BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1910

[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.


1910 Guide
There are 27 candidates on the 1910 ballot; 19 holdovers and 9 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1905 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (8)
Jesse Burkett
Boileryard Clarke
Duff Cooley
Patsy Donovan (Eligible under age rule)
Jack Doyle
Duke Farrell
Ducky Holmes
Candy LaChance

Holdovers (19)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ross Barnes 10th 59.09% 70.83% (1907)
Cupid Childs 5th 54.55% 50.00% (1909)
Larry Corcoran 10th 18.18% 17.39% (1909)
Jack Glasscock 10th 63.64% 65.22% (1909)
Dummy Hoy 4th 9.09% 12.50% (1907)
Charley Jones 10th 31.81% 30.43% (1909)
Herman Long 2nd 27.27% 26.09% (1909)
Jimmy McAleer 2nd 4.55% 4.35% (1909)
Jim McCormick 10th 36.36% 34.78% (1909)
Cal McVey 10th 50.00% 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 10th 54.55% 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 10th 63.64% 65.22% (1909)
Jimmy Ryan 3rd 31.81% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 10th 59.09% 65.22% (1909)
Joe Start 10th 59.09% 62.50% (1905)
Ezra Sutton 10th 59.09% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 6th 9.09% 16.00% (1908)
George Van Haltren 3rd 59.09% 68.00% (1908)
Mickey Welch 10th 31.81% 40.00% (1904)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (9)
Player 1909 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Jack Glasscock 63.64% 5
Hardy Richardson 63.64% 6
Al Spalding 63.64% 5
George Van Haltren 59.09% 2
Ross Barnes 59.09% 9
Joe Start 59.09% 6
Ezra Sutton 59.09% 4
Cupid Childs 54.55% 1
Lip Pike 54.55% 1
Cal McVey 50.00% 1

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

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Brickyard Kennedy Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1908)
Wilbert Robinson Lack of Support 3 8.00% (1908)
Chief Zimmer Lack of Support 2 8.00% (1908)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (25)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1871-1897
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (NL/AA) 1884-1892
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
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (NL) 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 White Stockings (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/Utility 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 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (3): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Deacon White
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (1): Bid McPhee
Third Base (0):
Shortstop (2): John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (3): Ed Delahanty, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (4): Pete Browning, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
Right Field (2): King Kelly, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (7): Bob Caruthers, 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
1909 (3): Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore

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: 9 (Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore)
- 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)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Ross Barnes – 70.83% (1907)
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants (6)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22

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)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)

[DoubleX]

I do agree with those that feel that we might be ignoring the skill positions in favor of electing poor fielding, strong hitting corner OFers. If we're going to elect guys like Thompson and Browning, I don't see how someone like Glasscock, an ok fielding but good hitting SS, is not getting electing, or how a guy like Ed McKean dropped off the ballot.

I also think that if we apply our expanded standards for corner OFers to pitchers, that Mickey Welch falls comfortably within that zone.

My Ballot:

Ross Barnes - Decided to put him back on there...for now.
Jesse Burkett
Jack Glasscock
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey - New to my ballot
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan - Decided to put him back on my ballot as he's very close to the OF standards we've set
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[BlueBlood]

With the election of Browning, Caruthers and Gore, my ballot drops to ten names. However, it rises to eleven with the addition of Jesse Burkett whom I deem more than worthy.

1. Barnes
2. Burkett
3. Childs
4. Glasscock
5. McCormick
6. Pike
7. Richardson
8. Spalding
9. Start
10. Sutton
11. Van Haltren

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

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

[jjpm74]

This election, I'm back to 15 candidates.

To date, we have elected 9 outfielders but only 4 infielders not counting 1st basemen:

Outfield: 10 (including Caruthers)
First Basemen: 3
Infielders (2B,SS,3B): 4 (including Ward and White)
Catchers: 3 (D. White)
Pitchers: 8 (Including Ward)

The only 2 non-hybrid infielders elected are Bid McPhee, a defensive wiz, and George Wright.

Applying the logic that we seem to be looking for top 10 in their general field of play, as opposed to looking at 2B, SS and 3B separately, that means that the top 10 from this generation deserve to be in this HOF.

Looking at the top stars going back to 1901, the following players played mainly at 2B,SS,3B and have fallen off the ballot. We need to figure out how many of these players would show up in the top 10. Ed McKean, Fred Dunlap and a few others may be there. At least some of these players will need to be given a closer look by the VC now that our standards are starting to become more clearly defined:

Lou Bierbauer
Jack Burdock
Tom Burns
Tom Daly
Gene DeMontreville
Jerry Denny
Fred Dunlap
Jack Farrell
Bob Ferguson
Davy Force
Bill Hallman
Bill Joyce
Arlie Latham
Denny Lyons
Ed McKean
Levi Meyerle
Billy Nash
Fred Pfeffer
George Pinkney
Yank Robinson
Jack Rowe
Billy Shindle
Germany Smith
Ned Williamson
Sam Wise

These are the 2B/SS/3B currently on the ballot. All of them have their supporters, but so far, none of them have earned enough support for election. These are the players we need to be focusing on this election:

Ross Barnes
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
Herman Long
Hardy Richardson
Ezra Sutton

My ballot:

Hardy Richardson returns to my ballot this election and joins Barnes, Childs, Glasscock, Long and Sutton.

Outfielders Jesse Burkett, one of the best hitters of his day joins Charley Jones and Lip Pike who both remain on my ballot.

Applying the standard of Mullane being good enough to win election, Welch, McCormick and Corcoran are the pitchers who are again on my ballot.

Rounding them out are Joe Start, someone who I don't think gets enough attention considering how good he was for how long, Jack Doyle who will probably not return to my ballot after this year but is good enough to at least see another election year, and Duke Farrell who was a great catcher.

[jalbright]

Burkett
Childs
Glasscock
Long
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[Paul Wendt]

LF CF RF
Delahanty Browning -lf Kelly -c
O'Rourke -cf Gore Thompson
Stovey -1b Hamilton
Hines

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

C
Bennett
Ewing
White -3b

[Erik Bedard]

I decided I'm going to keep doing my "only the elite" method until 1915 at the earliest. As such:

Ross Barnes
Jesse Burkett

[Freakshow]

Browning, Caruthers and Gore are replaced by Burkett, Long and Tiernan.

Barnes
Burkett
Childs
Glasscock
C. Jones
Long
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Tiernan
Van Haltren

[henrich]

I voted for 5. Jimmy Ryan and George Van Haltren are excellent candidates for the hall of fame from the CF position. Ryan is underrated by many. Van Haltren is on the fringe just within the line for me.

I also voted for Jesse Burkett...no brainer

Mickey Welch should be a slam dunk, not sure why he hasn't been voted in yet.

There's a huge dropoff in talent after Jim McCormick in his era and therefore I included him as well. The line was easy to divide those in and out for starting pitching within his peers.

Toughest decline of a vote was Herman Long. He was close, but I think he would water it down a bit.

Glasscock surprises me a bit with the amount of support he's getting. I don't have him measuring up. I would be curious to hear the case for him.

[leecemark]

--It seems we've decided, intentionally or not, that we're going to build a large Hall. That being the case, infielders Hardy Richardson, Jack Glasscock and Herman Long all make my ballot after previous ommissions. Jesse Burkett makes my ballot on his first try (and is the only outfielder to do so). Ross Barnes makes my ballot for the 10th time. Other holdovers are Joe Start, Ezra Sutton and Al Spaulding.
--Spaulding is the only pitcher on my ballot, although Welch will get another look net time. He isn't the kind of elite player I originally envisioned in the Hall, but we've elected some less than elite types already.

[Brooklyn]

Burkett, Glasscock, Spalding, Welch

[DoubleX]

I voted for 5. Jimmy Ryan and George Van Haltren are excellent candidates for the hall of fame from the CF position. Ryan is underrated by many. Van Haltren is on the fringe just within the line for me.

Glasscock surprises me a bit with the amount of support he's getting. I don't have him measuring up. I would be curious to hear the case for him.

Welcome to the project.

I agree that Ryan and Van Haltren are strong candidates. With the election of Gore, I believe Ryan and Van Haltren have strong arguments. Both had much longer careers, put up nice counting numbers for the period, and Ryan at least, is pretty close to Gore at peak.

We seem to be showing a decided preference for offense. With that in mind, Glasscock was perhaps the best offensive SS we've seen (I might argue Ed McKean, and I'm not counting active or recently retired guys like Honus Wagner and George Davis), and he put up very nice counting numbers considering both his position and the limitations of his era, and had good longevity as well.

As a general note, I think Ezra Sutton deserves a good look by everyone. I've changed Deacon White's primary designation to catcher, so that means we've elected no one who primarily played 3B. Sutton may no longer be the greatest 3Bman whoever played (that probably goes to Jimmy Collins now), but he was easily the best from the first 30 years we're looking at, and that should very much count in his favor.

[dgarza]

I'll be voting for less than 15 for the 1st time. Will I ever vote for 15 again???

Ross Barnes
Jesse Burkett
Larry Corcoran
Charley Jones
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

1. Jesse Burkett
2. Ross Barnes
3. Al Spalding
4. Jim McCormick
5. Mickey Welch
6. Cal McVey
7. George Van Haltren
8. Hardy Richardson
9. Lip Pike
10. Jimmy Ryan
11. Mike Tiernan
12. Charley Jones
13. Larry Corcoran

[Erik Bedard]

I would love to hear zemtech's argument against Burkett.

[Freakshow]

Glasscock surprises me a bit with the amount of support he's getting. I don't have him measuring up. I would be curious to hear the case for him.
As with any player, start by comparing him in the context of his contemporaries. There were nine players who played 500+ games at shortstop from 1880-1890. Here are some basic data for each for that span:

Player Name BA G-SS WShGr OPS+ RC FldPct
Jack Glasscock 0.300 1155 A- 124 640 .907
Frank Fennelly 0.257 769 B 118 392 .860
Sam Wise 0.269 559 115 489 .859
Jack Rowe 0.286 657 F 114 552 .882
Candy Nelson 0.258 500 109 241 .878
Bill Gleason 0.267 796 D+ 95 339 .860
Monte Ward 0.272 739 A+ 93 521 .888
Germany Smith 0.243 721 A+ 85 284 .882
Arthur Irwin 0.242 940 B+ 82 353 .881

All statistics are from Baseball-Reference.com.
WShGr = the fielding letter grade assigned by Bill James in his Win Shares book.

I think Glasscock is a slam dunk as the best shortstop of his era.

[Paul Wendt]

Mickey Welch should be a slam dunk, not sure why he hasn't been voted in yet.

There's a huge dropoff in talent after Jim McCormick in his era and therefore I included him as well. The line was easy to divide those in and out for starting pitching within his peers.
Welch and McCormick would make eight pitchers from the 1880s. Some may rank them 5th and 6th among the eight but the consensus measured by the polls makes them 7th and 8th.

Without knowledge of whom we have elected, the selection of two pitchers from the 1880s and three outfielders from the 1890s suggests a focus on a few high counts, such as wins and hits and runs. Some pitchers in the 1880s actually worked more games than their counterparts a decade later, despite the shorter schedules. Everyone accumulated more hits and runs in the 1890s than a decade earlier, because of those longer schedules. Of course as batter/runners outfielders tend to be superior because their fielding responsibilities are much less. --maybe also because running is a big part of their fielding. So a spotlight on lifetime wins and hits and runs would illuminate many 80s pitchers and 90s outfielders.

Article #6 displays the 25 players we have elected by primary fielding position. Catcher and firstbase are represented well, at three each, although I wonder who from the last two decades will join them. At third, short, and second --let me call that "infield"-- we have only three men total and one of them only because he also enjoyed a fine pitching career. In the outfield we have nine. Ryan, Van Haltren, and Burkett would make a dozen. Maybe Burkett was outstanding but Ryan and Van Haltren certainly point to Kelley and Keeler, maybe Griffin and Tiernan, even Duffy and McCarthy. ;)

Suppose that a "gap" now separates Welch and McCormack from the ranks of Buffinton and other pitchers. Suppose that another separates McCarthy and other outfielders from those I have named. (I doubt it, but let's suppose it.)

One problem with focusing on those "gaps" by position is that their location is a matter of minute good and bad fortune. If President Mills had his way, no major club would have hired McCormack after he jumped to the Union Association. He would fill the gap we see; how far up or down would we go to see another?
Maybe the worst aspect of that problem is we would see (do see) very different numbers of great players at different positions --not only rightfield and thirdbase but even outfield and infield. (See #6.) George Wright was recognized as baseball's greatest player forty years ago and until we consider the great Wagner some will see a gap between the standing and anything that other shortstops have achieved. Many people see in Bid McPhee the game's outstanding fielder even as others adopted the glove before him. He was a good batter. Few secondbasemen survive much more than a decade of big league play with their skills intact, but McPhee played 18 seasons. So we see a big gap. Among thirdbasemen there may be no gap at all; we may be waiting for a Wright or a McPhee to define one.

Another problem with focusing on gaps in the ranks to define greatness is that the gaps move and in a few decades none of use will discern gaps anywhere but very near the top. How will we, how should our followers adapt if they have two secondbasemen and twelve centerfielders when the last apparent gap is filled? Maybe Johnny Evers will be the one to fill it. Then it will be too late to vote for Barnes or Dunlap or Childs.

[Paul Wendt]

--It seems we've decided, intentionally or not, that we're going to build a large Hall.
I'm not sure yet.
More than once I have foreseen a large Hall for outfielders and a small one for infielders. After writing the long article just above, I see that the pattern for pitchers is more notable than that for outfielders and it is a time pattern. Considering nine pitchers with careers centered in the 1880s: six we list as pitchers, Monte Ward, and the two candidates McCormick and Welch. Only Clarkson relied on the 140-game schedule (column two) for his career-high in pitcher starts (column one); only Clarkson reached his career high after 1885 (column three). McCormick and Ward, who never pitched under 140 game schedules (column four), reached their career highs at 84 games although they were still regular pitchers at 126 and 98 games.

GS tGS yr , 140
75 _98 '83 , 50 Galvin
73 112 '84 , 38 Radbourn
72 140 '89 , 72 Clarkson
68 _98 '83 , 51 Keefe
65 112 '84 , 56 Mullane
53 112 '85 , 50 Caruthers

74 _84 '80 , -- McCormick
67 _84 '80 , -- Ward
65 112 '84 , 47 Welch

GS - pitcher starts, career high
tGS- team starts, year of career high
yr - year of career high
140 - maximum starts under 140 game schedule

Maybe we will fill a "Hall" that is large for batters, and thus for outfielders, when the game favors hits and runs and weighs on the pitchers --as in the 1890s, but whom will we elect from the aughts? Maybe it will be a large Hall for pitchers when the game is easier for pitchers --as in the early 1880s and again today.

[Paul Wendt]

born (1865 to 1873)
Kansas - Cooley
Iowa - Holmes
W. Virginia - Burkett
New York - Clarke
Conn. - LaChance
Mass. - Farrell
Ireland - Donovan
Ireland - Doyle

A few Irish from this side of the water, too?

None was a collegiate ballplayer, as far as I know.

Clarke coached baseball at Princeton at least for a few springs while he played in the majors. (Maybe longer? Probably he made Princeton home.) He was an officer in the Player's Association too.

For six seasons on Hanlon's Orioles, Wilbert Robinson and Bill Clarke shared the catching. After the Baltimore deal, Hanlon & Co. made Robinson the captain and sold Clarke to Boston.

[NineWorldSeries]

Burkett
Hoy
McCormick
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch

[henrich]

My top 4 for this era, in order are Monte Ward, Ed McKean, Jack Glasscock and then Jack Rowe. I wouldn't vote for any of them. I look at a player to have 3000 runs+rbi's+SB's, average x 5 to equal somewhere around 1500+total bases around 3500 for a total of 8000 in that number for a quality player, but to make it to hall status a player would need to be in the top 10 in any of these categories: HR, RBI, SB, AVE and later MVP voting. Also, later, I would give bonus points for playoff experience. If that number hits 10,000 they are in the Hall in my viewpoint. Glasscock equals 6997, while Ward equals 7711, however Ward is the best in his era, according to my formula. He's also the only one voted in at Cooperstown.

I have no problem with the gap argument, I wrestle with that thought process as well. With a similar formula McCormick scores over 9200 and that's 1300 points above his peers. McCormick scores 6th in his era behind Galvin, Keefe, Welch, Clarkson, and Radbourn. Behind McCormick is Will White and Tony Multane.

[jjpm74]

Those voting for guys like Hoy, Van Haltren, Welch, and McCormick, but passing up guys like Barnes, Glasscock, and Sutton I'd REALLY like to see some arguments as to why they think the 11th, 12th or 20th best outfielder or the top 50% of pitchers from this era are better than the #1 players at their positions of their era. I eagerly await some responses and wonder if people are reading the discussions or just blindly voting based on 2008 standards and completely ignoring the fact that players in this era played much less than 162 games a season.

[jjpm74]

My top 4 for this era, in order are Monte Ward, Ed McKean, Jack Glasscock and then Jack Rowe. I wouldn't vote for any of them. I look at a player to have 3000 runs+rbi's+SB's, average x 5 to equal somewhere around 1500+total bases around 3500 for a total of 8000 in that number for a quality player, but to make it to hall status a player would need to be in the top 10 in any of these categories: HR, RBI, SB, AVE and later MVP voting. Also, later, I would give bonus points for playoff experience. If that number hits 10,000 they are in the Hall in my viewpoint. Glasscock equals 6997, while Ward equals 7711, however Ward is the best in his era, according to my formula. He's also the only one voted in at Cooperstown.


1. SBs were not an accurately tallied statistic in the 19th century.

2. The number of games in a given season varied greatly and was usually significantly less than 162 games a year.

3. HRs are a useless stat to consider in 19th century players unless you're considering the statistic in a 19th century standard. Charley Jones retired in the top 10 in HRs.

Are you adjusting for a 162 game schedule when you apply this standard? Here are the adjusted totals for Glasscock applying this formula if I'm understanding at least the first part of it:

1303 + 901 + 393 = 2597 X 5 = 12,985 That's well over the mark using that formula.

[jjpm74]

Here's Monte Ward's adjusted totals:

1534 + 969 + 546 = 3037 X 5 = 15,185

Ed McKean:

1063 + 962 + 322 = 2347 X 5 = 11,735

Jack Rowe:

878 + 757 + 64 = 1699 X 5 = 8,495

Unless I'm missing something, or misunderstanding your formula, it looks like using your formula adjusted for 162 game schedules, Glasscock, Ward and McKean are all well over your minimum.

[Paul Wendt]

3. HRs are a useless stat to consider in 19th century players unless you're considering the statistic in a 19th century standard. Charley Jones retired in the top 10 in HRs.
third, and he was first thru 1884 despite a two-year suspension

Boston shortstop Herman Long reached #11 on the homerun list and remained there for ten years (having retired when no one was hitting homeruns).

[Brad Harris]

Barnes
Burkett
Childs
Glasscock
Jones
Long
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[Paul Wendt]

Updating last year's ballot routinely I would vote for 11, namely Classic's thirteen minus Jones and Van Haltren.
I haven't cast that yet.

Following last year's approach consistently I should probably drop Pike too. The "approach" is feel no obligation to follow "A is better than B" reasoning when it's close. It's close and I can see the arguments every which way (Thompson over Pike, Jones over Browning, Pike over Van Haltren, etc) and we have elected a laundry list in the outfield. The implied outfield threshold is much too low compared with the infield.

Oh, last year's approach includes a vote for someone I can write an interesting paragraph about, in place of McAleer.
Probably Clarke.

[jjpm74]

Next year's class looks pretty strong:

Hugh Duffy OF
Cozy Dolan--Died in 1907 after playing 9 seasons. Might deserve a spot on the ballot, IMO pending further review.
Red Donahue P
Mike Grady C
*Noodles Hahn Pitched only 8 seasons but was one of the best pitchers of his day. Blew out his arm and was forced into early retirement. I would ask that we make a special exception in his case.
Malachi Kittridge C
John McGraw 3B
Sam Mertes OF
Kid Nichols P
Kip Selbach OF
Chick Stahl
Willie Sudhoff P

That's 3 potential 1st ballot players and another in Chick Stahl who may have his share of supporters and Noodles Hahn who, if allowed on the ballot may also have a few supporters.

[TheSlaff]

Ross Barnes
Jesse Burkett
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
Charley Jones
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[BlueBlood]

Looks like Burkett is well in, so 1910 is now solely concerned with the question of whether or not Barnes will be inducted.

[Freakshow]

Next year's class looks pretty strong:

Hugh Duffy OF
Cozy Dolan--Died in 1907 after playing 9 seasons. Might deserve a spot on the ballot, IMO pending further review.
Red Donahue P
Mike Grady C
*Noodles Hahn Pitched only 8 seasons but was one of the best pitchers of his day. Blew out his arm and was forced into early retirement. I would ask that we make a special exception in his case.
Malachi Kittridge C
John McGraw 3B
Sam Mertes OF
Kid Nichols P
Kip Selbach OF
Chick Stahl
Willie Sudhoff P

I'd recommend cutting Dolan, Kittridge and Sudhoff.
Another player who is elgible in 1911 is Heinie Peitz (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/peitzhe01.shtml).

[KCGHOST]

Burkett
Glasscock
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren

[DoubleX]

Next year's class looks pretty strong:

Hugh Duffy OF
Cozy Dolan--Died in 1907 after playing 9 seasons. Might deserve a spot on the ballot, IMO pending further review.
Red Donahue P
Mike Grady C
*Noodles Hahn Pitched only 8 seasons but was one of the best pitchers of his day. Blew out his arm and was forced into early retirement. I would ask that we make a special exception in his case.
Malachi Kittridge C
John McGraw 3B
Sam Mertes OF
Kid Nichols P
Kip Selbach OF
Chick Stahl
Willie Sudhoff P

That's 3 potential 1st ballot players and another in Chick Stahl who may have his share of supporters and Noodles Hahn who, if allowed on the ballot may also have a few supporters.

I see just one first balloter - Nichols. I don't see Duffy getting in anytime soon given how long it took Gore to get elected and how Ryan and Van Hatlren continue to linger on the ballot (I don't get why Van Haltren has so much more support than Ryan, the two are so similar). I also don't think McGraw will get in on the first ballot, or perhaps at all, as I think there will be enough people here who believe his playing career was too short to merit induction. He only played over 100 games just 5 times, over 90 just 7 times. I imagine Stahl will get some support, so might Selbach.

As for Hahn, if someone else seconds his inclusion, I'll consider putting him on the ballot.

[Freakshow]

As for Hahn, if someone else seconds his inclusion, I'll consider putting him on the ballot.
I did, a couple posts above here. I also reminded you of Heinie Peitz.

[DoubleX]

Just out of curiosity, are people adjusting their standards based on who we've elected?

It's looking likely that we'll probably have a big Hall, but so be it. Technically, what is big anyway, as in theory, the real Hall doesn't exist for us a measuring stick, we're creating our own standards as we go.

The standards we create now could make for some great discussion down the road.

[jjpm74]

I've definitely been adjusting my standards as people have been elected and have no issue with ending up with a large hall whatsoever.

[jjpm74]

I see just one first balloter - Nichols. I don't see Duffy getting in anytime soon given how long it took Gore to get elected and how Ryan and Van Hatlren continue to linger on the ballot (I don't get why Van Haltren has so much more support than Ryan, the two are so similar). I also don't think McGraw will get in on the first ballot, or perhaps at all, as I think there will be enough people here who believe his playing career was too short to merit induction. He only played over 100 games just 5 times, over 90 just 7 times. I imagine Stahl will get some support, so might Selbach.


True, but there are six guys coming in next year that potentially will have some loyal supporters. That's one of the better groups we've seen since this project has started (not counting the first ballot).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Burkett
Long
Van Haltren
Glasscock

[BlueBlood]

Well, there goes Barnes. We should start the new HoF election ASAP. This one is absolutely over.

[henrich]

1. SBs were not an accurately tallied statistic in the 19th century.

2. The number of games in a given season varied greatly and was usually significantly less than 162 games a year.

3. HRs are a useless stat to consider in 19th century players unless you're considering the statistic in a 19th century standard. Charley Jones retired in the top 10 in HRs.

Are you adjusting for a 162 game schedule when you apply this standard? Here are the adjusted totals for Glasscock applying this formula if I'm understanding at least the first part of it:

1303 + 901 + 393 = 2597 X 5 = 12,985 That's well over the mark using that formula.


I am in no way an expert on 19th century players, these guys I knew were going to be thrown under the bus with the formula a bit. I just applied it equally because I viewed that if they are the best in their era at their position then the Hall would have recognized that and they did, though their numbers pale in comparison to 20th century players. I don't know the facts on games played in the 19th century and I didn't account for an adjustment in the formula. I like where your thought process is at, and I could be swayed here as it makes sense.

I knew about the stolen base rule and when it changed-=if memory serves 1897, but I let it slide because these guys are short changed in world series championships as there weren't any yet (1903), and I thought I'd give the first to third base as a stolen base to give them a little something.

I really really like the adjustment that you propose. Can you give me a resource that shows when games played changed? This as you can see is not my area.

Oh I spoke in short hand on the leading the league in HR, RBI's, SB, AVE what I meant in long hand is were they in the top 10 in a given season and then give them points accordingly 1st place 100 pts, 2nd place 90 points ...10th place 10 points. I think it may have been misconstrued due to my lazy post.

[jalbright]

I am in no way an expert on 19th century players, these guys I knew were going to be thrown under the bus with the formula a bit. I just applied it equally because I viewed that if they are the best in their era at their position then the Hall would have recognized that and they did, though their numbers pale in comparison to 20th century players. I don't know the facts on games played in the 19th century and I didn't account for an adjustment in the formula. I like where your thought process is at, and I could be swayed here as it makes sense.

I knew about the stolen base rule and when it changed-=if memory serves 1897, but I let it slide because these guys are short changed in world series championships as there weren't any yet (1903), and I thought I'd give the first to third base as a stolen base to give them a little something.

I really really like the adjustment that you propose. Can you give me a resource that shows when games played changed? This as you can see is not my area.

Oh I spoke in short hand on the leading the league in HR, RBI's, SB, AVE what I meant in long hand is were they in the top 10 in a given season and then give them points accordingly 1st place 100 pts, 2nd place 90 points ...10th place 10 points. I think it may have been misconstrued due to my lazy post.


baseball-reference.com has listings of all seasonal standings.

[jjpm74]

I wrote that before I understood your approach.

If you wanted to compare a player to the number of games played, your best best for that era is to look at the individual player and see how many team games there were that year as it ranged per team per league. In the NL in 1876, the average was 64.25 games per team. In 1877, there were around 60 league games. In 1878, each team played 60 games. In 1879, there were around 80 games. In 1880-1882, 84 games. In 1883, it went up to 98 games. In 1884-1885 the total went up to 104 games. In 1886, the number reached 124 games where it stayed in 1887. In 1888, the number was around 130 where it pretty much stayed until 1891 where it went up to 135, but for the most part, the schedule would stay in the 130s for the remainder of the 19th century.

In the AA, the games played ranged from 80 in 1882 to 98 in 1883 to 107 in 1884 to 112 in 1885 to to 137 in 1886 and so on. Again, the number of games varied by team. In the National Association (1871-1875) there were teams that played 20 games and teams that played over 80 so that's a whole other ballgame.

[DoubleX]

I've been thinking about it, and I think Noodles Hahn will not appear on the next ballot. I don't want to throw the 10 year requirement to the subjective wind. I think exceptions will only be made for death before reaching 10 years.

I have no problem with considering Hahn when we get to VC elections though.

[jjpm74]

I've been thinking about it, and I think Noodles Hahn will not appear on the next ballot. I don't want to throw the 10 year requirement to the subjective wind. I think exceptions will only be made for death before reaching 10 years.

I have no problem with considering Hahn when we get to VC elections though.

Is the 10 year rule a rule that need to be? Why not an IP and PA minimum instead?

[jjpm74]

Breaking context here; back to 2008:

One of the big problems with the 10 year rule is that guys like Malachi Kittridge who never amounted to much of anything are technically eligible. Obviously doublex has been weeding out those kinds of candidates, but there are guys like Bill Lange who played 7 years who had more hits and a much better average than a guy like Kittridge. On the pitching side, Smokey Joe Wood is eligible with 1436.3 IP in what is technically 11 years because he squeaked in a couple of appearances here and there for 3 years at the end of his career where Noodles Hahn pitched 2029.3 IP in 8 years and had a similar career to Wood but is not eligible. The HOF did not exist nor did the 10 year minimum, when these guys were playing so these guys who left at 8 years didn't get a chance to pitch a single game in another year to hit the 10 year minimum.

Why don't we set a minimum amount of innings pitched for pitchers and a minimum amount of at bats for hitters instead of a year limit? Right now, maybe we can set the minimum for pitchers at 1400 IP and for hitters at 3000 ABs. As obviously the roles of both players and pitchers will evolve and change over the decades as will the number of games played and rules, we could revisit the minimums every 5-10 years as a committee and adjust them to the era we are looking at. A dynamic set of adjustable minimums makes a lot more sense than a stagnant arbitrary 10 year rule and there's nothing binding us to the rules of Cooperstown as other project suggestions have already indicated.

[Freakshow]

Why don't we set a minimum amount of innings pitched for pitchers and a minimum amount of at bats for hitters instead of a year limit? Right now, maybe we can set the minimum for pitchers at 1400 IP and for hitters at 3000 ABs. As obviously the roles of both players and pitchers will evolve and change over the decades as will the number of games played and rules, we could revisit the minimums every 5-10 years as a committee and adjust them to the era we are looking at. A dynamic set of adjustable minimums makes a lot more sense than a stagnant arbitrary 10 year rule and there's nothing binding us to the rules of Cooperstown as other project suggestions have already indicated.
I very much agree. If the idea is to base eligibility on a reasonable amount of playing time, counting IP and PA makes a lot more sense than counting years (and counting even the smallest part of a year as a whole year!).

And having flexible rules in this evolving environment only makes sense, too.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ross Barnes
Jesse Burkett
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[henrich]

I wrote that before I understood your approach.

If you wanted to compare a player to the number of games played, your best best for that era is to look at the individual player and see how many team games there were that year as it ranged per team per league. In the NL in 1876, the average was 64.25 games per team. In 1877, there were around 60 league games. In 1878, each team played 60 games. In 1879, there were around 80 games. In 1880-1882, 84 games. In 1883, it went up to 98 games. In 1884-1885 the total went up to 104 games. In 1886, the number reached 124 games where it stayed in 1887. In 1888, the number was around 130 where it pretty much stayed until 1891 where it went up to 135, but for the most part, the schedule would stay in the 130s for the remainder of the 19th century.

In the AA, the games played ranged from 80 in 1882 to 98 in 1883 to 107 in 1884 to 112 in 1885 to to 137 in 1886 and so on. Again, the number of games varied by team. In the National Association (1871-1875) there were teams that played 20 games and teams that played over 80 so that's a whole other ballgame.


This is extremely helpful and I'll also take a look at baseball-reference as well. Could be interesting to see what it does to the numbers. I'm more inclined to make the assumption there numbers would be greater if given the chance, but multiplying by 3 may be a bit much. I may have to multiply by 1.5 or 2 to get an accurate reading on their contributions in the 19th century. I appreciate your input.

I also see greater value in an IP or PA. I did at bats for my research and 4000 was my minimum, but during this early part I can see where 3000 PA would be more reasonable. When I was doing the research for pitchers, the 10 year requirement became a bit cumbersome b/c guys who didn't really deserve to be rated (quality of player) I forced myself to do the numbers. The list of pitchers to rate could have gone from 1100 to under 1000 easily.

Thanks again.

[AG2004]

My ballot

Ross Barnes
Jesse Burkett
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
Charley Jones
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

I know I had criticized Sockeye for voting for Welch, but that was long before the likes of Thompson, Stovey, and Browning were inducted. With standards lowered that far for outfielders, it makes sense to lower them to a similar degree for pitchers. Hence Welch makes my ballot.

I have not heard from Sockeye for a few years. He had provided me with great entertainment by raising the arts of illogic and obfuscation to heights which I could not have imagined previous to reading his commentary. He was the Henry Chadwick of the realm of the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter, and I miss him.

[DoubleX]

So what would be good IP and AB thresholds for eligibility?

[jjpm74]

So what would be good IP and AB thresholds for eligibility?

To start, I'd suggest 3000 ABs for hitters and 1400 IPs for pitchers and as you have been doing, weed out the players who would have zero support. I know that later on we will run into problems keeping the IPs at 1400, so of we do go with that number to start, we will probably need to change it once we get to around 1960 in this project.

[jalbright]

You could add a games finished in relief category and minimum there, which would solve the problem. GF in relief is going to be dominated by closers, once that becomes a relevant issue.

[Freakshow]

So what would be good IP and AB thresholds for eligibility?
Whatever we pick is arbitrary, but we're aiming to capture any conceivable candidates without having to weed out any total non-candidates.

There should be both quantitative and qualitative limits wedded together. I'm thinking along these lines (trying to keep it simple):

4000 PA (Not AB!) or 1000 hits for position players
1600 IP or 100 Wins for pitchers

Later, we'll need a games threshold for relievers (maybe 400), but in 1911 we're not aware of that.

[Paul Wendt]

Something came up Wed-Thu and I almost forgot about this.
5:41 is not far away so here goes.
This will make a difference only (a) because I now owe a Bill Clarke comment. No time now but he'll be around in 1911.
and of course (b) if someone else votes for Barnes

Ross Barnes
Jesse Burkett
Cupid Childs
Boileryard Clarke
Jack Glasscock
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Just out of curiosity, are people adjusting their standards based on who we've elected?
In principle, yes, but I won't adopt much liberality for pitchers and outfielders only.

It's fair to say that I've written about it rather than adopted it.

[leecemark]

--I have eased my standards for infielders. My delicate sensibilities demand some sort of rough balance between positions. Not equal and especially not over the relatiely brief span of history we've covered so far (3 first basemen are, in fact, clearly better than any 3B to date), but at least a reasonablely close representation of hitting and fielding positions. 60/40 might be an accurate split of talent distribution at the top end of the spectrum to date. Anything higher indicates that we are simply not properly evaluating what consistitutes value to a ballclub. Defense matters and it mattered even more (alot more) in the early stages of the game than it does now.

[jjpm74]

Whatever we pick is arbitrary, but we're aiming to capture any conceivable candidates without having to weed out any total non-candidates.

There should be both quantitative and qualitative limits wedded together. I'm thinking along these lines (trying to keep it simple):

4000 PA (Not AB!) or 1000 hits for position players
1600 IP or 100 Wins for pitchers

Later, we'll need a games threshold for relievers (maybe 400), but in 1911 we're not aware of that.

That would work as well as long as PAs are available on BBref or someone with access to them can double check.

If we are adopting this new policy, Bill Lange and Bill Joyce (I think) should be added to the 1911 ballot and Noodles Hahn makes the cut.

[PVNICK]

Burkett
Childs
Glasscock
Long
Hardy Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Welch

Same cast as in previous votes for me except I double checked Tiernan and clearly I was grossly mistaken in not voting him in first chance I had. I added Burkett and, operating under the standards of the time, Long, who probably would have been very high in career hits, runs, had a well above league average range factor and at least one exceptional year. For now I have Patsy Donovan on the other side of that line.

[jjpm74]

It looks like for yet another year Barnes and Glasscock will come up a few votes short. I don't get why any outfielder with a decent bat seems to get elected while virtually every middle infielder gets overlooked. It's looking like our hall will have a lot of outfielders and very few position players.

EDIT:

Maybe for those who are supporting any 1 or two of these three needs to come to a better consensus:

Cupid Childs
Hardy Richardson
Ross Barnes

All three are easily in the top 10-15 middle infielders in the 19th century.

A quick check of the ballots cast reveals that there are 3 people who voted for either Richardson or Childs but not Barnes. One of those people voted for both of them but not Barnes. As leaving a player off the ballot counts as 3 votes against, I wonder if those supporting Childs and/or Richardson but not Barnes might consider whether or not they can live with Barnes in the HOF rather than whether or not they consider him a stong case for the HOF. As we're going into the 11th year of this project, to date, we've voted in just about every outfielder with a decent bat while bickering over whether or not Barnes played long enough and whether or not the fair/foul rule was the reason for his success. This has resulted in a stalemate where no middle infielders are being elected. Maybe those who do not support Barnes should be asking how strongly they oppose his election as his continued close to election but not elected status is setting a precedent that any outfielder with a decent bat is better than an "A-" defense great offense infielder with a short career but a high peak as while this has been going on, players like Thompson and Browning have been elected. Are we comfortable with a hall that is filled with outfielders but only a handful in infielder? I know I'm not.

[Paul Wendt]

It looks like for yet another year Barnes and Glasscock will come up a few votes short. . . .
As leaving a player off the ballot counts as 3 votes against,

If 21 out of 30 voters support a man, he will be elected as soon as the six voters who miss an election are split three and three. ;)

[DoubleX]

How about this. The 10 year requirement stays, but they'll be an exception for players with either 3000 ABs (not PAs because they're not listed on baseball-reference's retirement by year pages) or 1500 IP?

We could perhaps scale back the IP requirement as relievers become more in fashion, but the 10 year requirement should pick up most viable relievers anyway.

[jjpm74]

How about this. The 10 year requirement stays, but they'll be an exception for players with either 3000 ABs (not PAs because they're not listed on baseball-reference's retirement by year pages) or 1500 IP?

We could perhaps scale back the IP requirement as relievers become more in fashion, but the 10 year requirement should pick up most viable relievers anyway.

That sounds like a great compromise. Will you be adding Lange and Joyce to next year's ballot? AFAIK neither one has appeared on a ballot and both meet that special exception as does Hahn.

[Paul Wendt]

I really really like the adjustment that you propose. Can you give me a resource that shows when games played changed? This as you can see is not my area.
Length of Early MLB Seasons:
Games Scheduled (http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/schedule.games.html)

Everyone's "full seasons equivalent games played" will be in the big data file when I post an update sometime after this poll closes.

[henrich]

Length of Early MLB Seasons:
Games Scheduled (http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/schedule.games.html)

Everyone's "full seasons equivalent games played" will be in the big data file when I post an update sometime after this poll closes.

Thanks I'll take a look at it and see what I can do with the numbers for 19th century players.

[DoubleX]

That sounds like a great compromise. Will you be adding Lange and Joyce to next year's ballot? AFAIK neither one has appeared on a ballot and both meet that special exception as does Hahn.

Joyce was on the 1903 ballot and didn't receive a single vote. So he's done. I'm thinking Lange will just pass to the VC.

[Freakshow]

Joyce was on the 1903 ballot and didn't receive a single vote. So he's done. I'm thinking Lange will just pass to the VC.
Yeah, Lange isn't really much of a candidate when you look at the numbers, another 1890's OF, but with a very short career. One great year, then four more as a star player, then done. He did not make the cut as one of the top 18 candidates of the 1890's (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72570) in The Ultimate Quest project.