BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1912 [Archive]

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 11:16 AM

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 . If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he 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.

1912 Guide
There are 29 candidates on the 1912 ballot; 21 holdovers and 8 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1907 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (8)
Jack Beckley
Tommy Corcoran
Lave Cross
Monte Cross
Buck Freeman
Bobby Lowe
Jack McCarthy
Jack Taylor

Holdovers (21)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Cupid Childs 7th 52.00% 54.55% (1909)
Larry Corcoran 12th 16.00% 18.18% (1909)
Hugh Duffy 2nd 60.00% 60.00% (1911)
Duke Farrell 3rd 12.00% 12.00% (1911)
Noodles Hahn 2nd 12.00% 12.00% (1911)
Dummy Hoy 6th 8.00% 12.50% (1907)
Charley Jones 12th 32.00% 32.00% (1910, 1911)
Herman Long 4th 48.00% 52.00% (1910)
Jim McCormick 12th 20.00% 40.00% (1910)
Cal McVey 12th 44.00% 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 12th 40.00% 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 12th 60.00% 65.22% (1909)
Jimmy Ryan 5th 39.13% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 12th 60.00% 68.00% (1909)
Chick Stahl 2nd 8.00% 8.00% (1911)
Joe Start 12th 52.00% 62.50% (1905)
Ezra Sutton 12th 48.00% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 8th 16.00% 20.00% (1910)
George Van Haltren 5th 60.00% 68.00% (1908)
Mickey Welch 12th 48.00% 52.00% (1910)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (6)
Player 1911 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Hugh Duffy 60.00% 1
Al Spalding 60.00% 7
Hardy Richardson 60.00% 8
George Van Haltren 60.00% 4
Cupid Childs 52.00% 2
Joe Start 52.00% 8

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
Al Spalding 68.00% (1910) 1
George Van Haltren 68.00% (1908) 1

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (2)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Boilyeryard Clarke Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1910)
Jack Doyle Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1910, 1911)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)

Hall of Famers

Players Elected (29)
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
Ross Barnes 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9
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
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17
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
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15
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 (2): Ross Barnes, Bid McPhee
Third Base (0):
Shortstop (3): Jack Glasscock, 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 (8): Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, 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
1911 (3): Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock, Kid Nichols

First Balloters (13)
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
Kid Nichols 1911
Charley Radbourn 1901
Amos Rusie 1906

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 13
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 7
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 11 – Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 1 (1903, 1905, 1910)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.64
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 23.91
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants (6)
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Ross Barnes – 9 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.52 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Al Spalding, George Van Haltren (68.00%)

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
1911: 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)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)

jalbright

07-27-2008, 11:23 AM

Childs
Duffy
Long
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

Paul Wendt

07-27-2008, 12:19 PM

Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, ss
- double-play partner in Bid McPhee's last three seasons. Cincinnati was a strong team, contrary to what you may read about Jake Beckley, who also arrived in 1897, or about Buck Ewing, the manager from 1896.

Corcoran played 10 years in Cincinnati himself. Like McPhee he retired as the all-time leaders in playing time at his fielding position, 14.4 full seasons equivalent (McPhee 16.4). Today he is seventh, just behind Dahlen, Ripken, nad Appling; just ahead of Bowa, Maranville, and Concepcion.
- Bill James grades them McPhee A+ and Corcoran A in the field.
- McPhee was a good batter and Corcoran wasn't. He may have been below average even among shortstops in ordinary times and he played during their golden age.

Jake "Sir Jacob" Beckley, 1b
- see above
- search internet hall of fame conversations for more about him, seek and you shall find

Monte Cross, ss
- not related to Lave Cross, 3b
- Connie Mack probably considered him much better than grade C in the field (Bill James), and I suppose he was some better
- put up one good year as a batter when it was very very useful to the team. Two-out single off Matty in game five, caught stealing second --one of too few rallies by the Mackmen

Bobby "Link" Lowe, 2b
- 12 years a "Beaneater", three as outfielder and backup infielder; nine as the double-play partner of Herman Long. They were matched with Billy Nash and Jimmie Collins at third, Tommy Tucker and Fred Tenney at first. He was usually deemed the weakest link, I believe, although Bill James grades him A and doesn't like the firstbasemen.

Buck "Home Run" Freeman, of
- born 80 years too soon. He could have been Dave Kingman or a Designated Hitter.
- debuted in the major leagues as a pitcher in the first season of Washington's nth club, made it back as a hitter seven years later and was there to turn out the lights

Jack McCarthy, of
- Cleveland captain who never served, lost the job to Larry Lajoie on the lam

Lave Cross, 3b
- Cleveland manager in spring 1899 as respected senior player, .211 (Merely .103 under Joe Quinn in summer but Quinn didn't have Cross at thirdbase.)

Jack Taylor, p
- Iron Man, always finish what you begin

Paul Wendt

07-27-2008, 01:47 PM

[The list at each fielding position now grows from the bottom rather than in alphabetical order.]

bold marks a "middle group" with roughly contemporary major league stardom

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

3B SS 2B 1B
---- Ward -p-o-2 McPhee Anson
Wright Barnes Brouthers
Glasscock Connor
P
Clarkson
Keefe
Radbourn
Galvin
Rusie C
Mullane Ewing
Caruthers -of White -3b
Nichols Bennett

BlueBlood

07-27-2008, 04:11 PM

Nichols, Glasscock and Barnes were elected. My ballot drops to nine, then rises to ten with the addition of Beckley.

1. Beckley
2. Childs
3. Duffy
4. McCormick
5. Pike
6. Richardson
7. Spalding
8. Start
9. Sutton
10. Van Haltren

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Twelve (1901 onward) - Joe Start
Eleven (1902 onward) - Hardy Richardson
Seven (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Seven (1905 and 1907-1912) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Six (1901, 1908-1912) - Al Spalding
Five (1908 onward) - Lip Pike, George Van Haltren
Two (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
One (1912) - Jake Beckley

jjpm74

07-27-2008, 05:02 PM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Larry Corcoran
Tommy Corcoran
Lave Cross
Noodles Hahn
Herman Long
Bobby Lowe
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Mickey Welch

Bobby Lowe was way too good to be one and done. While I don't necessarily expect him to get elected, I'm hoping some of the voters take a closer look at just how good he was. Particularly those supporting Richardson or Childs.

BlueBlood

07-27-2008, 05:50 PM

I'll go out on a limb and predict that this month's sole electee will be Al Spalding. Anyone else care to guess?

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 06:24 PM

I'll go out on a limb and predict that this month's sole electee will be Al Spalding. Anyone else care to guess?

Could happen. He's been within striking distance, and we've generally been electing guys who crossed the 2/3 threshold at some point, with Spalding and Van Haltren being the only exceptions at this time. I don't see Spalding getting quite enough support though. He could probably benefit from additional chatter just as Barnes did and even Glasscock from the general discussion about middle IFers.

One player I think could be in line for a boost in Ezra Sutton. There's been some discussion about him and it's pretty glaring that at this point we haven't elected a single player that was predominantly a 3Bman. Then again, any sudden interest in Sutton could cool by next year when Jimmy Collins becomes available.

I'd like to see some discussion about Jake Beckley. Knowing the leanings of many voters, I doubt he'll get in any time soon. I think he has a pretty strong case though, in the same vein as Mickey Welch. A good player for a long time who put up very impressive counting numbers. Such longevity and consistency is pretty rare at this point in time. Among non-active players, Beckley currently ranks 3rd all time in hits:

1) Cap Anson - 3418
2) Willie Keeler - 2932
Jake Beckley - 2930

Are we really going to keep out the guy with the 3rd most hits in the game (and 2 away from 2nd) over the game's first 40 year period?

His 125 OPS+ is also pretty impressive considering his 10470 plate appearances. In fact, he ranks 2nd all time right now in plate appearances. Are we going to keep out a guy who was able to maintain a 125 OPS+ over the second longest career to this point? Only 1 other player is even with 800 plate appearances of him and that's the recently retired Bill Dahlen.

At this point in the game's history, given his longevity, consistency, and rare accomplishments, I think it is hard to argue that Beckley is not a HoFer.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 07:24 PM

--Except that Beckley was never a great player. He was good most years and very good in a few, but never had close to an MVP quality season.

Paul Wendt

07-27-2008, 07:30 PM

If we count fielding games at firstbase as shares of full seasons (fse) and we begin with the first openly professional season 1869, then Beckley is two seasons behind Cap Anson and slightly ahead of Joe Start. With more generous credit for the 1860s, Start is the leader, Beckley third. They are also the three leaders in major playing time at any one position (even including outfield as one position).

Eleven men have played at least 16 full seasons games at all fielding positions (all roles but substitute batters and baserunners).

seasons
25.3 Cap Anson
20.6 Jim O'Rourke
19.6 Deacon White (1.5 seasons, 1869-70)
18.7 Paul Hines
17.3 Ezra Sutton (1 season, 1870)
16.8 Bill Dahlen
16.7 Jake Beckley
16.5 Roger Connor
16.4 Bid McPhee
16.4 Joe Start (2 seasons, 1869-70 only)
16.2 George Davis

Bobby Wallace, the Frenchman, and the Dutchman may join this list in a year or three.
I don't know a good way to count the pitchers work. Even the old-timers worked every game for only a few seasons.

jalbright

07-27-2008, 07:39 PM

When it comes to pitchers, career IP works fine, if only because baseball's history is consistent in pushing pitchers to (or beyond) their limits over a few years' time. Thus, pitchers from the early eras wind up with much the same number of IP as later generations. Single season marks are messy for many reasons, but the final tallies work out OK.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 07:41 PM

Herman Long, SS (1889-1904) - 4th Year
John McGraw, 3B (1891-1906) - 2nd Year
Cal McVey, C/1B (1871-1879) - 12th Year
Hardy Richardson, 2B/LF (1879-1892) - 12th Year
Al Spalding, SP (1871-1877) - 12th Year
Joe Start, 1B (1871-1886) - 12th Year
Ezra Sutton, 3B (1871-1888) - 12th Year

--Long is pretty comparable to the recently elected Jack Glasscock. I'm not exactly devoted to his cause, but he made my ballot last time when I was part of the push to get some consideration for infielders (which had/has been lacking) and he gets another vote here.
-McGraw had a great peak, but a short career. I probably wouldn't vote for him if he wasn't making such an impact as a manager. He may not last as a ballot member when Jimmy Collins joins the ballot next year though.
--McVey was one of the truely elite players of the 1870s. His career was short though and unless you're giving him credit for pre and/or post NA/NL play he probably isn't on your ballot. He gets a little of both from me.
--Hardy Richardson was the third best of the Bufffalo/Detriot Big 4. We've elected 2 (and dropped the 4th). Richardson is a gray area guy for me, but its a pretty dark shade of gray.
--Spaulding was by far the best pitcher of the NA. He had a short career, but 253 wins and a 142 ERA+ is a pretty compeeling argument. A very good hitter too with a 116 OPS+. Throw in his significant post playing and he shuld be a slam dunk for the Hall.
--Start had a long career as a solid firtbaseman in the NA/NL, but its his 1860s peak that makes or breaks his case. He may have been the best player of that decade, but how much you credit him for that is a make or break issue for his cause.
--Sutton was the best thirdbaseman of the 19th century, but JImmy Collins surpassed him early the 20th. Still a 119 OPS+ for a guy who was a regular for 16 seasons at 3B/SS deserves a hard look from everyone.

jjpm74

07-27-2008, 08:03 PM

--Except that Beckley was never a great player. He was good most years and very good in a few, but never had close to an MVP quality season.

Is that 1912 or 2008 leecemark speaking? In 1912, Beckley was considered one of the best players in the history of baseball and almost universally recognized as the best first basemen in baseball. A few sources even had him ranked higher than Anson.

dgarza

07-27-2008, 08:08 PM

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

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

leecemark

07-27-2008, 08:08 PM

jjpm74

07-27-2008, 08:13 PM

--I'd be interested in seeing any accounts that refer to Beckley as a great player. Its hard to imagine that was the case, but if he was widely considered as such then that may be enough to change my opinion (here if not for the BBFHoF).

Next time I hit the microfilm at the NY public library, I'll print out what I can find and scan it. There was a ranking in the NY Times that ranked Beckley higher than Anson while Beckley was still playing IIRC and there was 1 other that escapes me now. In the interim, I can understand why people here are applying current statistical analysis to players from this era that wouldn't have existed at the time. What I can't understand is why they are attempting to apply the exact same arguments for every project. If that's all people want to do, why even go through with a project like this?

A period project is a perfect way to take a closer look at players that may not look that great in 2008, but probably looked very enticing in 1912. I'd never be pining for a player like Bobby Lowe in the BBFHOF project or the Ultimate Quest project as he just looks like another decent defensive second baseman in 2008. In 1912, he was considered one of the best second basemen of his generation.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 08:28 PM

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 08:31 PM

Is that 1912 or 2008 leecemark speaking? In 1912, Beckley was considered one of the best players in the history of baseball and almost universally recognized as the best first basemen in baseball. A few sources even had him ranked higher than Anson.

I agree. Mark, for someone who advocated strongly that we haven't been putting players from the 1870s into proper perspective, I don't think you're putting a guy like Beckley into the proper perspective. In the context of this era, Beckley had AMAZING longevity and consistency. A 125 OPS+ in nearly 10500 plate appearances, during a time when it was very uncommon to have even half that many plate appearances, is pretty impressive to me, and I do think you might be allowing your 2008 perspective cloud your judgment here. He has extremely rare career value for players up this point in time, and that deserves acknowledgment, IMO.

Further, here are some all time top 10 rankings in some key offensive categories among players not active:

Hits
1) Cap Anson - 3418
2) Willie Keeler - 2932
3) Jake Beckely - 2930
4) Jesse Burkett - 2850
5) George Davis - 2660
6) Lave Cross - 2645
7) Jim O'Rourke - 2643
8) Ed Delahanty - 2596
9) George Van Haltren - 2532
10) Jimmy Ryan - 2502

RBI
1) Can Anson - 2076
2) Jake Beckley - 1575
3) Ed Delahanty - 1464
4) George Davis - 1437
5) Lave Cross - 1371
6) Roger Conner - 1322
7) Hugh Duffy - 1302
8) Sam Thompson - 1299
9) Dan Brouthers - 1296
10) Bill Dahlen - 1233

Total Bases
1) Cap Anson - 4574
2) Jake Beckley - 4147
3) Ed Delahanty - 3791
4) Roger Conner - 3788
5) Jesse Burkett - 3759
6) George Davis - 3656
7) Jimmy Ryan - 3621
8) Jim O'Rourke - 3596
9) Willie Keeler - 3562
10) Dan Brouthers - 3484

Doubles
1) Cap Anson - 581
2) Ed Delahanty - 522
3) Jake Beckley - 473
4) Jim O'Rourke - 465
5) Dan Brouthers - 460
6) George Davis - 451
7) Jimmy Ryan - 451
8) Roger Conner - 441
9) Bill Dahlen - 413
10) Lave Cross - 411

Triples
1) Jake Beckley - 243
2) Roger Conner - 233
3) Dan Brouthers - 205
4) Joe Kelley - 194
5) Bid McPhee - 188
6) Ed Delahanty - 185
7) Jesse Burkett - 182
8) Buck Ewing - 178
9) Harry Stovey - 174
10) Elmer Flick - 164

Runs
1) Cap Anson - 1996
2) Jim O'Rourke - 1729
3) Jesse Burkett - 1720
4) Willie Keeler - 1719
5) Billy Hamilton - 1690
6) Bid McPhee - 1678
7) Jimmy Ryan - 1642
8) George Van Haltren - 1639
9) Roger Conner - 1620
10) Jake Beckley - 1600

Mark, are you really going to argue against a player, who after 40 years of professional ball, ranks all time: 3rd in hits, 2nd in RBI, 2nd in total bases, 3rd in doubles, 1st in triples, 10th in runs (often by large margins over the players behind him)? If so, then I'm going to have to really question whether you are putting Beckley into the right perspective. In terms of longevity and consistency, Beckley was an extremely rare player given the era.

EDIT: I've decided that I'm going to continually post this until Beckley is elected, because not electing him in the context of 1912, given his exceptionally rare accomplishments, just makes no sense to me, and I really have to question whether people are judging him too much from a modern view and taking for granted just how extraordinary his longevity and consistency was in his time.

NineWorldSeries

07-27-2008, 08:35 PM

Beckley
Duffy
Hoy
McCormick
McGraw
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch

leecemark

07-27-2008, 08:40 PM

jjpm74

07-27-2008, 08:41 PM

--The primary benefit of a project like this is that it forces the participants to review the early players ONLY and not attempt to compare them to the more modern players most of us are more familiar with. We are able to compare apples to apples in terms of schedule lengths and statistical norms. As I said, evidence that his contempories viewed Beckley as a special player could sway my vote (in this project, but not the BBFHoF). That is not to say that I will ignore more advanced measures not available to those contemporary observers.

As I said, when I get down to the city, I'll print out and scan that info, for educational purposes, but not to try to sway someone clearly biased. I really have no desire to discuss Beckley further. If you want a reason why Beckley was so amazing, take a look at what DoubleX just posted and if your not convinced, explain to us how you're looking at Beckley ONLY against his peers and still managing to apply the same argument you did in the BBFHOF project.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 08:45 PM

--I am biased - in favor of great players. I have no desire to see Hall of Fame membership turned into a gold watch for players who showed up everyday and did their jobs, but never truely excelled at them.

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 08:52 PM

--Beckley has a very narrow window to hold those positions. There are a number of active players who will pass him by in the next few years. He happened to come into baseball at the time when schedules had expanded to near their current length while earlier players with as much or more longevity in terms of seasons end up with fewer games and other counting stats due to the shorter seasons. That said, I can understand Beckley's appeal to career oriented voters. As someone who insists on a Hall of Fame level peak to give up a Hall of Fame vote he has much less appeal.

Beckley will move down those lists, but not very far for a long time. If Beckley was just a product of his time, why don't we see more players with his across the board lofty totals? And he didn't just show up, Mark. He had a 125 OPS+ in the second longest career to date. Maintaining a 125 OPS+ in 10500 plate appearances is very impressive for this era, considering how rare half that amount of plate appearances is. Further, a player that just shows up to play doesn't finish among the top 3 in all these categories. That's a heck of lot more than just showing up. So I'm convinced you're not putting Beckley's accomplishment into the proper context and giving him his due. This must be similar to how frustrated you felt when people were slow to recognize Barnes over the context of his era.

Additionally, I believe you have argued that we've had inadequate representations at certain positions given the 40 year history. That, for example, we should elect Ezra Sutton. Well if you're arguing that we shouldn't elect Beckley because others will pass him: 1) That isn't putting him into the context of his time, and it is looking from a more modern perspective of what happened later; and 2) Your argument for Sutton doesn't mean as much because it could just be said that guys like Collins and Baker are coming along and will pass him. I believe you argue for Sutton because of where he stands in the context of his era. Likewise, we should elect Beckley because in the context of his era, he was an extremely rare breed.

So just to reiterate for people just joining the conversation: In the first 40 years, among non-active players, Beckley ranks:

- 3rd in Hits
- 2nd in RBI
- 2nd in Total Bases
- 1st in Triples
- 3rd in Doubles
- 10th in Runs
And maintained a 125 OPS+ in the second longest career to date (which is far and away longer than most everyone else that follows). An extraordinarily rare combination of longevity and consistency, IMO.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 08:59 PM

--Barnes was the best player in baseball for 5-6 years. Was Beckley ever one of the top 10 players - even for a single season? I'll always favor the Barnes' over the Beckley's. Beckley may be the top player in the Hall of Very Good though. It is not impossible to sway my vote on him.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 09:03 PM

Additionally, I believe you have argued that we've had inadequate representations at certain positions given the 40 year history. That, for example, we should elect Ezra Sutton. Well if you're arguing that we shouldn't elect Beckley because others will pass him: 1) That isn't putting him into the context of his time, and it is looking from a more modern perspective of what happened later; and 2) Your argument for Sutton doesn't mean as much because it could just be said that guys like Collins and Baker are coming along.

--We have elected 3 firstbasemen and they were all MUCH greater players than Beckley. Not sure how the positional arguement applies here. As for players passing him by I'm not talking about the distant future, I'm talking about active players who seem very likley to end up with better career numbers - and who already have much higher peaks.

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 09:06 PM

Barnes may have been the best player during a questionable and quickly evolving period that differed in many respects to what the game would become shortly after his career ended, and he had troubled adapting as the game rounded into its more modern form (that's a big strike against him, IMO). However, I ended up voting for him because I tried to look past that and put him into the context of his time. I urge you do the same with Beckley. He may not have been the best player of his era, but our Hall is already much larger than that, and Beckley was extremely unique for his time, as almost no one had the kind of career value that he had, and that very much deserves credit.

dgarza

07-27-2008, 09:15 PM

--We have elected 3 firstbasemen and they were all MUCH greater players than Beckley. Even all the OFers we have elected tower over him. If elected, Beckley would definitely be the 1st borderline HOFer in this positional grouping.

jjpm74

07-27-2008, 09:35 PM

Even all the OFers we have elected tower over him. If elected, Beckley would definitely be the 1st borderline HOFer in this positional grouping.

Browning doesn't come close to him. Thompson is also a borderline guy. Mullane was another one who had a weaker argument for inclusion than Beckley.

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 09:44 PM

Browning doesn't come close to him. Thompson is also a borderline guy. Mullane was another one who had a weaker argument for inclusion than Beckley.

Just highlighting Mullane - if people aren't impressed with Beckley's 125 OPS+ in the second most plate appearances of all time this point, then Mullane's 118 ERA+ in a long career (by IP) shouldn't be that impressive either. Plus, despite pitching a lot, Mullane didn't come close to ranking near the very top of so many core categories like Beckley has. I know Mark is a big Mullane supporter, so I'd be interested to hear why Mullane gets in but not Beckley. Mullane's 5 year peak ERA+ was 145. Beckley's 5 year peak OPS+ was 145. Beckley also spent his entire career in the NL, while Mullane had the clear majority of his best seasons in the AA. So why Mullane but not Beckley?

And I'll say it again, Beckley, in the context of his era, was MUCH more than just a player that showed up everyday - he was a guy with almost singularly unique longevity and consistency.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 09:52 PM

dgarza

07-27-2008, 09:54 PM

Thompson is also a borderline guy. Sam Thompson is more along the lines of a "first ballot" guy to me. It took us 5 years here... for some reason.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 10:08 PM

--For those so enthusiastic about Beckley, are you voting for Joe Start? Start played 2 less seasons than Beckley and had an OPS+ 4 points lower. On the face of it that makes Beckley the better candidate. Looking deeper you get a much different picture. We have all Beckley's numbers, but Start was regarded as a great player prior to the establishment of the NA. He was 28 when the official record books started. His actual career was significantly longer than Beckley's, his peak was probably higher and if we had his 1860s numbers his career OP+ would most likley be higher. Beckley's numbers only look better due to the longer schedules when he played. In conclusion, I'm not sure whether this comparison may convince a few voters to add Start or me to drop him:). Its possible I'm giving Start too much credit for his pre-NA play - and he needs it all to be Hall worthy.

jjpm74

07-27-2008, 10:11 PM

Start is a definite HOFer. What makes his case hard is that his career spanned 3 generations of professional baseball. I personally can't see how anyone can vote for Start and not Beckley or vice versa. ;)

DoubleX

07-27-2008, 10:40 PM

--ERA+ and OPS+ are not directly comparable. The scale tends to run higher for hitters than pitchers. This is even more true when we are talking about players at the primary hitting positions. A league average (100 ERA+) pitcher has significant value. A league average firstbaseman (100 OPS+) is a guy you are looking to replace. A pitcher with a 120 ERA+ (sometimes even a 110) is an All Star. A firstbaseman with a 120 OPS+ is just another guy.
--Anyway Mullane is a guy I see as just over the line. Beckley is one who I see as just below it. Your mileage may vary.

How many guys had a 125 OPS+ at 1B from the era we're talking about? I think you'll be surprised to see that the number really isn't that many. And again, we're talking about a guy with nearly 10500 plate appearances, second most all time, way ahead of most everyone else, and during a time when it was rare to have half that many. So I think it would be fair, given the era, to really adjust that 125 OPS+ to say a 130-135 because of the unique longevity of his career. Think about it - would you vote for him if he had say 8000 plate appearances and a 135 OPS+? For some reason, I think you'd be more likely, but that would be essentially punishing him for having such unique longevity.

And yes, I am voting for Joe Start. But unfortunately for Start, any consideration of his pre-1871 play isn't in play here. It's not part of the look back period, but could be factored in when we get to the VC. We have to cut the line somewhere - how far back do we go into the game's infancy? Do we go back to guys playing rounders for money in a NYC park in the early 19th century? I already have reservations about the 1870s because of how quickly the game evolved during that decade and how the game was in many regards very different from the game it would be come in the following decade.

leecemark

07-27-2008, 10:46 PM

--You started counting eligibility with 1871. That does not mean we can't or shouldn't consider the totality of the careers of eligible players.

Freakshow

07-28-2008, 07:42 AM

Nichols, Barnes and Glasscock are replaced by Beckley, Cross and Tiernan.

Beckley
Childs
L. Cross
Duffy
C. Jones
Long
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Tiernan
Van Haltren

DoubleX

07-28-2008, 07:55 AM

--You started counting eligibility with 1871. That does not mean we can't or shouldn't consider the totality of the careers of eligible players.

That's pretty much the point of tracing eligibility back to 1871. At what point is too far back? At what point is the game too immature? Considering what a guy like Joe Start did in the 1860s would be unfair to a guy like Dickey Pearce - why not consider him as well then?

leecemark

07-28-2008, 08:15 AM

Brooklyn

07-28-2008, 08:43 AM

Beckley, Spalding, Welch.

Great Post by doubleX (post #18). hard to ignore Beckley when he is so high on all the lists to date.

Freakshow

07-28-2008, 08:45 AM

That's pretty much the point of tracing eligibility back to 1871. At what point is too far back? At what point is the game too immature? Considering what a guy like Joe Start did in the 1860s would be unfair to a guy like Dickey Pearce - why not consider him as well then?
If one wants, they can easily make a distinction between Pearce and Start along these lines: Start proved his quality by remaining very productive throughout the first decade of the NL, even as the game matured and advanced. This is strong evidence that he was a superlative player in his prime, pre-1871. We have no similar evidence for Pearce.

Given this, I see no good justification for ignoring Start's early years when assessing his quality as a player.

DoubleX

07-28-2008, 08:45 AM

--Why not indeed? You made the decision that Start was eligible and Pearce was not. I did not agree, but you do get to make those decisions and I can accept that. Ignoring part of the career of an eligible player wouldn't make much sense to me though. If it makes you feel any better I won't vote Start or Beckley next time if both are still on ballot. If Beckley makes it then I'll continue to vote for Start until his eligiblity runs out though.

Simple: Eligibility starts in 1871, and Start played all the way to 1886, Pearce played until 1877 and was pretty much past his prime during that period. I suppose it's fair to consider that Start was a great player before that period, but I wouldn't get too into the details. Again, how far back should we go? Should we go to guys playing rounders in a park? I strongly feel that players from the 1860s and even most of the 1870s, better fall under a pioneer distinction, at which a VC could better scrutinize. As we've seen, someone like Barnes, whose career was totally encapsulated in the early professional game, struggled here, because it is really difficult, due to game at the time, to put those players into proper perspective along side players of subsequent generations. Barnes eventually got there though, and I'm certain your agitating had a lot to do with it. My hope now is that I can agitate enough to get Beckley in, because I'm certain that people who don't see him as fitting aren't putting him in the proper historical perspective, just as you are certain about Barnes and others from the 1870s.

EDIT: Freakshow, I agree. It's very much to Start's benefit that he stuck around for so long and played well, making it much easier to give him the benefit of the doubt. Again, that was one of the knocks on Barnes - as the game evolved around him into its more modern form, he couldn't seem to keep up. I voted for Barnes anyway, and the point I'm trying to make is that historical context is important. I found it important that Barnes was a star of his day and excelled under the conditions of his day. Likewise, I think it's important to acknowledge how extraordinarily unique Beckley's career was for his day in terms longevity and consistency, and it's not like he wasn't a good player. A 125 OPS+ in 10500 PAs, at a time when it was rare to have half that many PAs, is impressive. It's strange to think that people might be more comfortable with him if he had a 135 OPS+ in 8000 PAs. I just don't get why his rare longevity and consistency, particularly for his era, is held against him.

EDIT 2: Mark earlier mentioned that Beckley is going to fall down those lists I gave earlier, which is natural as more players have longer career, but let's remember, that in the context of his time, Beckley's longevity and consistency were very unique, maybe 10-15 years ahead of its time. Two points:

1) Looking ahead is not putting a player into the context of when he played.

2) Even if we do look ahead, let's say look at the totals when every player active in 1912 retires, which takes us to around 1930, giving us 60 years to look back on. Beckley will still rank no lower than 9th all time in Hits (9th), RBI (5th), Total Bases (8th), Doubles (8th), and Triples (4th). And the guys passing him, well they are BIG names - Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Collins, Lajoie, Crawford. You only get these big names passing Beckley (with Wheat sometimes on there as well), never any lesser players. These are some of the very best players ever, irrespective of generation, and it's no shame for Beckley to be passed by them. If our Hall was only for the likes of these players, I could understand leaving Beckley out, but we've already adopted much larger standards. If anything, Beckley was a forerunner to these guys - the long career and long consistency, but that was far, far removed from the norm in Beckley's day.

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 12:30 PM

Simple: Eligibility starts in 1871, and Start played all the way to 1886, Pearce played until 1877 and was pretty much past his prime during that period. I suppose it's fair to consider that Start was a great player before that period, but I wouldn't get too into the details. Again, how far back should we go? Should we go to guys playing rounders in a park? I strongly feel that players from the 1860s and even most of the 1870s, better fall under a pioneer distinction, at which a VC could better scrutinize. As we've seen, someone like Barnes, whose career was totally encapsulated in the early professional game, struggled here, because it is really difficult, due to game at the time, to put those players into proper perspective along side players of subsequent generations. Barnes eventually got there though, and I'm certain your agitating had a lot to do with it. My hope now is that I can agitate enough to get Beckley in, because I'm certain that people who don't see him as fitting aren't putting him in the proper historical perspective, just as you are certain about Barnes and others from the 1870s.

Joe Start's baseball career began in the late 1850s and his organized/professional career began in 1862. Even disregarding the fact that he was the best first baseman of the 1860s, take Start and look at his 1871-1886 professional career by itself and project to 162 game schedules and here are his counting stats:

1409 Runs, 2653 hits, 878 RBIs

Try to remember that those numbers came when Start was already in his decline years and that he was productive in his age 35-42 seasons (1878-1885).

In addition to this, I do not think it is at all unreasonable to say that had Start played from 1872-1896 instead of 1862-1886 that he would have compiled more hits than even Cap Anson.

But let's get back to just his 1871-1886 career for a moment. In addition to being very productive (one of the most productive hitters of that era even if ignoring his age), Start had a high peak from 1877-1882.

Take Start's 1871-1886 career and add to that his defensive prowess and that he defined where a first baseman plays and add to that the fact that he was the best first baseman in the 1860s and that only a much younger Anson was better than him (maybe) in the 1870s and he's a definite HOFer.

Even looking only at his 1871-1886 years, Start is above the line. He belongs.

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 12:55 PM

Here's where the remaining 1st generation stars stand compared to our current electorate in terms of OPS+. Those not elected are in bold.

Dan Brouthers 170
Ross Barnes 166
Pete Browning 162
Lip Pike 155
Roger Connor 153
Ed Delahanty 152
Cal McVey 152
Sam Thompson 146
Harry Stovey 143
Cap Anson 141
Billy Hamilton 141
Jesse Burkett 140
King Kelly
George Gore 135
Bob Caruthers 133*
Jim O'Rourke 133
Paul Hines 131
Buck Ewing 129
Deacon White 127
George Wright 125
Joe Start 121
Ezra Sutton 119
Charlie Bennett
Al Spalding 116*
Jack Glasscock 112
Bid McPhee 106
John Ward 92*

Ward, Caruthers and Spalding were all excellent pitchers who fielded other positions.

henrich

07-28-2008, 01:23 PM

These are the best 8 that I could find.
P Mickey Welch
P Jim McCormick
1B Jake Beckley
3B Lave Cross
SS Herman Long
OF Van Haltren
OF Jimmy Ryan
OF Hugh Duffy

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 01:41 PM

I haven't heard too much discussion about first generation star Lip Pike in this thread, so I thought I'd throw some statistics and facts out there about him in the hopes that some of his supporters and detractors can better explain why he belongs or does not belong and maybe to win a few people over to his case as he has a strong case for election.

Lipman Pike's professional career began in 1866 with the Philadelphia Athletics where he almost instantly became a star. Pike was blessed with speed, defensive ability and was also an early power hitter at a time when the home run was a rarity. It should be noted that Pike was one of the first ball players to receive a salary for his play. In 1867, following a dispute with his team, Pike joined the New Jersey Irvingtons and then the NY Mutuals in 1868 where he hit .497 in 51 games and boasted a .661 slugging avg. In 1869, Pike joined the Brooklyn Atlantics where he hit .610 in 48 games (*Note: high batting averages like this were not unheard of in the earlier days of professional baseball where the rules favored the hitter more than the pitcher. Pike's BAs were above league average, however). Pike would remain with the Atlantics for another year before moving on to the Lord Baltimores in 1871. Pike would play in the NA and the NL from 1871-1878 before moving on to play in the minors for several years. He would also make two cameos in the NL in 1881 and 1887.

Here are some testimonials to Lip Pike's level of play in the earliest days of professional baseball from his SABR Bio (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=31&pid=11267):

In subsequent issues, the Sporting News published a series of tributes to Pike, indicating his stature as one of the greats of his time:

"Pike was the center fielder of the Atlantics of Brooklyn in the latter's palmiest days and as an all-round batsman, fielder and base runner he had few if any superiors. He was a left-handed batsman and in his day could hit the ball as hard as any man in the business. He was a right field hitter and during his career had sent balls over the right field fence of nearly every park in which he had played in."38

"Pike...was one of the few sons of Israel who ever drifted to the business of ball playing. He was a handsome fellow when he was here, and the way he used to hit that ball was responsible for many a scene of enthusiasm at the old avenue grounds...The roster of ball players who once wore the red and who have been called out by Umpire Death is not very large, but in the passing away of 'Lip' Pike one of the greatest sluggers who ever batted for Cincinnati has joined the file in eternity."39

"The death of 'Lip' Pike removes another of the veterans of the seventies from the ranks of the men who played as stars when most of the present favorites were babies. I remember Pike's ball playing best through a hit which I saw him make at Cincinnati...He hit the first ball pitched and none who saw that ball sail out over the right fielder's head will ever forget it. It went not only over the right field fence, but continued to sail until it cleared the brick kiln beyond and dropped into the high weeds bordering on Mill Creek. I am impressed with the belief that if the distance could be measured that hit of Pike's would go on record as the longest fly ball ever made. The last time I saw Pike - which was during the New York's last series of Championship games at Eastern Park - we rode together in the elevated train from the ball ground, and he recalled that famous home run with a great deal of pride. Some one of the players on that day had made a home run, and 'Lip' could not refrain from comparing it with the greatest incident in his professional career.

"...Those who knew Pike appreciated him most. He was one of the few ball players of those days who were always gentlemanly on and off the field, a specie which is becoming rarer as the game grows older. Such men as Pike, Barnes, Spalding, Reach, Jim White, George Wright, and Morill, creditable to the game professionally and personally, are becoming scarcer every year."40

Several honors came to Lipman Pike in the years following his death. The publisher of Philadelphia's prestigious Sporting Life, Francis Richter, constructed hypothetical All-Star teams in 1911. Richter selected Pike as one of his three outfielders for the 1870-1880 time period.

Looking at Pike's raw numbers, he has 26 black ink points (27 is average for a HOFer). Much of his black ink comes from home runs where he led the league in 1871-1873 and 1877. While this involved single digit home run totals, most accounts of Pike's play consider him a man who possessed great power. Pike's gray ink total is 120 which shy of the 144 average, but let's not forget that Pike was already in his decline years by the time the NL came into existence and had several great years in organized/professional baseball before the NA.

Pike topped .300 in all but one of his 1871-1878 seasons. He was also among the league leaders in RBIs, hits, and runs and was an every day player during that stretch.

Looking at Pike's 1871-1878 career, here is how he compares to other outfielders currently on the ballot and those who were already elected by us in terms of OPS+. Players in bold are not in the Progressive HOF but are receiving support here:

Pete Browning 162
Lip Pike 155
Ed Delahanty 152
Charley Jones 150
Sam Thompson 146
Harry Stovey 143
Billy Hamilton 141
Jesse Burkett 140
King Kelly 138
Mike Tiernan 137
George Gore 135
Bob Caruthers 133*
Jim O'Rourke 133
Paul Hines 131
Hardy Richardson 130*
Jimmy Ryan 123
Hugh Duffy 122
Chick Stahl 122
George Van Haltren 121
Dummy Hoy 110

* Means the player played an almost equal number of games at another position.

As win shares are not a good measure for the earliest professional baseball players, we are forced to look at OPS+, traditional stats and peak value. Out of all the outfielders we have elected and all the outfielders receiving support, only Pete Browning has a higher OPS+ than Lip Pike. Out of all players we have elected, Pike Ranks 4th behind Ross Barnes, Pete Browning and Dan Brouthers. In terms of peak value, Here's Pike's OPS+ for his 1873-1878 seasons: 133, 170, 204, 176, 142, 137. This was a very strong peak. His 1871 season was also high with a 195 OPS+ and his 1872 season which would be the only full season in his career where his BA or OBP would fall under .300 was still 119.

Pike only has a few years left on the ballot. I had said earlier that borderline outfielders were going to remain off my ballot. Pike is not borderline and deserves election. The other outfielder with only a few years of eligibility left and a strong case is Charley Jones, but I will leave that case for someone else.

jalbright

07-28-2008, 02:34 PM

If Pike had done his thing a little longer, I'd probably go for him. As it stands, his career is too short for my taste. Sorry.

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 02:37 PM

If Pike had done his thing a little longer, I'd probably go for him. As it stands, his career is too short for my taste. Sorry.

13 years is too short for your taste (1866-1878)? What is long enough for you?

TheSlaff

07-28-2008, 03:14 PM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Charley Jones
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

DoubleX

07-28-2008, 06:41 PM

I want to revisit the possibility of slimming down the ballot to 10 votes. One of the big reasons we went with 15 votes was because of the vast number of players on the ballot in the first few elections. That doesn't seem to be an issue anymore, and the ballot will be greatly reduced after 1915 when the last of the originally eligible players will drop off. It is likely that the ballot size will regularly be between 20-25 players after 1915, so allowing up to 15 votes seems like a lot. It also seems like most voters aren't really going much over 10 votes, though I haven't really checked this out.

So I'm thinking that after 1915, we'll go to 10 votes.

jalbright

07-28-2008, 07:33 PM

13 years is too short for your taste (1866-1878)? What is long enough for you?

It wasn't like he played every day for 13 years, my good man. He missed a fair number of games--Paul Wendt has him missing nearly a season and a half in his last nine, so we're talking a maximum of 11 1/2 full seasons. That's short in my book for a HOFer. According to Paul's spreadsheet, even 11.5 seasons is around 370th all-time.

Freakshow

07-28-2008, 08:33 PM

so we're talking a maximum of 11 1/2 full seasons. That's short in my book for a HOFer. According to Paul's spreadsheet, even 11.5 seasons is around 370th all-time.
Yet, you vote for Duffy, whose career length was the same as Pike's. Duffy had one year where his OPS+ topped Pike's career mark.

Another thing is, in Pike's time his career length was rather extraordinary. In 1878, Pike was 33 years old, the same age as Bob Ferguson and two years younger than Joe Start. Those were the three oldest regular players in MLB.

Erik Bedard

07-28-2008, 09:36 PM

1912 ballot:

Noodles Hahn

If I were to expand this ballot a bit, the ones I'd go to first would be Start, Pike, Spalding, Richardson, and maybe Beckley.

JDD

07-28-2008, 09:56 PM

Lave Cross, 3B (1887-1907) - 1sr Year
Hugh Duffy, CF/OF (1888-1901, 1904-1906) - 2nd Year
John McGraw, 3B (1891-1906) - 2nd Year
Jimmy Ryan, CF (1885-1903) - 5th Year
George Van Haltren, CF (1887-1903) - 5th Year

dgarza

07-28-2008, 10:01 PM

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 10:09 PM

1912 ballot:

Noodles Hahn

If I were to expand this ballot a bit, the ones I'd go to first would be Start, Pike, Spalding, Richardson, and maybe Beckley.

I was wondering if maybe you would take a closer look at some of those you might possibly consider in 1913? Several of those players you mention only have a few more years of eligibility. I presented some more detailed information on Lip Pike on the previous page if you want more evidence as to how he was viewed by his peers or how he compares to other outfielders of the 19th century. He is far superior to players like Hugh Duffy who have almost as much support as Pike.

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 10:24 PM

It wasn't like he played every day for 13 years, my good man. He missed a fair number of games--Paul Wendt has him missing nearly a season and a half in his last nine, so we're talking a maximum of 11 1/2 full seasons. That's short in my book for a HOFer. According to Paul's spreadsheet, even 11.5 seasons is around 370th all-time.

Again, this is applying a 2008 approach to a period project. I can see the merits of adding this kind of information to the BBFHOF project, but not to a period project intended to take a look at players in their own period. To use leecemark's words, "compare apples to apples." Yes, I have read Paul's information about Pike over at the Hall of Merit. It's what helped solidify Pike and Barnes as HOFers for me. Again, I question why anyone would take the time to participate in a project like this if their minds are already made up about who is a HOFer and who is not and are unwilling to at least make an effort to look at these players in context.

jjpm74

07-28-2008, 10:45 PM

Jack Taylor, p
- Iron Man, always finish what you begin

187 consecutive complete games. Absolutely amazing. Does someone have some more info on this player outside of his SABR bio?

Also, could someone please save Buck Freeman from 1 and done oblivion? Take a look at his home run total in 1899 and career OPS+ if you have any reservations about keeping him active for one more ballot.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 08:49 AM

Al Spalding played even less. Are you considering non-playing contributions for Spalding?

Pitchers are best evaluated in career terms by their total number of IP pitched rather than their number of years played. 19th century pitchers concentrated a lot of pitching into short time frames and don't need the adjustments that 19th century hitters deserve due to the shorter season lengths.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 08:53 AM

Again, this is applying a 2008 approach to a period project. I can see the merits of adding this kind of information to the BBFHOF project, but not to a period project intended to take a look at players in their own period. To use leecemark's words, "compare apples to apples." Yes, I have read Paul's information about Pike over at the Hall of Merit. It's what helped solidify Pike and Barnes as HOFers for me. Again, I question why anyone would take the time to participate in a project like this if their minds are already made up about who is a HOFer and who is not and are unwilling to at least make an effort to look at these players in context.

I am looking at it in context--but I'm not willing to forget what I already know. Sorry that doesn't please you, but that's the way I'm going to approach it unless Double X changes his mind and mandates your approach--at which point I would leave rather than do what I would regard as dumbing down by forgetting what I already have learned to suit the project.

jjpm74

07-29-2008, 09:04 AM

I am looking at it in context--but I'm not willing to forget what I already know. Sorry that doesn't please you, but that's the way I'm going to approach it unless Double X changes his mind and mandates your approach--at which point I would leave rather than do what I would regard as dumbing down by forgetting what I already have learned to suit the project.

I'm not talking about dumbing down. I'm referring to you and a handful of others insistence on comparing players in this project to players in other generations. You are not even making an attempt to look at context if you are using information like this in your argument:

According to Paul's spreadsheet, even 11.5 seasons is around 370th all-time.

Unless you have a crystal ball that shows you what Bert Blyleven or Albert Belle's accomplishments are going to mean in the year 2104, you shouldn't be applying information like this to your arguments.

You also never answered Freakshow's question about why you support Duffy.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 09:13 AM

Yet, you vote for Duffy, whose career length was the same as Pike's. Duffy had one year where his OPS+ topped Pike's career mark.

Another thing is, in Pike's time his career length was rather extraordinary. In 1878, Pike was 33 years old, the same age as Bob Ferguson and two years younger than Joe Start. Those were the three oldest regular players in MLB.

But Start and Dickey Pearce played to much older ages, and I'd imagine there are others from that time. Not only is Pike's career short, but there's not a lot of success to point to after 1875. I'm leery of guys who didn't carry much success into the NL days, especially at an age where I'd expect them to be young enough to do better. Pike comes with more baggage than I'm comfortable with.

KCGHOST

07-29-2008, 09:28 AM

Childs
Duffy
McGraw
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren

jjpm74

07-29-2008, 09:55 AM

But Start and Dickey Pearce played to much older ages, and I'd imagine there are others from that time. Not only is Pike's career short, but there's not a lot of success to point to after 1875. I'm leery of guys who didn't carry much success into the NL days, especially at an age where I'd expect them to be young enough to do better. Pike comes with more baggage than I'm comfortable with.

The vast majority of players from the pre-NL days who transitioned to the NL were in their 20s and even they were few and far between. Start was the only player from his generation who was already 30 when the NL came around that would stick around for any significant length of time. That's how rare it was to see older players continue to play in the first generation. Generally, if a player was older and still playing, they were doing so as a player/manager.

Most players in this generation did not have long careers. This is because in this period it was more profitable to find a more stable job when one married. If you are going to use IP for pitchers, you really should be using innings played for players from this same period. If not, you're giving an unfair advantage to a position that was not seen as different from the other 8 in those days and ignoring the social trends of this period of history. A pitcher needed to be a good fielder and hitter to remain an every day player. By default, they also had to pitch all 9 innings until substitutions were allowed later on in the game's history.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 12:55 PM

Most players in this generation did not have long careers. This is because in this period it was more profitable to find a more stable job when one married. If you are going to use IP for pitchers, you really should be using innings played for players from this same period. If not, you're giving an unfair advantage to a position that was not seen as different from the other 8 in those days and ignoring the social trends of this period of history. A pitcher needed to be a good fielder and hitter to remain an every day player. By default, they also had to pitch all 9 innings until substitutions were allowed later on in the game's history.

I'll give you a choice: their actual playing time (which is what IP is), or an adjustment based on full seasons. I think the fairer choice is to give hitters the adjustment--but not some extra one. Pike wouldn't be within miles of the HOF if I didn't do that.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 01:00 PM

I'm not talking about dumbing down. I'm referring to you and a handful of others insistence on comparing players in this project to players in other generations. You are not even making an attempt to look at context if you are using information like this in your argument:

Unless you have a crystal ball that shows you what Bert Blyleven or Albert Belle's accomplishments are going to mean in the year 2104, you shouldn't be applying information like this to your arguments.

You also never answered Freakshow's question about why you support Duffy.

We're essentially using context in different ways. I'm not going to change my view, and I don't expect you to change yours. I only ask that you consider the concept that there's no one best way to look at the past. If you disagree, that's your prerogative, but I'm not required to change my idea to suit you.

Duffy did play .7 of a full season longer, but, more importantly, he also did so at a time when I have more confidence in the level of competition. I have a strong preference that pre 1876 guys show they could handle 1876 and after competition at star levels for a while before getting on their bandwagons. Pike didn't last long enough to meet that standard.

jjpm74

07-29-2008, 01:04 PM

I'll give you a choice: their actual playing time (which is what IP is), or an adjustment based on full seasons. I think the fairer choice is to give hitters the adjustment--but not some extra one. Pike wouldn't be within miles of the HOF if I didn't do that.

Adjust however you want. I just wish you and others would stop bringing 2008 statistics (like the mention of being 370th all time as an example) into 1912 arguments. It deflates the enjoyment of the entire exercise. Maybe you already have a firm HOF that you want to stick to no matter what. That's your choice. For me, I already know what my 2008 HOF looks like. That doesn't mean that I don't want to look at a new approach to 19th century players even if solely to rank them.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 01:26 PM

Adjust however you want. I just wish you and others would stop bringing 2008 statistics (like the mention of being 370th all time as an example) into 1912 arguments. It deflates the enjoyment of the entire exercise.

If you don't want to see those kinds of stats, my reply is that if want to dispute that his career was short, I'm going to answer it in my own way. If Double X thinks my involvement under those terms detracts from the project, he only has to say so, and I will depart. If not, I intend to continue on my own path.

jjpm74

07-29-2008, 01:42 PM

leecemark

07-29-2008, 02:07 PM

--Beckley's support has dwindled to the point where he at least won't be a first ballot electee. Van Haltren does remain on pace for election and IMO is an even worse candidate. He also lacks a great peak, although a little better than Beckley. He doesn't have the weight of an exceptionally long career going for him.
--Beckley at least would be one of the top men in the Hall of Very Good, while Van Haltren would be in the middle ranks of such a Hall. For those voting for him is there anything about his case that I am missing? What makes him stand out from Ryan or Duffy (or Tiernan, etc)?

Freakshow

07-29-2008, 02:18 PM

The list of newbies for 1913, as I have it:

John Anderson-LF/1B
Jimmy Barrett-CF
Shad Barry-RF
Jimmy Collins-3B
Kid Gleason-2B/P (age 45)
Charlie Hickman-1B/RF
Fielder Jones-CF
Joe Kelley-LF
Ed McFarland-C
Dan McGann-1B
Joe McGinnity-P
Deacon McGuire-C (age 45)
Ossee Schreckengost-C
Jimmy Slagle-CF/LF
Sammy Strang-3B/2B
John Warner-C
Joe Yeager-3B/P

jalbright

07-29-2008, 02:22 PM

If someone talks about Charley Jones' home run exploits in this thread and uses that as justification for inclusion in this project's electorate and someone else replies by saying his accomplishments mean nothing because Babe Ruth hit over 700 in his career you don't see anything wrong with that?

Why would anyone try to convince us that 56 homers in a career, and never more than 10 in a year is sufficient reason to induct someone? It's just too rare a single event (as opposed to a 9 inning no-hitter, for instance) to matter that much. That argument would fall flat on its face without reference to Ruth. But if the idiot presenting such an argument persisted, I'd rather refer to the coming phalanx of hitters with hundreds more homers than yield the floor to a dolt.

jjpm74

07-29-2008, 03:04 PM

Why would anyone try to convince us that 56 homers in a career, and never more than 10 in a year is sufficient reason to induct someone? It's just too rare a single event (as opposed to a 9 inning no-hitter, for instance) to matter that much. That argument would fall flat on its face without reference to Ruth. But if the idiot presenting such an argument persisted, I'd rather refer to the coming phalanx of hitters with hundreds more homers than yield the floor to a dolt.

You're missing the point. I understand that there are multiple approaches to looking at 19th century players. What I don't think is appropriate is introducing statistics like Paul's career length list that includes players who did not exist in 1912 into the argument. I have no issue with your belief that 11.5 seasons is too short. My issue is that you are saying it is too short because through 2008 there have been 369 other players with longer careers and that this is being used as a justification for refuting my 1912 driven data.

DoubleX

07-29-2008, 04:10 PM

If you don't want to see those kinds of stats, my reply is that if want to dispute that his career was short, I'm going to answer it in my own way. If Double X thinks my involvement under those terms detracts from the project, he only has to say so, and I will depart. If not, I intend to continue on my own path.

Since I've been mentioned a couple of times...

My extremely strong preference is not to compare players to players in future generations, in that don't hold players to a standard that doesn't really fit the time the played. For the most part, that's not really a problem here. I've come to accept that if people want to use modern insight to evaluate players, so be it, but try to keep it in the context of their time. That's why I so strongly advocate Beckley. By modern 1B standards, yeah he might be a little short, but for time, ignoring the next century of play, his career very unique and impressive, IMO.

jalbright

07-29-2008, 05:57 PM

You're missing the point. I understand that there are multiple approaches to looking at 19th century players. What I don't think is appropriate is introducing statistics like Paul's career length list that includes players who did not exist in 1912 into the argument. I have no issue with your belief that 11.5 seasons is too short. My issue is that you are saying it is too short because through 2008 there have been 369 other players with longer careers and that this is being used as a justification for refuting my 1912 driven data.

I understand what your point is, but my point is, I'm not going to ignore what I do know. If you want to go solely by what's going on in a given time frame, IMO you have to say that you're going to take the "x" number of best players from that time. Our discussion is of necessity polluted by the fact we know how many folks are in the Hall, and have our own ideas based on that who should be in the Hall. I'm just not pretending to not know those facts. You can't unring a bell.

jjpm74

07-29-2008, 07:03 PM

I understand what your point is, but my point is, I'm not going to ignore what I do know. If you want to go solely by what's going on in a given time frame, IMO you have to say that you're going to take the "x" number of best players from that time. Our discussion is of necessity polluted by the fact we know how many folks are in the Hall, and have our own ideas based on that who should be in the Hall. I'm just not pretending to not know those facts. You can't unring a bell.

First of all, yes, you can unring unlearn facts when role playing and if that's what you think I'm taking issue to, then no, you definitely don't get my point.

My point is if you are using this type of logic then apply it however you see fit to on your own. Don't attempt to deconstruct someone's argument who is attempting to play by the rules by using future info if you want to be taken seriously in a project like this. One of my other hobbies is to reenact different periods of history for students. It's something I enjoy. I like looking at history from the perspective of being there. If you are not into that, I couldn't care less and don't need your 2008 2 cents thrown at me. If you want to debate me in a project like this, do so using facts from this period or don't debate me at all. Use the weaker league or different rules argument or any of the other miltutudes that do fit within this time frame.

In the BBFHOF project, I do agree with your line of reasoning on Pike which is why I didn't press the issue there but I am here. :)

I guess at this point, I'd like Double X to better define what the purpose of this project is as there's clearly two different schools of thought being applied to each election: a modernist approach and a quasi-period approach.

Paul Wendt

07-30-2008, 08:51 AM

In the BBF Hall of Fame discussion someone asserted for Jake Beckley "far, far greater career value" than Ezra Sutton. I doubt that people voting for Sutton rather than Beckley generally agree with that. Anyway, there I explained (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1259942&postcount=1442) why I think Beckley has less career value (beside lacking the single season records that bear on "peak" conversations)

Nothing makes the point specific to the BBF Hall of Fame or to this "progressive" project.
The point is simply comparative. I might vote for Beckley here or there but the basis might be that Sutton is a fine third-tier candidate and Beckley is a fine fourth-tier candidate and one welcomes some fourth-tier candidates.

jjpm74

08-01-2008, 03:52 PM

It's looking like we may end up with no one being elected this year.

Erik Bedard

08-01-2008, 04:11 PM

Considering that Van Haltren was one of the two leading vote-getters, I'll consider that a good thing.

jjpm74

08-01-2008, 04:14 PM

Considering that Van Haltren was one of the two leading vote-getters, I'll consider that a good thing.

No argument from me on that one. ;)

Paul Wendt

08-01-2008, 04:54 PM

Cutting the group more slack in deciding who should be honored around the basepaths. Childs didn't play enough (0.17 seasons less than Thompson)? Consider Lave Cross and Jake Beckley. And vice versa.

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

Inverse alphabetical order isn't bad as a ranking. Sutton, Start, Spalding, and Richardson are clear first-, second-, or third-tier candidates. The others are clear and unclear thirds and fourths.

Buck Freeman - Did I mention that he "kicked" a lot and actually bumped umpires in disputing calls, without ejection? That happened a couple of times in 1900. One incident a Boston writer called bumping the umpire around the field, iirc, which to me means multiple bumps. Captain Duffy would sometimes insert himself to keep Freeman in the game. They weren't on the field together as much as would have been good for Freeman. (Well, that is me saying good, but they weren't ejecting Freeman, so it wasn't hurting the team directly.)
The number of ejections in that league was very low given the countless heated squabbles, numerous minor contacts, and several genuinely threatening incidents. A "kicker" like Freeman or Duffy would never physically punish an umpire, which happened only several times in a decade I guess. But fans could be incited by the histrionics of the home players.

BlueBlood

08-01-2008, 06:47 PM

Looks like my prediction is coming true...only Spalding this round.

DoubleX

08-02-2008, 07:06 AM

Paul Wendt

08-02-2008, 08:28 AM

Fielder Jones ? (dnp 1909-1913)

Socks Seybold ? (exception; 3500 excellent atbats beginning age 30)

Seybold at 6.8 full seasons (fse) games played is actually tenth among all with 1908 finales.

I agree that no one listed is worth an exception.
Dummy Taylor did not invent hand signals.

DoubleX

08-02-2008, 08:54 AM

You're right, Fielder Jones is eligible. I missed him because of his brief Federal League appearances in 1914 and 1915.

Sock Seybold is eligible under the 3000 AB rule and he was probably good enough to merit making the ballot.

I should probably clarify what I'm doing with the 3000 AB and 1500 IP rule. A player that played less than 10 years but had 3000 ABs or 1500 IP, will come under stricter scrutiny, so it's less likely that they will make the ballot without a compelling case. Of course, someone who played 10 years but wasn't particularly good or had just barely 3000 ABs or 1500 IP, probably isn't making it either absent a compelling case.

jjpm74

08-02-2008, 09:06 AM

Seybold doesn't have my vote in the next round, but he should be on the ballot, IMO.

Paul Wendt

08-02-2008, 10:51 AM

Looks like my prediction is coming true...only Spalding this round.
Don't count your chickens . . . but feel free to count established last-minute voters.

By the way, the display is beautiful, in polls like this one where most alternatives get some votes and many get many votes.

Freakshow

08-02-2008, 01:57 PM

I apologize Freakshow if you already posted this and I missed it, but here is my list of players eligible for the next election:

John Anderson
Jimmy Barrett
Shad Barry
Jimmy Collins
Kid Gleason (Age Rule)
Charlie Hickman
Hughie Jennings (Age Rule)
Joe Kelley
Ed McFarland
Dan McGann
Deacon McGuire (Age Rule)
Joe McGinnity
Ossee Schreckengost
Jimmy Slagle
John Warner

These players would come under the 3000 AB or 1500 IP exception, but I don't think any are particularly compelling:

Bill Coughlin
Emmet Heidrick
Case Patten
Ollie Pickering
Ed Siever
Dummy Taylor
George Winter
From #70, for comparative purposes:

The list of newbies for 1913, as I have it:

John Anderson-LF/1B
Jimmy Barrett-CF
Shad Barry-RF
Jimmy Collins-3B
Kid Gleason-2B/P (age 45)
Charlie Hickman-1B/RF
Fielder Jones-CF
Joe Kelley-LF
Ed McFarland-C
Dan McGann-1B
Joe McGinnity-P
Deacon McGuire-C (age 45)
Ossee Schreckengost-C
Jimmy Slagle-CF/LF
Sammy Strang-3B/2B
John Warner-C
Joe Yeager-3B/P

Strang and Yeager are 10-year men. Jennings was born in 1869 per BB-Ref so is eligible in 1914.

Paul Wendt

08-02-2008, 03:29 PM

Utilizing that list, here are the full seasons games (including dh/ph) for the top eight who last played in 1908 plus Jones, Gleason, McGuire. Bill Coughlin 7.0 and Socks Seybold 6.8 complete the top ten from the 1908 finales.

11.2 - John Anderson-LF/1B
Jimmy Barrett-CF
7.4 - Shad Barry-RF
11.8 - Jimmy Collins-3B
13.6 - Kid Gleason-2B/P (age 45) [much playing time as pitcher]
7.3 - Charlie Hickman-1B/RF
12.1 - Fielder Jones-CF
13.0 - Joe Kelley-LF
Ed McFarland-C
9.6 - Dan McGann-1B
Joe McGinnity-P
12.5 - Deacon McGuire-C (age 45)
Ossee Schreckengost-C
8.7 - Jimmy Slagle-CF/LF
Sammy Strang-3B/2B
7.3 - John Warner-C
Joe Yeager-3B/P[/QUOTE]

AG2004

08-03-2008, 10:36 AM

I agree. Mark, for someone who advocated strongly that we haven't been putting players from the 1870s into proper perspective, I don't think you're putting a guy like Beckley into the proper perspective. In the context of this era, Beckley had AMAZING longevity and consistency. A 125 OPS+ in nearly 10500 plate appearances, during a time when it was very uncommon to have even half that many plate appearances, is pretty impressive to me, and I do think you might be allowing your 2008 perspective cloud your judgment here.

All of the top 1B/OF of the 1890s had at least 7500 PAs, and most had at least 8000 PAs. Our enshrined 1Bs also managed at least 8000 PAs each.

Beckley's 10500 PAs is, in part, an effect of his time. Paul Wendt made a list of players with at least 16 major league seasons in the field. Most of the people ahead of Beckley played in the 1870s and 1880s, when seasons were shorter (which means that they had longer careers in terms of length, but fewer PAs.) Look at schedule lengths for Paul Hines' time, and you'll see how PAs were limited.

Also, if you were to look at the OPS+ of 1B/OF with at least 15 seasons of play, Beckley would be the worst of the bunch. The recently retired Fred Clarke (with 15.3 seasons in the field) has an OPS+ of 132. O'Rourke is at 133, and Hines at 131. Beckley's 125 isn't too impressive -- and his case weakens when one remembers that Clarke, O'Rourke, and Hines were all outfielders, with more defensive value than a 1B like Beckley.

He has extremely rare career value for players up this point in time, and that deserves acknowledgment, IMO.

Adjusting for season length, there are a lot of players with more post-1875 career value, including Van Haltren, Clarke, Keeler, Hines, Dahlen, Davis, and possibly McPhee.

Further, here are some all time top 10 rankings in some key offensive categories among players not active:

[Omitted in repost]

Mark, are you really going to argue against a player, who after 40 years of professional ball, ranks all time: 3rd in hits, 2nd in RBI, 2nd in total bases, 3rd in doubles, 1st in triples, 10th in runs (often by large margins over the players behind him)? If so, then I'm going to have to really question whether you are putting Beckley into the right perspective. In terms of longevity and consistency, Beckley was an extremely rare player given the era.

The lists are loaded with players from the 1890s, partly because the seasons were longer then than in the 1880s, and partly because most stars of the oughts are still active. (Among retired players, Beckley is not among the top ten in runs; Fred Clarke, who last played in 1911, has 1619). When we compare the career lenghts of 19th-century players, PA is not the ideal measure, since season lengths varied over the era. Paul Wendt's method of measuring career length (in terms of games played each year as a value of the team's overall season length) is a much better measure of player longevity.

In addition, you haven't counted active players in these lists - and, since these are counting numbers, the active players aren't going to move down the lists before they retire. Beckley is 5th in doubles; both Lajoie and Wagner are ahead of him. The retired Clarke has 220 triples, but both Wagner (212) and Crawford (228) have good chances of moving ahead of Beckley on that list. Wagner has 4059 TB, and should move ahead of Beckley in the upcoming year; Lajoie, at 3851, should also move ahead of him by the time he retires. Wagner also needs just 90 RBI to tie Beckley's totals.

We should also remember that Beckley's Cincinnati teams played in hitter's parks (in both 1898 and 1903, Beckley's first and last full seasons there, Cincinnati led the league in BPF), and Pittsburgh was a more or less average environment. Furthermore, the other players of Beckley's generation who made the top ten lists were generally outfielders, not first basemen. Thus, they had more defensive value than Beckley did. When this career defensive value is added to career offensive value, they move ahead of him in overall value. (Those close to Beckley in career value have substantially higher peak values, so Beckley falls behind them as well.)

AG2004

08-03-2008, 10:38 AM

My ballot

Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Charlie Jones
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Mickey Welch

Paul Wendt

08-03-2008, 12:56 PM

Regarding career length measured by "full seasons equivalent" (fse).

- That is share of team games played, at the season level summed over seasons. The measure is fairly easy to approximate: season-by-season, divide player games (batting, fielding, fielding shortstop, or so on) by the number of games in the advance schedule.
Jimmy Barrett holds the season record with 162 games played for Detroit in 1904. The approximate fse is 162/154 ~1.05. Team games played is fairly easy to work with only within a database that stores the actual numbers of games played by all teams, which is the basis for all fse that I report here. Detroit played 162 games in 1904 so that season counts 162/162 = 1.00 for Jimmy Barrett. It counts only about 0.93 for his teammate Sam Crawford, who played "only" 150 games.

- - Jim Albright has observed that innings pitched provide a fairly good measure of career length for pitchers.
- Of course I would prefer to improve on that based on the details: how to balance the increasing numbers of team games (greater opportunity to pitch championship innings) with the increasing strain of pitching, as the leagues deregulated arm angles and moved the pitchers box away from the plate.
- For this project, as when Jim replied (far above), I would prefer to account for pitching early in the careers of Gleason, Van Haltren, Smith, Ward, and so on. Take Kid Gleason who is newly eligible next year. He worked 7+ years primarily as a pitcher, 1888-95, and then 12+ years without any pitching. For most of his pitching career he worked essentially "full seasons" in the sense but not in the sense I measure. Kid Gleason 13.6, Joe Kelley 13.0 is a gross distortion of their career lengths in any ordinary sense.

- - AG has engaged XX on Jake Beckley partly by reference to full seasons (career fse games).
- One thing unsaid is that the major league seasons have not increased much since Jake Beckley arrived in 1888, the first NL season under the 140-game schedule (two years after the AA). On the lists of career leaders in important counts such as runs scored and base hits, Beckley and others of his generation inevitably and generally swamp the players of earlier generations. But they will not inevitably and generally be swamped be swamped in turn. Now 25 years later the major league schedules are only 10% longer than when Beckley arrived and there is more talk of cutting them back than of extending them. The American Association has tried 168 games (7 x 24) and then cut back again. Until the Pacific Coast or the Texas League goes major we may never again see more than 154 games.

Paul Wendt

08-03-2008, 01:49 PM

Quoting jjpm>> Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
> Jack Taylor, p
> - Iron Man, always finish what you begin

187 consecutive complete games. Absolutely amazing. Does someone have some more info on this player outside of his SABR bio?

Also, could someone please save Buck Freeman from 1 and done oblivion? Take a look at his home run total in 1899 and career OPS+ if you have any reservations about keeping him active for one more ballot.
They both needed your vote, jjpm.
(I see you are supporting two cocks and a lion, which is enough for anyone. Managing the difference between renomination and "one and done" is a challenge with everything else going on. I have been lazy about that since Bill Clarke. On the other hand, far above is some explanation why Buck Freeman in particular would not have been my choice this year. OOC: Also, Bill James gives him grade D+.)

The first Chicago stint by Jack Taylor, 1898-1903, matches the time period of my heaviest historical newspaper reading but I don't remember anything about him from Sporting Life or Chicago Tribune. Partly that must be because he made an early commitment to the NL in 1900/1901, maybe signed for more than one season and missed all the off-season speculation? (Very few players under contract jumped to the AL or later to the NL.)

The "Colts" did not have much pitching under Cap Anson (visit the "Chicago Cubs" at baseball-reference and mentally remove Clark Griffith 1894-97). Taylor arrived next season and worked under Tom Burns, Tom Loftus, Frank Selee. They always had strong pitching except for one year after the White Stockings signed Griffith and Callahan; next year they were back. Jack Taylor was the biggest part of that run, the anchor.

Chicago used a bigger staff of starting pitchers than some teams. Despite completing almost every game he pitched, including 39 of 39 both in 1899 and 1904, Taylor led the league in complete games only once (1904, his first season in St Louis) and once finished third in innings (1902).

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 07:27 AM

Also, if you were to look at the OPS+ of 1B/OF with at least 15 seasons of play, Beckley would be the worst of the bunch. The recently retired Fred Clarke (with 15.3 seasons in the field) has an OPS+ of 132. O'Rourke is at 133, and Hines at 131. Beckley's 125 isn't too impressive -- and his case weakens when one remembers that Clarke, O'Rourke, and Hines were all outfielders, with more defensive value than a 1B like Beckley.

I think I made a subsequent post pointing out that when all currently active players retired, which would be around 1930, Beckley would still rank in the top 10 in every category I mentioned except runs I believe. The players passing him - Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Lajoie, Collins, and Crawford (and Wheat in a few categories). So it's not like second tier players will be passing him, we're talking about some of the games very greatest of any generation passing him, and there's no shame in being passed by these guys.

And again, people are forgetting that Beckley's 125 OPS+ has come in the second most PAs all time to this point. That has to count for something. I find it ridiculous that people would find him a better candidate if he had say 2000 less PAs but maybe 6 points higher career OPS+. Beckley had 1500 more ABs than O'Rourke, 3000 more than Hines, 600 more than Clarke. There's great value in that kind of longevity and consistency, especially back then when it was rare (Beckley was about 10-15 years ahead of his time in terms of longevity). For instance, if you discount just the last 3 years of his career, just over 1000 PAs, his OPS+ goes up to 128, and I bet to many, he suddenly looks like a better candidate. It just doesn't make sense to punish a guy for having such extraordinary and unique longevity for his day.

Finally, I disagree that corner OFers had more defensive value than 1Bmen at this juncture in history. Given the stylistic play at the time, in which players were choking up, hitting a lot more ground balls, swinging bunts and the sort, 1B was a far more critical position than at any other point in history, and much more critical than corner OF, thus I believe that Beckley actually has more defensive value than the corner OFers you mentioned.

leecemark

08-04-2008, 07:56 AM

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 08:09 AM

--The fact that Beckley ranks so high in PA's is an evolutionary fluke. There are a number of players who had longer careers with better rates than Beckley. They just started their careers when seasons were much shorter. Your specific examples of Hines and O'Rourke illustrate this point very well. Both had longer careers as Beckley and were regulars longer. It is ONLY the difference in season length that gives the illusion that Beckley had better longevity. Good player for a long time, yes. Unique in that, no. But still a better candidate than Van Haltren:).

It's true when comparing him to players from an earlier generation, but if Beckley is such a product of his generation, why aren't there more players like him? Why is he the only one with a career length and consistency like this from his generation? Like I said, he was a good 10-15 years ahead of the curve in terms of longevity and consistency. Moreover, there was a huge difference in the season lengths between what O'Rourke and Hines were playing and what Beckley played. Could O'Rourke and Hines have held up for 130-140 games a year like Beckley as opposed to playing 65-85 games for years? How would their rate stats have looked if they had to play 70 extra games a year? How durable would they have been? How long would their careers have been? Conversely, what would Beckley's career have been like if he played 60-70 less games a year? The generation thing works both ways here. Yes, O'Rourke and Hines were great in their time, but let's not forget that perhaps part of the reason they were so great and hung on for so long was that they played SIGNIFICANTLY shorter seasons. So again, it makes absolutely no sense to me that people are holding Beckley's ability to play modern length ML seasons, much longer than players of earlier eras, against him, and the fact that he did so for an extraordinarily long time.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it's pretty unfair to compare Beckley to guys like O'Rourke and Hines because there is such a huge disparity in season lengths that it's almost like comparing apples to oranges. Beckley should be compared to his peers, and again, I believe he stands out from his peers in both longevity and consistency. None of his peers put up a 125 OPS+ in 10500 ABs and rank in the top 3 in so many offensive categories. Beckley is alone in this feat.

Paul Wendt

08-04-2008, 08:27 AM

[This begins with a quotation of #93 which was then the end of the thread. It is coincident with #95, not a reply.]
Beckley had 1500 more ABs than O'Rourke, 3000 more than Hines, 600 more than Clarke. There's great value in that kind of longevity and consistency, especially back then when it was rare (Beckley was about 10-15 years ahead of his time in terms of longevity). For instance, if you discount just the last 3 years of his career, just over 1000 PAs, his OPS+ goes up to 128, and I bet to many, he suddenly looks like a better candidate. It just doesn't make sense to punish a guy for having such extraordinary and unique longevity for his day.
:rolleyes: Jake Beckley was not 10-15 years ahead of anyone but Sam Crawford. He did not have the longevity or the durability of Jim O'Rourke and Paul Hines, not to mention Deacon White whom you didn't mention. Beckley's bosses directed their workers to play more championship games for their paychecks. Beckley did.

Jim O'Rourke played almost 94% of team games over 22 years. Over 20 years, Hines played almost 94%, White almost 91%, Beckley more than 84%. (Anson played almost 94% over 27 years.)

Lave Cross played 21 years but he was primarily a catcher during the first four. Deacon McGuire played 23 years, all primarily as a catcher. What share of team games for a catcher is so durable as 84% for a firstbaseman?

To cast Beckley as a 90% man, drop two or three of his leading and trailing "years" when he was not yet or no longer a regular player. But how many men have played 17 or 18 years in the majors? That is extraordinary, but only extraordinary. It isn't routine but there were Sutton, Glasscock, Connor, McPhee, Ryan, Davis, Dahlen, and others I'm sure.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 09:02 AM

[This begins with a quotation of #93 which was then the end of the thread. It is coincident with #95, not a reply.]

:rolleyes: Jake Beckley was not 10-15 years ahead of anyone but Sam Crawford. He did not have the longevity or the durability of Jim O'Rourke and Paul Hines, not to mention Deacon White whom you didn't mention. Beckley's bosses directed their workers to play more championship games for their paychecks. Beckley did.

Jim O'Rourke played almost 94% of team games over 22 years. Over 20 years, Hines played almost 94%, White almost 91%, Beckley more than 84%. (Anson played almost 94% over 27 years.)

Lave Cross played 21 years but he was primarily a catcher during the first four. Deacon McGuire played 23 years, all primarily as a catcher. What share of team games for a catcher is so durable as 84% for a firstbaseman?

To cast Beckley as a 90% man, drop two or three of his leading and trailing "years" when he was not yet or no longer a regular player. But how many men have played 17 or 18 years in the majors? That is extraordinary, but only extraordinary. It isn't routine but there were Sutton, Glasscock, Connor, McPhee, Ryan, Davis, Dahlen, and others I'm sure.

You must have missed my next post Paul where I question how great O'Rourke's longevity would have been if he was in a league where he would have to play more than 70 games a year for the first half of his career. Moreover, how would Beckley's production have been if he was playing 70 games a year instead of 140? It's comparing apples and oranges.

AG2004

08-04-2008, 09:17 AM

It's true when comparing him to players from an earlier generation, but if Beckley is such a product of his generation, why aren't there more players like him? Why is he the only one with a career length and consistency like this from his generation?

. . . . .

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it's pretty unfair to compare Beckley to guys like O'Rourke and Hines because there is such a huge disparity in season lengths that it's almost like comparing apples to oranges. Beckley should be compared to his peers, and again, I believe he stands out from his peers in both longevity and consistency. None of his peers put up a 125 OPS+ in 10500 ABs and rank in the top 3 in so many offensive categories. Beckley is alone in this feat.

Beckley didn't have 10500 ABs; he didn't even have 10500 PAs. However, there were other players with similar career length and consistency - and they were better than Beckley.

Players with over 10000 PAs, Beckley's generation:

Jack Beckley 10470 PAs, 125 OPS+
Bill Dahlen 10390 PAs, 109 OPS+
George Davis 10151 PAs, 121 OPS+

Davis ranks in the top six in many offensive categories. Oh, yes, Davis was also a shortstop, so he had much more defensive value than Beckley did. Dahlen wasn't as good offensively as Beckley, but he averaged an A+ level of defensive play at shortstop during the entire length of his career. That's a high level of performance over a long career.

The 10000 PA cutoff is also a little bit sneaky, since so many players missed it, but still compiled over 9000 PAs.

Jim O'Rourke 9051 PAs, 133 OPS+
Honus Wagner (active) 9296 PAs, 160 OPS+
Tommy Corcoran 9386 PAs, 74 OPS+ (he was shortstop)
Bid McPhee 9409 PAs, 106 OPS+
Willie Keeler 9594 PAs, 126 OPS+
Jesse Burkett 9605 PAs, 140 OPS+
Lave Cross 9710 PAs, 100 OPS+
Fred Clarke 9801 PAs, 133 OPS+

For some reason, Beckley was the only 1B/OF of his era to have recorded the equivalent of at least 15 seasons in the field (by Paul Wendt's method). However, five players at 2B/SS/3B managed it: McPhee, Dahlen, Davis, Cross, and Corcoran. Also, among the five 1B/OF in major league history with at least 9500 PAs, Beckley is dead last in OPS+.

Other players managed to combine longevity and consistency even better than Beckley did. Of course, by setting the PA bar so high, you eliminate most of them, and by picking the OPS+ level just right, you eliminate the remaining two shortstops, both of whom were far better than Beckley overall over the course of their careers.

----

One further bit. Adjusting for season length, Beckley's win share peaks come to 69 (best three seasons) and 107 (best five consecutive seasons). There's nobody in the BBFHOF with a peak that bad. He never finished among the top ten position players in his league in win shares. To put Beckley in the HOF, we would have to agree that peak performance means next to nothing. It doesn't make sense to reward a player who was never truly great.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 10:21 AM

Beckley didn't have 10500 ABs; he didn't even have 10500 PAs. However, there were other players with similar career length and consistency - and they were better than Beckley.

I meant PAs. Forgive me for rounding up 30 and giving him 10500. I'm surprised that you would nitpick at that.

Players with over 10000 PAs, Beckley's generation:

Jack Beckley 10470 PAs, 125 OPS+
Bill Dahlen 10390 PAs, 109 OPS+
George Davis 10151 PAs, 121 OPS+

That's quite the lengthy list isn't it? Common as muck it was to hang around that long.

The 10000 PA cutoff is also a little bit sneaky, since so many players missed it, but still compiled over 9000 PAs.

Jim O'Rourke 9051 PAs, 133 OPS+
Honus Wagner (active) 9296 PAs, 160 OPS+
Tommy Corcoran 9386 PAs, 74 OPS+ (he was shortstop)
Bid McPhee 9409 PAs, 106 OPS+
Willie Keeler 9594 PAs, 126 OPS+
Jesse Burkett 9605 PAs, 140 OPS+
Lave Cross 9710 PAs, 100 OPS+
Fred Clarke 9801 PAs, 133 OPS+

Still, quite the long list. What's that now, 11 total players? All of which are less than Beckley, and all but 2 are not within approximately 600 plate appearances of Beckley?

For some reason, Beckley was the only 1B/OF of his era to have recorded the equivalent of at least 15 seasons in the field (by Paul Wendt's method). However, five players at 2B/SS/3B managed it: McPhee, Dahlen, Davis, Cross, and Corcoran. Also, among the five 1B/OF in major league history with at least 9500 PAs, Beckley is dead last in OPS+.

How many of the other ones were playing 140 games for their entire careers? Conversely, how might Beckley's rate stats have been helped if he played say 70 or 80 games a year for the first half of his career? I just don't think you can compare guys who played 70 games for a decade to a guy who played 140 games for two decades, because the demands are just not the same. The extra 70 or so games can have a profound effect on durability.

Other players managed to combine longevity and consistency even better than Beckley did. Of course, by setting the PA bar so high, you eliminate most of them, and by picking the OPS+ level just right, you eliminate the remaining two shortstops, both of whom were far better than Beckley overall over the course of their careers.

I never said they weren't better than Beckley. My support for Beckley here has nothing to do with how I feel about Davis and Dahlen and positional adjustments made for middle IFers. But I do still believe that a 1Bman from that era has a positional adjustment over corner OFers, and you didn't address that.

One further bit. Adjusting for season length, Beckley's win share peaks come to 69 (best three seasons) and 107 (best five consecutive seasons). There's nobody in the BBFHOF with a peak that bad. He never finished among the top ten position players in his league in win shares. To put Beckley in the HOF, we would have to agree that peak performance means next to nothing. It doesn't make sense to reward a player who was never truly great.

I don't think it would say at all the peak performance means nothing, but it would say that we value a guy that can maintain his peak level of play for a long time. People here act like Beckley wasn't a good player, he was. A 125 OPS+ in that long of a career in that era is pretty good. This is not a mediocre player we're talking about. Sure he wasn't as dominant for periods as some guys, but he went out there and produced at a consistently good level for a long time, and not a lot of guys can say that. Yeah, you can point guys from earlier generations who played for a long time as well, but again, what would their careers have looked like if they had to play 140 games a year as opposed to 70 or 80. Nevertheless, for you to pigeon-hole me as saying that peaks don't matter here, would be the same as me saying that you don't give any credence to career value. I know that's not the case, but it's meant to illustrate that things aren't just black and white.

EDIT: As a final note, how many 1Bmen have we elected that played predominantly after 1890? None. The only 1Bmen we've elected are Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, and Roger Conner. No one's been close to their class, and while Beckley isn't either, I can't think of any other 1Bmen we've looked at that have been close Beckley's class. I think that says something both about the era and Beckley. Not every 1Bmen is going to be Anson, Brouthers, and Conner, and thus far, there haven't even been any other 1Bmen like Beckley.