BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1911

[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 an exception for first-year 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 , or had a minimum of 3000 ABs or 1500 IP. 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.


1911 Guide
There are 33 candidates on the 1911 ballot; 21 holdovers and 12 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1906 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (12)
Red Donahue
Hugh Duffy
Mike Grady
Noodles Hahn
Malachi Kittridge
John McGraw
Sam Mertes
Kid Nichols
Heinie Peitz
Kip Selbach
Chick Stahl
Willie Sudhoff

Holdovers (21)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Ross Barnes 11th 72.00% 72.00% (1910)
Cupid Childs 6th 44.00% 54.55% (1909)
Boileryard Clarke 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1910)
Larry Corcoran 11th 16.00% 18.18% (1909)
Jack Doyle 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1910)
Duke Farrell 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1910)
Jack Glasscock 11th 72.00% 72.00% (1910)
Dummy Hoy 5th 8.00% 12.50% (1907)
Charley Jones 11th 32.00% 32.00% (1910)
Herman Long 3rd 52.00% 52.00% (1910)
Jim McCormick 11th 40.00% 40.00% (1910)
Cal McVey 11th 44.00% 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 11th 48.00% 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 11th 60.00% 65.22% (1909)
Jimmy Ryan 4th 40.00% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 11th 68.00% 68.00% (1909)
Joe Start 11th 56.00% 62.50% (1905)
Ezra Sutton 11th 52.00% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 7th 20.00% 20.00% (1910)
George Van Haltren 4th 60.00% 68.00% (1908)
Mickey Welch 11th 52.00% 52.00% (1910)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (9)
Player 1909 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Ross Barnes 72.00% 10
Jack Glasscock 72.00% 6
Al Spalding 61.90% 6
Hardy Richardson 60.00% 7
George Van Haltren 60.00% 3
Joe Start 56.00% 7
Herman Long 52.00% 1
Ezra Sutton 52.00% 5
Mickey Welch 52.00% 1

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)
Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Ross Barnes 72.00% (1910) 4
Jack Glasscock 72.00% (1910) 1
Al Spalding 68.00% (1910) 1
George Van Haltren 68.00% (1908) 1

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (1)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Jimmy McAleer Lack of Support 2 4.76% (1910)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (26)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1871-1897 27
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders 1890-1905 16
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1879-1892 14
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1878-1893 16
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12

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 (4): Jesse Burkett, 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
1910 (1): Jesse Burkett

First Balloters (12)
Player Year Elected
Cap Anson 1902
Dan Brouthers 1901
Jesse Burkett 1910
John Clarkson 1901
Roger Conner 1902
Ed Delahanty 1908
Buck Ewing 1902
Billy Hamilton 1906
Tim Keefe 1901
Jim O’Rourke 1901
Charley Radbourn 1901
Amos Rusie 1906


Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson – 100% (1902)
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 12
- 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, 1910)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.6
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants (6)
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Bob Caruthers, Amos Rusie – 10 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.73 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock – 72.00% (1910)

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
1910: 25

Links to Past Elections (10)
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)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)

[Freakshow]

- Electee with Shortest Career: Bob Caruthers – 9 Seasons
That should say 10 Seasons.

[jalbright]

Childs
Duffy
Glasscock
Long
Nichols
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

[dgarza]

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

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

[jjpm74]

Ross Barnes
Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
Jack Glasscock
Noodles Hahn
Herman Long
John McGraw
Kid Nichols
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

No more outfielders for me unless they are 1st tier candidates until we can reach some kind of consensus on what type of HOF we want and whether or not that HOF will include infielders.

[DoubleX]

That should say 10 Seasons.

I'm going by the 9 seasons showing up on baseball-reference.com. 1884-1892.

[jjpm74]

I'm going by the 9 seasons showing up on baseball-reference.com. 1884-1892.

Scroll down to his statistics as a batter. That's where the 10 years shows up. Caruthers didn't pitch in 1893 and managed to appear in only 14 games as an outfielder that year.

[dgarza]

I'm going by the 9 seasons showing up on baseball-reference.com. 1884-1892.You must have been just looking at his pitching career. If you look at his batting career, you'll notice he played OF in '93.

[DoubleX]

You must have been just looking at his pitching career. If you look at his batting career, you'll notice he played OF in '93.

Ah, my mistake. Also, per JJPM's request, I've added a vote for Hahn which he mistakenly left off.

My Ballot:

Ross Barnes
Jack Glasscock
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Kid Nichols
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

Also, it's early but here's who I got for next year's newbies:

Jack Beckley
Doc Casey - May not appear on ballot
Tommy Corcoran
Lave Cross
Monte Cross
Buck Freeman
Bobby Lowe
Jack McCarthy
Frank Kitson
Jack Taylor

[Freakshow]

- Fewest Electees in One Year: 1 (1903, 1905)
Also 1910.

And along with Caruthers, Amos Rusie played only 10 years.

[henrich]

I voted for Glasscock and Barnes-I don't know how I'll sleep tonight, but apparently Wilfred Brimley said it was the right thing to do.

My ballot:
Jim McCormick
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren
Hugh Duffy
Kid Nichols
Herman Long
Duke Farrell
Mickey Welch
Jack Glasscock
Ross Barnes

[Freakshow]

Burkett and Tiernan are replaced by Nichols and Duffy.

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

[jjpm74]

Also, it's early but here's who I got for next year's newbies:

Jack Beckley
Doc Casey - May not appear on ballot
Tommy Corcoran
Lave Cross
Monte Cross
Buck Freeman
Bobby Lowe
Jack McCarthy
Frank Kitson
Jack Taylor

Also:

Bill Bernhard (probably not worth adding)
Frank Kitson (probably not worth adding)
Togie Pittinger (might be worth looking at. Had some success despite playing for some bad teams, though Willis was much better)

Doc Casey was a C fielder at best and not much of a hitter. I doubt he'd have any support if he was on the ballot next year.

[Freakshow]

Also, it's early but here's who I got for next year's newbies:

Jack Beckley
Doc Casey - May not appear on ballot
Tommy Corcoran
Lave Cross
Monte Cross
Buck Freeman
Bobby Lowe
Jack McCarthy
Frank Kitson
Jack Taylor
Yes, that's the list I have, unless we're going to dump the 10-year rule. There are a few pitchers who would be added under a 1500 IP rule.

1912
Jake Beckley-1B
Doc Casey-3B
Tommy Corcoran-SS
Lave Cross-3B
Monte Cross-SS
Buck Freeman-RF
Frank Kitson-P
Bobby Lowe-2B
Jack McCarthy-LF
Jack O’Connor-C
Jack W. Taylor-P


Also, I would add Jack O'Connor. His last continuous year was 1907 but he played an inning or two at catcher (did not bat) in 1910 when he was a manager. He's only 43 in 1912.

[jjpm74]

Nevermind. McAleer already appeared on a ballot.

[leecemark]

Ross Barnes, 2B
Jack Glasscock, SS
Herman Long, SS
John McGraw, 3B
Cal McVey, C/1B
Kid Nichols, SP
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF
Al Spalding, SP
Joe Start, 1B
Ezra Sutton, 3B

--Count me as another who will be very selective regarding outfielders until we achieve some sort of positional balance. Kid Nichols should be an easy first ballot guy. Anybody not voting for him really ought to have their credentials examined:hp. John McGraw's career was a bit brief for my taste, but he get a vote based on my current soft touch status for borderline IFers and a boost for his success as a manager. Huffy Duffy is a guy I might eventually vote for, but borderlien outfielders are going to have a tough time making my ballot for the forseeable future.

[DoubleX]

Yes, that's the list I have, unless we're going to dump the 10-year rule. There are a few pitchers who would be added under a 1500 IP rule.

1912
Jake Beckley-1B
Doc Casey-3B
Tommy Corcoran-SS
Lave Cross-3B
Monte Cross-SS
Buck Freeman-RF
Frank Kitson-P
Bobby Lowe-2B
Jack McCarthy-LF
Jack O’Connor-C
Jack W. Taylor-P


Also, I would add Jack O'Connor. His last continuous year was 1907 but he played an inning or two at catcher (did not bat) in 1910 when he was a manager. He's only 43 in 1912.

We're not dropping the 10 year rule, but the 3000 AB and 1500 IP supplement that, meaning a player can be eligible under any of those rules. 10 years might seem superfluous for now given the other requirements, but it could come into play later on when we start looking at relievers.

[BlueBlood]

Burkett was elected, newly eligibles Duffy and Nichols make my ballot.

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

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Eleven (1901 onward) - Joe Start
Ten (1902 onward) - Ross Barnes, Hardy Richardson
Nine (1903 onward) - Jack Glasscock
Six (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Six (1905 and 1907-1911) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Five (1901, 1908-1911) - Al Spalding
Four (1908-1911) - Lip Pike, George Van Haltren
One (1911) - Hugh Duffy, Kid Nichols

[NineWorldSeries]

Duffy
Hoy
Nichols
McCormick
McGraw
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch

These are the players that I deem HOF-worthy. I am not at this moment (1911) concerned about inducting a particular quota of each position (x number of outfielders, x number of pitchers, x number of infielders). We most probably have a long history of the sport ahead of us. It does not bother me as much as some voters that we are currently heavy on SPs and OFs. Perhaps in our very short history of the sport they have represented the best players disproportionately.

[leecemark]

--VanHaltren was a very good player at his best and a good one for a long time, but never close to the best. Hoy was pretty good, but never amoung the best. Ross Barnes was the very best player in the game for half a decade and at least as good as Hoy and probably Van Haltren for another half decade. By what logic are those two second (GVH) and third (Hoy) tier outfielders more deserving of the Hall than Barnes. Or for that matter Glasscock or Long- never the best player in the game, but the best at their position in multiple seasons.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Childs
Duffy
Van Haltren
Welch
Glasscock
McGraw
Nichols

[DoubleX]

Can someone explain to me why Van Haltren and Duffy have so much more support than Jimmy Ryan? I can't see electing Duffy at all if Ryan isn't elected.

[leecemark]

--Van Haltren has a cool name and Duffy has the one great season? Ryan is arguably the best of the bunch, but there really is little to separate them. Which is why I'm voting for none of them.

[leecemark]

--My list was previously posted, but adding some commentary;

Ross Barnes, 2B - best peak and arguably best overall 2B (or infielder for that matter) amoung eligible players. Honus Wagner has clearly taken that title now.
Jack Glasscock, SS - arguably best career of any elible SS to date. Almostly unarguably the best SS of the 1880s.
Herman Long, SS - best SS in baseball at his peak and had a very nice career.
John McGraw, 3B - best peak of any eligible 3B. Off to a great start to his mangerial career if that gives any kind of boost with you.
Cal McVey, C/1B - one of the very best bats of the 1870s. Could handle most any position on the diamond, even pitching when needed.
Kid Nichols, SP - best pitcher of the 1890s and probably #2, behind Cy Young of all time.
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF - terrific player for a fairly long time. Very good hitter and a top defender at both 2B and LF.
Al Spalding, SP - best pitcher and perhaps best player of the NA. Post playing contributons also very noteworthy if you are considering such.
Joe Start, 1B - best player of the 1860s? #2 1B of the 1870s, behind the great Anson. Exceptionally long and productive career.
Ezra Sutton, 3B - best eligible career 3B. As we've elected nobody at that position he at least deserves some consideration.

[Paul Wendt]

Can someone explain to me why Van Haltren and Duffy have so much more support than Jimmy Ryan? I can't see electing Duffy at all if Ryan isn't elected.
I agree.
To some people Duffy seems "perfect" because he excelled at all aspects of the game. His fans consider him one of the best fielders, which no one says of Ryan or Van Haltren. He was a successful captain and then one of the players who helped build the American League. Like Jennings he was always considered a likely manager and he will probably see the big leagues again.

Probably they will all be on the ballot with Kelley and Keeler and Thomas and Jones.

[DoubleX]

--Van Haltren has a cool name and Duffy has the one great season? Ryan is arguably the best of the bunch, but there really is little to separate them. Which is why I'm voting for none of them.

I agree that they are close and it makes a lot more sense to vote for none then to vote for Duffy and/or Van Haltren and not Ryan.

I agree that Ryan is arguably the best of the three. He had the best peak and perhaps best career. I don't get why Duffy in particular is well ahead of Ryan given that Duffy's career is not quite as good and he played much less in CF compared to Ryan.

Career OPS+
1) Ryan: 123
2) Duffy: 122
3) Van Haltren: 121

5-Year Peak OPS+
1) Ryan: 148
2) Duffy: 139
3) Van Haltren: 137

10-Year Peak OPS+
1) Ryan: 134
2) Van Haltren: 132
3) Duffy: 129 (and this is counting 2 seasons where he had less than 300 ABs, remove those two seasons and it's 125)

No. of Seasons above 140 OPS+
1) Ryan: 4 (Peak 174)
2) Duffy: 2 (Peak 172)
3) Van Haltren: 0 (Peak 139)

Plate Appearances
1) Ryan: 9106 (Let's see, he has the highest OPS+ and the most PAs)
2) Van Haltren: 8979
3) Duffy: 7827

Hits
1) Van Haltren: 2532
2) Ryan: 2502
3) Duffy: 2282

Homeruns
1) Van Haltren: 161
2) Ryan: 118
3) Duffy: 106

RBI
1) Duffy: 1302
2) Ryan: 1093
3) Van Haltren: 1014

Stolen Bases
1) Van Haltren: 583
2) Duffy: 574
3) Ryan: 418

Games in CF
1) Van Haltren: 1372
2) Ryan: 956
3) Duffy: 676

Looking at these numbers, can people voting for Van Haltren and Duffy and not Ryan explain why they're not voting for Ryan? It doesn't make sense to me. I find Duffy in particular confusing given that his career was shorter, his peak and career rates lower, and he played much less in CF.

[DoubleX]

I agree.
To some people Duffy seems "perfect" because he excelled at all aspects of the game. His fans consider him one of the best fielders, which no one says of Ryan or Van Haltren. He was a successful captain and then one of the players who helped build the American League. Like Jennings he was always considered a likely manager and he will probably see the big leagues again.

Probably they will all be on the ballot with Kelley and Keeler and Thomas and Jones.

And yet Duffy by far played the fewest games in CF of the three and had the shortest career. It just doesn't make sense that Duffy and Van Haltren are over 60% (consistently in Van Haltren's case) and Ryan struggles to get 40%, even though a strong argument could be made for him being the best of the three.

[jjpm74]

It took quicker than usual to dump all of the infielders out of contention this round. I guess either no one leaving them off is reading the threads or cares that we have 10 outfielders and a whopping 2 middle infielders in our HOF.

[DoubleX]

Personally, I'm not that concerned about the middle IFers right now. We can lament that we haven't elected enough, but the truth is, we really haven't had that many compelling candidates at those positions yet. Yeah, we may have lower our OF standards with a few of our elected players, but I think our overall standards would be further diminished if we elected guys like Long and Childs, as I believe both are below the standards set by the election of guys like Thompson and Browning (ok, Childs might be pretty comparable to those guys). For the people concerned about the middle IFers, where were the votes for Ed McKean? A little weak defensively, but he could hit and had both good rate and counting numbers.

Additionally, in the next decade or so, we should see more players elected at the middle IF positions. At SS alone, we have at least three guys who should all get in on the first ballot - Davis, Dahlen, and Wagner, plus Lajoie at 2B. If Glasscock continues his upward trend and is elected, by the early 20s we could have at least 6 players at SS, and I think that will be a pretty representative number. And there will be other pretty good middle IFers to consider such as Bobby Lowe, Jimmy Williams, Frank LaPorte, Tommy Corcoran, Kid Gleason, Joe Tinker, and Johnny Evers.

[leecemark]

--If we pass on Barnes then I'm not sure what to do with IF candidates going forward. With 40 years of baseball behind us the only IF who I'd say has had a clearly better peak is Honus Wagner, although I wouldn't argue much with somebody who refers Nap Lajoie's (and Hughie Jennings had a pretty good peak too). I'd take Glasscock is over the likes of Bobby Lowe, Jimmy Williams, Frank LaPorte, Tommy Corcoran and Kid Gleason and quite possibly Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers (lets see what they have left in the tank). Richardson and Childs (who I'm not even voting for) are also better than that crowd.
--Now Wagner, Davis, Collins and Dahlen are likely to be elected and maybe all better than our current backlog. They are a totally different generation than they guys who have stagnated on the ballot now though (2 generations after Barnes). At his point we've found 1 2B (McPhee), 1 SS (Wright) and no 3B worthy of honor from the first quarter century we've considered. Does that seem in any way reasonable? I think teams were putting their best talent in the infiled not the second level players. We may have this entirely backwards.

[DoubleX]

--If we pass on Barnes then I'm not sure what to do with IF candidates going forward. With 40 years of baseball behind us the only IF who I'd say has had a clearly better peak is Honus Wagner, although I wouldn't argue much with somebody who refers Nap Lajoie's (and Hughie Jennings had a pretty good peak too). I'd take Glasscock is over the likes of Bobby Lowe, Jimmy Williams, Frank LaPorte, Tommy Corcoran and Kid Gleason and quite possibly Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers (lets see what they have left in the tank). Richardson and Childs (who I'm not even voting for) are also better than that crowd.
--Now Wagner, Davis, Collins and Dahlen are likely to be elected and maybe all better than our current backlog. They are a totally different generation than they guys who have stagnated on the ballot now though (2 generations after Barnes). At his point we've found 1 2B (McPhee), 1 SS (Wright) and no 3B worthy of honor from the first quarter century we've considered. Does that seem in any way reasonable? I think teams were putting their best talent in the infiled not the second level players. We may have this entirely backwards.

You seem to be arguing electing players for the sake of electing players. Why not trumpet Ezra Sutton more? We haven't even elected a pure 3Bman yet and he's quite possibly the best from the first 30 years. I have a feeling you're not trumpeting him more because you just don't feel that strongly about him, in that he just doesn't measure up. That's probably how many of the voters feel about the middle IFers from the early period. From generation to generation, things will change. Some generations will be better represented at a positions, while others will be worse. If you're arguing for electing players for the sake of representation, then, it would make sense to argue the other way as well, in that we shouldn't over represent from a period, and that too doesn't make much sense to me. For example, should we not elect Bill Dahlen because we'll elect Honus Wagner and George Davis? No. We elect people that are worthy, regardless of generation, and don't elect people who we feel are not worthy, regardless of generation. There is no cap.

As for Barnes, I'm voting for him now, but this is exactly why I was reluctant to include players from that period. The game was very different in many respects. Much shorter seasons, different rules, different equipment (or lack thereof), different styles, the game Barnes dominated in the mid 1870s is less like the game by the mid 1880s as the game now (1911) is compared to the mid 1880s. Barnes is further hindered because his career is almost totally encapsulated in that period, while others we have elected from that time generally played beyond that period and exceeded. Additionally, Barnes career, just 9 seasons and 2392 ABs, would by far set new lows for elected players, and again that is a product of his time and shows that he stands out too much from most of the other players we're focusing on. How are we to compare someone with just 2392 ABs, all in this early period, to everyone else we're electing? He just doesn't fit, and that's why he should have gone right to the VC, IMO. Moreover, it's not like we've totally ignored players from that period as we've elected 5 players that appeared in 1871 or 1872. The difference is, they all had longer careers than Barnes and made a successful transition to a period when the game better resembled what it looks like now. The one exception might be George Wright, so if you want to really get Barnes in, your best bet is probably to compare him to George Wright.

[jjpm74]

Ezra Sutton, Jack Glasscock, and Ross Barnes were all well over the mark as soon as we elected Thompson. That was emphasized further when we elected Browning who is probably the weakest player we elected. What's worse is we have Duffy and Van Haltren receiving as much support as Childs et. al. and there are a few people who have consistently been voting only for pitchers and outfielders.

[BlueBlood]

To add some more reasoning behind the Van Haltren vs. Ryan vs. Duffy, here's their Win Share spreads.

5 Year Consecutive Peak in Win Shares:

1. Duffy: 144
2. Ryan: 129
3. Van Haltren: 121

Duffy clearly has the best peak of the bunch which is why he was a no-brainer. Van Haltren isn't too far behind Ryan in this category especially considering that the 5 year peak is a tad arbitrary and rewards having your best seasons clumped as close together as possible. This is a great statistic to use for fantasy drafts as it gives you a way to calculate what your player will be capable of in their prime years, on average.

Top 3 Seasons In Win Shares:

1. Duffy: 33, 29, 28 (for a total of 90)
2. Van Haltren: 30, 29, 26 (for a total of 85)
3. Ryan: 34, 28, 25 (for a total of 87)

Ryan trails in both second best and third best seasons. Clearly, playing at the top of his game, Duffy and Van Haltren were still slightly better. The point of this statistic is to show players at their absolute best. A sample size of three seasons helps minimize a fluke or two.

Career Win Shares:

1. Van Haltren: 344
2. Ryan: 316
3. Duffy: 295

This doesn't bode well for Ryan either. We already established that Duffy was the best of the three at his peak, so Hugh is not hurt much here. Ryan, on the other hand, can't claim to have the best career value as that honor certainly goes to Van Haltren as seen here and below.

Average Win Shares Per 162 Game Season:

1. Van Haltren: 28.08
2. Duffy: 27.51
3. Ryan: 25.44

On a season-by-season basis, Ryan is very far behind here. If you were to take away the best season from each player, Ryan would take a massive tumble whereas Van Haltren's best season was hardly better than his average. While I do like to admire peak value, I also want consistency and that's where Ryan comes up short. So, out of these three players, he doesn't have the best five year run (Duffy) or the most career Win Shares (Van Haltren), nor does he have a better record at his peak than Van Haltren or Duffy or a more consistent career than either.

Keep in mind that Win Shares account for defensive value. Van Haltren was considered to have one of the best outfield arms of his era while Duffy had a fielding percentage far above average. Ryan, from what I can gather, was a weak defensive player.

Here's CFs with over 200 career WS ranked by Win Shares per 162:

1. Ty Cobb: 38.55
2. Mickey Mantle: 38.12
3. Tris Speaker: 36.59
4. Joe DiMaggio: 36.11
5. Willie Mays: 34.76
6. Billy Hamilton: 34.31
7. George Gore: 30.91
8. Pete Browning: 30.81

We've elected the last three. They rank 6-8th All-Time. The only argument against Browning is his playing time. If you feel his career was too short (still, he had 10-11 full seasons or so), then you can say he was a mistake. Otherwise, he's got a claim for Top Ten ever at his position and is most certainly a worthy inductee and a Cooperstown oversight.

I'll let the quote from his B-R page close out his argument. "The man finished top 6 in OPS+ in 9 of 10 years .... how is he not in the HOF? Who else has had 100 SB and 100 RBI in a season?"

[DoubleX]

Ugh...

Thanks to the great sleuthing of Jim Albright, he has discovered that Sockeye has returned in the form of Dave Kingman. He has voted in this year's election and those votes will have to again be discounted. So once again, the poll will not be accurate.

He voted for the following 12, which I believe are interestingly also the top 12 vote-getters:

Ross Barnes
Hugh Duffy
Jack Glasscock
Herman Long
John McGraw
Kid Nichols
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[STLCards2]

Barnes
Childs
Nichols
Richardson
Van Haltren
Glasscock
Long
McGraw

[Freakshow]

The only argument against Browning is his playing time.
Other argments against Browning:
1) The AA was much weaker than the NL in its early years; it never did achieve parity. Browning's first three seasons need to be severely discounted for this.
2) Very little defensive value in an era where defense was more important.
3) Short career coupled with poor in-season durability is a deadly combination.
4) Win shares is highly inaccurate for pre-1893 players and should probably be avoided; the system was never designed to measure them. For Browning, his defensive demerits are not fully applied to his WS numbers.

For me, Duffy, Ryan and GVH bring more to the table than The Gladiator. In fact, you can't really group Browning with the CFers as he played only 41% of his career games there, spending more time at the OF corners.

[DoubleX]

For me, Duffy, Ryan and GVH bring more to the table than The Gladiator. In fact, you can't really group Browning with the CFers as he played only 41% of his career games there, spending more time at the OF corners.

Duffy spent just 39% of his games in CF. I bring this up only because I still cannot understand the great disparity in support between Van Haltren/Duffy and Ryan.

EDIT: I've removed DaveKingman's (AKA Sockeye's 12 votes), and here's the actual results through 16 ballots:

Kid Nichols: 100
Jack Glasscock: 81.25
Ross Barnes: 75

Hardy Richardson: 62.50
George Van Haltren: 62.50
Hugh Duffy: 56.25
Cupid Childs: 50
Herman Long: 50
Al Spalding: 50
Ezra Sutton: 50
John McGraw: 43.75
Joe Start: 43.75
Mickey Welch: 43.75
Jim McCormick: 37.50
Cal McVey: 31.25
Lip Pike: 31.25
Charley Jones: 18.75
Mike Tiernan: 18.75
Larry Corcoran: 12.5
Noodles Hahn: 12.5
Dummy Hoy: 12.5
Jack Doyle: 6.25
Duke Farrell: 6.25

Everyone else is at 0 right now.

[Paul Wendt]

BlueBlood:
Keep in mind that Win Shares account for defensive value. Van Haltren was considered to have one of the best outfield arms of his era while Duffy had a fielding percentage far above average. Ryan, from what I can gather, was a weak defensive player.
I believe Ryan was a better fielder than Van Haltren.

Duffy moved to left when Boston acquired Billy Hamilton and Ryan moved to left when Chicago put Bill Lange in center. Van Haltren played on teams that were not in the business of acquiring any Hamiltons or Langes.

Bill James in Win Shares gives Van Haltren a B which is certainly below average for centerfield and may be unusually low. He gives Ryan B+, Duffy A+, based on their full-career all-outfield statistics, which works against them.

Clay Davenport at BaseballProspectus.com rates outfielders separately at left, center, and right. At center he gives Van Haltren 98, Ryan 101, Duffy 105. For Ryan that is about 102 before Lange and 99 after.

Davenport thinks Van Haltren's three best seasons were 1896-98 at 10.2, 9.4, 9.2 wins per 140 games.
Ryan, 1888-90 at 10.9, 10.9, 8.0
Duffy, 1894-95-97 at 10.2, 9.9, 9.5
Here I have passed over 10.1 for Duffy in AA 1891.

[KCGHOST]

Hugh Duffy
John Glasscock
John McGraw
Kid Nichols
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren

[Erik Bedard]

I'm a little surprised at the total lack of support for Hahn. Peak-wise, he's better than or equal to Mullane, Galvin, and Caruthers, and only a notch behind Keefe. He's got lots of black and grey ink, and, adjusting for his injury, would have had more.

I go by how purely good the player was, even if that means extrapolating or interpolating data to adjust for external factors. Hahn was good enough, and it's shown by his stats. Why are people penalizing him for being injured and not having the padding of his stats that others, such as Mullane, have?

My ballot:

Ross Barnes
Noodles Hahn
Kid Nichols

[Brooklyn]

Glasscock, Nichols, Spalding, Welch

[jalbright]

I'm a little surprised at the total lack of support for Hahn. Peak-wise, he's better than or equal to Mullane, Galvin, and Caruthers, and only a notch behind Keefe. He's got lots of black and grey ink, and, adjusting for his injury, would have had more.

I go by how purely good the player was, even if that means extrapolating or interpolating data to adjust for external factors. Hahn was good enough, and it's shown by his stats. Why are people penalizing him for being injured and not having the padding of his stats that others, such as Mullane, have?

My ballot:

Ross Barnes
Noodles Hahn
Kid Nichols

I won't adjust for most injuries. They're part of the game. If we adjusted for all the pitchers who hurt their arms and watched their HOF chances disappear as a result, we'd have at least double the number of pitchers in the Hall, and a lot of them would be Dwight Gooden-Noodles Hahn types. That would create pressure to do the same thing for hitters, and all of a sudden the Hall would double in size. I'm not interested in going down that road.

[Erik Bedard]

Even if you don't adjust for his injury, what does Mullane have pitching-wise, besides six years where he wasn't much better than average, over Hahn? If Hahn had become Steve Blass, then I could see an argument against him. But not so much because he got injured.

[jalbright]

Even if you don't adjust for his injury, what does Mullane have pitching-wise, besides six years where he wasn't much better than average, over Hahn? If Hahn had become Steve Blass, then I could see an argument against him. But not so much because he got injured.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=370012&postcount=139

[Brad Harris]

I accidentally neglected to check off Duffy. As I have room on my ballot, please adjust the vote totals to reflect one additional vote for Hugh Duffy. Much appreciated. :)

[DoubleX]

I accidentally neglected to check off Duffy. As I have room on my ballot, please adjust the vote totals to reflect one additional vote for Hugh Duffy. Much appreciated. :)

Done. But could you explain why not Jimmy Ryan? As I pointed several posts ago, Ryan is arguably the best of the Ryan/Duffy/Van Haltren bunch, and Duffy, who played less than 40% of his games in CF, is arguably the worst of te bunch. I just don't understand with the three be so comparable, and Ryan with arguably the best peak and career numbers, gets so few votes compared to the other two. Am I missing something?

[Erik Bedard]

You favor career guys. That's fine, and I probably wouldn't vote for Hahn either if I used your standards. But for those who favor peak (such as myself), consider this:

Hahn: 44.1 WARP3 in top five years, 40th all time in WS/IP, 2 seasons w/ ERA+ > 140
Mullane: 29.2 WARP3 in top five years, 57th all time in WS/IP, 4 seasons w/ ERA+ >140

[jjpm74]

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=370012&postcount=139

Mullane also played in the American Association for 7 seasons which helped pad his stats and like Welch, a lot of his Gray ink came as the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th best in his league in a given category.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm a little surprised at the total lack of support for Hahn. Peak-wise, he's better than or equal to Mullane, Galvin, and Caruthers, and only a notch behind Keefe. He's got lots of black and grey ink, and, adjusting for his injury, would have had more.
How does he measure up with people like Walsh, Joss, and the Iron Man? Compared with the 1890s there are so many more pitchers putting up three and five good seasons, it's a natural warning against too much enthusiasm for seven.

What about Clark Griffith? Weren't they calling him "Old" before Hahn came up from Tennessee?

[Erik Bedard]

He's not as good as Walsh or Joss, though he could be considered slightly better than McGinnity. I'll be voting for both of them when their time comes, though, so I don't want to use them as a comparison. Griffith also wasn't as good as Hahn.

Speaking of Joss, though, he died earlier this year. Is he not going to be eligible until 1916? Was there discussion on this topic that I missed?

[DoubleX]

He's not as good as Walsh or Joss, though he could be considered slightly better than McGinnity. I'll be voting for both of them when their time comes, though, so I don't want to use them as a comparison. Griffith also wasn't as good as Hahn.

Speaking of Joss, though, he died earlier this year. Is he not going to be eligible until 1916? Was there discussion on this topic that I missed?

We're not speeding up eligibility for players that died. This is something we discussed several years back after the missing the opportunity with a player or two.

[Erik Bedard]

Ah, I remember now. Something about Ed Delahanty.

[Windy City Fan]

Ross Barnes - Frankly I'm surprised he hasn't made it yet.
Jack Glasscock - Great fielder during the bare hands era with a pretty solid bat and speed too.
John McGraw - Short career, but what a hitter, especially from the infield.
Cal McVey - Versatile early star.
Lip Pike - Early star.
Al Spalding - Pitching + hitting + contributions = HOF.
Joe Start - Best player of the 1860's and played well for a long time after that.
Mickey Welch - I've been voting for him for a long time, but he's starting to pale in comparison to some modern hurlers.

Also, I mistakenly left off Kid Nichols. Please add my vote for him (not that it will make a difference, he's a lock either way).

[TheSlaff]

Ross Barnes
Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Jack Glasscock
Charley Jones
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Kid Nichols
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[Paul Wendt]

I agree that they are close and it makes a lot more sense to vote for none then to vote for Duffy and/or Van Haltren and not Ryan.

I agree that Ryan is arguably the best of the three. He had the best peak and perhaps best career. I don't get why Duffy in particular is well ahead of Ryan given that Duffy's career is not quite as good and he played much less in CF compared to Ryan.
(This doesn't contribute to explanation or justification:)
Ryan has seven voters (7). All of them also support Van Haltren and 5 of 7 also support Duffy.

Van Haltren has another seven voters (7) and all of them also support Duffy, IICC.

Regarding Ryan and GVH that makes a very neat division at the moment: one third for both, one third for GVH only, one-third for neither.

And I now have a headache from reading that report.

--
Mike Tiernan has four and they are all Ryan voters.
Dummy Hoy has two and we must go "up" to Van Haltren to cover them.

[DoubleX]

Glasscock has made considerable strides in recent elections and might just get there this time. It's nice to see that we evolve as an electorate and that it is worthwhile to have a player on the ballot for several years. Some people argue that a player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, but it isn't always that simple, especially when we're operating as as a collective mind with evolving standards.

I wonder how far Glasscock's election will go towards appeasing those who feel we have ignored middle IFers in favor of OFers. I don't know if Ross Barnes will ever be elected though. Despite being really close throughout, it appears people have drawn a line in the sand. His best bet might be his last year or two on the ballot when people might give him extra consideration due to the dwindling time. Personally, even though I'm voting for him, due to his short career during an ambiguous and rapidly evolving era, I think he'll make a great VC candidate when we get there.

I also think position representation will fluctuate from generation to generation. I wouldn't be surprised if we elect more middle IFers among current or recently retired players than we do for OFers.

[Paul Wendt]

I also think position representation will fluctuate from generation to generation. I wouldn't be surprised if we elect more middle IFers among current or recently retired players than we do for OFers.Yes but we have seen three generations of pro ballplayers and we have voted on more than two generations. It will not be reasonable to call it a "fluctuation".

I don't believe in "middle infield". Thirdbasemen have an important job, maybe more than secondbasemen. Most batters are right-hand and they tend to hit to third and short, left and center. We are seeing more switch-batters but how many can you name?

[Brad Harris]

Glasscock has made considerable strides in recent elections and might just get there this time. It's nice to see that we evolve as an electorate and that it is worthwhile to have a player on the ballot for several years. Some people argue that a player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, but it isn't always that simple, especially when we're operating as as a collective mind with evolving standards.
It is that simple. A player either meets the standards required to be so honored or he does not. The point of perpetual eligibility isn't so that Player X can build a fan base, but because voters don't put in the requisite time for a comprehensive, analytical, well reasoned ballot in just a day, a week or a year. Voters frequently require multiple voting cycles before developing a better argument for or against an individual's election. This sharpening of focus on a player's candidacy rarely occurs between the time a voter receives his ballot and the time he fills it out and mails it back in. The norm appears to be that these thought processes are refined and improved through the repetition that comes with routine discussions on the topic (i.e. repeating electoral cycles). There is also, particularly early in the history of any such institution, the case of evolving standards. A player either is or is not a Hall-of-Famer, sure, but the question of exactly what a Hall of Famer is must be answered and the earliest elections in any such process are, in large part, an attempt to answer that question to create a standard for successive generations of voters. I would argue that an established institution (such as Cooperstown), however, should neither have nor desire evolving standards as those yardsticks should have been rooted long ago.

I wonder how far Glasscock's election will go towards appeasing those who feel we have ignored middle IFers in favor of OFers. I don't know if Ross Barnes will ever be elected though. Despite being really close throughout, it appears people have drawn a line in the sand. His best bet might be his last year or two on the ballot when people might give him extra consideration due to the dwindling time. Personally, even though I'm voting for him, due to his short career during an ambiguous and rapidly evolving era, I think he'll make a great VC candidate when we get there.
It won't pacify us much. Where's Ezra Sutton? Where's Hardy Richardson? Where are Barnes and Childs?

I also think position representation will fluctuate from generation to generation. I wouldn't be surprised if we elect more middle IFers among current or recently retired players than we do for OFers.
While this is certainly true, albeit to a minor extent, that's not the same as saying that there's a 30-year period of baseball history in which no player at a particular position is not Hall-worthy, which is what we've been doing. Frankly, it's extremely unreasonable not to have at least one player from each position representing the 19th Century (much less one per decade). What's been occuring is not a "fluctuation" but a complete abdication of any responsibility for adequately providing for the representation of an entire (and important) era of the game's history. The idea that Sutton shouldn't be elected because Collins will be eligible in the near future and Collins is, empirically, a better player is as ludicrous a notion as if Cooperstown had refused to elect Goose Gossage because Mariano Rivera would be retired in a few more years and Rivera is clearly superior.

[DoubleX]

It isthat simple. A player either meets the standards required to be so honored or he does not. The point of perpetual eligibility isn't so that Player X can build a fan base, but because voters don't put in the requisite time for a comprehensive, analytical, well reasoned ballot in just a day, a week or a year. Voters frequently require multiple voting cycles before developing a better argument for or against an individual's election. This sharpening of focus on a player's candidacy rarely occurs between the time a voter receives his ballot and the time he fills it out and mails it back in. The norm appears to be that these thought processes are refined and improved through the repetition that comes with routine discussions on the topic (i.e. repeating electoral cycles). There is also, particularly early in the history of any such institution, the case of evolving standards. A player either is or is not a Hall-of-Famer, sure, but the question of exactly what a Hall of Famer is must be answered and the earliest elections in any such process are, in large part, an attempt to answer that question to create a standard for successive generations of voters. I would argue that an established institution (such as Cooperstown), however, should neither have nor desire evolving standards as those yardsticks should have been rooted long ago.

I don't think it is that simple, especially here where we're still very early in the process and defining what the Hall of Fame standards are. Going into this, we didn't know what our standards would be, we're shaping them as we go.

I agree though that once established, as Cooperstown is, the evolutionary process is over, but we're not there yet, IMO.


It won't pacify us much. Where's Ezra Sutton? Where's Hardy Richardson? Where are Barnes and Childs?

While this is certainly true, albeit to a minor extent, that's not the same as saying that there's a 30-year period of baseball history in which no player at a particular position is not Hall-worthy, which is what we've been doing. Frankly, it's extremely unreasonable not to have at least one player from each position representing the 19th Century (much less one per decade). What's been occuring is not a "fluctuation" but a complete abdication of any responsibility for adequately providing for the representation of an entire (and important) era of the game's history. The idea that Sutton shouldn't be elected because Collins will be eligible in the near future and Collins is, empirically, a better player is as ludicrous a notion as if Cooperstown had refused to elect Goose Gossage because Mariano Rivera would be retired in a few more years and Rivera is clearly superior.

I've been voting for Sutton, Richardson, and Barnes. Childs is just on the other side of the fence for me as I feel his election would lower the overall standards beyond what we currently have and I'm not keen on electing him just because we need another middle IFer.

I agree with your second paragraph, but still a player has to be a Hall of Famer, not be elected just because we need representation from that era. As you said, a player is either a Hall of Famer or he isn't, right? So if say Richardson isn't a Hall of Famer, why should we elect him? I don't buy that we should elect players just because we need representation. If a player isn't worthy, he isn't worthy. I will buy though that we should elect a player because he fits within our standards, and I believe Sutton, Richardson, and Barnes do.

Also, you never answered my question about voting for Duffy and Van Haltren and not Ryan? I just don't get why Ryan trails so much when I think strong arguments can be made for him being the best of the three. Some have mentioned Duffy's defense, he played less than 40% of his games in CF.

[jjpm74]

I agree with your second paragraph, but still a player has to be a Hall of Famer, not be elected just because we need representation from that era. As you said, a player is either a Hall of Famer or he isn't, right? So if say Richardson isn't a Hall of Famer, why should we elect him? I don't buy that we should elect players just because we need representation. If a player isn't worthy, he isn't worthy. I will buy though that we should elect a player because he fits within our standards, and I believe Sutton, Richardson, and Barnes do.


The issue at hand isn't whether so and so is a HOFer or not. The issue is that we seem to have established that there were no third basemen from the 19th century that were HOF worthy and that definitely isn't the case. We are, in effect, repeating the same mistakes of the HOF by ignoring the best at a given position. Ezra Sutton was the best at his position in the 19th century yet he can't manage more than roughly 50% of the vote. His merits are presented in great detail over at the HOM. Sutton would be over the line if he played in the 20th century. In his case, no one advocating on his behalf is saying we should elect him because he was a good player. We are advocating for his election because he was a great player and had a much better career than Mullane, Browning, and Thompson all of whom were elected already. What's more telling is that John McGraw currently has more votes than Ezra Sutton. I don't think the average participant in this project knows all that much about the 1st generation of stars. Start, Barnes and Sutton were the best of their generation, yet Wright was elected and they can only muster 50% support. It's no coincidence that the only star from this generation to be elected is a HOFer and the 1 front runner who has a chance of being elected (Spalding) is also a HOFer. Glasscock is not from this generation of stars. His election would mean that we have 2 SSs in our hall. It still doesn't address the issue that the 1st generation of stars have gone largely ignored in this project since its inception. I'm not confident that the VC will correct these mistakes either as the VC will be comprised of the same people voting in the regular elections.

[DoubleX]

The issue at hand isn't whether so and so is a HOFer or not. The issue is that we seem to have established that there were no third basemen from the 19th century that were HOF worthy and that definitely isn't the case. We are, in effect, repeating the same mistakes of the HOF by ignoring the best at a given position. Ezra Sutton was the best at his position in the 19th century yet he can't manage more than roughly 50% of the vote. His merits are presented in great detail over at the HOM. Sutton would be over the line if he played in the 20th century. In his case, no one advocating on his behalf is saying we should elect him because he was a good player. We are advocating for his election because he was a great player and had a much better career than Mullane, Browning, and Thompson all of whom were elected already.

I would suggest that strong advocates for these players do more to state their case. I guess for some here, it's not enough that someone like Sutton was the best at his position, which is currently unrepresented during a 30 year period. Perhaps more statistical arguments are needed?

[dgarza]

The issue is that we seem to have established that there were no third basemen from the 19th century that were HOF worthy and that definitely isn't the case. We are, in effect, repeating the same mistakes of the HOF by ignoring the best at a given position. Ezra Sutton was the best at his position in the 19th century yet he can't manage more than roughly 50% of the vote.
It is hard to imagine that there were no 3B worth inducting from the 19th century.
Ezra Sutton has a case, although I think we dropped the ball a while ago when we let Levi Meyerle and Denny Lyons slip through our hands.
We're not doing so well with 3B, are we?

[jjpm74]

Jalbright's musings intro for Sutton's Keltner:

Ezra Sutton

He averaged 24.83 win shares per 162 games in 11.35 full seasons after the National Association days, which means he averaged solid all-star type numbers throughout his career. He wasn't bad in the National Association days, either, averaging 1.7 TPR per 162 games in 4.95 full seasons. His 97 gray ink plus black ink points are excellent for a shortstop. All these things persuaded the Baseball Think Factory guys to include them in their "Hall of Merit".

His efforts placing him among the league leaders is impressive: 4 times in the top eight in average; 3 times in the top eight in OBP; 4 times in the top ten in slugging percentage; 3 times in the top 8 in runs; 4 times in the top ten in RBI; and five times in the top 10 in runs created.

In addition, Sutton was best in the league several years in win shares. Not just best of his position. Someone with more of a database of win shares than I have could present his case better than me.

[DoubleX]

I took the liberty of looking into a magic crystal ball into the future to the year 1935.

By that time, I believe we will have elected at least 3 3Bmen - Jimmy Collins, Frank Baker, and Heinie Groh (yes I believe we'll elect him). There are at least 3 more that might have a decent case - Lave Cross, Tommy Leach, and Larry Gardner, but I suspect they won't be elected (Cross is eligible next year).

As for 2B and SS....

I predict by 1935 we will have elected at least 4 more players at SS: George Davis, Bill Dahlen, Honus Wagner, and Bobby Wallace. There will also be a number of players with decent arguments, including Joe Tinker, Hughie Jennings, Dave Bancroft, to name a few.

At 2B, I see at least 3 players joining the Hall by 1935: Napoleon Lajoie, Larry Doyle, and Eddie Collins. I also see a strong campaign for Johnny Evers and perhaps Del Pratt and Jimmy Williams.

I actually don't believe the OF positions will be as represented as they have been. Among OFers, I see a total of 7 players between now and 1935 as likely to be elected: Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Sam Crawford, Sherry Magee, Zack Wheat, Fred Clarke, and Elmer Flick. There will also be a number of players that could get strong support, such as Joe Kelley, Max Carey, Bobby Veach, Jimmy Sheckard, Harry Hooper, and I suspect 1 or 2 of these players will get elected (but I also suspect 1 or 2 of the other 2B/3B/SS could get elected, notably Jennings and Evers).

So between now and 1935, I think we'll elect at least 7 total OFers, while also electing at least 10 players from 2B/3B/SS. So I do think with different eras, the balances will shift. I understand the frustration with under representation from one era (or in the case of 3B, no representation), but that does not necessarily mean that such will always be the case, as time might balance things out. Nevertheless, I suspect though that 3B will always be underrepresented, as it's really hard to get a feel on 3B. Not that many players have stood out in history, but there are a lot that are closely clumped together in a grayish area.

Additionally, I think pitcher will be a position that will get a big boost by 1935. I believe we'll elect at least 12 more pitchers, as we'll be apt honor the deadball greats: Joe McGinnity, Addie Joss, Rube Waddell, Vic Willis, Cy Young, Mordecai Brown, Christy Mathewson, Eddie Plank, Ed Walsh, Walter Johnson, Stan Coveleski, and Pete Alexander. I think Clark Griffith stands a strong chance at election as well, bringing the likely total to at least 13. Then there's a strong group after that which includes Carl Mays, Joe Wood, Chief Bender, Rube Marquard, Jack Chesbro, Babe Adams, Ed Reulbach, Hippo Vaughn, Sam Leever, Deacon Phillippe, Jesse Tannehill, Jack Taylor, Doc White and others. I suspect of this group though, only Mays might get elected.

[leecemark]

--Wagner, Dahlen and Davis for sure. Wallace is similar to Glasscock as a candidate so we'll see. The rest of the SS I see as very unlikely based on our current trends (Jennings was not as good or for as long as Barnes).
--Lajoie and Collins obviously will make it. Doyle might. Evers unlikely and the others not a prayer unless things change dramatically with our electorate.
--Collins and Baker should be easy choices at 3B. Groh is probable, although not certain. That would give us 3 3B for 65 years of baseball history.
--6 of your 7 likley outfielders I expect will make it easy. Elmer Flick will probably make it, as lesser outfielders have. Only long career outfielders with MVP level peaks will be making my ballot for the forseeable future and Flick is a little short in the career department.

[leecemark]

--Amoung deadball pitchers Addie Joss and Vic Willis are unlikley to make my ballot and none of the "others" will. Griffith, who fell in between the "likleys" and "have a chances" on your list will make my ballot, but only on the strength of his total package. As a pitcher only he comes up short.

[DoubleX]

--Amoung deadball pitchers Addie Joss and Vic Willis are unlikley to make my ballot and none of the "others" will. Griffith, who fell in between the "likleys" and "have a chances" on your list will make my ballot, but only on the strength of his total package. As a pitcher only he comes up short.

You won't be voting for Carl Mays? For some reason I thought you supported him. Never really understood why some people think of Willis as not having a good case. Yeah, he doesn't blow you away, but a 118 ERA+ in 4000 IP is pretty impressive to me. I don't think he's that far off from Tony Mullane, but if Mullane is the bottom standard, then I can see not voting for Willis. Personally though, I think Mickey Welch should be the bottom standard, and I don't think anything would be wrong with that (as that would still be above the standards we've set in the OF).

Anyway, I'm still predicting that from between now and 1935, we'll elect at least 10 players from 2B/3B/SS (11 if you count Glasscock who I think will make it before he's done), and at least 7 OFers. So I do think things vary by generation. So maybe it's not so much that we're completely ignoring certain positions from the era we're now looking at, maybe it's more that there aren't as many compelling candidates from those positions. I agree though that it would seem wrong to totally ignore a position, as we have at 3B, and that Sutton should be getting more support.

Since I mentioned Welch, I'm going to give him another plug:

- 307 Wins
- 4800 IP
- 114 Career ERA+
- 135 ERA+ in top 5 seasons
- 122 ERA+ in top 10 seasons

Yeah, others had better peaks or better careers, but he has a very good and rare combination of both. I think generations from now he'll be a player that people will wonder why we didn't elect, and he'll become a favorite cause of people debating baseball on magic boxes of electricity.

[jjpm74]

I took the liberty of looking into a magic crystal ball into the future to the year 1935.

By that time, I believe we will have elected at least 3 3Bmen - Jimmy Collins, Frank Baker, and Heinie Groh (yes I believe we'll elect him). There are at least 3 more that might have a decent case - Lave Cross, Tommy Leach, and Larry Gardner, but I suspect they won't be elected (Cross is eligible next year).

On those three, we'll be lucky to elect Collins and Baker. Groh was great, but his argument for inclusion is similar to Sutton's argument for inclusion.



As for 2B and SS....

I predict by 1935 we will have elected at least 4 more players at SS: George Davis, Bill Dahlen, Honus Wagner, and Bobby Wallace. There will also be a number of players with decent arguments, including Joe Tinker, Hughie Jennings, Dave Bancroft, to name a few.

At 2B, I see at least 3 players joining the Hall by 1935: Napoleon Lajoie, Larry Doyle, and Eddie Collins. I also see a strong campaign for Johnny Evers and perhaps Del Pratt and Jimmy Williams.

Wagner, Lajoie and Collins are the only sure things on this list. As for Evers, Pratt, and Williams, I'd be surprised if we see more than a handful of votes for any of them. Doyle's case is a tough sell and he'll probably teeter around Richardson's current support. Davis, Bancroft, Dahlen and Jennings may eventually get in, but they all have their detractors.

I actually don't believe the OF positions will be as represented as they have been. Among OFers, I see a total of 7 players between now and 1935 as likely to be elected: Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Sam Crawford, Sherry Magee, Zack Wheat, Fred Clarke, and Elmer Flick. There will also be a number of players that could get strong support, such as Joe Kelley, Max Carey, Bobby Veach, Jimmy Sheckard, Harry Hooper, and I suspect 1 or 2 of these players will get elected (but I also suspect 1 or 2 of the other 2B/3B/SS could get elected, notably Jennings and Evers).

Sheckard doesn't have a chance. It's already been established that excellent defensive outfielders with average offensive numbers are not what the voting public want.

So between now and 1935, I think we'll elect at least 7 total OFers, while also electing at least 10 players from 2B/3B/SS. So I do think with different eras, the balances will shift. I understand the frustration with under representation from one era (or in the case of 3B, no representation), but that does not necessarily mean that such will always be the case, as time might balance things out. Nevertheless, I suspect though that 3B will always be underrepresented, as it's really hard to get a feel on 3B. Not that many players have stood out in history, but there are a lot that are closely clumped together in a grayish area.

I think we'll be lucky to elect 5 from 2B/3B/SS.

Additionally, I think pitcher will be a position that will get a big boost by 1935. I believe we'll elect at least 12 more pitchers, as we'll be apt honor the deadball greats: Joe McGinnity, Addie Joss, Rube Waddell, Vic Willis, Cy Young, Mordecai Brown, Christy Mathewson, Eddie Plank, Ed Walsh, Walter Johnson, Stan Coveleski, and Pete Alexander. I think Clark Griffith stands a strong chance at election as well, bringing the likely total to at least 13. Then there's a strong group after that which includes Carl Mays, Joe Wood, Chief Bender, Rube Marquard, Jack Chesbro, Babe Adams, Ed Reulbach, Hippo Vaughn, Sam Leever, Deacon Phillippe, Jesse Tannehill, Jack Taylor, Doc White and others. I suspect of this group though, only Mays might get elected.

Joss is very unlikely to get elected. He has enough detractors to keep him out. The same is true of Vic Willis.

[DoubleX]

I think we'll be lucky to elect 5 from 2B/3B/SS.

I think you're grossly underestimating people here if you think Collins and Baker will be lucky to get elected, that Dahlen may struggle, and that Doyle and Groh have tough cases to sell. Granted, some of these guys might not get in right away, but there is a strong track record of support at BBF for these players, fervently so at times. I'd be surprised if among Jimmy Collins, Baker, Dahlen, Davis, Wagner, Lajoie, and Eddie Collins, any aren't elected on the first ballot, or the second at the very latest. That's six right there. I'd then be very surprised, knowing the propensities of members here, if we didn't elect Bobby Wallace, Heinie Groh, and Larry Doyle before their eligibility expires. So I'm sticking to that 10. I think you'll find that guys like Doyle and Groh will get more support than someone like Tony Lazzeri because of this subconcious sympathy for them not being in the actual Hall. For me the question is the next tier, and I don't believe anyone from that group will make it, though I could see Jennings and Evers giving it a run.

I think Mark's post has a much better handle on the likely outcomes (I agree with him that I think Flick might struggle a little, perhaps Magee as well, but I think both will eventually be elected).

[KCGHOST]

I, for one, have zero interest in electing someone because someone perceives a given position is being slighted. Not being a hard core 19th Century historian I tend to let the numbers do the talking, but do pay attention to the arguments of others (e.g. Maybe I should be giving Cupid Childs more consideration). To me, if a guy needs the argument "We don't have enough (name the position" then he probably doesn't belong.

I did, somehow, cast ballots in favor of Richardson, McGraw, and Glasscock.

Probably the biggest problem for Barnes, Start, Sutton and Pike is that I rarely give much credit for play prior to 1876. That may be arbitrary and unfair but that's the way it is.

[jjpm74]

Probably the biggest problem for Barnes, Start, Sutton and Pike is that I rarely give much credit for play prior to 1876. That may be arbitrary and unfair but that's the way it is.

That is very arbitrary since the first 8 or so years of the NL was very similar to the 1871-1875 seasons of the NA. Take a look at the games played, how many teams were in each league, how many stars were in each league for comparison.

That's pretty much the sentiment of about 30% of the voters and why the 1st generation of stars is being slighted here.

I'm not gunning for Sutton because he was the best third baseman of the 19th century (which happens to be true). I'm gunning for him because he was one of the best players of the 19th century.

[jalbright]

I'm with jjpm on Sutton, and I fully understand the case for Barnes if we assume the fair/four rule wasn't a very large component of his success and/or are willing to simply say he succeeded under the rules he played under. If I were convinced the fair/foul rule didn't drastically alter the game and/or that it wasn't a rather large portion of the reason for Barnes' success, I'd support him as well. But he's very much a peak guy, and if that oddball rule in terms of the history of the game was a large portion of why Barnes succeeded, well, I can't stomach that. Until that issue is made clearer to me, I strongly prefer to set his case aside. If that means forever, well, I can live with it in this instance. I've consistently supported other infielders from the early days, and will continue to do so. The fact we have so few honored in this project does strongly suggest to me that they're not getting their due here.

[DoubleX]

I just want to remind everyone that I was initially against tracing eligibility back to 1871 as I thought it would cause the kind of frustration it's causing now. I thought from the start that players almost totally encapsulated in that period, such as Barnes, would have received better treatment if going right to a VC process. But there was strong sentiment in favor of going back to 1871, so those proponents will have to accept that players relying on their play from that period, might be disadvantaged in the minds of the electorate as a whole. I don't know if it's fair or not, but that's how it is and how I anticipated things would be. Plus, when it has come to the debates about someone like Barnes, I think the people against voting for Barnes have made the stronger arguments. The other side seems to be relying on two things: 1) He was a big star in his day (which is a very valid argument); and 2) If this guy is in, Barnes should be in, but it's not that simple because of the conditions when Barnes played and the relative shortness of his career.

There's also been very little discussion for other stars of this early era, such as Joe Start, Cal McVey, and Lip Pike. These player aren't just going to magically build enough support, there has to be discussion. Plus, I don't think we've totally ignored this early era, as I've pointed out, we've elected 5 or 6 players that were active in 1871 or 1872, the difference is that with the exception of George Wright, the players we have elected from this period, had longer careers and did not have their careers totally encapsulated by this period, as Barnes does.

Anyway, it's getting a little redundant with people lamenting that we haven't elected "so and so." If you feel strongly about that person being elected, state the case, that's the best remedy (I'm still waiting to hear why people are voting for Duffy and Van Haltren and not Ryan).

[jjpm74]

Anyway, it's getting a little redundant with people lamenting that we haven't elected "so and so." If you feel strongly about that person being elected, state the case, that's the best remedy (I'm still waiting to hear why people are voting for Duffy and Van Haltren and not Ryan).

I'm sure his 1893-95 seasons are factoring in even though that offensive explosion coincided with the new pitching distance.

I don't support any of them at this time, but FWIW, have them ranked as follows and agree that all three are very similar to each other:

Ryan
Duffy
Van Haltren

[Erik Bedard]

I rank Duffy slightly ahead of Ryan, who I rank significantly ahead of Van Haltren. But I'm not voting for any of them.

[BlueBlood]

Some here are saying there hasn't been a cogent argument from the Duffy/Van Haltren vs. Ryan contingent when I made a post in this thread doing such that aptly demonstrated why some of us feel Ryan comes up short. His strengths never matched those of Duffy or Van Haltren.

[DoubleX]

Some here are saying there hasn't been a cogent argument from the Duffy/Van Haltren vs. Ryan contingent when I made a post in this thread doing such that aptly demonstrated why some of us feel Ryan comes up short. His strengths never matched those of Duffy or Van Haltren.

The Win Shares post? Others responded pointing out how unreliable Win Shares can be for that era. I pointed out that in terms of OPS+, Ryan clearly ranks the highest in peak performance and edges the other two in career performance, despite having more PAs than the other two (1300 more than Duffy). I also pointed out that Duffy by far played the fewest games in CF of the three - less tan 40% of his total games, and his counting numbers are the least impressive of the three (he has 300 hits less than the other two, for example).

To me, if any of the three don't cut it, it's Duffy. Like I said, I just don't see how a person can vote for Duffy and Van Haltren but not Ryan. It doesn't make any sense to me. If you're voting for Duffy and Van Haltren, you should probably be voting for Ryan as well.

[Paul Wendt]

I agree with Classic up in #58, especially the part where he agrees with me that two full generations is not a "fluctuation". Unfortunately I might say back in #58 too and I have not read the intervening page.
One quibble:
XX>>
Some people argue that a player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, but it isn't always that simple, especially when we're operating as as a collective mind with evolving standards.
<<

It is that simple. . . . There is also, particularly early in the history of any such institution, the case of evolving standards.
I think this means it isn't that simple.

==
When I spoke out several years ago, it was reasonable to anticipate the election of outfielders Stovey, Browning, and Gore (three subsequently elected), Ryan and Van Haltren, and Magee.
Tiernan will not be elected here, nor will Hoy, Griffin, Fielder Jones, Thomas, or Seymour.

At the same time it was reasonable to anticipate what follows to the end of this article.
From the Coop "everyone but McCarthy": Duffy; Delahanty, Hamilton, and Thompson; Kelley and Keeler; Burkett, Flick, Crawford, and Cobb.

likely outfield haul, Cooperstown plus several

--
Hall of Fame infielders Davis, Lajoie, and Wagner will be elected.
Dahlen will be elected by everyone who undertakes any project like this.
Long, Childs, McGraw, and Leach will not be elected here.

Tinker, Evers, and Chance will be dropped. "Everyone" disses this trio.
Jennings and Wallace may be dropped.
(Beckley or Bresnahan may be dropped but I have set them outside the "infield".)

likely infield haul, Cooperstown minus two to four

[Brad Harris]

I agree with Classic...especially the part where he agrees with me
Works nicely that way, doesn't it? :rofl:

[Paul Wendt]

Games Played 1871-2006 (fse: share of team games, denominated in seasons)
16.31* Ezra Sutton *
14.94 Jack Glasscock
14.60 Jimmy Ryan
14.39* Joe Start *
14.18 George Van Haltren
13.39 Herman Long
12.99 Dummy Hoy
12.44 Hugh Duffy
12.02 Hardy Richardson
11.23 Kip Selbach
11.12 c Duke Farrell
11.04 Jack Doyle
10.73 Mike Tiernan
10.46 Cupid Childs
10.27 Charley Jones
8.883 Chick Stahl
8.629 c Heinie Peitz
8.538 c Malachi Kittridge
8.500*c Cal McVey *
8.089 Sam Mertes
7.867 John McGraw
7.755* Ross Barnes *
7.535* Lip Pike *
6.742 c Boileryard Clarke
6.374 c Mike Grady
* regular player on a professional team in 1870
c primary fielding position catcher

There is little difference between games played and fielding games for these players; no difference for many of them. Free substitution was introduced in 1892; pinch-hitters and pinch-runners (who play without fielding) were uncommon for many years thereafter.

add: There are six primary pitchers on the ballot with 6.9 (Spalding) to 1.6 (Hahn) fse games played. That is not a reasonable measure of full seasons for pitchers so I have not included them in the list.

[Paul Wendt]

Ross Barnes
Cupid Childs
Jack Glasscock
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Kid Nichols
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton


Ross Barnes
Jack Glasscock
Kid Nichols
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
----
Cupid Childs
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Lip Pike

Charley Jones is also in tier 3, below the line. I dropped him and Browning a few years ago and I haven't lost any sleep over other outfielders who may belong in that tier.

[DoubleX]

With a day left, here are the updated actual results through 23 ballots:

Kid Nichols - 100
Jack Glasscock - 82.61

Ross Barnes - 73.91
Hardy Richardson - 60.87
Al Spalding - 60.87
George Van Hatlren - 60.87
Hugh Duffy - 56.52
Cupid Childs - 47.83
John McGraw - 47.83
Joe Start - 47.83
Herman Long - 47.83
Cal McVey - 43.48
Ezra Sutton - 43.48
Mickey Welch - 43.48
Lip Pike - 39.13
Jimmy Ryan - 39.13
Charley Jones - 26.87
Jim McCormick - 26.09
Mike Tiernan - 17.39
Larry Corcoran - 13.43
Duke Farrell - 8.70
Noodles Hahn - 8.70
Dummy Hoy - 8.70
Jack Doyle - 4.35
Chick Stahl - 4.35

No one else received a vote yet

[DoubleX]

Also, I would add Jack O'Connor. His last continuous year was 1907 but he played an inning or two at catcher (did not bat) in 1910 when he was a manager. He's only 43 in 1912.

I'm going to stick with the rules and O'Connor will be eligible in 1914, when he's 45. Can you remind me then to add him?

[Paul Wendt]

No one else received a vote yet
I didn't see a worthy successor to Wilbert Robinson, Jimmy McAleer, Bill Clarke.
(Mike Griffin is up in tier 3 as a player.)

Peitz, Kittridge, or Grady (catchers with no votes) may be worthy but I don't know it. Other maybes have a vote or two.

[AG2004]

My ballot

Ross Barnes
Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Jack Glasscock
Charley Jones
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Kid Nichols
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

[Paul Wendt]

IICC,
"DaveKingman" voted for all of the leaders,
Nichols, Glasscock, Barnes, Duffy, Richardson, Spalding, and Van Haltren.

The number of voters is not divisible by four, so he makes no difference.*
Nichols and Glasscock are in, Barnes is out (one brick shy), the others are not so close as the leaderboard shows.

* I voted for Barnes so my vote made no difference. Except in the sense that if I hadn't voted for him then no one's vote would have made a difference. :)

--
Herman Long leapt from 6 votes to 12.
I suppose some people like the "center infield" idea.

[DoubleX]

Paul, Barnes actually made it with 76%. I removed a vote for each player DaveKingman voted for. So even though he's still listed as having voted for them, the vote totals for each are correct. The only difference is that we had 25 ballots instead of the 26 listed.

[BlueBlood]

So, it's over? And Barnes is finally in? Well, that thankfully eliminates half of the ongoing debates here.

But, with Duffy/Van Haltren/Ryan all missing the cutoff, well, we all know what to expect. I've given my reasoning enough for Ryan. He wasn't as good a player on a season to season basis as the other two and falls drastically short overall in other key Win Share measures.

[leecemark]

--With Barnes finally making the cut we have 5 players left who date back to 1871 (actually they date back to before the NA and have records which are not being fully credited).
--Al Spaulding was the greatest picher of the NA by a considerable margin. He won 204 games in the 5 years of the NA - and another 47 in the first year of the NL, ending up with 252 wins and a 142 ERA+ in 6 years as a regular. He was the pitcher for one of the best teams in the country prior to the start up of the NA, although since he was only 20 in 1871 I can't assume too much prior credit. Spaulding was also a very good hitter for someone playing a premium defensive position, posting a career OPS+ of 116. His post playign career is also Hal worthy, so if we don't get him as a player - and I think we should - he will likely be an early VC choice for his combined contributions.
--Joe Start was perhaps the greatest player of the 1860s. That can not be stated with great certainty and what its worth to his case will vary from voter to voter, but his peak case does exist - even if we can't see it clearly. He then had an exceptionaly long and reasonably successfull career in the NA/NL. Second best 1B, behind the great Anson, of his generation (or best of an even earlier one if you prefer). Still has a viable candidacy ongoing for your consideration.
--Cal McVey was a member of the famed 1869 Red Stockings as a teenager. He went on to be one of the greatest hitters of the 1870s. He was still a top player when he left for California where he played and managed for at least a few more seasons (details a little hazy). He played all over the diamond and, while not a defensive star, was apparently solid wherever need. He even pitched pretty well when caled upon to do so. A very hard player to pin down, btu clearly one of the very best players of his generation.
--Ezra Sutton was the best thirdbaseman of the 19th century. He had a great season in the first year of the NA at age 20 which suggests he was probably playing at a high level at least one season before that. He continued to be the best 3B in the league most years of the NA and into the first year of the NL. His career took a nosedive when he should have been at his peak in his late 20s.
--I've have no facts to back up this speculation, but he may have been hurt by the elimination of the fair/foul rule change. Or maybe he had a series of injuries. In any case his worst run of years came at ages 27-31 and he was terrible at least one of them. He bounced back to have his best run of years in his early 30s, putting up OPS+ over 140 3 years in a row, including a career high season.
--Sutton was a regular at 3B (and occasionally SS) from age 20-36 and an All Star level player in about half of them. His best years would have merited MVP consideration, although he might never have won one. I do see him as more a career candidate than a peak one and 17 seasons as a regular at 3B/SS (with a 119 OPS+) makes him very comparable to second tier Hall of Fame 3B's - even from the perspective of 100 years of baeball since his retirement.
--Lip Pike is not on my ballot, but does draw some support. He was probably the best power/speed combination of the first generation of stars.

[Paul Wendt]

Paul, Barnes actually made it with 76%. I removed a vote for each player DaveKingman voted for. So even though he's still listed as having voted for them, the vote totals for each are correct. The only difference is that we had 25 ballots instead of the 26 listed.
OK, so I don't clerk correctly. Of course I didn't count at all.

P.S. This makes no difference, but when I said my vote made no difference and discussed that theme in general, I meant that voting rather than abstaining, meeting the deadline rather than missing it, made no difference. That decision or performance commonly makes no difference. Choices :thumbsup: or :thumbsdown: make a difference much more often than voting makes a difference, given the choices.
This year Barnes "won" 19-6, 76%. All nineteen choices :thumbsup: made a difference in this sense, but no one's voting made a difference.