and completed ballots suggest to me. Consider it and I think you will agree at least that it seems to fit.

We have elected only two career infielders among 22 Hall of Famers. Monte Ward and Deacon White moved to the infield after their work in the battery. Some others played a few seasons there, mainly when they were young. But George Wright and Bid McPhee alone were career infielders.

Now the election of Thompson and Mullane turns attention to their fellows such as Browning in the outfield and McCormick in the box. That is natural. Thompson seems to be the model batter who is good enough; Mullane the model pitcher who is good enough; neither one is much help as a model baseball player who is good enough, not to mention specifically an infielder.

AG is concerned that Jack Glasscock is only the sixth best shortstop we have seen in 1909 and lm agrees that he is only fifth or sixth best. For both of them that means not good enough. But the group finds no thirdbaseman good enough; only Ezra Sutton has much support, about 50%. Probably some baseball teams use their best players at short, who could also play third or second very well. Maybe the ten best infielders we have seen are 7 shortstops, 3 secondbaseman, and McGraw at third. At the same time, maybe we should elect the best infielders the way we elect the best outfielders. Think of the shortstop as the "center infielder".

jjpm considers Hardy Richardson only the fourth best secondbaseman. Yes but is he the sixth or ninth or twelfth best infielder? Maybe that is the way to compare him with a "low" standard set by Sam Thompson or Tony Mullane.

--
A few pages back, in the display of Hall of Famers by fielding position, I have added in small print the candidates we have almost elected; they have secured 2/3 but not 3/4 of our votes. Three centerfielders and a pitcher did that last year and Ross Barnes in the past.

I have also underlined the first generation of professionals. That does not show any clear pattern except our strong support for second generation pitchers.

AG2004

07-05-2008, 01:32 PM

Agreed that the AA was a weaker league to a degree. 90 wins in 3 years at ages 32, 33, 34 after tooling around in the NL without much success. That says a lot about the quality of the AA. However, there were quite a few NL stars who defected to the AA and the AA was comparable to the NL by the 3rd year.

Mathews was a mediocre NL pitcher in 1882, so only the first year of his AA career would have been in a much weaker league.

It may be the case that Mathews was playing top-level base ball in both 1878 and 1880. One source indicates that Mathews was in the IA in 1878 and in California in 1880, both times for more money than he would have been able to obtain in the NL. Unfortunately, I haven't found more details.

[OOC - The source is http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/mathebo01.php ]

Paul Wendt

07-05-2008, 03:02 PM

According to his SABR biography (print, 1989) he played in the IA 1877 and 1878. Four games for Columbus in 1877, one as pitcher. Twenty games for Lynn-Worcester in 1878, all as pitcher. Team statistics show that was a weak team, scoring about 3.5 runs and yielding about 6 per game. --about 5.5 per 9 innings, both with Mathews (8-12) and with Price (4-9) pitching. Bud Fowler made his known pro debut as a pitcher while the team was in Lynn: 1-2, about 6.5 runs per 9 inn.

Good teams scored 4-5 runs per game and yielded 3-4.

It seems clear that Mathews wasn't a good pitcher in that league but I wouldn't refine that without systematic analysis of the whole league.

According to the biography he pitched for Star of San Francisco in 1880, no detail. (Cal McVey played for Bay City.)

Freakshow

07-05-2008, 04:48 PM

However, there were quite a few NL stars who defected to the AA
Who? I see very little evidence of this.

so only the first year of his AA career would have been in a much weaker league
Looking at B-Pro, the AA was still a much weaker league in 1884. Only his 1885 season looks legitimately outstanding, the second best year in his career (after 1874).

Paul Wendt

07-05-2008, 05:54 PM

I'm still grappling with the question of whether it was Spalding's pitching ability or the ability of all of the stars on his team to get a lot of base hits and field their positions that caused them to win games.
In order to explain his wins as a pitcher it is necessary to consider all the base hits by his teammates. But ERA+ 142 is better than his contemporary pitchers (deleted here) and that is the outcome of his work and his teammates' fielding alone.
There are only a handful of guys who pitched with any kind of frequency beyond a year or two in the NA (ranked by ERA+):
1. Al Spalding--(started pitching in 1865) pitched from 1871-1877 and posted a 253-65 record with a 2.15 ERA a 142 ERA+ and a 1.186 WHIP
. . .
The data are available to complete a parallel calculation of adjusted Run Average RA+ (earned and unearned), not to say I've done it. And we have the strikeout and walk data that isolate a responsibility or two of the battery without assistance by their in- and out-fielders.
Players recognized as stars per team (NA years):
1. Boston Red Stockings (Pitcher Al Spalding)--Cal McVey, Ross Barnes, Harry Wright, George Wright, Andy Leonard, Deacon White, Jim O'Rourke. Al Spalding was always surrounded by a lot of talent.
. . .
Well, yes, but first, in order to do all that you would need to quantify the time Spalding enjoyed the support of so-and-so as a teammate. Just listing the teammates of Spalding and others shows me that they all played with several famous players. (In large part that follows from the annual reorganization of teams.) Second, if Leonard was considered a star its because he played with Harry Wright so long. And Wright was a star for his leadership of the team on and off the field; in effect, for being the first professional manager. He did make the team a winner, on the one hand; he hired Spalding as the pitcher to make the team a winner, on the other.

--
The rules required pitching underhand, which is why they called it pitching. That doesn't make the pitcher a "tosser" in a modern derogatory sense. Promulgating that is one of Bill James's great disservices to baseball history. The pitcher's job was to help put the other team out. Otherwise there wouldn't have been many rules governing what the pitcher may do. Jim Creighton was a sensation because he was very good at that, already in 1859. But he was a sensation also because that purpose preceded him. Competitive teams were already choosing their best man to pitch based on how well he could help them put the other team out.

This doesn't gainsay my recent observation that the rating systems of Pete Palmer and Bill James greatly overstate the impact of the pitcher and understate the impact of the fielders. That follows from calibrating their ratings on some 20th century time period where walks and strikeouts are much more common than in the 1870s. (And homeruns more common, and errors less common, which operate the same way, to magnify the impact of the pitcher relative to the fielders.)

jalbright

07-05-2008, 06:11 PM

jjpm74

07-05-2008, 10:30 PM

To amplify on Paul's point about there still being a value in pitching when done underhand, it's clear from women's softball or local fastpitch softball leagues that some pitchers are more effective than others (heck, Eddie Feigner (sp?) of the "King and his Court" made a living out of his ability to pitch a softball). It's certainly a different style of pitching than we see overhand, but there is an element of talent in it. If that difference is enough to disqualify underhand pitchers for you, that's your choice, but watch that concept with "submarine" pitchers from later.

There is a big difference between lobbing in an underhand pitch where the hitter wants the ball and windmilling a 70MPH underhand pitch in a fast pitch softball league. I doubt very much that anyone no matter how tough they were would be willing to stand (recalling the fact that early catchers did not squat and it was the great Chief Zimmer who ultimately decided to squat close to the plate and catch on a daily basis using catching gloves and backing it with a steak when catching Cy Young some years later) behind home plate with someone throwing a ball over 70 MPH with no equipment to protect themselves.

Submariners pitch in such a way so they can manipulate the ball's path in a different way that an overhand or underhand pitcher cannot. There is no correlation between the two outside of the superficial similarities all games that throwing a ball of some sort towards someone with some kind of hitting instrument of some sort share.

Secondly, I'm not discounting all underhand pitchers. Only 1st generation underhand pitchers as I've yet to see any actual proof that any of them had more than a superficial impact on the outcome of the game from a pitching standpoint. If someone has some definitive proof that Al Spalding's effectiveness as a pitcher stems from some kind of manipulation of the ball or delivery other pitchers did not possess or master to the level Spalding did, he'd be added to my ballot as a pitcher in a heartbeat. All I've seen to this point are attempts to apply win shares and other advanced SABRmetrics for an era that they do not work for. Advanced quantitative analysis will not get us anywhere in determining the role of the pitcher or the perception of what separated a good pitcher from a bad pitcher in this era as quantitative data was not the emphasis when determining who a star player was in 1875. When I have the time, I'll correlate the amount of offense per pitcher in the NA to see if there is a relationship between NA pitchers effectiveness and the players around them, but I'm not sure that will help get us any closer to understanding what that role was.

Paul, I am sure that Jim Creighton and Asa Brainard were both seen as stars in their era. However, both were more than just pitchers in those early days. Have you seen any source readings that specify that it was their pitching ability specifically that made them stand out as stars? If so, do you have any information on what it was about their pitching ability that separated them from the other pitchers of that era?

The rules required pitching underhand, which is why they called it pitching. That doesn't make the pitcher a "tosser" in a modern derogatory sense. Promulgating that is one of Bill James's great disservices to baseball history. The pitcher's job was to help put the other team out. Otherwise there wouldn't have been many rules governing what the pitcher may do. Jim Creighton was a sensation because he was very good at that, already in 1859. But he was a sensation also because that purpose preceded him. Competitive teams were already choosing their best man to pitch based on how well he could help them put the other team out.

I don't support Bill James' dismissive approach to 19th century players or his approach to ranking pitchers. I think he has clear biases when it comes to baseball in the 19th century. What I'm looking for is some qualitative proof that the pitcher in the 1860s and 1870s was more than just someone who threw an underhand ball where a hitter requested it. This would help a great deal in determining the value of a pitcher to his team in this earliest era of baseball (a game that may have been different but definitely was not "primitive" as some of the most well known uberstat authors would like us to believe).

Lastly, what doesn't help their cause for me is that I've played in a few period simulation games for my local historical society focused roughly on this era and the pitcher was instructed to pitch the ball underhand to a general area a hitter would ask them to throw the ball and the hitter was obliged to do everything he could to hit that ball. This is what I have to go on until I see some newspaper clippings or other primary source accounts that say differently. I'm not a baseball historian, so I do not know if this was an accurate account of how to pitch in this era, but if it was, I don't see how a pitcher could have had an impact on the outcome of the game.

Freakshow

07-05-2008, 11:02 PM

Delahanty is replaced by Browning

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

TheSlaff

07-06-2008, 09:12 AM

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

Paul Wendt

07-06-2008, 09:55 AM

The possibility that Creighton's innovation and his fame concerned anything but his pitching never comes up. It is new to me this morning. Does it seem reasonable? That is why I call Bill James scoffing his great disservice to baseball history.

Creighton learned to pitch fast by snapping his wrist with his elbow straight, or straight enough to get away with it a la Gaylord Perry. Probably he could pitch almost sidearm, in effect, without bringing the ball above his waist, by leaning to the right. (I recall seeing a studio shot of such a pose. That is not the portrait in Nineteenth Century Stars and I may be wrong. Maybe it is somewhere on the 'net.)
[After re-reading the biography by John Thorn, I wonder whether that was someone from the next generation, releasing the ball near the ground --in that respect, like Carl Mays.]

--
According to the SABR biography (print, 1989), Brooklyn Eagle 1860-08-04 reported on Creighton's pitch. That newspaper is online. The report --of a game, I believe-- may be quite a bit longer than the quotation in print.

I should have found and referred to this two hours ago.
John Thorn, "Jim Creighton" (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&bid=770&pid=0) (SABR Bioproject, 200?)

Paul Wendt

07-06-2008, 09:59 AM

There is a big difference between lobbing in an underhand pitch where the hitter wants the ball . . .
Not "where the hitter wants the ball"; the batsman selects the strike zone up or down. We could institute that rule today and what difference would it make? It would help some batters relative to others and help some pitchers relative to others but it wouldn't much affect the impact that pitchers have on the outcome.

That lobbing image comes from school physical education (gym class) --the image Bill James recalls for people?-- or . . .
Lastly, what doesn't help their cause for me is that I've played in a few period simulation games for my local historical society focused roughly on this era and the pitcher was instructed to pitch the ball underhand to a general area a hitter would ask them to throw the ball and the hitter was obliged to do everything he could to hit that ball.
There are several possibilities
(a) They are recreating the Knickerbocker era - a club playing twice a week? intramurally and zero? or four? times a season against another similar club.
(b) They are recreating the "national game" that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people played without mandatory school gym class. Today adults don't play baseball. When they did, of course they did not face fast batteries that were practiced in striking them out. Most of the time they probably faced a pitcher and catcher who hadn't practiced much at all.
(c) They do a poor job of recreating. Few clerks and college deans and computer programmers and clarinetists who use their fingers for a living, and earn a fine living indeed, will play the way a competitive baseballist would play in 1867.

Vintage baseballists commonly make other concessions I know (from Jim Tootle, of Ohio Village Historical Society fame). They permit the batter to overrun first base without liability to be tagged out, although recreating a time before that rule change. They use light modern footware with modern plastic? cleats for traction.

tidbits
- Doug Allison used a glove for some protection, with Brainard around 1870
- you will find Deacon White and Pop Snyder credited with being the first to move up behind the batter, in the 1870s, and probably many others
- Candy Cummings used a curve pitch from the late 1860s. The NAPBBP permitted the snap in 1872 and he joined one of its teams that season. Maybe a coincidence.
+ already in the late 1860s there were more professional and semi-professional pitchers and catchers than in- and outfielders because the pitcher or the battery (practiced pitcher and catcher) were the ones who could win games as ringers. The baseballs fans in town, or even a team of fielders, might pay a battery to play for the team.
+ whether a team's catcher could handle fast pitching reasonably well limited what its pitcher could use in games (at the recruiting stage that is a reason to recruit a practiced battery). whether a team's pitcher relied on fast stuff and how fast governed who could play catcher, regardless of batting ability (same parenthetical remark)

I need to quit now. Bill Ryczek When Johnny Came Sliding Home is the best narrative history of competitive baseball, 1865-1870. There is an introductory account of the game and some changes in the early 1860s and there is plenty of the last two tidbits (+).

--
I doubt very much that anyone no matter how tough they were would be willing to stand ... behind home plate with someone throwing a ball over 70 MPH with no equipment to protect themselves.
I believe this is the perspective of the clerk or college dean . . .
Of course this is why catchers and people recruiting catchers developed varieties of protection.

--
I'm not sure how commonly anyone topped 70 mph but from shorter distances there may be "unhittable" pitches at lower speeds.
add: Through 1880 the pitching distance was 45', from home base to the line the pitcher must not cross. The powers continually tinkered with lines and boxes to confine the pitcher. Between 1863 and 1893 the backward-forward distance between lines ranged from three(!) to seven feet. Three feet would almost limit the pitcher to striding sideways.
Eric Miklich provides a "progressive" account of The Pitcher's Area (with diagrams) (http://www.19cbaseball.com/field-8.html).
These changes would also keep the high-level pitchers working every spring to revise their motions, often with a focus on footwork.

Before 1863 the pitcher was not confined. Creighton was a star at cricket, too. I supposed his imagination worked on both baseball pitching and cricket bowling.

jjpm74

07-06-2008, 10:38 AM

I believe this is the perspective of the clerk or college dean . . .
Of course this is why catchers and people recruiting catchers developed varieties of protection.
(I'm not sure how commonly anyone topped 70 mph but from shorter distances there are unhittable pitches at lower speeds.)

Maybe not common, but I'm sure some did. Why else would catchers be talking about backing their gloves with a steak when catching guys like Amos Rusie and Cy Young in the short distance era?

Brooklyn

07-07-2008, 07:22 AM

Browning, Glasscock, Spalding, Welch

KCGHOST

07-07-2008, 08:40 AM

Browning
Glasscock
Gore
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren

DoubleX

07-07-2008, 09:55 AM

We forgot him. He should have been eligible in 1905 under the age rule.

Latham was on the 1904 ballot, receiving 0 votes, since that was 5 years after his last year of continuous play (1899). He's done and won't be on the ballot again on account of his 4 appearances in 1909.

Here's who I got for 1910 newbies:

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

EDIT: It's looking very possible that we'll elect no one this year. If that ends up the case, that would actually go a long way towards convincing me to maintain the 15 vote ballot for now. If we can't elect anyone with an expanded ballot, I'd rather not risk that happening more frequently with a smaller ballot. Between this year and next year, it's quite possible we might elect just 1 player - Jesse Burkett.

Freakshow

07-07-2008, 10:22 AM

Latham was on the 1904 ballot, receiving 0 votes, since that was 5 years after his last year of continuous play (1899). He's done and won't be on the ballot again on account of his 4 appearances in 1909.
Yes, my mistake - I was thinking of BBWAA eligibility rules of retirement +6 years. Good, I'm glad he wasn't overlooked, but had his shot.

Windy City Fan

07-07-2008, 11:38 AM

Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Mickey Welch

I also accidentially clicked Herman Long, but did not intend to vote for him.

DoubleX

07-07-2008, 12:06 PM

I also accidentially clicked Herman Long, but did not intend to vote for him.

I'll remove that.

dgarza

07-07-2008, 04:59 PM

Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
George Gore
Charley Jones
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

jjpm74

07-08-2008, 04:58 PM

Pete Browning has more votes than Bob Caruthers and George Gore :confused:

Freakshow

07-08-2008, 08:09 PM

Pete Browning has more votes than Bob Caruthers and George Gore :confused:
Well it is the Hall of FAME, you know. :rolleyes:

And he hit .341!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

leecemark

07-08-2008, 08:15 PM

--Browning being elected would certainly set our standards lower than I would have hoped so early in the project. 300 members here we come!

DoubleX

07-09-2008, 12:06 AM

I have to admit, even though I've been voting for Browning, I'm a little uncomfortable with the prospect of his election (I've actually been close to dropping him a few times). I don't think there are any players on the ballot that I feel particularly strong about, and my vote is more about not voting against these guys than voting for them, if that makes sense. I think we did a good job getting in the surefire guys, and while there are a number of guys on the ballot with pretty good cases, most of them would fall near the bottom of the Hall, IMO. I may have to rethink my ballot going forward to be more discerning and less permissive of players that I don't object to, but I don't particularly support either.

Erik Bedard

07-09-2008, 05:30 AM

I didn't vote for Browning even when I had a large ballot. That should tell you how I feel about his election.

Brooklyn

07-09-2008, 06:45 AM

I've been consisently voting for Browning.

- his .341 average is hard to ignore. No, this doesn't mean every .300 hitter will get in. There is a big difference between .341 and .300. As of 1901, when his name first appeared on the ballot, only Delahanty, Billy Hamilton and Dan Brouthers had higher averages (among players with 3000 plate apperances and 10 years in the league). And they were all first ballot Hall of Famers. As of today (1909), there are a bunch of active players with higher career marks (Lajoie, Wagner, Keeler), but they might not end there when their careers end.
- i'm not a huge fan of OPS+, but his career 162 mark is hard to ignore. Only Brouthers retired with a higher mark.
- He was around the league leaders frequently. Leading the league in Batting 3 times. OBP twice. Slugging once. And frequenlty in the top 10 of major categories.

I would have liked to see him play longer. 4800 at bats is not a lot - but the leagues he played in played shorter scheudles then today's modern game, which is part of it (although he did leave at a young 33)

I'd like to hear the arguments against him - Am I looking at any of the above stats out of cotext in relation to the time he played?

leecemark

07-09-2008, 07:08 AM

--He was a horrible defensive player. He played in the weaker league - and put up some huge numbers which it was a MUCH weaker league. He had a short career.
--Browning is not a horrible choice for the Hall - if you favor a a large Hall. However the fact that he is the ONLY candidate on pace for election suggests that it is not in a large hall context that people are voting for him. How many voters really believe he is the BEST available candidate? I hope we get a couple more ballots which leave him off so we get another chance to reflect on his candidacy.
--Electing Browning on the heels of the Thompson selection tells me that every big bat that comes along is a Hall of Famer with this electorate. Meanwhile the standards are being set much higher for the skill posiitons.

KCGHOST

07-09-2008, 08:43 AM

leecemark

07-09-2008, 01:32 PM

--The BBF electorate(s) generally don't make the obvious mistakes that the VC has at times. Our "mistakes" (mistakes here being anybody I'm not voting for:) - and some who I have, but later decided came up a little short) have been guys who are competivie with the bottom quartile, not the absolute bottom of the Cooperstown barrell.
--We also tend to support the mid-tier Hall of Famers that the BWAA has whiffed on in recent years. The BWAA tends to have a higher standard than the historical norm (which does include the VC guys to be fair) and most of our membership goes for a more level playing field between old and new candidates.
--The other areas where we do a little better than the early BWAA and and VC on is addressing the 19th century guys. Our choices have been a little inconsistent regarding this pool, but most of us at least give them more consideration than Cooperstown ever has. To be fair I agree that we have more information on these players than any actual voter did until very reently. Sadly we probably have more interest than they do now that such information ha sbecome readily available.

Paul Wendt

07-09-2008, 02:08 PM

I, also , like Browning and understand the arguments against him. I do not believe he is the best candidate, but the fact other candidates aren't garnering the necessary votes is not the fault of his supporters. It is the fault of supporters of other candidates failing to drum up the needed support for their candidate.
Even a request to post a ballot in the thread can be satisfied without reading any of it, and that limits the scope for discussion to turn the outcome.

Re Browning: Last year I voted for the 14 Hall of Merit members with Browning probably #14 (plus Wilbert Robinson). Five HOMers were elected in 1907 when I didn't complete a final ballot, so last year was the first time that HOM membership could be used as a crutch. Probably I would have voted for 14 HOMers with Stovey #14 (plus Ferguson or Robinson, who contributed so much as leaders of important teams). I expect to others plucked off the bottom of my ballot; I hope they won't all be outfielders.
(I do have some control over that, but I would probably see them elected anyway, from below the bottom of my ballot.)

It is also the failing of the electorate (us) as a group to understand that other things go into selecting candidates besides a "big bat". The latter flaw may simply mean a large portion of our membership reject the Jamesian notion of "context".
Is fielding position "context"?
Is the number of games played in each season "context"?
I consider those more basic or obvious than "context" but I admit that I don't recall any specific use by Bill James.

RuthMayBond

07-10-2008, 07:14 AM

Bob Caruthers 123 ERA+ Whip 1.158 6/10 years in the AA. 133 OPS+ which puts him a great deal ahead of the other two.

Jim McCormick 118 ERA+ Whip 1.132 .5/10 years in the UA.
If you say so

<I fail to see why one person's decision to hold off on Barnes has led to a mass exodus away from support for Barnes. It makes absolutely no sense that we have a candidate that was 1 vote away from election drop to less than 50% support in 2 elections. If anything, the discussion concerning Barnes makes him more viable rather than less viable. Maybe this project should have started in 1880 instead of 1901 since so many people are so dismissive of an entire generation of stars largely because of the later staring date which led to 2 generations of stars being considered at once rather than 1. If people are so quick to dump Barnes, what was it about Barnes where at the first hint that someone who is admittedly more of a long career guy than a short high peak guy decides not to support him that they supported in the first place? :confused: >

I'm glad people came to their senses in time.
Limiting it to fifteen max was no problem this time

Captain Cold Nose

07-10-2008, 09:21 AM

Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

KCGHOST

07-10-2008, 01:48 PM

Is fielding position "context"?
Is the number of games played in each season "context"?
I consider those more basic or obvious than "context" but I admit that I don't recall any specific use by Bill James.

Everything outside of the raw stats is "context". He discusses context in just about every book he has written.

jjpm74

07-10-2008, 03:30 PM

I'm glad people came to their senses in time.
Limiting it to fifteen max was no problem this time

Why's that? Please elaborate and give us your breakdown for Barnes and why you think his exclusion was a good thing. :)

AG2004

07-10-2008, 07:40 PM

Mullane and Thompson clearly represent the worst players in the Hall IMO. I'm torn on whether to write them off as mistakes and continue only voting for the players I feel belong, or conform to the standards of the group and cram my ballot with everybody I see as better than those two.

I recommend the former option, the same as how we treat the mistakes elected to the HOF.

[Note: the following is from a 2008 perspective.]

For Cooperstown, we have seventy years of history, so the really bad mistakes stand out. For these progressive elections, however, we have less than a decade of history. We haven't even exhausted the eligibility of all the candidates who were on the ballot in 1901; some of them might be elected in the future. It is still possible for all the outfielders who were better than Thompson to be admitted to the Hall - in which case Thompson would not be a mistake, since he would represent the cut-off level.

Until the result of the 1915 election becomes known, we have no idea what the actual standard is going to be. Until then, I'm using Thompson as the standard.

[Now going back to 1909]
Because Thompson has been inducted into our Hall in Brooklyn, he represents the de facto standard of membership. Browning was better than Thompson, so he's on my ballot.

Browning did have a reputation as a terrible fielder, and his .791 fielding percentage in the outfield in 1886 was atrocious by any standard. On the other hand, he won Win Shares Gold Gloves in both 1885 and 1887; the latter award is probably due to the high number of plays he was able to make (range factor), since his fielding percentage was below average. He isn't the best outfielder available (that would be George Gore), but he's still better than Thompson.

My Ballot
Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
George Gore
Charley Jones
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

Paul Wendt

07-10-2008, 07:48 PM

Repeating the second half of my #27
Please entertain the idea that we have a position called "batter" and a position called "pitcher". Please set aside firstbase and let the infield be third, short, and second: IF = {3B, SS, 2B}. Now the elections of Sam Thompson and Tony Mullane have set or suggested "low" standards for Hall of Fame batter and Hall of Fame pitcher but they have not influenced our thinking about infielders. That is what recent comments and completed ballots suggest to me. Consider it and I think you will agree at least that it seems to fit.

We have elected only two career infielders among 22 Hall of Famers. Monte Ward and Deacon White moved to the infield after their work in the battery. Some others played a few seasons there, mainly when they were young. But George Wright and Bid McPhee alone were career infielders.

Now the election of Thompson and Mullane turns attention to their fellows such as Browning in the outfield and McCormick in the box. That is natural. Thompson seems to be the model batter who is good enough; Mullane the model pitcher who is good enough; neither one is much help as a model baseball player who is good enough, not to mention specifically an infielder.

AG is concerned that Jack Glasscock is only the sixth best shortstop we have seen in 1909 and [leecemark] agrees that he is only fifth or sixth best. For both of them that means not good enough. But the group finds no thirdbaseman good enough; only Ezra Sutton has much support, about 50%. Probably some baseball teams use their best players at short, who could also play third or second very well. Maybe the ten best infielders we have seen are 7 shortstops, 3 secondbaseman, and McGraw at third. At the same time, maybe we should elect the best infielders the way we elect the best outfielders. Think of the shortstop as the "center infielder".

jjpm considers Hardy Richardson only the fourth best secondbaseman. Yes but is he the sixth or ninth or twelfth best infielder? Maybe that is the way to compare him with a "low" standard set by Sam Thompson or Tony Mullane.

--
A few pages back, in the display of our Progressive Hall of Fame members by fielding position (#16) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1235617&postcount=16), I have added in small print the candidates we have almost elected; they have secured 2/3 but not 3/4 of our votes. Three centerfielders and a pitcher did that last year and Ross Barnes in the past.

I have also underlined the first generation of professionals. That does not show any clear pattern except our strong support for second generation pitchers.

In #55, I returned to the issue and lamented in anticipation that the group will continue to elect outfielders off the bottom of the ballot.
Re Browning: Last year I voted for the 14 Hall of Merit members with Browning probably #14 (plus Wilbert Robinson). Five HOMers were elected in 1907 when I didn't complete a final ballot, so last year was the first time that HOM membership could be used as a crutch. Probably I would have voted for 14 HOMers with Stovey #14 (plus Ferguson or Robinson, who contributed so much as leaders of important teams). I expect to others plucked off the bottom of my ballot; I hope they won't all be outfielders.
(I do have some control over that, but I would probably see them elected anyway, from below the bottom of my ballot.)
Rather than complain every year:
Upon reconsideration I am unwilling to comply with the trend. While the group must in a broad sense set the tone and individuals should tend to comply, there should be some limit on the freedom to set standards for players with different roles (pitcher, batter, infielder) so discordant as those it seems to be in the process of setting.

After voting for both of them once I have dropped Charley Jones and Pete Browning from the ballot. They aren't clearly greater players than Stovey and Thompson. What of Ryan and Van Haltren; Hugh Duffy, Joe Kelley, and Willie Keeler; Elmer Flick and Sam Crawford? I anticipate unhappily that the group will pass them all while it approves the greatest infielders only: perhaps Davis and Dahlen, Lajoie and Wagner.

Ross Barnes
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Herman Long
Jimmy McAleer
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Jimmy McAleer replaces Wilbert Robinson :-)

Paul Wendt

07-10-2008, 07:53 PM

Jimmy McAleer replaces Wilbert Robinson. :)

Jimmy McAleer was a great centerfielder and a freely replaceable batter. He led the American League into both Cleveland (1900-01) and St Louis (1902-08). Now he is trying to right the good ship Washington.
He deserves to find a good situation with a little security, although Ban Johnson may always be ready to deploy him as a troubleshooter.

jjpm74

07-10-2008, 08:05 PM

Jimmy McAleer replaces Wilbert Robinson. :)

Jimmy McAleer was a great centerfielder and a freely replaceable batter. He led the American League into both Cleveland (1900-01) and St Louis (1902-08). After trying to right the good ship Washington (1909-11) he was Ban Johnson's solution to ownership problems in Boston (1912). There at least he enjoyed some of the rewards of championship, albeit as almost-controlling minority owner whose tenure was already steeped in trouble.

Is this a prediction of what will happen in the future? It is only 1909. :hide:

Paul Wendt

07-10-2008, 08:06 PM

Herman Long is another new candidate who gets my vote, with more permanence than Jimmy McAleer.

Does my suggestion make sense to you? If Ezra Sutton and Hardy Richardson are not good enough because thirdbase and secondbase are not shortstop, then we should recognize the best infielders by voting for more shortstops.

Recently we managed to elect George Wright. Herman Long was a genius with the glove and enough pop in his bat to drop homeruns over that fence in Boston. He joins Jack Glasscock as the "center infielders" who should follow.

Along with Sutton at third, Richardson, Barnes, and Childs at second, this is my way of helping the group figure out what is a Hall of Fame infielder?

Paul Wendt

07-10-2008, 08:07 PM

I really thought I would manage to get these three items up quickly without intervention and then proofread. :rolleyes:

jjpm74

07-10-2008, 08:11 PM

Does my suggestion make sense to you? If Ezra Sutton and Hardy Richardson are not good enough because thirdbase and secondbase are not shortstop, then we should recognize the best infielders by voting for more shortstops.

It makes sense. My next ballot will have as many 2B/SS/3B as are in the top 9 as infielders as it looks like we will have 9 outfielders but only 4 middle infielders and 1 of them is a hybrid player/pitcher.

DoubleX

07-10-2008, 10:01 PM

jjpm74

07-10-2008, 10:09 PM

Wow, can't believe we elected 3 players. Even though I have been voting for those 3, I've been doing so more out of not objecting, rather than affirmatively supporting. I think we have opened the door to a gray area and could have a potential flood of candidates down the line. But if that's how our Hall is to be, so be it. No one said we have to have a cap on how exclusive we are.

Also, Mark has made a very valid point in that we seem to be going for the big bats while overlooking skill players. This is something I've lamented in other elections, so I'm going to give extra thought to some of the middle IFers I've been discounting, namely Barnes, Childs, and Long (though of the three, I expect only Barnes might make my ballot). I do think with the standards we have set now, Jack Glasscock would fit right in there, and perhaps even Ed McKean, who sadly departed the ballot a few years ago - if we're going to elect poor fielding but strong hitting corner OFers, I don't see why we wouldn't elect someone like McKean who was a poor fielding but strong hitting SS.

While I don't support Browning and only have lukewarm support for Gore, I think that as a whole, this has been a great project to date. I'm looking forward to future elections and am not worried about opening a floodgate with the elections of Browning and Mullane.

It has been a lot of fun debating and researching guys like Barnes and the fact that guys like Herman Long are getting support means that we are ensured of having some discussion in future threads. Charley Jones also continues to gain support as does Lip Pike. We have also been pushing along guys that while not necessarily HOF candidates, are interesting historical figures and worth discussing and looking at and learning more about. If nothing else, as we delve deeper into the Dead Ball Era which we are only starting to touch on now, we are learning about and exposing players that don't necessarily get into a lot of discussions, but were probably stars in their day. That alone makes this project a great success. :thumbsup:

DoubleX

07-11-2008, 10:04 AM

jjpm74

07-11-2008, 10:08 AM

Ugh, so I just realized that Sockeye voted again. I haven't analyzed his vote to look for any questionable patterns, but I'm irked just by the fact he would vote.

Looking at it, whether or not you count his ballot, all three of the guys elected still would be elected.

DoubleX

07-11-2008, 10:13 AM

Looking at it, whether or not you count his ballot, all three of the guys elected still would be elected.

That's true, but it would affect the information that I put in the first post of the next election, and thus I'm going to delay putting the next election up while I decide what to here. On one hand, I don't to bar good faith ballots (I also don't want to deal with having to manually adjust the votes each time), on the other hand, there is the principle here that voting in this election is a privilege.

jjpm74

07-11-2008, 10:24 AM

That's true, but it would affect the information that I put in the first post of the next election, and thus I'm going to delay putting the next election up while I decide what to here. On one hand, I don't to bar good faith ballots (I also don't want to deal with having to manually adjust the votes each time), on the other hand, there is the principle here that voting in this election is a privilege.

I can definitely understand why you are annoyed that he would sneak in a ballot at the last minute. On one hand, it does look like a normal ballot (for a change), but it could have just been him voting for all the front runner this time around as he's expressed quite a bit of contempt for this project for whatever reason. On the other hand, since sockeye's ballots were discounted, the focus of the threads have shifted away from him and focused much more on the actual candidates. I've enjoyed the discussions that have gone on about candidates like Barnes, Richardson and Spalding over the past few elections. If he does continue to vote here, hopefully, that level of discussion will remain and he will not be the focal point.

Windy City Fan

07-11-2008, 10:35 AM

Ugh, so I just realized that Sockeye voted again. I haven't analyzed his vote to look for any questionable patterns, but I'm irked just by the fact he would vote.

This is Sockeye's ballot:

Ross Barnes
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
George Gore
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

Like I said, I can't discern any questionable pattern on a superficial glance. Nevertheless, even if this is an honest ballot, it does further evidence his prior bad faith voting.

Looks like he just voted for the top 15 vote getters. Given Sockeye's past posts and views, I doubt he seriously supports all of these guys for the hall. He may be trying to get as many people in as possible to undermine the legitimacy of the project. Or he may not. I certainly don't know what his intentions are.

DoubleX

07-11-2008, 10:51 AM

Looks like he just voted for the top 15 vote getters. Given Sockeye's past posts and views, I doubt he seriously supports all of these guys for the hall. He may be trying to get as many people in as possible to undermine the legitimacy of the project. Or he may not. I certainly don't know what his intentions are.

You are correct and I did suspect such. Given Sockeye's past conduct, he cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. His ballot will be again discounted and he is permanently banned from this project.

Brad Harris

07-11-2008, 11:18 AM

*sigh*

Next?

dgarza

07-11-2008, 11:27 AM

*sigh*

Next?
Jim Borgman